Universal Reconcilliation =+= All The Proofs! And All The Questions!

[Paul Hazelwood]

I have no argument that we are subject to Father because that is part of subsisting within God as an adopted child through Christ.  But that does not answer my question of whether or not you are claiming we will possess the equivalent divine essence and nature of Christ simply because we are graced to subsist within the divine?

I said we would be equal to God in the same manner in which Jesus is.   Jesus said the Father is greater than him.  So Jesus being equal is not saying he is exactly the same.

Could you define for me what being an adopted child means to you in terms of our human nature and the divine nature of the Father and Son?

The verse that uses the term adoption is sometimes translated "a place as sons".  I think the term adoption implys that we are separate and Gods grace allows our integration into the kingdom.  While that could be true,  I see us as being created "out of God" therefore our spiritual essence is equal to God in that manner, the same manner Jesus is.  We are not "equivalent" concerning his power.  This is why I specifically said in another post that we are equal in the same manner Jesus is.   

Jesus could do nothing apart from the father, and neither can we.   Yet we are Gods because our spiritual nature is in Gods image and equal in that sense.

Do you see a difference between "The human is one of us" versus "The human is as one of us"?  I ask because it makes a difference in how the next line is interpreted.  Yes, man became similar to God in knowing good and evil, but this says nothing about man having the essence of God (Love) which knew how to use that knowledge for justice.  He was "as a god" but not "a god."

The verses that declare we are Gods do not say we are "as a" God.  I have repeatedly said I know that we are subject to the Father, so it would be really tough for me to be saying that we are exactly God the Father and again why I said we are equal in the same manner as Jesus is.

Subsistence, not a separate divine existence of our own.

I have never said we have a separate existance on our own.

[autoimmune]

I have no argument that we are subject to Father because that is part of subsisting within God as an adopted child through Christ.  But that does not answer my question of whether or not you are claiming we will possess the equivalent divine essence and nature of Christ simply because we are graced to subsist within the divine?

I said we would be equal to God in the same manner in which Jesus is.   Jesus said the Father is greater than him.  So Jesus being equal is not saying he is exactly the same.

Thank you for taking the time to explain more clearly.  Got to be honest, though, I'm still not sure exactly what you believe about the nature and essence of Christ, but I doubt that in the long run it matters.  I'm no heresy hunter by any means, just curious when I discuss things with people to know where we are similar and where we differ in our Christological points of view.  Jesus didn't punish the other eleven for not answering correctly when He asked "Who do you say I am?"  He just praised Peter for getting it right by God's grace.

Took me over 50 years to finally be able to say Jesus is divine and realize I believe in a trinitarian God, so I'm not out to convert others from however they view Him.  I trust others have the same love for God and desire to find His truth that I do, and I trust God to lead them as He chooses.

The verse that uses the term adoption is sometimes translated "a place as sons".  I think the term adoption implys that we are separate and Gods grace allows our integration into the kingdom.  While that could be true,  I see us as being created "out of God" therefore our spiritual essence is equal to God in that manner, the same manner Jesus is. 

This may be a good example of where the difference in belief concerning Jesus Christ's nature and essence influences the way we perceive ourselves and, by extension, all that we believe as Christians.  I don't want to make assumptions about what you believe based on a few phrases here and there, that's why I ask so many questions. I hope you don't mind.

Okay, when you say we are "created 'out of God'" do you mean that man is given the same spirit as God at his physical human birth?  Is this why you say "therefore our spiritual essence is equal to God in that manner"?

On first read, I take this to mean you believe by nature man has God's spirit in him.  Doesn't this deny the need for being reborn then?  Isn't the purpose of accepting Jesus so that the "life"/spirit we lost through the fall can be returned to us?

If I read you correctly than you are saying we are the same "living souls" (Gen 2: 7) we were created to be before the fall.  That we did not "die" and lose that spirit of life to become mortal "living bodies" (Lev 17: 11) after the fall.

The only way man by nature can have the divine spirit within him at physical human birth is if the fall hadn't happened.  And then there would have been no need for Jesus Christ as a "quickening spirit" to redeem us from death (1Cor 15: 45).  So his death and resurrection are meaningless.

If, however, by "created" you are referring to the time of our rebirth in Christ, then I can see what you're saying, but still would say the spiritual essence we now have is ours through Christ, not as some kind of fulfillment of our own human nature.  Which is why I say we "subsist" in Christ, rather than become divine ourselves.

Jesus could do nothing apart from the father, and neither can we.   Yet we are Gods because our spiritual nature is in Gods image and equal in that sense.

The same question here:  are you referring to our having this spiritual nature at human physical birth or after rebirth in the Spirit through Christ?

The verses that declare we are Gods do not say we are "as a" God.  I have repeatedly said I know that we are subject to the Father, so it would be really tough for me to be saying that we are exactly God the Father and again why I said we are equal in the same manner as Jesus is.

I was replying directly to one of those you listed, Paul:

Gn 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim,  "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!"

and based my reply to you on that, explaining that the simile shows we are NOT the same essence of God at all because of that fall, which is completely contrary to what you were attempting to show by that quote.

I did a quick exegesis of the "ye are gods" quote from the Psalms in another post on page 2, which shows the context and meaning of the verse in relationship to Jesus' use of the verse from Psalms in the gospels. 

All the passages you use are usually taken out of context to make a case for the gnostic belief that Jesus was a man who achieved Christ consciousness and this is therefore the path we are on. When looked at in context, though, they usually show the exact opposite.  One can only hold the gnostic point of view in isolation, ignoring the rest of scripture. This is why I do not accept it.

As I said above, we all answer the question Christ asked His disciples differently from each other, and even differently at various times in our own lives, so this isn't an argument with you.  But, because these replies are being given to a 14 yr old Christian asking for info, I considered that Love requires us to clearly show what might not be evident at first glance to someone not familiar with the nuances of gnosticism and how it differs from more traditonal Christianity.

I trust AoT will be led by the SPirit in his search for truth, but it never hurts to clarify the info we are offering.

May seem like a little thing, but a litle difference can lead to wide variations within a variety of interconnected theological viewpoints.

Mary Ellen

[CHB]

Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.

You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".

Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?

CHB

I believe the bible is a unity of Truth. The truth is not found in individual passages pulled out of context, but in weighing one passage against another and filtering ALL of it through Jesus' words and teachings.

For instance, the quote from Psalm 82 under discussion here that many cherrypick from the bible to prove their personal Christology that "ye are gods" does not hold up in context or meaning when examined either alone, or in light of what Jesus was saying to them. It can only hold true in isolation.

The context of that phrase includes such things as the audience it is addressed to, the purpose for which they are being addressed, the one doing the speaking, and an understanding of the historical and contemporary meanings of the vocabulary used.

In the case of Psalm 82, we can understood who the "congregation" mentioned is by referring back to Jesus' words in John 10:35 when He quoted this Psalm

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came. . . ."

The congregation being spoken to in the Psalm is those "to whom the word of God came." What is this "word"? Jesus tells us in the previous verse in John:

"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

The word He is talking about is the Law--the Pentateuch, the Torah, the first five books of our bible.

Does this fit with the rest of Psalm 82? If we read the entire psalm, yes, it does fit. God, through the Psalmist is telling the Jews that they are like gods because He gave them the power to judge the people. However, they used this power poorly and failed to take care of the poor and the widowed and the orphaned. The Psalm ends with God basically saying "I am the only one who can judge with justice."

So, understanding this, that the Psalms are not saying all men are little gods waiting to become Christ Consciousness beings, but is referring instead to a specific group within the Jewish community given permission to do something which only God Himself is capable of doing justly, we can understand what Jesus is saying in John 10.

Jesus is speaking to the descendents of the very same people in Psalm 82, the Jews of the Sanhedrin, those given a small bit of power by God to judge the people and maintain the Law. If they, to whom God gave a just a little of His power to could be called little gods, then who were they to say He (Jesus) was a blasphemer when He, who was completely holy and had been sent into the world, called Himself the Son of God.

Jesus is not saying they had been sanctified by the Father and sent into the world in the same way He had been (which is what you are saying when you speak of Christ Consciousness--and whether you use the term or not, this is exactly what you and Paul are speaking about). He is merely comparing their limited authority to His own. And that's why He refers them to the work He is doing. They are incapable of such things and THAT is the sign that what He says is true.

When read in context, comparing the two scripture passages, it is easy to see that Jesus is making the OPPOSITE claim that you are, CHB.

Read Psalm 82 instead of blindly quoting it to make a point about your personal Christology. You might be surprised to see that the words following the oft quoted "ye are gods" phrase is this:

"but ye shall die AS MEN . . ."

Our natures do not change, only our relationship to God the Father through Jesus.

Mary Ellen

Mary Ellen,

Nice to meet you. You are certainly intitled to your opinion, although I respectfully disagree with you.

CHB

[autoimmune]

Mary Ellen,

Nice to meet you. You are certainly intitled to your opinion, although I respectfully disagree with you.

CHB

Hi, CHB.  Nice to meet you as well!

No problemo with an agreement to disagree.  As long as my exegesis accurately interprets scripture, I'm content.  The thing about being truth seekers is that we have to go where the truth is, not where our minds or hearts would prefer to be.

I've been reading gnostic texts since the late 70's when Nag Hammadi first got translated into English (had my local librarian get me a copy from NY to read it, in fact).  I enjoy them and lots of them catch my attention, but God let me know a long time ago that even though He is me, I am not Him :)

Many want Immanence without Transcendence (gnostic/new age Christians).  Others want Transcendence without Immanence (fear-based sola scriptura Christians).  SOme of us learn that God is both and once we keep that in mind, we discover more clearly who we are in Him.

Blessings to you, CHB!

Mary Ellen

[CHB]

Q: If Hell does not exist then what is the punishment for sin? It has to be punished somehow. Its not like Hitler will just be let in the Heavenly gates.

Hi,

I can't answer all of your questions now, don't have the time but I am sure they all will be answered by others.

The wages of sin is death, nothing more nothing less. The lake of fire, hell, is just a correction not a punishment. God is a consuming fire. His ministers are a flame of fire. The works will be burned up not the person. (1 Cor. 3:13-16) Here in the lake of fire you will be baptized with fire.

CHB

I have similar ideas to yours about God's Love being a consuming fire, that the works not the person is consumed, and that the Lake of fire is a correction not a punishment.  I'm curious, though, could you explain in more detail when you do have time available how you actually view this correction?  Where and how is it done?  When works are burned up, is the person unaffected? Do they stand by untouched as they watch their works undergo the flames of God's Love?

You ask if the person was unaffected? Only spiritually. When you came to see the truth were you unaffected? I had a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth myself.

I guess I'm asking if you differentiate between the first and second death?  If so, which represents the payment for the debt sin incurred in man?  Does Jesus' death cover both?  If so, in what ways?

Yes, the first death is physical, the second is spiritual. I believe Jesus death brought us spiritual life. His death didn't cover our physical death, we are all still dying. When I say our second death is a spiritual death, I believe we die to sin {ourselves} and are dead in Christ.  

I believe Jesus' death on the cross overcame death (so the debt for Adamic sin is paid and for those who believe in this age, they are spared the condemnation (trial before the Throne on the last day). 

Yet, scripture speaks of the condemnation of those who are not in Christ and a second death.  It speaks also of Christians undergoing this "fire/flame as well concerning their "works" and what they've built upon that foundation Christ provided for us. Where does this fit into the beliefs you've developed around UR?

Notice, it is our WORKS that will be burned up. When we are in Christ we don't have any works of our own, they are all the works of Christ.

