procsy@cbnewsd.att.com (Jeff Sargent) (07/21/89)
I've been watching the exchange between Dave Mielke, the moderator, et al. and sort of letting a reply slow-cook for a while. I certainly don't intend to respond in detail to hundreds of lines, but I had a few thoughts on salient points. The first is that I find myself wondering if Mielke's emphasis on our being, e.g., "hopelessly sinful people" who ought to be punished, has more a psychological than a Scriptural basis. There are times, still all too frequent, when I feel that way about myself; and when I pray into the feeling to find out why, I usually discover there's some specific thing I'm feeling guilty about. (I call prayer "the ultimate psychotherapy", because, like ordinary therapy, it involves opening yourself up to someone who cares and wants to help you; the difference is that this Therapist already knows your inner thoughts and feelings!) I need to keep learning that my sins are indeed, really, thoroughly, utterly forgiven! So do we all, perhaps. (Of course, alas, they're not all *gone* yet, but God still accepts me "warts and all.") The second point is not necessarily to give a final resolution any more than the moderator did in one of his postings, but to give food for thought and possibly prayer. Jesus certainly did speak of a tight gate and narrow path that leads to life; I can't deny that. On the other hand, Paul, in I Timothy 4:10, speaks of "the living God, who is the Savior of all, and especially of those who believe" -- which, while still recognizing the difference between those who believe and those who don't, suggests that those who don't aren't necessarily 100% out of luck! Combining these two points, let us remember the famous verse (Romans 5:8) that "God showed His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." This seems to throw Mielke's comments about God's hatred of sinners (not just sin) out of court; for if God hated sinners (a class that includes ourselves), Christ would never have incarnated, let alone suffered crucifixion. Christ spoke of seeking and saving that which was lost; of going after the lost sheep; of a father who kept his eye on the road, spotted his returning wastrel son a long way off, and ran and embraced the kid who had blown half the father's money and still smelled of pig manure. These all carry the suggestion that, though we had gone astray like sheep (Isaiah 53:6) or worse, we were still somehow of value to God, precious to Him, and so He came after us, into the midst of our problems, lostness, degradation, or whatever, to rescue us. J.B. Phillips suggested that word "rescue" as a synonym for the much overused and probably misunderstood "salvation" in his book _Your God Is Too Small_, which I would highly recommend. I would also recommend, particularly to Dave Mielke, Phillips's translation _The New Testament in Modern English_, which, though it does contain a few things that are distinctly British, also contains many fresh translations that give a whole new perspective on many too-familiar verses. Actually I would recommend a more modern translation anyway; the King James has some gorgeous language in it, but much of it is archaic and hard to understand (especially with the number of words that have changed meanings in nearly four centuries); there's no reason not to read and think about God, and talk to Him as well, in the same sort of language you use for other matters. > = Dave Mielke > Jesus has instructed us to enter the Kingdom of God as little children. > I am prepared to believe that He was really referring to babies and not > merely to children who are fairly young. Note the word *enter*. Yes, He said "unless you change and become like little children," [BTW, the preceding verse, Matt 18:2, refers to his calling a child and having him *stand* among them, therefore not a baby] "you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"; yes, I Peter 2:2 says "Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk" -- but goes on "so that by it you may grow up in your salvation". The writer of Hebrews, in 5:11-14, chews out his audience for still being babies and needing someone to give them milk rather than solid food, contrasting them with the mature. And Ephesians 4:11-13 speaks of God's giving all sorts of different people to help the members of the Body "become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." The topic of inerrancy came up a few times in the exchange. Since my chief concern in reading the Scripture and being a Christian at all is in figuring out how to live my life and resolve the problems I have that make living more difficult, I have little interest in being doctrinaire on this or most other topics. The word I prefer to use to describe the Scriptures is etymologically synonymous with "inerrant", but carries quite a different connotation: "unerring". "Inerrant" connotes merely "not wrong", while "unerring" means "invariably