No Gospel without Law, no Mercy without Wrath

Here's the new improved version of your link, not the best version but at least it goes to the post itself:http://EvC Forum: The experience of converting -->EvC Forum: The experience of convertingor, the streamlined version of the same, which you can see how to do by using "Peek" if you don't know how: Iano's conversion storyI have to admit I've never learned how to link to a post on another thread efficiently myself, although I've read the instructions and others have explained it. What seems to work best for me, although it's a bit klutzy, is to go to the thread, click on the symbol to the left of the message number of any post in the thread, which will get you the index, a list of all the posts on the thread. Then you can find the particular one you want and when you click on it, its exact address will be in your address bar where you can copy it for pasting.Anyway, thanks for the link. You have a great sense of humor, Iano.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-01-2005 05:44 PM

Some good points here. The thing I was objecting to was Faith arroagting the authority to declare something heretical just on her say-so, and attempting an argument from church history that, if anything, undermines her position rather than supporting it.I can almost imagine Faith's rejoinder - "I didn't declare anything heretical, the Bible did..." But as I've said before, unless she can provide arguments in favor of her interpretation being correct beyond mere ideology, it's really a non-starter.We are then left with the curious fallback position of "Both our positions are equally subjective"...but IMO at least, that calls for circumspection and tolerance, not an extended discussion of divine wrath.

The Ten Commandments and the other moral commandments are subject to interpretation in many ways, but for the purposes of this thread all I really want to get across is that the moral law is in those passages and disobeying it is what condemns us (brings us under God's wrath), so that we need a salvation we can't provide for ourselves. Considering that we're all clearly guilty of some part of the commandments that we can clearly identify, we can leave the ambiguous ones for another discussion.

If the Ten Commandments and other laws are "subject to interpretation," why not anything else?Why is the Wrath of God not subject to interpretation?If the Ten Commandments of all things is subject to interpretation, what parts of the Bible should be taken literally, and what is the difference?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

quote:

---

Thank you for your reply, but I am still curious about what you think about my question concerning the 10 commandments.

​

quote:

---

Are all the 10 commandments equal in the eyes of God? If so, what is the punishment for breaking one of them?
Is it up to God to punish or should believers set out punishment?
I assume that many believers hold that the US's laws should reflect a more 'biblical' approach if we as a nation want to avoid God's wrath?

​

If so, how do you feel punishent should be approached?

---

---

The question about how I think a nation should be run, how we should use the commandments for our own laws, is really another topic and it would take us into all kinds of other issues.As far as this thread goes, I'm talking about God's punishments for transgressions, not how we should set up our laws. And I thought I said somewhere that certainly God makes distinctions between greater and lesser sins, but I wouldn't want the job of figuring out exactly what distinctions He makes.All I really wanted to get across on this thread was that in order for salvation to make sense, God's wrath has to be recognized as the reason we need it. God's wrath is justice against those who transgress the moral commandments, and we are ALL condemned and under His wrath for such transgressions, unless we repent and receive the sacrifice of Christ to pay for those transgressions.

You seem to misconstrue the idea of taking the Bible "literally." Maybe you have too literal an idea of what "literal" means?We read it INTELLIGENTLY, that is, in context, comparing one part with another for understanding, trying to understand how it was intended and how it applies to us. We believe ALL of it is His inspired word, in that sense literally true, but nobody has ever said it is not subject to interpretation.If it describes something as a historical fact, for instance, it is not interpretation to decide it is an allegory instead. That's just plain rewriting the text to suit ourselves.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-01-2005 06:21 PM

How can one read a book intelligently and somehow claim that it trumps observable evidence? What part of insisting there was a global Flood despite mountains (literally) of evidence to the contrary simply because the book says so is intelligent?How does circular logic demonstrate intelligent reading?The Bible is the literal Word of God
God doesn't lie
the Bible say's it is "God-breathed" in its entirety
Therefore the Bible is the literal Word of God*sigh*Here we go with more topics for new threads, when you are about to take a break.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Forget what you think trumps what the Bible says, and just understand that all I'm saying is that the way we read the Bible is by comparing one part with another in order to understand it in context, and by taking it as it presents itself instead of imposing our own ideas on it. This involves interpretation. The best Bible interpretation often involves background historical information to elucidate, say, certain odd behaviors here and there, so they can be understood in the cultural context of their time.The point is, this is how we figure out what the Bible actually SAYS. We don't insist it is allegorical when it obviously presents itself as historical.This is literal reading without being klutzily literally literal if you get my drift, and if you don't, well I give up.After understanding what I mean by how we read it, you can then argue that the Flood has been disproved if you want.This isn't a thread about the Flood.