CHB



I ask because I believe this is a relatively new area of study and, though lots has been written, there are very many different ways people are interpreting the rest of scripture based on UR as a foundational belief. I'm curious how others view it, what ideas they've developed from it, and how consistent those ideas are with scripture.

Thanks,
Mary Ellen

[/quote]

[CHB]

Mary Ellen,

Nice to meet you. You are certainly intitled to your opinion, although I respectfully disagree with you.

CHB

Hi, CHB.  Nice to meet you as well!

No problemo with an agreement to disagree.  As long as my exegesis accurately interprets scripture, I'm content.  The thing about being truth seekers is that we have to go where the truth is, not where our minds or hearts would prefer to be.

I've been reading gnostic texts since the late 70's when Nag Hammadi first got translated into English (had my local librarian get me a copy from NY to read it, in fact).  I enjoy them and lots of them catch my attention, but God let me know a long time ago that even though He is me, I am not Him :)

Many want Immanence without Transcendence (gnostic/new age Christians).  Others want Transcendence without Immanence (fear-based sola scriptura Christians).  SOme of us learn that God is both and once we keep that in mind, we discover more clearly who we are in Him.

Blessings to you, CHB!

Mary Ellen

Hi Mary Ellen,

I never said I was God, I am a child of God and that makes me god also. Jesus wasn't God the Father, he was God the Son. Jesus said "my Father is greater than I". The Father and Jesus are greater than I am but I am a god because I am a child of God. (1Peter 1:3) says we are begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have been spiritually begotten.

I believe you said you believe in the trinity which I see as a false doctrine. I do believe Jesus came from God but I just don't see in the scriptures that Jesus is his own Father. Nor do I see the Holy Spirit as a person but a power that God uses.

CHB

[autoimmune]

You ask if the person was unaffected? Only spiritually. When you came to see the truth were you unaffected? I had a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth myself.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt myself, CHB.  I asked the question because I know that when the gnashing and wailing happens with me, it also physically affects me, not just in my soul, but in my body as well.  It isn't just a spiritual torment to see ourselves in the light of God's Love for us, but a physical response as well.  The whole person is affected by repentence, imo, not just our souls.

FTR, I define soul as the mind, emotions and will of the human person.  When I say spirit, I mean the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  I believe humans are born with body and soul, but the spirit, the life of God, was lost to us through original sin.  In Christ, we are reborn and live again through the power of the Spirit.

If the human person is a unity of body and soul, then spiritual pain cannot be isolated from physical pain.  If all rise to judgment on the last day, then can we guarentee that the restoration of all will not involve any physical pain at all, just some ethereal spiritual pain?

I know it sounds like semantics, but I think a lot of people get the idea that Christians who believe in such universal restoration are saying there is no price we pay for sin, or that we are not responsible for the things we do in this life.  I believe God is Love, but that doesn't mean He would never allow us to feel the pain we have caused ourselves.

I believe this is the issue AoT was speaking to when he first asked the question about traditional ET interpretation of the bible that there is a price to be paid for sin.

To be told God is love so everything will be okay doesn't seem to answer his question, nor those coming from other honest Christians who are attracted to the idea of UR, but fear it counters scriptures.  I think discussions like these help because they bring out a lot of diverse interpretations.  Thanks for being willing to engage. 

Yes, the first death is physical, the second is spiritual. I believe Jesus death brought us spiritual life. His death didn't cover our physical death, we are all still dying. When I say our second death is a spiritual death, I believe we die to sin {ourselves} and are dead in Christ.

Thank you for the further clarification.  I'm sure you've probably said similar things elsewhere, and though I read a lot, this forum is quite large and it's easier fro me to ask for a "snapshot" of what someone believes than to search out their opinions elsewhere.  Much appreciated!

Not necessary to add, but, FTR, this is similar to how I view it, though not quite the same.  I'm always open to other ways of viewing it because this is one of those "in a mirror darkly" ideas that sometimes change in my mind. Right now I see physical death as just that, the end of physical life. Happens to all humans (except those Christians alive when Jesus returns). To me, the two deaths refer to the same event occurring at different times, just like the two resurrections.  Death refers in both "deaths" to the death of the "old man" in us, the ego. So, though I wouldn't say it for certain as yet, I'm inclined to believe the two deaths refer to the death of the soul (ego: mind, body, will) as the person is transformed by the Spirit.  When we are fully transformed, the Spirit operates completely rather than our soul-ish ego.

Those who are called and respond in this life willingly undergo the first death in this life.  THe second death then, to me, is when others who were not called or who refused the call in this life, will undergo the death of their inner man as well, so that God can become all in all.

Notice, it is our WORKS that will be burned up. When we are in Christ we don't have any works of our own, they are all the works of Christ.

I agree.  At last, huh? :)

Been a pleasure, CHB.

Thanks,
Mary Ellen

[autoimmune]

Hi Mary Ellen,

I never said I was God, I am a child of God and that makes me god also. Jesus wasn't God the Father, he was God the Son. Jesus said "my Father is greater than I". The Father and Jesus are greater than I am but I am a god because I am a child of God. (1Peter 1:3) says we are begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have been spiritually begotten.

I believe you said you believe in the trinity which I see as a false doctrine. I do believe Jesus came from God but I just don't see in the scriptures that Jesus is his own Father. Nor do I see the Holy Spirit as a person but a power that God uses.

CHB

Thank you, CHB.  That clarifies it for me.  I was looking toward the gnostics texts in what you said.  Hadn't considered the statements I was questioning came from our difference in belief about the Trinity.  My apologies.  I should have thought to ask about that.  What you say makes sense to me in that context then.

I could never say Jesus was divine until 2-3 years ago.  Was a long, personal journey to that acceptance, so I'll leave the topic alone for now, except to clarify for you that those of us who believe in the Trinity do not say Jesus is His own Father.  We believe Jesus has 2 natures (human and divine) in one Person, and that the Trinity is composed of three Persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) in one nature (divine).

Isn't a thing we can argue productively with each other about, imo, so I'm content to agree to disagree about this one.

Blessings on you, and thanks again for the exchange.

ME

[Paul Hazelwood]

Thank you for taking the time to explain more clearly.  Got to be honest, though, I'm still not sure exactly what you believe about the nature and essence of Christ, but I doubt that in the long run it matters.  I'm no heresy hunter by any means, just curious when I discuss things with people to know where we are similar and where we differ in our Christological points of view.  Jesus didn't punish the other eleven for not answering correctly when He asked "Who do you say I am?"  He just praised Peter for getting it right by God's grace.

Your welcome, I'm not concerned with your motives, nor do I need anyone to agree with me.  You can ask me whatever you like.

Took me over 50 years to finally be able to say Jesus is divine and realize I believe in a trinitarian God, so I'm not out to convert others from however they view Him.  I trust others have the same love for God and desire to find His truth that I do, and I trust God to lead them as He chooses.

I have to be honest,  I am not sure "why" I want to know whats in the bible half of the time, all I can say is that I want to know more.

Okay, when you say we are "created 'out of God'" do you mean that man is given the same spirit as God at his physical human birth?  Is this why you say "therefore our spiritual essence is equal to God in that manner"?

To me it is the other way around, we were spirit before being subject into this physical realm.  God knew us before we were formed in the womb.  Whatever Spirit "is" that is what God "is" and if everything is "out" of him as opposed to the false assumption that God created from nothing, then we must be his spirit in a form God purposed,  no matter what we perceive this existance to be. 

I am not completely suggesting that we are living an illusion like mystics usually claim.  I do believe our existance in our physical perception to be real and tangible right now.  More recent scientific advances have discovered things on the atomic level that prove this physical world to be something more than once perceived. 

On first read, I take this to mean you believe by nature man has God's spirit in him.  Doesn't this deny the need for being reborn then?  Isn't the purpose of accepting Jesus so that the "life"/spirit we lost through the fall can be returned to us?

By nature we are Sons and Daughters of God and we are living this existance through no choice of our own and no power of our own.   We haven't lost anything, we are only learning something.  We perceive being lost because we are limited in our knowledge.   The fall is a story to make sense of what people do not like to see in scripture.  We did not fall, we were created carnal and perfect for the purpose for which we were created. 

The only way man by nature can have the divine spirit within him at physical human birth is if the fall hadn't happened.  And then there would have been no need for Jesus Christ as a "quickening spirit" to redeem us from death (1Cor 15: 45).  So his death and resurrection are meaningless.

There is really no context in which Jesus Death and Resurrection can be made meaningless,  because it happened.  Whether you are correct, whether I am correct, or whether someone elses interpretation is correct,  Jesus Death and Resurrection was for a purpose in ANY context.  Ecclesiastes 3:1  and since it happened for a purpose there is nothing that can make it meaningless.

God is a God of process, whether it matters to your thinking or not,  Jesus Christ is the means through which all will be reconconciled.  It is how God did it and it could not happen any other way, so it is not meaningless at all. 

The concept of the fall contradicts scripture.  The concept is that we were created perfect, then by our own free will chose to screw up.  If we fell do to a free will choice to become unperfect, then it contradicts this scripture.

Romans 8:20 For to vanity was the creation subjected, not voluntarily, but because of Him Who subjects it, in expectation

If, however, by "created" you are referring to the time of our rebirth in Christ, then I can see what you're saying, but still would say the spiritual essence we now have is ours through Christ, not as some kind of fulfillment of our own human nature.  Which is why I say we "subsist" in Christ, rather than become divine ourselves.

I am only going by the verse I quoted in John.

John 17:21 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me.
22  "And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One,

If "according as we are one" disagrees with what I have been saying, then explain.

I was replying directly to one of those you listed, Paul:

Gn 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim,  "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!"

and based my reply to you on that, explaining that the simile shows we are NOT the same essence of God at all because of that fall, which is completely contrary to what you were attempting to show by that quote.

That also was not the only verse I used to come to my conclusion.   I showed the transition through several scriptures.  If you wish to address my conclusion using all of those scriputures to say your point can still say the same thing, please do.

All the passages you use are usually taken out of context to make a case for the gnostic belief that Jesus was a man who achieved Christ consciousness and this is therefore the path we are on. When looked at in context, though, they usually show the exact opposite.  One can only hold the gnostic point of view in isolation, ignoring the rest of scripture. This is why I do not accept it.

Contextual arguments are tricky,  the first responce from eternal torment believers is that we Universalists take everything out of context.  So whos context argument is correct?

I'll stick with using scripture in a manner that does not contradict without adding or subtracting from scripture to make it fit, that context is good enough for me.

As I said above, we all answer the question Christ asked His disciples differently from each other, and even differently at various times in our own lives, so this isn't an argument with you.  But, because these replies are being given to a 14 yr old Christian asking for info, I considered that Love requires us to clearly show what might not be evident at first glance to someone not familiar with the nuances of gnosticism and how it differs from more traditonal Christianity.

I have no problem taking the time to clarify, I indeed may need to clarify more.  Unfortunatly, if I waited till I had ample time to write an essay I would never post at all.  ;)  So if I seem abrupt or short in my replies it is only because I basically have to make them a bit more hastily than I would prefer.

May seem like a little thing, but a litle difference can lead to wide variations within a variety of interconnected theological viewpoints.

I do not think it is a little thing at all.  Thats why I do take the time as I can.

[willieH]

willieH:  Hi Mary Ellen!  Glad you're here at TM!  :bgdance:

I hope your shall find my answers and understandings of your inquiries to be adaquate...  :reachout:

Please don't hesitate to correct my understanding if I mistook any portion!  :blush:

My answer to you will be in TWO PARTS due to its length...

PART ONE...

JESUS CHRIST paid the price for SIN Angel... no amount of "punishment" can rectify even one sin...

Hello, Willie.  I agree with this: ultimately it is Christ's death which rectifies it all. 