right", "right on target" -- which I have found to be true, and which is a far healthier way to think of both the Scriptures and the God they describe. I can't think of any specific example offhand, but I have found more than once that some passage from the Bible was indeed "right on target" for a situation that I was in, and that even the specific choice of words was remarkably precisely applicable to my life. Let that, if anything, be what is meant by "inerrant" -- not the dryness of merely "there are no errors in it"! > = Lance Beckner > In the same manner, it is not part of God's character to allow those that > have rejected Him and His Son into His presence. Or is it the other way around, that it is not naturally part of our character to come into His presence? I for one find all the talk about repentance (which, by the way, means changing not only actions but the inner self that produces those actions; the Greek word translated "repent" means "change the mind"), about being crucified with Christ and having Christ live in me, about walking by faith rather than by sight [a.k.a. flying blind] rather like something out of a horror movie; yet they are utterly necessary for me to reach any solid sanity in this life. (Here we see another piece of my crusade to try to start in this newsgroup some discussion of how living with and in Christ really works when it comes down to the really tough, painful issues.) > = Dave Mielke > The Scriptures teach that hell is the eternal banishment from the > presence of God Perhaps the word is different, but Psalm 139:8b says "If I make my bed in [literally, Sheol, the place of the dead], You are there." That may not be the same as the "hell" (frequently "Gehenna" in the NT, I believe) that you're talking about; but it might. If Christ descended into hell and preached to the spirits in prison, then that wasn't *quite* eternal banishment. Incidentally, not in this case in particular, but in some stuff I've not quoted, I've seen a tendency to back up a doctrine that seems questionable by simply stating "the Scriptures teach" rather than providing citations. I don't claim to have a theologian's knowledge of the Scripture (or even to match the moderator or some of this group's studious contributors), but I know my way around fairly well (though I still tend to discover new stuff, as do most people who read Scripture with any seriousness); and sometimes I find myself quite unable to think of any actual Scripture that supports the doctrine in question. Since I'm interested in truth, because falsehood is not compatible with the abounding of life that Christ wants to well up in us like a fountain of living water, if something odd-seeming is claimed to be supported by this "unerring" book, I'd like to know where in the book so I can look at it and at the surrounding text myself. Remember, "a Bible text out of context is pretext" (a statement that may, for all I know, apply to my own verse quotations in this article); thus, believe it or not, I agree, at least to an extent, with Dave Mielke's idea that there is consistency -- assuredly not ridiculous inconsistency -- within Scripture, certainly within the same book of the Bible. (Paradoxes may abound, but that's not the same thing.) And I agree with him too that prayer for enlightenment and wisdom to understand the Scripture correctly is needed. But it's not an irksome necessity. For all the fear I have of God, for all the trouble I have with His desiring mercy and not sacrifice and commanding me to -- not just be nice to, but to actually love my neighbor (not to mention Him) -- the chance to talk with someone who loves me unconditionally (with "tough love" very often, but still love) is one of the greatest privileges of being a Christian. We're coming to what I see as the foundation, the key point; understanding Scripture profits you little unless John 17:3 is realized in your life: "This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." "Know", not "know about". This, coupled with Jesus's (indeed the whole NT's) repeated emphasis of the theme of love, indicates that *relationships* -- relationship between people and God, relationships among people -- are the key issue, the centrally important concern, as far as God sees it. Initially these relationships are fractured, particularly the first. But then, if we allow it, the miracle of I John 4:19, "We love because He first loved us", can begin to heal these aching breaks. It's no accident that (again, as far as I know) the same Greek word can be translated either "savior" or "healer", and that Jesus implicitly called himself a physician (of sick hearts as well as sick bodies). "We love, because He first loved us." Oh, if only we were better at letting that beautiful statement reach fruition! -- -- Jeff Sargent att!ihlpb!jeffjs (UUCP), jeffjs@ihlpb.att.com (Internet) AT&T Bell Laboratories, IH 5A-433, Naperville, IL (312) 979-5284 "Swing low, Iscariot...."
