No Gospel without Law, no Mercy without Wrath

I'm confused - I thought Jesus was God (or at least an aspect or avatar) surely God's rage was his rage?

TOPIC REMINDER. This thread is about: GOD's WRATH & PUNISHMENTS in relation to MERCY & SALVATION and it's addressed mostly to people who believe SOME OF IT but not all of it.It's about how if you convince yourself God really isn't wrathful --even though the Bible presents His wrath and judgments over and over, and the prophets warn about them and so on and so forth -- that you also lose any meaningful sense of His mercy and grace and the entire reason that Jesus came.We are all violators of the MORAL LAW, and therefore ALL CONDEMNED BY GOD AND UNDER HIS WRATH. Denying it isn't going to save you from it. DENYING GOD'S WRATH IS WHISTLING IN THE DARK and trusting in your own silly subjective feelings.{Edit to strike rude word "silly" but not delete it, as Charles commented on it}This message has been edited by Faith, 08-29-2005 03:25 PM

I would suggest that you as someone who likes people to behave in a civil manner refrain from describe other people's beliefs as "Silly subjective feelings". You may not agree with then but as you very regularly tell people it is not for you to push your worldview upon them.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 29-Aug-2005 03:04 PM

Yes, Jesus IS God, God the Son. Yes it is His wrath too just as the Son's mercy is also the Father's mercy, and He is paying for the debt of violators of His own Moral Law. I hope you aren't still confused because it's getting complicated enough.

Praise for a Private 2nd class from a Major in the Lords army is praise indeed. Do you ever feel like your in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan: the one where your storming off the landing craft into a hail of enemy fire. Better keep shooting them spiritual bullets and lobbing the Lords grenades there Major Faith.You don't sound like your ashamed of the Gospel either Look forward to meeting you later. Look me up when you get there: I'll be at 8:1 Romans Rd, Paradise County, Heaven.p.s. I wasn't talking about cattle-prodding kids who get out of line. More like taking away their Playstation privileges. A creative parent can discipline as well as a Creative Creator.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

OK, you're right about the "silly" and I'll leave it off, but it is a substantive point that their beliefs are based on subjective feelings and on nothing else -- that IS my point, that there is no objective basis for them.

Iano, Iano, I could have praised you many more times on this board, but we all tend to work our own part of the camp. Your stuff is great. Look forward to meeting you There.Great analogy to Private Ryan! Yup, often feels that way.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-29-2005 03:11 PM

Have a read of "What ever happened to Hell" by John Blanchard. I did and it depressed me for 2 weeks - and I ain't even going to Hell. Faith believes (as I do) that many are heading for an existance worse than anyone could possibly imagine. It is her concern for others that makes her push so hard - and possibly go over the top. You may not agree with her view CK - I know you don't - but try and see her motivation is an honourable one - even if you think it is misguided.And she's a lady too. So with a name as gallant as Charles Knight, it behoves you to act like one (even if the armour is slightly dented and rusty )

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Hey, I've an idea for a thread: "The Iano/Faith mutual appreciation club"

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

IMO my post is on topic because the premise of your OP presupposes not only sola scriptura, but a literalist interpretation. If either of these points are in dispute, your argument is undermined.It's up to the mods to determine if a post is on topic or not, but AFAIK a non-mod originator of a topic has no special status in policing the thread. It's a discussion board, not a pulpit.There exist Christians who believe the scripture, but not in a literal sense, nor as the sole rule of faith and practice. Such people think that in order to understand what the Bible is actually saying requires external corroborating evidences.You would, perhaps like to dismiss this viewpoint. Thus your tactic is to insist that the literalist and the non-literalist are on equally weak rational grounds. But this point is up for debate. So does the Koran. So do other religious texts. This line of argument is not a strong one.It isn't how any one piece of evidence "presents itself". It's what is most plausible given the totality of evidence.

Not when the topic is WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. This thread is about people who accept part of the Bible and reject other parts of it, and how in reality a recognition of the rejected part explains the accepted part.To bring in all the points you think are relevant would take a thousand threads and utterly drown the focus of this one.I will put in a request for moderation since you deny me the right to determine the scope of my own topic.

Faith has a point here Paisano. The reason for the difference could be due, for instance to the view a Christian has differing from the view of someone who thinks they are a Christian but who in fact isn't. I don't say that this is the case, but to go into this could lead into areas as off-topic as "What is a Christian?"

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

No although the Bible does support that interpretation. Salvation, forgiveness, was freely granted, granted to all mankind.Jesus died because humans rejected him.Jesus lived to try to explain to us what I outlined in my first paragraph, that the lesson is Love GOD and love others as you love yourself.It really is as simple as that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You cannot separate the two.If you read the Bible and find stories such as the Conquest of Canaan for where ther is absolute evidence that it did not happen as described, then you cannot accept the book as literally true except through complete willfull ignorance. You must totally suspend rational thought.In that situation you have moved from reasonable consideration into the realm of unquestioned belief. While there is no evidence at all for the resurrection, there is positive evidence that the Conquest of Canaan did not happen. To believe it did is to deny existing evidence, willfull ignorance.To belief in the resurection is an act of Faith, but not of ignorance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, your entire post is off topic. The topic is not the basis for belief in the Bible as such -- that was a side point made in passing -- and the Conquest of Canaan has nothing whatever to do with any of it. This should not be allowed to become a long red herring. We are not discussing the validity of the Bible on this thread. Take it to A&I.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-29-2005 04:20 PM