But, as I've asked elsewhere, do you see any difference between punishment and restitution in the name of Justice one makes for harms done others?

I need the specific verse you are referring to in order to answer this question... I do believe (I agree with Bernie/SeekerSA), that there is NOT PUNISHMENT after this life is done.

We suffer in this life, for that which is done in this life... The elimination of deeds (not surviving into the Eternal) that were not done IN CHRIST in my observation, is the "correction"...

Yes, Christ's death is the mercy that will transform that justice into Love, but is the Love available without that restitution being accepted first?

LOVE is ALWAYS available to us Mary Ellen... NOTHING we ...do MAKES it AVAILABLE... it is AVAILABLE because WE are LOVED despite what we ...do (Rom 5:8)

Paul noted that the SINS (trespasses) of the WORLD, through RECONCILIATION was the WORK of CHRIST, complete and FINISHED... (2 Cor 5:19)

The NATURAL observation is EYE for EYE... which requires RESTITUTION ...by... the INDIVIDUAL, to the degree of the offense...

The SPIRITUAL observation is FORGIVE your ENEMIES... BLESS them that CURSE you... NOT requiring RESTITUTION for those offenses...

And how does someone who has not accepted Christ in this life do so in the next

GOD reveals, and THAT is how we KNOW the REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST... the Resurrection takes place on the LAST DAY, as does JUDGMENT... (John 6:44 & 12:48)... ON or IN, the LAST DAY (if not before) shall every knee have bowed and tongue confessed sis...

No one "ACCEPTS" CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting CHRIST teaching" noted?  :dunno:

--without doing what those who are called in this age must do, which is to allow GOd's Love to burn away everything in our egos that separates us from Him?

Our "ego's" do not separate us from God, sis...

The Scriptures state that NOTHING can SEPARATE us from the LOVE of GOD which is in CHRIST (Rom 8:38-39)

It is the WORK of GOD which accomplishes these things Mary Ellen... Our WORKS are as FILTHY RAGS (as first displayed by Cain)... (Is 64:6)

At death do those who never accepted salvation through Christ simply rise to a Loving life in God without any form of trial or condemnation taking place as Jesus said and as is explicit in many scriptural passages?

First, as I said before, if you wish a given Scripture to be commented on by me, then name it for me...

My Bible says:  (John 3:17) For GOD ...SENT NOT... His Son into the World to ...CONDEMN... the World, but that the World [which God so LOVED] through Him, might be SAVED.

Hate to answer a question with another question, but...

When YOUR eyes were opened to CHRIST, were you CONDEMNED? 

Did you have to PAY a price?  :dontknow:

What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen?  :Chinscratch:

Was it YOUR WORK that SAVED you?  Or CHRIST's?  :dontknow:

Did YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you?  If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR!  :thumbdown:

Is Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?

Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen?  :dontknow:

You must observe JUSTICE from a SPIRITUAL point of view, which is: FORGIVE your enemies... (not condemn them)  Bless them which curse you (not exact VENGENCE)

GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain?  Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?

When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches?  :dontknow:

FTR,  I agree that they will be offered the same mercy Christians have accepted in this life, but I think the second death in the Lake of Fire is a very real thing and it won't be a walk in the park, a terrible burning away of all that they held onto in life that separated them from God and which will then be burned away from them.  Not a punishment, but the same Love all will be exposed to at the same time.  How we each experience it will depend on the relationship we built with God in this life.

You are obviously unfamiliar with my views on DEATH... the FIRST DEATH is the DEATH of SPIRIT (which is the DEATH which CHRIST redeems us from)...

the SECOND DEATH is experienced by EACH human being, and is the WAGES of SIN... we RIGHTLY go to the Grave, for we deserve DEATH, having disobeyed LIFE...

JESUS said:  I am the way, the truth, and THE LIFE...

JESUS is the WORD... our disobedience is against the WORD or COMMAND of GOD...

Those which overcome (by submission to CHRIST) in this life, are not found NAKED in JUDGMENT, rather are CLOTHED in CHRIST... (Rev 3:18) ...and thereby are not "hurt" of the 2nd Death... which we rise from...

Adam & Eve were NATURAL and NAKED in the SPIRITUAL presence of YHVH... those who fail to submit in this life... shall experience that same SHAME (Rev 3:18)

This lifetime IS the LAKE of FIRE, in which we suffer for SIN... the FLESH profits NOTHING...  :dontknow:

Sounds good . . . until we take into consideration the number of people in this life who seem to prosper from sin, who indisriminately hurt others and get away with it on a major scale.  Your statement would not satisfy any of the billions of people who have suffered injustice at the hand of a despot of some sort who lived life to a ripe old age surrounded by their ill gotten gains.  As I said, it sounds good, but it doesn't answer the practical questions people ask when faced with real life injustice that too often acts with impunity.

In my observation you yet observe NATURALLY Mary Ellen... What you name above is in the NATURAL...

All these "crimes" you list above which are performed:

(1) Are or were performed by those who were brought forth by YHVH, in spite of His foreknowledge that they would PERFORM them...  WHY Mary Ellen?

(2) YHVH does NOTHING to stop these crimes from being PERFORMED...  WHY Mary Ellen?

(3)  GOD sustains both the ASSAILANT and VICTIM... throughout the duration of the "crime"... WHY Mary Ellen?

I can answer that question sister, but I'm interested to hear your answer...  :cloud9:

UR becomes a useless doctrine as a replacement for ET UNLESS it answers the questions people ask that lead them to believe in and accept such a strange concept about God to begin with.  If the bible contains God's truth, then the answers must be in there and conform to UR for UR to be true.  Otherwise, it's just another feel good religious point of view.

It has got nothing to do with a "feel good" religious point of view...

GOD set Adam & Eve on earth with the ABILITY to DISOBEY... then set the scene, with the "Tree" and the "serpent" (which is that adversity within men, not a talking snake).  Once all was in place, GOD notified his 2 innocent humans of the location of the tree they were NOT to eat of... :rolleye:

The reason GOD sent His Son to SAVE the WORLD, was because it was ORDAINED to fall into sin, and thereby GAIN the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, which was the ONE KNOWLEDGE that ONLY GOD held...

You wish JUSTICE Mary Ellen?  JUSTICE demands YHVH redeem us from something we could not avoid.

Let me say that I am a parent of 3 and grandparent of 9 (almost 10)... I have asked this question of PARENTS which LOVE their children... see whatcha think!

If there was a HOUSE on fire... and your 10 children were in the house, ...and you HAD the TIME and ability to SAVE them all... How many would you SAVE Mary Ellen?

... and the FLESH which each of us SINS in, DIES and returns to the dust...

(1)  And when that flesh rises as we've been promised?  Where is the sin?  (2)  What account can be made for sin people did not submit to Jesus for payment then?  How is all rectified at that point?

CHRIST said: (John 19:30) It is FINISHED!  What part of "FINISHED" don't you understand sis?  :laughing7:

What part of something FINISHED, requires more WORK?  When you are FINISHED writing a letter, do you write more?  Or when you are finished painting your living room do you continue to paint?  Or when you finish eating a peach, do you eat more of it?  come on M.E...  :sigh:

I really don't mean to be a "smart alec"... Sorry  :mblush: :blush: :Oops:

Again, Mary Ellen... the "submission" shall happen for them, as it has for you... GOD is NOT PARTIAL to anyone... (Acts 10:34 / Rom 2:11 / Job 34:19)

(1) Where does it say we shall in the ETERNAL, ...have FLESHLY bodies?  :Chinscratch:

(2)  The SIN is already TAKEN AWAY from the ETERNAL perspective...

(John 1:29)  Behold the Lamb of GOD which TAKETH AWAY, the SIN of the WORLD...

How is PRESENCE found in something TAKEN AWAY?

The assumption that it all just "disappears" regardless of how men accept Jesus' gift in this aeon or not baffles me.

If men simply died and never rose I might be able to accept your argument, but that ignores resurrection and the role of the second death. Plus, we're back to the "is annhilation any better except in degree to ET?  If Jesus meant all, He meant all.

As I have already explained, it is in how YOU VIEW and PERCIEVE what the "2nd DEATH" actually ...IS... that makes the difference...

Let me give you J. Preston Eby's look at the following verse... I agree with it, and it is how I see it to be read --- First I shall give you an example which shows the same facts expressed in different order which either way mean the SAME,  (THEN I will do this with same process with Revelation 20:14):

(1) An ISLAND is a BODY of LAND, surrounded by Water.
(2) A BODY of LAND surrounded by Water, is an ISLAND.

Rev 20:14 ...And DEATH and HELL [hades] were cast into the Lake of Fire.  This is the 2nd death... (KJV)

Rev 20:14 ...This is the 2nd death,  DEATH and HELL were cast into the Lake of FIRE.

As I said... it is how you view language and understand terminology that give you a viewpoint or perspective...

So, no, I can't accept your theology here. It leaves too many unanswered questions for me.

It does not matter to me whether you accept anything I say or not...  :boyheart: I have answered your questions and posed others for you...

I percieve that the main difference between you and I, is that I KNOW that a degree of my belief is  VEILED... and am avidly seeking GOD to correct those portions which are veiled.

That you presently cannot accept what I say, either is because I am VEILED, or REVEALED... which in turn means, if I am REVEALED, you are VEILED... if I am VEILED it is possible you are REVEALED... 

I have visited BOTH schools of thought:   ETERNAL TORMENT (20yrs in the Salvation Army) and ANNHILATION (5 yrs in the SDA church)... NEITHER of these portray LOVE, nor are they found to be SPIRITUAL understanding in my observation, they portray an ALMIGHTY GOD as IN NEED of VENGENCE against something HE brought forth... KNOWING beforehand ALL that it would DO... sorry...

That IN ITSELF is UNREASONABLE...

In my observation, there is no one which is RIGHT nor is there one which is WRONG in any given area... we are either REVEALED or VEILED...

*********  END of PART ONE... ********

pEace...
...willieH  :happygrin:

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :hithere:

PART TWO:

As JESUS said:  Let him WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone... we are all UNWORTHY to cast a stone at a SINNER, as we are found to hold that undistinguished title, ourselves...  :winkgrin:

No doubt, and that's why Jesus commanded us not to judge others.  Yet, He did speak frequently of judgment and condemnation.

No verses, no comment... you observe that He frequently did this... but fail to note the verses...

Unless we can rectify those things with UR, keeping the character of God intact without eliminating either His Love or His Justice, we've got just another gnostic concept of how it all works according to our minds, and not the mind of God expressed in scriptures.

GOD is JUST, and it DOES NOT matter HOW you or I observe that JUSTICE... presently we view it from different mountaintops...

This is such generalization without SPECIFICS that there is really no way to reply...

You are welcome to your observation sister... Sorry I see it as lack of SPIRTUAL vision...

The observation of HITLER is an assumption that in some way, you consider your life a more worthy life than was his, based upon YOUR LIFE by comparision is it not?  Not picking on you, just trying to get you to see... we ALL deserve death, for even ONE SIN, sends CHRIST to the cross to redeem us!)

We all make assumptions, willie; you did , too, in assuming that "worthiness" instead of some concept of God's holines and justice leads one to ask the question AoT did.  Yes, Chrit's death paid for our littler sins as surely as it paid for the many of Hitler's, yet, you are suggesting that without recourse to Christ Hitler can be automatically forgiven at death.

I must admit this passage didn't make much sense to me, but as best I can, let me say:

There is no such thing as a "littler sin", please!  SIN is one thing and one thing only... SIN... it is TRANGRESSION of the LAW...  It is YOUR VEIW of a given TRANSGRESSION which makes it RISE or FALL in "magnitude"

I certainly do believe God wills Hitler's salvation and that Christ has purchased that for him.  Yet, Hitler must take the same responsibility for his many "big" sins as I and others have for our many "smaller" ones before that mercy can be applied.