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (07/23/89)
In article <Jul.21.03.58.52.1989.1965@athos.rutgers.edu> procsy@cbnewsd.att.com (Jeff Sargent) writes: >The first is that I find myself wondering if Mielke's emphasis on our being, >e.g., "hopelessly sinful people" who ought to be punished, has more a >psychological than a Scriptural basis. You go on to indicate that perhaps I am so preoccupied with the totally sinful and hopeless state of all mankind because I may have some sort of hidden guilt that is inflicting this outlook upon myself. You are correct in recognizing that I am preoccupied with this fact, but your assessment of the reason couldn't be further from the truth. I'm sure that you are familiar with the basic Scriptural teaching that the penalty for sin is eternal damnation. I am sure that you are also familiar with Romans 3:23 which sumarizes "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;". I find myself wanting to ask you exactly whom you feel this exempts? James 2:10 informs us "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one {point}, he is guilty of all.". Romans 1:30 informs us that something as "insignificant" as being disobedient to ones parents is sin, and is, therefore, deserving of hell in and of itself; which ones of us are not guilty of this one? Ephesians 2:1-3, which I have quoted in another posting but shall repeat here for convenience, tells us how both the unsaved and the saved before they become so are hopelessly dead in their sins. It says "And you {hath he quickened}, who were dead in trespasses and sins: Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.". There are those who think that, even though a person is hopelessly dead in his sins, he is still able to be receptive to the Gospel message on his own. This is just not so. Psalm 53:1-4 tells us "The fool hath said in his heart, {There is} no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: {there is} none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were {any} that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; {there is} none that doeth good, no, not one. Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people {as} they eat bread: they have not called upon God.". Romans 3:10-18 tells us "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat {is} an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps {is} under their lips: Whose mouth {is} full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet {are} swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery {are} in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.". What do you think God means in Psalm 51:17 where He says "The sacrifices of God {are} a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.". Do you think He means that we are to approach Him as we theorize how we can use our own clever attempts at wording to minimize the hard truths that He wants us to face? I do not think we should take very lightly the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:22-23 where we are told "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.". There is no doubt in my mind that this is telling us that there will be plenty of people who were so convincingly professing Christianity even though God had never actually saved them. Let us not forget that Paul gave us a very good guildeline to determine if we were really bringing the true Gospel message or not, i.e. if what we are saying is in any way pleasing to unsaved man then it is not the truth. In Galatians 1:10 he says "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.". We can try to argue our way around these truths if we want to, but I submit that we do it at our own peril. You couldn't be more than correct when you notice my preoccupation with the hopelessness of mankind without the grace of God, which no individual member of mankind can initiate or even cares about on his own. It is not hidden guilt that has stimulated this preoccupation; it is, rather, the revealed knowledge of the universal fact that, without the grace of God, we truly are all subject to hell! We are to plead with God for His grace, and not to expect it because we claim on our own that we believe in Him. Since this kind of claim is completely unScriptural, anyone who makes it does not really believe in God because he is not faithfully believing everything that God has told us. You seem to indicate that you feel that I am going overboard when I say that we all so rightly deserve hell. I wish you were right. I say it because God has told us this fact. Since God's judgments are truly righteous, and since our own preconceived ideas of what God's judgments ought to be are so tainted with sin that we dare not rely on our own personal feelings, I know that if I stick to saying what the Scriptures say then I am right, but if I permit myself to deviate and say what I would like to think then I couldn't be further from the truth. I say that we so rightly deserve hell because God says that we deserve it. Are you questioning Him? I would like to conclude with a directive to all Christians which can be found in Ezekiel 33:1-10 which says "Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take {any} person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked {man}, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked {man} shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins {be} upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) (07/31/89)