Really all of this is off-topic anyway. Do you disagree with the statements I've given of what the gospel is? That is, that we are all condemned on account of our violations of the moral law, which is the same thing as being under God's righteous wrath, in such a way that we cannot save ourselves by any amount of attempted good works, so that we need help from outside; and that this help is provided in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which blots out our condemnation, and that this is what salvation is. I thought you agreed that that is the gospel at one point.On the basis of that definition, we can judge anything that contradicts it to be heresy, but we don't have to get specific about who is a heretic and who isn't on this thread, as the main point is for the gospel itself to be clear.Evidence would be tedious to dig up but there should certainly be a lot of it out there. But if you agree with the definition, then we are back on topic and can leave alone the question of which groups are heretical.

So we deserve the wrath of God if we don't follow any of the 10 commandments? This wrath condemming us to eternal fire, brimstone, etc.?If I worship another God or make a graven image of God or take God's name in vain I would need to be saved through Jesus Christ?umm, yet regardless of how well I treat others or treat others with the respect they deserve, I am condemmed?The justification for all this eternal death stuff and the "thou shall not...", is that God loves us?{edited for clarity}This message has been edited by DBlevins, 09-02-2005 03:18 AM

I agree with you, and could not have said it better myself. If anyone seriously studies some of the spurrious documents such as the Gospel of Thomas, one will find philosophies and edifications that are different than the canon. As far as comparing all of the canon that Jar suggests, we would have to pretend that we were the current group of "church fathers" and whittle the list down to an agreeable number. Knowing this group at EvC, I think that there is a small chance that all of us would even agree on one. I may be too pessimistic, though.

If you changed the 'if' in this statement to 'because' you would be a fair ways closer to whats going on. The point is that you are not able to follow Gods laws - any of them.The way to see it is that we are all already on a free-fall to condemnation. We were born that way. That's the default option, the object travelling in a straight line unless acted upon by and exterior force. God, as fisher of men has cast his net. All us little fishes have to do is listen to him pleading with us so that we come to realise that we need to be caught. It couldn't be easier.Or more difficult. The problem is that in getting caught, man would be relying on God to save him and man doesn't want that: God being the fisherman means we have to rely on him. To admit our dependency on him. And man hates the idea of that. Man is like a junkie who will do anything to keep his supply of self-dependency secured: philosophies and Religions of bewildering variety all designed to be injected direct into the veins - to maintain the illusion that we can rely on ourselves.
Jesus is the net. And if we are 'in Christ' we are in the net, "..for there is now no condemnation for those that are IN Christ" Romans 8:1. (NB:it is important to note the lack of superfluous conditionality here: In Christ is the only condition, not in Christ and do this, that and the other. And God is the one who puts us in Christ - not us by our actions and deeds)(It is interesting to note that every world Religion has a common characteristic. Your position before 'God' (insert defintion of 'God' as appropriate) is determined by what YOU do. Seek enlightenment, good works, meditate, go to church, pray, sacrifice, abstain from certain practices. They are all about following some rule or other. Christianity is unique in that it is NOT what you do which determines your position before God but what God has done FOR you. So if anyone was travelling around a spiritual roundabout wondering which exit to explore then Christianity would be a logical place to start. Because it is unique.) The god you worship could be anything: science, humanism, wealth, sex, success. They are all the same. They are gods made in your own image and likeness. Gods you define and control. The are all false gods who serve the god you actually worship. You... Yup. And for a quite simple reason. The standard you measure your treatment of others by, (or level of conformance to any other of Gods laws) is your own subjective one. However, the standard God measures you by is his standard, not yours. And this of course makes sense. If everybody was measured by their own standard then what is the standard? Is not Hitler just as entitled as you to measure himself by his own standard. And if not why not? I'd be certain that if you think about how you would answer this, the answer will inevitably contain or imply the word subjective. The justification is simply that God is just. Unlike us he never changes his standard. Sin is sin and there is but one thing to be said about that "The wages of sin is death...." Note that it is wages which is the word used. Wages is something earned. We earn death. Incidently the other half of that verse goes "...but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus". Gift. Freely given, not earned. Grace, gracious, gratis - free. It's free because it derives from Love. Love (real love anyway) is always freely given. It's the giver that pays not the recipient. G(ods) R(iches) A(t) C(hrists) E(xpense) if you likeThat's why it's called the Gospel. That's why its called Good News. Not following Laws, not getting your act together, not striving. Free.Funny, the very last action before I post this post is to press the button "Submit Now". That kinds of sums it up. Submit Now to Love...or don't. Your own free choice.Edited for typo, Submit now, in Christ - periodThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Sep-2005 10:38 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Sep-2005 11:32 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Sep-2005 12:28 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Sep-2005 12:31 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Sep-2005 12:33 PM

---

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....."

Iano did a good job of answering you and I can't think of anything to add to it.

I suspect you are right. I wonder which if any of the books of the Bible would be considered authentic by many here, including any gnostic or other books.

quote:

---

I suspect you are right. I wonder which if any of the books of the Bible would be considered authentic by many here, including any gnostic or other books.

---

Hum..I might start a topic on this but that's actually one of the reasons that I'd never been a christian again. I'd honestly be unable to reconcile the fact that I feel that the bible is incorrect or just plain wrong in some many ways (and it would drag this way way off topic if we got in which bits) with any feelings of faith.