Or did you come to Jesus Christ without some sense of metanoia/repentance?

There is NO Scriptural measurement of SIN as you propose... "bigger" -- "smaller", whatever... SIN is SIN... period.

In the above, you make your "SMALLER SINS" a comparison to HITLER, and his "BIGGER SINS" which the Apostle PAUL says is UNWISE, Mary Ellen: (2 Cor 10:12)  :pitiful:

I "came" to Him, ...via the SAME process ALL men "come", ...Him DRAGGING me to Himself... as Scripture identifies: (John 6:44) ...and HE revealed Himself to ME, and IN that LIGHT was MY DARKNESS exposed...

The sheep do not find the shepherd, it is the other way around...  :dontknow:

I see nothing in your argument that requires a Hitler or a person at a mall with an AK47 to repent for their lack of love to others.  They simply die and the wage (death) is paid?

It seems as if you are equating human death with Mercy. A very weak argument I do not accept in the least.

No, you attribute Salvation due to a "worthiness" which comes via something WE DO... which is foolishness.  There is nothing ANY MAN can DO to gain the MERCY of GOD...

GOD is MERCIFUL to ALL because that is what LOVE does... that is what SPIRIT does...

As far as an arguement being WEAK... Your reply here has been completely devoid of Scripture! ...That, in my observation leaves it to be nothing but opinion, and stands wobbly upon the sand of that opinion...  :laughing7:

There is no "afterlife" Angel... this is an UNBIBLICAL observation...

Upon the conclusion of this life, Our SPIRIT, ...RETURNS to where we emerged -- GOD...

If you are Christian, then where does resurrection fit into this picture, willie?

First, I claim to be a disciple of CHRIST... I have grown to dislike the name "Christian"... because those who use it, attaches themselves to one portion of Othodoxy or another...

Concerning "Resurrection" ...is NOT of the FLESH Mary Ellen, it is the re-emergence of the SPIRIT... (John 3:6)

See it and ME as you will...

We are the ETERNAL Sons of GOD... we have ALWAYS BEEN... you just see yourself as FINITE, because your view is from the NATURAL...  and is of OTHRODOX roots...

If not, okay, no argument from me, but I took it that AoT was asking for scriptural understandings about UR and how it impacts on beliefs he had before.

I can name over 100 verses which attest to UR... and one who is 14, shall have to take that offering slowly... If you are in such a rush to provide them, why haven't YOU done it Mary Ellen?

What you said above concerning the disposability of matter and the everlasting spirit indicates to me that you are a gnostic Christian.  As I said, no problem with me because Christ leads us all in our own way, but since a 14 year old may not be familiar with the differences I would probably post questions to you identifying those differences a lot more than I would normally.

Your questions have at best been vague... and without Scriptural support.  :faint:

Since you say the afterlife is an unbiblical observation, I feel you've opened the door to debate based on scripture.   So, please provide the scriptures for what you said next:

You actually make me laugh there Mary Ellen...  :laughing7:  You have provided NO Scripture in your objections to what I say... and then REQUIRE me to provide them to you... :pointlaugh:

Well, just because I'm a nice guy, just this ONCE...   :laughhand:

I'll number my references in the quote to make it easy onya...  :laughing7:

(1) In order to RETURN, one must have previously been there... We came FROM GOD... (2) we RETURN to Him... in ETERNITY we ALWAYS are... (3) TIME is a temporal "classroom" in which the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL is gained, and in gaining that knowledge we become AS IS our Father and HIS Son... (Gen 3:22)

(1) Job 38:7 ...ALL the SONS (BEN) of GOD were shouting for Joy... The word BEN is the Hebrew word used UNIVERSALLY in the OT in naming SONS... it is used in ALL Geneologies, even in the beginning of JOB where JOB's ...SONS... were named in the first chapter several times...

If MEN are SONS of GOD, they were there BEFORE this World was created.  ETERNAL means WITHOUT BEGINNING or END... Any SON which is in ETERNITY, is in a scenario DEVOID of BEGINNINGS or ENDINGS... and has ALWAYS BEEN...

(2) Luke 15:11  The PRODIGAL Son was WITH the FATHER, then LEFT... then RETURNED... to where He was ORIGINALLY.

Is 51:11  The REDEEMED RETURN... they cannot RETURN to a place they were not ORIGINALLY

Ecc 12:7  The flesh RETURNS to the EARTH from which it came, the SPIRIT of each man RETURNS to GOD who GAVE IT...

(3) Gen 3:22  Well I already noted that GOD notes that a KNOWLEDGE was gained by MAN which only GOD had... self explanatory...

That last was straight out of Genesis and is the precise definition of original sin:  thinking we can discern good and evil through knowledge to become as gods . . .

ORIGINAL SIN... :rolleye: another UNBIBLICAL notation...  :thumbdown:

JESUS said (John 10:34):  is it not WRITTEN in your law [TORAH/Scripture -- Ps 82:6] that ye are gods? 

Why would He quote this, and if NOT TRUE, then WHY was it WRITTEN Mary Ellen?

You see yourself as a HUMAN being... when the WORD says you are SPIRIT and a SON of GOD... You just don't believe what the Scripture SAYS... Nothing "GNOSTIC" or hidden... Right there in black & white...

You just hide behind this label (gnostic) you wish to give me, as your inability to establish BIBLICAL refutation continues to plague your words...

Definitely gnostic, willie :) . . . and certainly a reversal of scripture, to say the least.

REVERSAL of what Scripture Mary Ellen?  To this point you have named... uh,  :Chinscratch: ...oh YEAH!  :OhNo:

...NONE...  :thumbdown:

Your "refutation" here (if you wish to call it that), is pretty weak there Mary Ellen... You just use your own words to substanciate yourself... pretty weak...  :thumbdown: 

So how many do you percieve are LOST, Angel?   Did CHRIST accomplish His mission?  At it's end, did He not say "IT IS FINISHED"? 

If there is still more to do (such as you suggest above in blue), why did He say it was finished?

In the same way you indicated above--not in temporal time, but in the Eternal Now of God.  It is the same "It is finished" as we hear in the Book of Revelation, willie, which has not yet occured in our time frame.

This is your problem Mary Ellen... you look upon a book which speaks of REVEALING an ETERNAL entity (JESUS CHRIST), and note it to be some "guide to the future" in the NATURAL TIME realm... Please...  :laughhand:

More ORTHODOX thinking... noting REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST to be a report of FUTURE TIME... when it is the REVEALING of JESUS CHRIST in ALL THINGS, from each "thing's" ...ALPHA to its OMEGA...

Both events are one, but separated through linear time.  When one was accomplished in the Eternal Now, the other was as well.

You self defeat Mary... that which is ETERNAL does not "accomplish" for accomplishment implies that beforehand it was INCOMPLETE... and therefore, cannot be termed as ETERNAL...

That which is ETERNAL, ...IS... no "was" or "will be" ...just ...IS... UNCHANGING, established.

Within Linear time is the NATURAL course of EVIL... it is NOT PRESENT in ETERNITY, nor can be... it is UNHOLY and UNACCEPTABLE in the ETERNAL environment which IS HOLY... (not "was or will be")

But in linear time, only one has occured, the other is yet to come for us.  Just as some are now found and some yet to be found in linear time who are still lost..

Don't mistake the entire process in the eternal now for the separate events as we perceive them in linear time.  So, yes, in linear time, the only time man perceives and that GOd works with in His Love and Mercy, "there is still more to do."  Meaning people remain responsible for what they do within this time frame, even though in the eternal now they have been forgiven and restored to the Father.

Mary Ellen

If "responsibility" is ours, then we must somehow, by that "responsibility", make restitution... again you words SELF DEFEAT...

I do not deny that Linear time exists, neither do I deny that we shall suffer in it... but WE are not RESPONSIBLE for anything...

GOD Declared the END (of time) from the BEGINNING... and called that which WAS NOT (in time), as if it WAS... (Is 46:10-11)

The process of linear "time" is the enaction of what IS DECLARED...

I have given this example before... If you place a gun in a child's hand and the child KILLS another human being... YOU are held RESPONSIBLE ...NOT... the child.  :dontknow:

GOD set us here sister... and HE is RESPONSIBLE for bringing us back, for HE, is the DELIVERER, we do NOT deliver ourselves... so ALL RESPONSIBILITY lies in Him...

Regardless of your NATURAL view of Him...  :happygrin:

pEace...
...willieH  :happygrin:

[SeekerSA]

Hi Mary

Sorry I missed this post

And Seeker...

There has to be some punishment. Your basically saying I could go get an MP5 Machine gun and go on a killing spree, set terrorist bombs, torture, and possibly take thousands of lives right now that could have amounted to something amazing in the future and the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...

That cant be right... I know God forgives... but thats just mad. There has to be some kind of temperal punishment for the sin...

Well when you find scripture that shows that we have to go though a temporal punishment of any sorts, I would be interested to read that.

Two points this brings to my mind:

1.  Can any one scripture on its own "show" truth?  Isn't this what Christians have done for years, pulled verses out of context to shore up personal doctrines? Doesn't UR face that same problem if we are not careful to adhere to what the scriptures say?

I am opposed to cherry picking too yet I have still to see any tangible proof of scripture whether stand-alone or in context that suggests a temporal punishment - IMO that is an offshoot of the RCC myth of purgatory - also NON BIBLICAL.

2.  Do you see a difference between punishment and restitution for wrongs done?

I could point out many verses showing restitution is part of restoration.  We cannot be restored without equal recourse to God's Justice as to His Love.  They work together, imo, and cannot be isolated.  Without that, you end up with the extreme opposite of those who hold hell is infinite torture for finite crimes.  Neither one works for me personally and both seem to run counter to scripture.

I would be interested to see those verses.

I have dismissed hell in its entirety based upon wrong translations and the introduction of pagan Greco/Roman myths and merging of those philosophies into Christianity.

Yes, those who accept Jesus' invitation are saved from condemnation, but how about those who refuse Him in this life and do face condemnation?

How can you refuse if you are truly drawn?

Joh 6:44  No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day

Joh 6:65  And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.

Joh 8:42  Jesus said to them, If God were your father, you would love Me, for I went forth and came from God; for I did not come of Myself, but He sent Me.

Joh 14:23  Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word(s). And My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

Joh 15:26  And when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me.

Don't get me wrong.  I fully embrace the universal restoration of all things through Christ.  I firmly believe we are called to follow Him because the Body of Christ plays an essential part in that ultimate plan to return all to God.  But I do not think we can discount one extreme that ignores God's Love by embracing the opposite extreme that discounts His Justice.

From what I understand of Jesus' teachings, Justice executed through Mercy is Love.  We cannot have the Love of God without both his Justice and Mercy--and that involves just condemnation before Mercy can be applied to arrive at that Love.

Mary Ellen

The bolded bit in the 2nd para answers your question in the 1st para.

Like I said earlier, I would like to see the verse(s) that suggest a temporal punishment.

It is the "safe" route to accept a "temporal" punishment as opposed to no punishment whatsoever.  For some a "NO HELL" is just too much for their brains to wrap around as that then removes in their minds the purpose of salvation.

Well once salvation does not save us from hell anymore then we are still left with as you suggested those that "reject" in this lifetime.

Those that "reject" reject NOT GOD but the system of myths and lies espoused by the church system.  You cannot really be accepted by the system if you do not adhere to their creeds - a typical manufactured cherry picked doctrine. 