In article <Jul.22.17.53.36.1989.26074@athos.rutgers.edu>, bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: > > I do not > think we should take very lightly the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:22-23 > where we are told "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we > not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and > in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto > them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.". There > is no doubt in my mind that this is telling us that there will be > plenty of people who were so convincingly professing Christianity even > though God had never actually saved them. But you don't think there will be people who have TRULY accepted Christ as their Savior turned away, do you? This is not a flame, I am just looking for clarification. In Christian Friendship, Lance -- Lance A. Beckner "Jesus loves me, this I know, INTERNET: lab@fibercom.com for the Bible tells me so." UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!lab
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (08/04/89)
In article <Jul.30.22.13.27.1989.995@geneva.rutgers.edu> fibercom!lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) writes: >But you don't think there will be people who have TRULY accepted Christ as >their Savior turned away, do you? No, I am not saying that I believe that someone who has truly accepted Christ as his saviour will be turned away. Jesus is telling us that there will be many who think they have even though they haven't. I can only truly accept Jesus as my saviour if I have truly faced exactly what I need to be saved from and why. If, for example, God says that I deserve to suffer eternally in hell for my sins and that that is what I need to be saved from, yet I deny the existence of hell and thereby deny the fact that I deserve to suffer it, then I have not really accepted Him as my saviour. If God teaches that Jesus is God Himself become a man to personally endure the penalty for my sins, yet I do not believe that Jesus is God, then I have not truly accepted Him as my saviour because I have not accepted Him for who He really is. One of the major trends these days, a time when the Scriptures teach that more and more congregations will become apostate, is to concentrate on the love of God, to minimize, if not ignore, the wrath of God, and to start philosophizzing that a loving God would not really sentence people to eternal damnation in a place as horrifying as hell. There are even some religious organizations which teach that the only penalty for sin is permanent non-existence, i.e. I would merely become "unconscious" and not know or feel anything, much like before I was conceived. This sort of teaching would lead me to believe that God isn't really that upset with me, and if eternal life really were not that precious a concept to me then I could sin all I want because I would just cease to exist when it was all over. This kind of teaching does such an injustice to God's hatred of sin that those who believe it cannot possibly be viewed by God as having truly accepted Jesus as their saviour. There are all sorts of people who profess Christianity, and there is no reason to believe that they do not believe that they really are Christians, yet they still openly commit such sins as living with a mate and enjoying the pleasures of sexual relations without being actually married, even though the Scriptures very clearly teach "flee fornication". How could a person who believes that Jesus suffered hell for him want to place this kind of self interest above a total respect and admiration for what Jesus did, and the accompanying desire to remove as much sin from his life as possible rather than taking his forgiveness for granted in such a hidious way? If anyone can find it in his heart to willingly sin just because he believes that it has been forgiven then I would strongly suggest that he have serious doubts regarding whether he had really and truly accepted Christ as his saviour. My mention of the sin of fornication in the preceding paragraph has reminded me of something else that I feel needs to be said and stems from the kind of thing that happens when we deny the reality of the inevitability of God's wrath toward unforgiven sin. Why would a true Christian ever have sexual relations with someone outside the confines of marriage? This can in no way be an expression of true love for his mate. He is asking her, or she him, to commit a sin worthy of hell. Love is defined by God as being totally interested in the well-being of the other person and not in any way interested in one's self. Asking someone I know to engage in a sin worthy of hell just so that I can experience a few short-term pleasures is extremely selfish and uncaring, and is in no way acting in the best interests of the other person. The Scriptures teach that it is God who does the saving and that all we are to do is both pray and give our best Christian witness. We are not to decide ourselves on the best way to witness, but we should rather use the approach that God wants us to use, and leave the inclining of people's hearts up to Him. God very clearly teaches that we should witness of judgement and not of His presumed love of sinners. I would suggest reading Ezekiel 33:1-10 very carefully. I would also suggest reading the book of Jonah very carefully. Perhaps the greatest revival of all time, the saving of thousands and thousands of people in Neneveh in a matter of days from the king on down to the most lowly person has been documented for us in the Scriptures and was accomplished by a direct command of God to preach impending judgement. As you are probably aware from other postings, I have come to realize that God actually hates those whom He has not elected to save. You may find this controvercial and difficult to believe, but I urge you to research it carefully, looking at the Scriptures that I have quoted in those other