Folk reject the concept of hell and then the system assumes that you thus reject "all the above" in whatever creed or statement of faith.  At the end of the day, I find no (in context) scripture particularly the gospels where it suggests a temporal punishment and/or temporary hell.

But if it makes you feel better to believe that there awaits a temporal punishment, then we may as well dismiss the entire purpose of Jesus' supposed sacrifice (which I have done) as the requirement thus remains that WE need to appease God somehow.  Well it sure seems that this POV holds man to a higher standard than God the Father as an earthly father does not always punish or admonish but many times simply forgives in spite of his anger/disappointment.

Blessings

[autoimmune]

SeekerSA, Willie and Paul:

I thank all three of you for your posts.  I've read them and am considering them.  I apologize for not yet taking the time to reply, but, the truth is that some days I'm not as "sharp" as others.  Call it lupus fogbrain, but some days my mind reads long posts, becomes jumbled, and I can't formulate answers the way I do when I'm feeling well.

And each of your posts deserve an honest, well-thought reply.

For today, I'll share an anecdote, rather than scriptural knowledge.  Please remember that this is from personal experience, not scripture.  Yet, the spiritual experience is usually what leads to the interpretations of scripture we make . . .

I was raised severely abused.  I don't think of it much any more because the hurt has been healed, yet, that abuse was probably the reason I continually searched for God as Love.  I wanted the ideal Father, and very willingly accepted Abba as portrayed by Jesus in the bible.

Before my earthly father died, we had a short telephone conversation.  Went like this

"You know I always loved you."

"Yes, dad, I accept that.  You know I loved you in return as well."

"Yes, I know that."  A short pause.  "Well, it's okay between us then, isn't it?"

"Yes, dad.  It is."

He died a few days later.  I didn't go to the funeral because of the expense and distance involved.  Also because I believe we go to funerals to mourn and come to terms with the love we had or didn't have with that person, and I was at peace with my dad since the phone call we had.

During the wake period, though, I sensed my father's presence in the room, as if he were actually standing there.  I heard a voice within that said, "I ca't go to heaven without your permission."

"Great!" I said out loud. "If the measure I give is the measure I'll receive than I HAVE to say it's okay with me for you to go to heaven--or I'm condemning myself to hell.  Go to heaven, Pop.  I won't fight it."

Then I heard him say, "No, a begrudging acceptance isn't enough.  You have to WANT me to go to heaven."

That was a bit much for me.  I had to admit that in some way I expected a bit of a payback for my dad, that he would somehow feel the pain he had inflicted on me all those years.  Didn't have to be a lot, but I expected Justice in some form or another to be served.  Didn't have to be forever, but certainly, payback was due somehow, in some form.

"I can't say that right now, Pop.  I just can't say I want you to go to heaven and be able to stand honestly before God myself.  It would be a lie."

For the next day or so God worked with me on this issue.  Won't go into all the details because they were the beginning of my own beliefs becoming UR, but I finally realized that, despite the abuse--or maybe somehow because of it--I had a life filled with Love.  I quite often say that I have more Love than any one woman deserves in life . . .

My father had never known that kind of love because he was incapable of giving it himself.  His own fears and angers kept him from it.  And that was worse than any physical or emotional abuse he had done me.

I was finally able to say I wanted him to be with God, more than anything I had ever wanted before for myself. 

Pop thanked me and since then I have the feeling that all the things I've learned in the last few years have been through his love for me, not just as his physical daughter, but as a member of the Body of Christ in heaven.

I learned a lot from this experience; a firm belief in UR, for one thing.  But it also was the beginning of my understanding of how justice and love can and will be reconciled through mercy, without one suffering for the other.

It was also the beginning of my understanding of why some are called and chosen and others are not; of the role the Body of Christ will play in that final reconciliation of all things.

And I hold firm to the belief that reconciliation is a MUST for the restoration of all things to take place as Christ promised.

But it doesn't happen by our foregoing of justice.  Justice becomes tansformed through mercy and ALL men who have not done this in Christ in this age will have to take responsibility for their sin in the next.  They will ultimately come to see that they CANNOT make restitution without recourse to Christ and THAT is why every knee will finally, willingly, lovingly bend to Christ.

I don't mean to argue with those who think that since the PROCESS is finished and completed, that the steps we each much take in that process are magically eliminated.  Yes, in the end it is grace that saves us, but the acceptance of grace comes through a human work of acceptance of responsibility for our sins and, along with that, the understanding that we are unable to ever truly reconcile ourselves to another we have harmed without the mercy of Christ.

Grace does not mean we are devoid of human responsibility for sin.  In fact, it highlights it.

I think those who responded to me assumed that I meant "punishment" when I'm speaking of the Love of God as a restorative process of pruning away anything not of God in us when we face Him.

ME

[autoimmune]

A quick apology for not getting to more "theological" responses to the posts by SeekerSA, Willie and Paul.  Most of my energy went toward family functions the last few weeks.  I've re-read my anecdotal reply tonight, though, and I think I'll stick to the love of Jesus, and his scriptural teachings on mercy and justice, rather than theological debate.

I'm not out to prove my case to anyone; simply to state it, and I think that anecdote served the purpose well.

Blessings on all of you,
ME

[willieH]

A quick apology for not getting to more "theological" responses to the posts by SeekerSA, Willie and Paul.  Most of my energy went toward family functions the last few weeks.  I've re-read my anecdotal reply tonight, though, and I think I'll stick to the love of Jesus, and his scriptural teachings on mercy and justice, rather than theological debate.

Nothing wrong with sticking to the love of JESUS Mary Ellen... but rash statements such as you have made in this thread, shall be noted as ORTHODOX and unfounded concerning Scriptural basis...  :dontknow:

I'm not out to prove my case to anyone; simply to state it, and I think that anecdote served the purpose well.

Could've fooled me! :omg:  I answered ALL your questions, and you answered NONE of mine!  (I'll list them in a separate post)

Within your activity earlier in the thread, your statements say otherwise!  :mshock:

peacE...
...willieH  :cloud9:

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Mary Ellen...  :Chinscratch:

I answered ALL of YOUR QUESTIONS Mary Ellen... and you are certainly under no obligation to answer mine, however... if you wish questions to be ANSWERED, you must be WILLING to DO SO, yourself!

Here are my unanswered questions in PART ONE alone:

****  No one "ACCEPTS" CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting CHRIST teaching" noted?  :dunno:

****  When YOUR eyes were opened to CHRIST, were you CONDEMNED? 

****  Did you have to PAY a price?  :dontknow:

****  What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen?  :Chinscratch:

****  Was it YOUR WORK that SAVED you?  Or CHRIST's?  :dontknow:

****  Did YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you?  If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR!  :thumbdown:

Is Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?

****  Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen?  :dontknow:

****  GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain?  Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?

****  When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches?  :dontknow:

In my observation you yet observe NATURALLY Mary Ellen... What you name above is in the NATURAL...

All these "crimes" you list above which are performed:

****  (1) Are or were performed by those who were brought forth by YHVH, in spite of His foreknowledge that they would PERFORM them...  WHY Mary Ellen?

****  (2) YHVH does NOTHING to stop these crimes from being PERFORMED...  WHY Mary Ellen?

****  (3)  GOD sustains both the ASSAILANT and VICTIM... throughout the duration of the "crime"... WHY Mary Ellen?

****  You wish JUSTICE Mary Ellen?  JUSTICE demands YHVH redeem us from something we could not avoid.

****  If there was a HOUSE on fire... and your 10 children were in the house, ...and you HAD the TIME and ability to SAVE them all... How many would you SAVE Mary Ellen?

****  CHRIST said: (John 19:30) It is FINISHED!  What part of "FINISHED" don't you understand sis?  :laughing7:

****  What part of something FINISHED, requires more WORK?  When you are FINISHED writing a letter, do you write more?  Or when you are finished painting your living room do you continue to paint?  Or when you finish eating a peach, do you eat more of it?  come on M.E...  :sigh:

**** (1) Where does it say we shall in the ETERNAL, ...have FLESHLY bodies?  :Chinscratch:

(John 1:29)  Behold the Lamb of GOD which TAKETH AWAY, the SIN of the WORLD...

****  How is PRESENCE found in something TAKEN AWAY?

So, no, I can't accept your theology here. It leaves too many unanswered questions for me.

Oh REALLY?  :wacko2: 

You don't even bother to answer questions!  :thumbdown:

18 Unanswered questions... :rolleye:

pEace...
...willieH  :happygrin:

[autoimmune]

Nothing wrong with sticking to the love of JESUS Mary Ellen... but rash statements such as you have made in this thread, shall be noted as ORTHODOX and unfounded concerning Scriptural basis...  :dontknow:

I'm content to let our mutual love of Jesus be our bond, but you have a point that I did ask questions and should reply.  I think Paul understood my point, that I only wanted further clarification of what he believes and very politely and succinctly answered them.  I'm fairly sure he took the discussion in the same spirit I did, as a sharing of our differences, rather than a debate.  I will, however, try to reply to his last post out of the same courtesy he showed me.  Same for SeekerSA.

I have to admit, though, that I believe you like to argue more than share ideas.  I can't help but believe you don't usually give up until the other concedes your point or walks away out of frustration :)

Your word choices (such as calling my responses "rash statements" rather than reasonable responses and questions raised by your posts), an almost dare to respond, and previous condescending statements about my spiritual ignorance tends to show a spiritual combativeness I will usually ignore at a certain point.  However, I also can't help but like you just because you ARE so fervent and myopic in your spiritual point of view. How can I NOT answer someone who takes so much time to re-ask his questions? :) 

Could've fooled me! :omg: I answered ALL your questions, and you answered NONE of mine!  (I'll list them in a separate post)

Within your activity earlier in the thread, your statements say otherwise!  :mshock:/

LOL!  Then you are either very gullible, Willie, or deliberately obtuse.

The fact that I engaged in so much "earlier activity" was in order TO present my point of view on a variety of subjects raised.  I asked questions for clarification, identified where I disagreed and gave my reasons why I did.  Once I have presented my case for a particular belief, I try never to repeat myself.  If someone insists on holding onto an argument by repeatedly covering the same ground, I usually decline to continue.

By the same token, once others clearly show the reasons why they have a different point of view than mine I usually say something to the effect that I never have a problem agreeing to disagree (if we do), or that I'm glad we have a point of agreement (if we do).

My last post was to say "I've had my say and am satisfied with all the responses I received."

Feel free to misread that if you choose, but I've been posting a long time in forums.  I'm usually very honest with people, politely open about my disagreements with them, very authoritative in my tone because I sincerely believe what I share, but also understand that others who are secure in their beliefs are just as authoritative in their statements.  As long as they show a spiritual maturity that has no desire to beat a dead horse or insist that I am ignorant or spiritually immature because of our differences, I'll continue in conversation with them, always open to hearing their point of view and showing where I agree or differ with them, asking and answering any further points or questions we both wish to share.

What I won't do is argue with spiritually immature people who want to convince me I am wrong or whose goal is to showcase their own perceived spiritual superiority.  I have a tendency to honestly, but politely, identify condescending remarks, sarcasm and ego and then excuse myself from the conversation if it continues after that.   

Now, having said that, I'll be happy to answer the new lists of questions you've asked me, as long as I haven't already covered the questions elsewhere in this thread. 

ME

[Taffy]

This MAYBE a good oppotunity for ALL concerned, those posting and for those Lurking who may not have read this.

Conduct and Etiquette

Although the forum is akin to physical fellowship, all we have is text and emoticons.  Calling one's belief and/or interpretation as foolish or dumb is the same as calling the person that. 

Be sensitive to each other, respect each others views, one can disagree to a view by stating "I disagree" or "that is not the way I see it" etc.  Do not say that is a lie, that is trash, rubbish etc.  This will merely fuel argument and not debate and that is helpful to no one.