postings. If I am right and God really does hate those whom He has not elected to salvation, then if any of us arbitrarily walks up to someone and says "God loves you" then he has potentially told no less than a lie. There may be readers of this newsgroup who have felt that I was raising the topics of God's hatred for those who are not His elect and the reality of hell just because I feel they are fascinating theological discussions. This is not true. The real reason is because it disturbs me that many of us Christians are, perhaps inadvertently, spreading lies throughout the unsaved world, and that we are witnessing in a style that is in direct rebellion to the way in which God would have us do it. Well, I think I digressed a little from the original topic. I hope I have dealt with it sufficiently before digressing. The additional stuff does need to be said, however, and for that reason I shall leave it in. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
jamesa@amadeus.la.tek.com (James Akiyama) (08/12/89)
Dave Mielke writes: > One of the major trends these days, a time when the Scriptures teach > that more and more congregations will become apostate, is to > concentrate on the love of God, to minimize, if not ignore, the wrath > of God, and to start philosophizzing that a loving God would not really > sentence people to eternal damnation in a place as horrifying as hell. I once heard an interesting discussion on this. Basically it asks what attribute comes the closest to describing God. Most of the people answered "Love". The professor (from Western Seminaries here in Portland who was giving the lecture) indicated that he believed the single most important attribute is God's holiness. Some of his reasonings were as follows: a. Holiness is by far, the attribute most often attributed to God in Scriptures; attributed far more times than His love (he gave the exact number of times each were attributed to God, but I don't remember). b. Holiness was the underlying premise for why Christ had to die in the first place. The penalty for sin had to be paid. God's love for man resulted in the sacrifice, but it is God's holiness which required the payment in the first place. c. One of the ways, in both Hebrew and Greek, that something is emphasized, is to repeat it. Scripture never says God is "love, love, love". Scripture does make such a statement to His holiness, as shown below: ISA 6:3 And they were calling to one another: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory." REV 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." There were many other reasons; these are the ones I remember. Dave Mielke writes: > If anyone can find it in his heart to willingly sin just because he believes > that it has been forgiven then I would strongly suggest that he have serious > doubts regarding whether he had really and truly accepted Christ as his > saviour. I can not buy this one. I believe there are those who may make a conscious effort to "believe" they are saved, but will know, deep inside, that they are not; that they have fallen short of God's glory, and know they are not covered by His grace. However, I believe that those who truly believe that they are saved, are. As far as people "willing" sinning not being saved, I also have a problem here. David "willing sinned" with Bathsheba. How long does "fornication" or any other sin constitute "unsavable sin"; one day, a week, month. I believe that it is possible for a believer to "live in sin"; he'll be miserable, but still is saved. Salvation is thru faith, not works. Of course this has to be contrasted to James 2:17: In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. My belief here is that faith is always accompanied by good works. But good works does not imply freedom from sin. A believer can show good works in some parts of his life, and yet remain sinful in other parts. Faith without any works is an unbelieving faith. But I believe that the person will know that he was not saved. One argument oftentimes used against this point is Mat 7:21-23: MAT 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. MAT 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' MAT 7:23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Note that in this example the person tries to justify his salvation thru works, not faith. He knew that his works was short of God; but attempted justification thru works because he knew there was no faith. Dave Mielke writes: > Asking someone I know to engage in a sin worthy of hell just so that I can > experience a few short-term pleasures is extremely selfish and uncaring, and > is in no way acting in the best interests of the other person. Most sin is extremely selfish and uncaring, even to the unbeliever. Dave Mielke writes: > As you are probably aware from other postings, I have come to realize that > God actually hates those whom He has not elected to save. You may find this > controvercial and difficult to believe, but I urge you to research it > carefully, looking at the Scriptures that I have quoted in those other > postings. > > If nothing whatsoever can separate us from the love of God, and if we agree > that those whom God loves must be saved, then how would you rationalize the > fact that most of the people in this world die unsaved? The Scriptures teach > that many are on the broad way to destruction and only a few are on the > narrow way to eternal life. God could not have loved those numerous people > who have died unsaved because hell will separate them from His love. Again, this is a place where I have to disagree with Dave. I believe that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. I believe that Dave's statement that nothing can