Foul, abusive language will not be tolerated. One warning then we hit the 


Courtesy issues

Please try and post your threads in the appropriate boards.  Read the purpose of this board sticky in each board.

Please refrain from quoting a long post merely to give it a thumbs up or I agree, you can quote a portion of the poster's text and then say "I agree" or post a smiley or just say great post "Name-of-Poster".

Let us try and keep posts short, looong posts are often glazed over and your true intent may not come across with the lazy.  This many times leads to threads going off topic.

Sometimes we are tempted to answer a question in a post aimed at a specific user.  Let that user answer the question first, like real conversation we can apply the same etiquette

Let us also try and keep to the OP (original post) topic. 

Do not hijack threads.  Stay on topic

If something is going to take the thread off topic, start a new thread.
Blessings
Taffy

[autoimmune]

willieH: Hi Mary Ellen...  :Chinscratch:

I answered ALL of YOUR QUESTIONS Mary Ellen... and you are certainly under no obligation to answer mine, however... if you wish questions to be ANSWERED, you must be WILLING to DO SO, yourself!

LOL! Is that a threat, Willie?

I've seen you use this argument in other threads.  You're correct.  I'm not under any obligation.  Should I choose not to answer your many questions, you could consider that my way of saying "I choose not to argue with you, Willie."  You, of course, are then perfectly free not to ever reply to one of my posts again (though, in that case, that might be exactly what I desire anyway  :winkgrin:).

To be honest, I'm willing to answer simply because you asked and I enjoy sharing what I believe and why.  Also because the lupus isn't causing much brain fog tonight and CHF is pretty much confining me to a chair right now, so I also have the time and ability to answer as well. A nice combination all around, imo.

****  No one "ACCEPTS" CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting CHRIST teaching" noted?  :dunno:

Semantics, Willie. 

Jesus invites us into His Kingdom.  I accept that invitation by accepting His call to pick up my cross and follow Him.  Jesus says there is no way to the Father but through Him.  To go through a person to another we must "accept" them as the doorway.  Jesus calls Himself the Way, the Life, the Truth, the Bread of Life, the Living Water, the Gate, the Good Shepherd . . . we accept Him as He describes Himself or we don't.  Biblical, no matter how you word it, found in all His parables concerning His kingdom, in every place He invites others to follow Him, and in every description He applies to Himself.

You'll find that I don't do cut and paste biblical posts, Willie.  I assume that other Christians are as familiar with the basics within the gospel as I am and can discuss each incident in them without citing chapter and verse. If you don't know the reference I'm making, ask, and I'll give you book, chapter and verse.

****  When YOUR eyes were opened to CHRIST, were you CONDEMNED? 

As a matter of fact, yes.  Condemnation is the acknowledgment of wrongs done, seeing what was done in the dark exposed to the Light of Christ (john 3).  I think you may be mistaking condemnation for punishment; two different things entirely.  Condemnation is a function of Justice. It is standing before the judge as wrong-doing is acknowledged.

No one can come to Jesus without repenting, or turning away from the darkness we once preferred and towards God and His Light--and that means acknowledging our human state without His mercy. 

****  Did you have to PAY a price?  :dontknow:

Not for the free gift of forgiveness, but the forgiveness does me no good without my acceptance of it, and that depends upon my acceptance of my just condemnation as a sinner.  If I do accept that forgiveness, then the natural consequence is a desire to make restitution for wrongs I do/have done to others to show that I understand the nature of that free gift.

I cannot say I have been a gossip (liar, thief, whatever) and am forgiven unless I accept the just condemnation AS a gossip (liar, thief, whatever).  I cannot say I have authentically accepted the free gift of forgiveness and NOT care that I have harmed others by my gossip (lies, theft, whatever) by ignoring the person I have harmed, content in my "free gift."  The authenticity of my acceptance of that forgiveness lies in the restitution I make for past harms and my sincere desire not to harm others in the same way in the future.

I believe that we are saved by grace, Willie, but I understand the meaning of James, Jesus and others when they say our works are the visible signs of our invisible faith. Can't have one without the other. 
 
As for paying a price as a Christian?  Do we pay a price?  Yes, in a way; the same one He did if we truly do accept His invitation to pick up our crosses and follow Him, but we do it willingly through His grace and as our own free gift in return after having accepted His free gift to us.    Love is funny that way--it's reciprocal or it isn't love.

****  What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen?  :Chinscratch:

I don't believe we gain salvation.  We are given it, Willie.  Is a trial involved?  Definitely, if you consider seeing yourself in the Light of Christ.  I don't know about you, but accepting His Love was quite a trial for me.  It involved being willing to see all the petty, ugly human flaws I am prone to.  It's a trial to me every time I fail to live in His grace and end up hurting myself or someone else.

The trial doesn't gain our salvation; it is a result of it if we are honest with ourselves and God.

****  Was it YOUR WORK that SAVED you?  Or CHRIST's?  :dontknow:

See above. 

Our works don't save us, but faith without works afterward are dead.  They should be the natural result of Christ alive in us, done through His grace, not our own efforts, though it has to be our choice to ask for, receive and use that grace.

****  Did YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you?  If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR!  :thumbdown:

No, my decision did not save me, though it was necessary for the free gift of Christ to become operative in me.

His gift would still be free and available had I not accepted it, but it would not have changed anything in my life without my assent to accept His Love.

Is Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?

****  Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen?  :dontknow:[/quote]

No.  Justice still existed and had to be served by my just condemnation as a sinner as I turned toward God/Light and away from sin/darkness. What you are overlooking is the role His Mercy played in executing His Justice.  Justice isn't eliminated; it is transformed by His Mercy into Love.

****  GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain?  Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?

Preaching to the choir re: our inability to rectify even one sin.  But still confusing (1) punishment with just condemnation, imo, and (2) the natural desire to make restitution for sin because we have been so loved with the rectification of sin through punishment.  I cannot make sin "right," but I am required by Love to make restitution for harm done to the best of my ability through His grace.

****  When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches?  :dontknow:

No, and I have never suggested sin requires punishment for it to be rectified.  I have always maintained Christ's gift is sufficient to cover all punishment for all men.

But, by the same token, did you notice the son's admission of his sin?  And his sorrow  on his return, especially when confronted with the great and unexpected Love his father showed him?

Do you imagine he did his best to make restitution for the harm he did his family in the past by working hard for his father afterward, being gentle with his elder brother who felt slighted, and by avoiding the selfishness that led him to leave in the first place?  Love calls forth love, Willie.  It is the natural and logical consequence of being loved that way.

Taking responsibility for our sins (just condemnation), and making restitution for wrong done does not negate the free gift Christ gives us.  They flow naturally from it.

This is getting long and I'm a bit tired now, Willie, so I will stop with the first set of questions and continue tomorrow with the rest if I can.

Pax,
ME

[Paul Hazelwood]

Hi Mary Ellen,

No apology necessary as far as I am concerned,  we disagree on some things and thats about as simple as it gets.

Take your time and reply whenever you can.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Mary Ellen...  :cloud9:

willieH: Hi Mary Ellen...  :Chinscratch:

I answered ALL of YOUR QUESTIONS Mary Ellen... and you are certainly under no obligation to answer mine, however... if you wish questions to be ANSWERED, you must be WILLING to DO SO, yourself!

LOL! Is that a threat, Willie?

THREAT?  How do you determine a THREAT?  Is it done with "LITTLER SINS" logic?  :laughing7:

I've seen you use this argument in other threads.  You're correct.  I'm not under any obligation.  Should I choose not to answer your many questions, you could consider that my way of saying "I choose not to argue with you, Willie."  You, of course, are then perfectly free not to ever reply to one of my posts again (though, in that case, that might be exactly what I desire anyway  :winkgrin:).

No "arguement" Mary... I just lobby for common courtesy!  :friendstu:

Before I get into a big "hoop-de-doo" withya Mary Ellen... If you ASK questions, and GET answers, it is common courtesy to RECIPROCATE... you are welcome to (rudely) choose to NOT answer...

However, in doing this, you just make yourself look like one which has NO ANSWERS... 

No "arguement" is taking place... a DISCUSSION is taking place, so don't try to belittle the DISCUSSION (as you have attempted here), with FALSE pretences...eh?  Such as "me using this arguement in other threads"... please!

In my answer to your 8 questions, which required DETAILED replies, I asked several questions which were actually pretty much "yes/no" answers...  :dontknow:

For example... you choose to ingnore such as this:

There was a point in PART TWO of my answer to you, about your statement that there are "LITTLER SINS"... (which is exactly my point about your info or lack thereof)...

I know you would rather NOT (mostly likely because you CANNOT), but...

Please explain THAT which determines "LITTLER SINS", and where the BIBLE indicates this measurement... along our BIBLICAL DIRECTIVE to determine them...  :laughing7:

pEace...
...willieH   :pointlaugh:

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :hithere:

Nothing wrong with sticking to the love of JESUS Mary Ellen... but rash statements such as you have made in this thread, shall be noted as ORTHODOX and unfounded concerning Scriptural basis...  :dontknow:

I'm content to let our mutual love of Jesus be our bond, but you have a point that I did ask questions and should reply.  I think Paul understood my point, that I only wanted further clarification of what he believes and very politely and succinctly answered them.  I'm fairly sure he took the discussion in the same spirit I did, as a sharing of our differences, rather than a debate.  I will, however, try to reply to his last post out of the same courtesy he showed me.  Same for SeekerSA.

I have to admit, though, that I believe you like to argue more than share ideas.  I can't help but believe you don't usually give up until the other concedes your point or walks away out of frustration :)

You are making a false judgment of me Mary Ellen... I like to pursue the TRUTH, and glazing over ORTHODOX views as if they are not there, will not accomplish that.

I don't mind "sharing ideas", as long as they remain within the parameters of TRUTH and BIBLICAL support... if they step OUTSIDE those parameters, ...look for me to challenge them!  :Sparkletooth:

Your word choices (such as calling my responses "rash statements" rather than reasonable responses and questions raised by your posts), an almost dare to respond, and previous condescending statements about my spiritual ignorance tends to show a spiritual combativeness I will usually ignore at a certain point.

My word choices are, my word choices... if a statement is "rash" it will be UNFOUNDED, if it is NOT, ...you will SUPPORT it with SCRIPTURE... if you cannot, it remains "rash"...  :dontknow:  If you SUPPORT it with SCRIPTURE, then my word choices are found "out of line" and proper retraction is due of me...

Quote an example of this, and if it is out of line, I shall make apology.  I try to preface that I speak against the WORDS of a person, not the person themselves.  If you are IGNORING something, and I call you on that IGNORANCE and you FAIL to note FOUNDATION for it, that is your problem, not mine...  I mean no harm to you or anyone in that process...  :HeartThrob:

However, I also can't help but like you just because you ARE so fervent and myopic in your spiritual point of view. How can I NOT answer someone who takes so much time to re-ask his questions? :)

Myopic eh?  :grin:  Now THERE is an everyday term...  :laughing7:

Hey!  As I said... I am a discussionist... and a seeker... Not all members at Tentmaker or any other forum, are participants such as you and I...

If we pass by a rock in the road, and refuse to acknowledge its presence, it can remain for another to stumble over... But if we take time to remove it... the road for those observing the discussion can be made clearer by our interaction.

Could've fooled me! :omg: I answered ALL your questions, and you answered NONE of mine!  (I'll list them in a separate post)

Within your activity earlier in the thread, your statements say otherwise!  :mshock:

LOL!  Then you are either very gullible, Willie, or deliberately obtuse.