separate us from the love of God is only applicable to believers. God is extending His love to all of mankind, but only some will respond. Those who do, God promises to never leave, while those who don't have, themselves, turned away from His love; He does not turn away from them. I oftentimes look at the book of Genesis, after Adam and Eve sinned. It was not God who "hid" or left Adam, but rather Adam who hid from God. I believe that sin does not actually keep God from reaching out towards us, but rather keeps us from reaching out towards God. GEN 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. GEN 3:9 But the Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?" GEN 3:10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." GEN 3:11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" I believe that in some sense, God's concept of love is different than ours. We tend to think of love in spite of all other attributes (as an example, "white lies", etc.). God's view of love remains consistent with His other attributes. At some point our vision of His holiness, which is in perfect harmony with His love (but perhaps uncomprehensibly so in light of our finite minds) comes into play. God must have justice. Some (the Jehovah Witness is an example) believes that unbelievers fall into a state of unconciousness or non-existence. This, in my opinion, undermines His justice. These verses bring up another point that Dave makes: > No, I am not saying that I believe that someone who has truly accepted > Christ as his saviour will be turned away. Jesus is telling us that > there will be many who think they have even though they haven't. I can > only truly accept Jesus as my saviour if I have truly faced exactly > what I need to be saved from and why. If, for example, God says that I > deserve to suffer eternally in hell for my sins and that that is what I > need to be saved from, yet I deny the existence of hell and thereby > deny the fact that I deserve to suffer it, then I have not really > accepted Him as my saviour. If God teaches that Jesus is God Himself > become a man to personally endure the penalty for my sins, yet I do not > believe that Jesus is God, then I have not truly accepted Him as my > saviour because I have not accepted Him for who He really is. The problem I have here is what about those who died not fully knowing Christ? What happens if they wanted to follow Christ but had not yet fully grasped His glory? I believe (this is really starting to become opinionated) that you are only accountable for what you know. Adam had not sinned from his nakedness until he ate of the fruit and noticed he was naked. He was always naked; but did not become afraid until after eating from the tree of knowledge. This reasoning is further shown when Paul talks about eating meat: ROM 14:14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. ROM 14:15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. It comes down to the fact that God judges us by our heart; we are taught in 1 Corinthians that knowledge, prosphesy, and tongues will pass away; they are not the measures God judges us; if he did we would all fall short. Only love (our heart) continues, and it is thru our love that we are judged. This is rather long winded, and I apologize for that. James E. Akiyama jamesa@amadeus.LA.TEK.COM UUCP: ....!tektronix!amadeus.LA.TEK.COM!jamesa ARPA: @RELAY.CS.NET:jamesa%amadeus.LA.TEK.COM
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (08/14/89)
In article <Aug.11.21.46.55.1989.6952@athos.rutgers.edu> jamesa@amadeus.la.tek.com (James Akiyama) writes: >The problem I have here is what about those who died not fully knowing >Christ? What happens if they wanted to follow Christ but had not yet fully >grasped His glory? I believe (this is really starting to become opinionated) >that you are only accountable for what you know. Adam had not sinned from >his nakedness until he ate of the fruit and noticed he was naked. He was >always naked; but did not become afraid until after eating from the tree of >knowledge. You have raised a fair question to which I shall give a quick answer. I am assuming that you have read other postings of mine and that I won't have to go into too much detail. If I'm wrong then please let me know. I am a firm believer in predestination as described in, among other places, Ephesians 1:11. God, through His foreknowledge, tells us that no one of us would ever want to seek Him on His own terms; this can be seen in Scriptures like Psalm 53:1-5 and Romans 3:10-18. God teaches, in Scriptures like John 6:44, that the only way that someone will begin seeking Him on His own terms is if He intervenes to cause such a desire to exist in that person. There are numerous Scriptures that teach that God always accomplishes exactly what He sets out to do, e.g. Isaiah 55:10-11 and Numbers 23:19. He also makes this claim explicitly with respect to salvation in Scriptures like Romans 9:15. My basic answer to your question is that if someone has died without truly having accepted Christ as his saviour then that person was not elected to salvation by God. Please permit me one more comment with respect to this paragraph of yours. Even after his fall, Adam's nakedness was not a sin. The Scriptures do not describe nakedness in and of itself to be a sin anywhere. God uses physical nakedness as a symbol of spiritual nakedness, i.e. as a symbol of the fact that we stand completely exposed before Him. God had not given man an inherrent fear of being publically naked until the fall as a way of illustrating to us that we had nothing to fear from Him before the fall and plenty to fear from Him afterward. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3