Now who is being condescending Mary Ellen?  :laughing7:

I am neither gullible, nor obtuse... I am a seeker which not only wishes to know, but help others to KNOW as well...  Several of your previous statements are UNFOUNDED in the WORD of GOD... I pointed them out in challenge to those statements... you choose to ignore those challenges to you...  (I can make a detailed list if you like, and if you are UP to IT, you can try to note BIBLICAL support for them)

The fact that I engaged in so much "earlier activity" was in order TO present my point of view on a variety of subjects raised.  I asked questions for clarification, identified where I disagreed and gave my reasons why I did.  Once I have presented my case for a particular belief, I try never to repeat myself.  If someone insists on holding onto an argument by repeatedly covering the same ground, I usually decline to continue.

I do not care about YOUR point of view... I care about the TRUTH... if you are a true seeker, then you must be JUST as concerned for your viewpoint to bear TRUTH, as I.

Noting your stated your "viewpoint" is subject to it being questioned... You are just as welcome to question me... I have BIBLICAL basis for ALL that I believe... which, if you choose to discuss with me, you SHALL find to be true... Whether or not my observations are completely accurate is one thing... that they are based in the BIBLE is a FACT...

I will challenge ANY "viewpoint" which is UNBIBLICALLY based... get used to it...

By the same token, once others clearly show the reasons why they have a different point of view than mine I usually say something to the effect that I never have a problem agreeing to disagree (if we do), or that I'm glad we have a point of agreement (if we do).

All this does is make it about ...SELF...

This is the great RELIGIOUS cop-out!  Agree to disagree...

All that does is enable someone who is DECIEVED, ...to remain DECIEVED... If you wish DARKNESS to remain in your views because it is comfortable... you are welcome to it... as for me, I seek LIGHT to shine in any area which I might be UNENLIGHTENED...

If that process is found to be UNCOMFORTABLE, ...it is the chastizing necessary in my experience, and benefits me even though it is UNCOMFORTABLE for a time...  :dontknow:

My last post was to say "I've had my say and am satisfied with all the responses I received."

In other words:  "CLASS DISMISSED", Mary Ellen has left the building...  :dontknow:

Get real Mary...  Just because you state something and refuse to SUPPORT those statements WILL NOT end the CLASS... I post for the benefit of ALL... and many times, the answers are not always intended for the one who MADE those UNSUPPORTED statements... they are for those reading the thread and not particpating in it...

Feel free to misread that if you choose, but I've been posting a long time in forums.  I'm usually very honest with people, politely open about my disagreements with them, very authoritative in my tone because I sincerely believe what I share, but also understand that others who are secure in their beliefs are just as authoritative in their statements.  As long as they show a spiritual maturity that has no desire to beat a dead horse or insist that I am ignorant or spiritually immature because of our differences, I'll continue in conversation with them, always open to hearing their point of view and showing where I agree or differ with them, asking and answering any further points or questions we both wish to share.

What a lot of hoo-ha is this Mary...  If you are so AUTHORITATIVE... why not NOTE that AUTHORITY?  Your "tone" does not establish TRUTH... Basing your views on the BIBLE, gives it the opportunity to be so... not your "tone"...  :dontknow:

What I won't do is argue with spiritually immature people who want to convince me I am wrong or whose goal is to showcase their own perceived spiritual superiority.

That is where we are VERY DIFFERENT Mary Ellen... I NEVER indicate you or anyone else to be WRONG...  I believe we are ALL either REVEALED or VEILED in any given area at any given moment... and that condition is not due to US... it is where GOD has established us (and our viewpoints) at any given moment...

In order to determine another WRONG... such a determination can only be INEVITABLY derived by comparison of YOUR VIEW to the one presented by ANOTHER... which is FOOLISH...   :thumbdown: 

This is to say, ...just for illustration, ...(let us say) that YOU are presently WRONG about a given observation, ...and when another presents an opposing viewpoint, you determine that they must be WRONG for it opposes YOURS...

FOOLISHNESS is bound in this thinking...

If we seek TRUTH... we shall note our views... and if they are, upon another look, found to be either, ...OUTSIDE of, ...or UNFOUNDED by SCRIPTURE, then it is time to reconsider those views...

I have a tendency to honestly, but politely, identify condescending remarks, sarcasm and ego and then excuse myself from the conversation if it continues after that.   

Now, having said that, I'll be happy to answer the new lists of questions you've asked me, as long as I haven't already covered the questions elsewhere in this thread. 

ME

Consider your own "EGO" Mary... instead of subliminally inferring to mine...  :pointlaugh:

If you CANNOT answer my questions... it's simple... DON'T!   :dontknow: 

The parameters and requirements of OUR conversation is NOT set up by YOU... and YOUR "rules" for it... It is a mutual interaction, in which BOTH of us must play a part, ...or NOT!  :dsunny:

pEace...
...willieH   :pointlaugh:

[pneuma]

willieH: Hi Mary Ellen...  :Chinscratch:

I answered ALL of YOUR QUESTIONS Mary Ellen... and you are certainly under no obligation to answer mine, however... if you wish questions to be ANSWERED, you must be WILLING to DO SO, yourself!

LOL! Is that a threat, Willie?

I've seen you use this argument in other threads.  You're correct.  I'm not under any obligation.  Should I choose not to answer your many questions, you could consider that my way of saying "I choose not to argue with you, Willie."  You, of course, are then perfectly free not to ever reply to one of my posts again (though, in that case, that might be exactly what I desire anyway  :winkgrin:).

To be honest, I'm willing to answer simply because you asked and I enjoy sharing what I believe and why.  Also because the lupus isn't causing much brain fog tonight and CHF is pretty much confining me to a chair right now, so I also have the time and ability to answer as well. A nice combination all around, imo.

****  No one "ACCEPTS" CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting CHRIST teaching" noted?  :dunno:

Semantics, Willie. 

Jesus invites us into His Kingdom.  I accept that invitation by accepting His call to pick up my cross and follow Him.  Jesus says there is no way to the Father but through Him.  To go through a person to another we must "accept" them as the doorway.  Jesus calls Himself the Way, the Life, the Truth, the Bread of Life, the Living Water, the Gate, the Good Shepherd . . . we accept Him as He describes Himself or we don't.  Biblical, no matter how you word it, found in all His parables concerning His kingdom, in every place He invites others to follow Him, and in every description He applies to Himself.

You'll find that I don't do cut and paste biblical posts, Willie.  I assume that other Christians are as familiar with the basics within the gospel as I am and can discuss each incident in them without citing chapter and verse. If you don't know the reference I'm making, ask, and I'll give you book, chapter and verse.

****  When YOUR eyes were opened to CHRIST, were you CONDEMNED? 

As a matter of fact, yes.  Condemnation is the acknowledgment of wrongs done, seeing what was done in the dark exposed to the Light of Christ (john 3).  I think you may be mistaking condemnation for punishment; two different things entirely.  Condemnation is a function of Justice. It is standing before the judge as wrong-doing is acknowledged.

No one can come to Jesus without repenting, or turning away from the darkness we once preferred and towards God and His Light--and that means acknowledging our human state without His mercy. 

****  Did you have to PAY a price?  :dontknow:

Not for the free gift of forgiveness, but the forgiveness does me no good without my acceptance of it, and that depends upon my acceptance of my just condemnation as a sinner.  If I do accept that forgiveness, then the natural consequence is a desire to make restitution for wrongs I do/have done to others to show that I understand the nature of that free gift.

I cannot say I have been a gossip (liar, thief, whatever) and am forgiven unless I accept the just condemnation AS a gossip (liar, thief, whatever).  I cannot say I have authentically accepted the free gift of forgiveness and NOT care that I have harmed others by my gossip (lies, theft, whatever) by ignoring the person I have harmed, content in my "free gift."  The authenticity of my acceptance of that forgiveness lies in the restitution I make for past harms and my sincere desire not to harm others in the same way in the future.

I believe that we are saved by grace, Willie, but I understand the meaning of James, Jesus and others when they say our works are the visible signs of our invisible faith. Can't have one without the other. 
 
As for paying a price as a Christian?  Do we pay a price?  Yes, in a way; the same one He did if we truly do accept His invitation to pick up our crosses and follow Him, but we do it willingly through His grace and as our own free gift in return after having accepted His free gift to us.    Love is funny that way--it's reciprocal or it isn't love.

****  What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen?  :Chinscratch:

I don't believe we gain salvation.  We are given it, Willie.  Is a trial involved?  Definitely, if you consider seeing yourself in the Light of Christ.  I don't know about you, but accepting His Love was quite a trial for me.  It involved being willing to see all the petty, ugly human flaws I am prone to.  It's a trial to me every time I fail to live in His grace and end up hurting myself or someone else.

The trial doesn't gain our salvation; it is a result of it if we are honest with ourselves and God.

****  Was it YOUR WORK that SAVED you?  Or CHRIST's?  :dontknow:

See above. 

Our works don't save us, but faith without works afterward are dead.  They should be the natural result of Christ alive in us, done through His grace, not our own efforts, though it has to be our choice to ask for, receive and use that grace.

****  Did YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you?  If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR!  :thumbdown:

No, my decision did not save me, though it was necessary for the free gift of Christ to become operative in me.

His gift would still be free and available had I not accepted it, but it would not have changed anything in my life without my assent to accept His Love.

Is Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?

****  Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen?  :dontknow:

No.  Justice still existed and had to be served by my just condemnation as a sinner as I turned toward God/Light and away from sin/darkness. What you are overlooking is the role His Mercy played in executing His Justice.  Justice isn't eliminated; it is transformed by His Mercy into Love.

****  GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain?  Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?

Preaching to the choir re: our inability to rectify even one sin.  But still confusing (1) punishment with just condemnation, imo, and (2) the natural desire to make restitution for sin because we have been so loved with the rectification of sin through punishment.  I cannot make sin "right," but I am required by Love to make restitution for harm done to the best of my ability through His grace.

****  When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches?  :dontknow:

No, and I have never suggested sin requires punishment for it to be rectified.  I have always maintained Christ's gift is sufficient to cover all punishment for all men.

But, by the same token, did you notice the son's admission of his sin?  And his sorrow  on his return, especially when confronted with the great and unexpected Love his father showed him?

Do you imagine he did his best to make restitution for the harm he did his family in the past by working hard for his father afterward, being gentle with his elder brother who felt slighted, and by avoiding the selfishness that led him to leave in the first place?  Love calls forth love, Willie.  It is the natural and logical consequence of being loved that way.

Taking responsibility for our sins (just condemnation), and making restitution for wrong done does not negate the free gift Christ gives us.  They flow naturally from it.

This is getting long and I'm a bit tired now, Willie, so I will stop with the first set of questions and continue tomorrow with the rest if I can.

Pax,
ME

[/quote]

Hi Mary E, I don't know what else took place in this thread, just read the last few replies, and for myself I agree with you on the answers you gave to Willies questions.

I don't know why Willie asked those questions but I agree with your answers

God bless

[willieH]

Hi Mary E, I don't know what else took place in this thread, just read the last few replies, and for myself I agree with you on the answers you gave to Willies questions.

I don't know why Willie asked those questions but I agree with your answers

God bless

Might help if you read the thread Scott...  :dontknow:

pEace...
...willieH   :pointlaugh:

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Mary E... :hithere:

Thanks for answering, which was the RIGHT thing to do, and I commend you for it!  :thumbsup:

However, you probably won't like my replies to those answers...  :sigh:

****  No one "ACCEPTS" CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting CHRIST teaching" noted?  :dunno:

Semantics, Willie. 

Jesus invites us into His Kingdom.  I accept that invitation by accepting His call to pick up my cross and follow Him.  Jesus says there is no way to the Father but through Him.  To go through a person to another we must "accept" them as the doorway.

It is not semantics... it is either THERE or it is NOT... there is no Scripture which says we are to "ACCEPT" CHRIST...  This is ORTHODOXY within your view Mary... it is the other way AROUND... (John 15:16) Ye have NOT CHOSEN ME, but I'VE CHOSEN YOU...

Jesus calls Himself the Way, the Life, the Truth, the Bread of Life, the Living Water, the Gate, the Good Shepherd . . . we accept Him as He describes Himself or we don't.  Biblical, no matter how you word it, found in all His parables concerning His kingdom, in every place He invites others to follow Him, and in every description He applies to Himself.

He either REVEALS Himself to us, or HE DOESN'T Mary... It is not OUR WORK to FIND SALVATION, it is HIS WORK to SEEK the SHEEP... (luke 19:10)

Again ORTHODOXY is found within your belief... that SALVATION is (1) accepted by us - which makes us our own savior (2) that We are to SEEK it - which makes US the shepherd instead of the sheep (3) that our following is due to OUR INCLINATIONS, rather than HIS...

You'll find that I don't do cut and paste biblical posts, Willie.  I assume that other Christians are as familiar with the basics within the gospel as I am and can discuss each incident in them without citing chapter and verse. If you don't know the reference I'm making, ask, and I'll give you book, chapter and verse.

If you ask a question about a given verse, then you are required to note it, or you will not gain an answer from me... I am quite familiar with the Word (don't know everything), have studied it for over 32 years...

****  When YOUR eyes were opened to CHRIST, were you CONDEMNED? 

As a matter of fact, yes.  Condemnation is the acknowledgment of wrongs done, seeing what was done in the dark exposed to the Light of Christ (john 3).

I find this observation contrary to Scripture:  (John 3:17) For GOD sent ...NOT... His Son to CONDEMN the World, but that the World, through Him might be saved...

When LIGHT shines in darkness, it does NOT CONDEMN it Mary... it REMOVES IT...  Darkness of itself, is shown to be NOTHING when LIGHT is applied TO IT.

I think you may be mistaking condemnation for punishment; two different things entirely.  Condemnation is a function of Justice. It is standing before the judge as wrong-doing is acknowledged.

No one can come to Jesus without repenting, or turning away from the darkness we once preferred and towards God and His Light--and that means acknowledging our human state without His mercy.

I see this as CONTRARY to the WORD: (John 6:44) No MAN, ...CAN... COME to Me except the FATHER which hath sent Me, DRAW Him...  The word DRAW in this verse means DRAG... we are DRAGGED to repentence, it is not a vehicle in which we "ride" into the LIGHT...

We do not "turn away from" Darkness... this is the NATURAL veiw... We are DRAWN to the LIGHT, which is the SPIRITUAL view... 

It is the WORK of the LIGHT to DRAW us to It... and in that DRAWING, is DARKNESS dispelled in repentence... which is ACCOMPLISHED by the LIGHT, not US... 

****  Did you have to PAY a price?  :dontknow:

Not for the free gift of forgiveness, but the forgiveness does me no good without my acceptance of it, and that depends upon my acceptance of my just condemnation as a sinner.

Ah... you are your own Savior!  For Salvation is not COMPLETE until ENDORSED and ACCEPTED by YOU... therefore, God is subject to YOU, instead of YOU to HIM...

Again I find this (CONDEMNATION) to be CONTRARY to Scripture... (John 8:10-11)

10 When JESUS had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her: Woman, where are those thine accusers?  Hath NO MAN CONDEMNED thee?

11  She said: no MAN, Lord... and JESUS said unto her:  NEITHER DO I CONDEMN thee, go and SIN no more. 

MEN do the CONDEMNING Mary... JESUS FORGIVES...

As the "man" in you CONDEMNS you... JESUS is found FORGIVING YOU...  JESUS did not CONDEMN this woman, and He neither does He CONDEMN anyone else, including YOU Mary... He was SENT NOT to CONDEMN Mary... NOT...

CONDEMNATION is within and FROM -- YOU, and does NOT come from CHRIST...

If I do accept that forgiveness, then the natural consequence is a desire to make restitution for wrongs I do/have done to others to show that I understand the nature of that free gift.

I cannot say I have been a gossip (liar, thief, whatever) and am forgiven unless I accept the just condemnation AS a gossip (liar, thief, whatever).  I cannot say I have authentically accepted the free gift of forgiveness and NOT care that I have harmed others by my gossip (lies, theft, whatever) by ignoring the person I have harmed, content in my "free gift."  The authenticity of my acceptance of that forgiveness lies in the restitution I make for past harms and my sincere desire not to harm others in the same way in the future.

Authenticity (from you) does not save you from your SELF CONDEMNATION Mary... LIGHT saves you from DARKNESS...

I believe that we are saved by grace, Willie, but I understand the meaning of James, Jesus and others when they say our works are the visible signs of our invisible faith. Can't have one without the other.

LIGHT produces repentence Mary... for if REPENTENCE is necessary for SALVATION and it EMERGES or ORIGINATES from YOU, ...then YOU are your own Savior...

The TRUTH creates FREEDOM from BONDAGE Mary... (John 8:32)  And ye shall KNOW the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall ...MAKE... you FREE.
 

As for paying a price as a Christian?  Do we pay a price?  Yes, in a way; the same one He did if we truly do accept His invitation to pick up our crosses and follow Him, but we do it willingly through His grace and as our own free gift in return after having accepted His free gift to us.    Love is funny that way--it's reciprocal or it isn't love.

No price is paid by you or I Mary... we are strictly BENEFICIARIES of GRACE...

"Truly accepting" His invitation, is done BY HIM ...IN YOU... not by YOU in HIM...

The GIFT of LIFE, requires NOTHING of the recipient...

Did you have to DO anything to be born here? 

What did YOU DO, to gain LIFE on earth Mary?

Did you as a baby, first have to ACCEPT being alive, in order to BE ALIVE?

Let's face it... LIFE is given, and LIVED, not accepted...  Whether we are born in the NATURAL or in the SPIRITUAL, ...LIFE is GIVEN to the recipient, and the recipient just LIVES the LIFE which is GIVEN...

****  What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen?  :Chinscratch:

I don't believe we gain salvation.  We are given it, Willie.  Is a trial involved?  Definitely, if you consider seeing yourself in the Light of Christ.  I don't know about you, but accepting His Love was quite a trial for me.  It involved being willing to see all the petty, ugly human flaws I am prone to.  It's a trial to me every time I fail to live in His grace and end up hurting myself or someone else.

The trial doesn't gain our salvation; it is a result of it if we are honest with ourselves and God.

You speak of the BRIMSTONE within this LAKE of FIRE in which we presently ARE...

The "trials" you speak of are quite real... but have nothing to do with SALVATION... they are the purifying WORK which is done by GOD in the SPIRIT... which shall result in CHILDREN (to include Mary Ellen & willieH) that YHVH is totally invested in... (1 Cor 15:28)

****  Was it YOUR WORK that SAVED you?  Or CHRIST's?  :dontknow:

See above.

Which "above"?   :laughing7:

Our works don't save us, but faith without works afterward are dead.  They should be the natural result of Christ alive in us, done through His grace, not our own efforts, though it has to be our choice to ask for, receive and use that grace.

Oh... this above!  :laughing7:  Mostly good words...  :thumbsup:

I take exception to "OUR CHOICE"... for CHRIST, as I noted above specifically noted that the "CHOICE" is HIS, not ours... (John 15:16)

What "works" following FAITH means, ...is that CHRIST is INDWELLING that one...

If "works" do not follow, ...then the spiritual state of DEATH remains in that one, making the claim of CHRIST within...

****  Did YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you?  If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR!  :thumbdown:

No, my decision did not save me, though it was necessary for the free gift of Christ to become operative in me.

His gift would still be free and available had I not accepted it, but it would not have changed anything in my life without my assent to accept His Love.

Boy Mary... You handcuff GOD with your "acceptance" and "decision"... for without it, HE is helpless to rescue you...

:omg:  YOUR ASSENT to accept HIS LOVE?  Please!    A little less SELF, and a little MORE HUMILITY might be in order, ...if you would consider it!  :dontknow:

Is Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?

****  Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen?  :dontknow:

No.  Justice still existed and had to be served by my just condemnation as a sinner as I turned toward God/Light and away from sin/darkness. What you are overlooking is the role His Mercy played in executing His Justice.  Justice isn't eliminated; it is transformed by His Mercy into Love.

You turned?  The empowerment to leave darkness comes from YOU?

CONDEMNATION comes from within YOU, not HIM... as I attempted to explain above...

JUSTICE is GOD's provision for us, found IN the MERCY of His Son's sacrifice FOR US... (Rom 5:18-20)

ORTHODOXY has you bound in the chains of SELF-CONDEMNATION which you percieve as coming from YHVH and CHRIST...

But is really born from the NATURAL condition of your heart passed down from ADAM, ...which GOD notes is DESPARATELY WICKED (Jer 17:9) ...and when it is exposed in its DARKNESS by the LIGHT of the SAVIOR... it SELF-CONDEMNS...

****  GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain?  Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?

Preaching to the choir re: our inability to rectify even one sin.  But still confusing (1) punishment with just condemnation, imo, and

Punishment and Condemnation, ORTHODOXY's most fond toys...  Without CONDEMNATION and PUNISHMENT, justice is concluded as non-existent... This is the NATURAL view...

How does GOD Justify?  He provides it... (Rom 8:30-33)

And we are not to question that JUSTIFICATION... (Rom 9:19-20)

It seems you INSIST that PUNISHMENT or CONDEMNATION be exacted in order that JUSTICE is met... This is the NATURAL conclusive view, of a SPIRITUAL scenario...

And it is blatant ignorance of the work of GRACE... to expect PUNISHMENT or CONDEMNATION for that which is TAKEN AWAY (John 1:29)... that which is  NOT IMPUTED (2 Cor 5:19) ...its GONE, but STILL there...  :thumbdown:

(2) the natural desire to make restitution for sin because we have been so loved with the rectification of sin through punishment.  I cannot make sin "right," but I am required by Love to make restitution for harm done to the best of my ability through His grace.

I cannot believe that you are unable to see the FALLACY which you state here Mary.

You say that we are REQUIRED by LOVE to make RESTITUTION, when RESTITUTION has already been made...  what a crock!

First you say we CANNOT rectify (make sin "right")... then you proceed to REQUIRE it (make restitution) to be done!

****  When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches?  :dontknow:

No, and I have never suggested sin requires punishment for it to be rectified.  I have always maintained Christ's gift is sufficient to cover all punishment for all men.

But, by the same token, did you notice the son's admission of his sin?

What PROMPTED that admission Mary?  Was it not the GOODNESS of the Father, that brought him back?  :dontknow:

Did the Father PUNISH him Mary?  :dontknow: 
Did he require restitution?  :dontknow:

(btw the parable is in Luke 15:11-32 for those following along)

And his sorrow  on his return, especially when confronted with the great and unexpected Love his father showed him?

Do you imagine he did his best to make restitution for the harm he did his family in the past by working hard for his father afterward, being gentle with his elder brother who felt slighted, and by avoiding the selfishness that led him to leave in the first place?  Love calls forth love, Willie.  It is the natural and logical consequence of being loved that way.

Taking responsibility for our sins (just condemnation), and making restitution for wrong done does not negate the free gift Christ gives us.  They flow naturally from it.

More of the same... You complain of  :bdh: ...then repeat the same mess over and over...

Let's just get it over and DONE with Mary, ...where does the Scripture say that we are RESPONSIBLE for our SINS...  :JCThink:


pEace...
...willieH   :pointlaugh: