My Beliefs- GDR

Where are you getting this "in the place of their enemies?" That's not particularly important but I don't see where you are getting it. But of course He is a MAN: The man on the throne of David is the LORD Jesus, who is both man and God. That's what the prophecy to David of always having a man of his lineage on the throne ultimately looked forward to: the eternal reign of the Messiah who is both Jehovah God and man.As for its being Judah going by the name The LORD our rightouesness all the commentators say Judah is going by the Messiah's name when He reigns. I'll quote a couple farther down. [/qs]What discrepancies are you finding here? This is again the name of the Messiah, the LORD [who is] our righteousness, and the LORD IS the righteousness of those who believe in Him. It's not, the LORD OF our righteousness, but the LORD [who is] our righteousness.Here are the quotes about the name's being applied to the whole country:Matthew Henry: Charles Spurgeon (Spurgeon and Henry are two of the greatest orthodox teachers of the Bible in case you didn't know that): I don't see that expandibng the context has gained you anything. The point still stands that the Messiah was prophesied to be God. I'm really not at all sure what you think you are proving here. The great light is of course the Messiah who will be a light not only to the Jews but to the Gentiles, those walking in darkness. This is about establishing the Kingdom of God, which is what the nation of Israel always symbolized, reigned over by the Messiah who is to be called by the names of God: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Well presumably you believe Jesus WAS the Messiah and yet the Romans were NOT ousted were they? After Jesus' death they overthrew Jerusalem completely and the land remained the province of foreigners until the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948. Those who interpreted the prophecies of the Messiah in that way wre wrong. That is not what the prophecies meant. The false messiahs DID have that worldly fleshly notion, but they were wrong. The prophecies I gave you were of Jesus whose Kingdom is not of this world or FOR this world, the Kingdom that would never end.Yes, the message of the Messiah was to be for the entire world, of course, but not all are going to believe, some are going to simply be shown how wrong they are.I can't finish this post right now. I'll come back for the rest later.LATER: I'm not up to finishing this post so I'm going to bow out of this discussion, except for one last comment: I'll just say it again: The only way we can be "made right with God" is through faith in the death of Jesus on the cross to pay for our sins -- that is salvation, and everything we do to obey God beyond that is based on it. You determinedly avoid this one central element of the gospel so I must continue to emphasize it.All love is not the same. The kind of love an unregenerate fallen person, i.e., an unbeliever, has is not the kind of love one receives through the Holy Spirit, who is given to us when we are saved by the blood of Christ, and not otherwise. EVERYTHING in the Christian life hinges on the crucifixion. Oh one last comment: you accused me of taking back my constant claim that we must believe (in the death of Christ) to be saved, because I tried to answer your challenge about those who don't have the ability or the opportunity to believe. It ought to be obvious enough from context that I'm suggesting that God has the prerogative to save whomever He pleases so that those without the opportunity to believe may be saved too, especially infants, for which there is the scriptural example of King David's expectation of eventually meeting his infant son who died. That's the example of infants of believers being saved. Such speculations about those who lack the opportunity to believe in no way changes the basic fact that those who do have the ability and the opportunity to believe MUST believe to be saved and won't be saved otherwise.======================================================================================Edited by Faith, : to add last remarksEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Somehow believing Christ died for our sins is "works" according to your strange understanding, but "believing in His message of love, peace"...etc etc etc. isn't works? I have NO interest in how you rationalize such nonsense. You've stood the gospel and most of Christian history on its head. You prefer to believe a complicated lie over the truth. I leave you to it.==================================================================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : to add signatureEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your heart cannot be right if you are not saved by faith in the flood of Christ.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't answer all your strange accusations. But just to be clear, faith in the death of Christ for salvation is clearly given in scripture as not a work, though you keep saying it is. Paul said salvation is by "grace, not works, a gift of God, lest any man should boast."In other words, faith itself is a gift of God, nobody can trump up faith in themselves.Your calling the doctrine of salvation "selfish" is just strange. Salvation is the beginning of the reversal of the Fall, restoring humanity to something like our original state in Eden, which won't be realized until the resurrection. It's God's plan to "create all things new" through the sacrifice of Christ which wipes out the sin that destroyed the original Creation.But I guess if you want to call all that "selfish" I can't really argue with you. I'm very grateful for my salvation, grateful and amazed to have been so blessed.

We are of course now just repeating ourselves, but one more try:Jesus saves us as individuals, through His blood sacrifice, as the scriptures I posted say, and if desiring such salvation makes me selfish I'm for being selfish. Surely we SHOULD have that much self-interest to desire eternity with God rather than Hell. We are to learn to love others as we love ourselves, which is a statement that recognizes that we DO love ourselves and there is no condemnation for that implied in that statement. We are merely to learn to love others the same way, for instance by wanting others to be saved too. And I shouldn't say "merely," that's not easy, but it IS what we are to learn to do.And again, it is only WHEN we are saved by the blood of Christ that we can receive the Holy Spirit, and it is only through the Holy Spirit that we can even begin to have anything like the love Christ had. That's the point of salvation, that we are to grow in the grace that conforms us to the character of Christ. It's a lifelong growth project as we have to learn to put on Christ, acquire His love and mercy and all the rest of it.The point of mentioning gratitude was to emphasize how I regard my salvation as far from a work, meaning far from anything I myself could do, far from anything I myself could contribute to the cause, it is ALL a gift of God and the only right response to that is gratitude. As Luther said, all we contribute to our salvation is our sin, the sin from which we need to be cleansed, the cleansing is all from God. Faith is a much deeper and more supernatural thing than you obviously have any idea. And again you require me to point out that faith in His "resurrection and ascension" isn't the faith you need: You need faith in His blood sacrifice to pay for your sins against the Law of God. Since you obviously lack that, I'd suggest that you stop everything, stop trying to justify your woefully insufficient idea of the Christian life and beg God to give you this gift of salvation you keep trying to get rid of. It would take humbling yourself to the point of considering that your current opinions are all wrong.ABE: Really meant to say that you can ask God to give you that FAITH you don't have, which is the way we apprehend the gift of salvation. God provides it ALL, we provide only the sin as Luther said. God provides the grace, the faith, the sacrifice that pays for our sins, and the word of God, the revelation that explains everything.Edited by Faith, : TO ADD LAST PARAGRAPH

It requires both, and the new birth is not something we could "allow" but a supernatural work of God within us. When you use a word like "allow" you turn it into a work of our own. All of salvation which of course includes regeneration or the new birth, is God's doing, nothing we could do or contribute to. Well, faith first of all in Jesus' sacrifice as God's provision to pay for our sins, which means faith that we ARE saved, that we belong to Him for eternity because He bought us with His own blood. That's the foundational faith but faith includes the whole testimony of God ultimately, that it's the truth, that it was given by God etc. etc. etc.

Yes we can ask for salvation but everything about salvation comes from God and not us. All I can do is say it again. Without the supernatural effect of salvation through faith in Christ's death we will not have the Holy Spirit and without the Holy Spirit we will not have the love you are talking about. My "bias" goes back at least to the Reformation, it's yours that is a trumped-up recent innovation.

This is instruction to those who are disciples of Christ, saved, born again, not to the entire world. Gandhi is a good example of someone who liked Jesus' teachings but missed the whole point about salvation, wasn't saved, wasn't born again. The "liberal" churches also love Jesus' teachings while failing to be Christians. The idea of not having one's theology right is YOUR refrain, I have never said that. Salvation is not a matter of believing a particular theology, it is a matter of faith in Christ's death to pay for your sins. Put that way, Gandhi does not have salvation. I'm afraid so. Since you do not quote any such "hateful anti-Islamic" things I am not in a position to have an opinion. BUT if what you mean by that phrase pointing out that Islam is a demonic religion or something like that, they are right. Nothing hateful about telling the truth. Depends on the context. Might not be the thing to say to your new Muslim friend, of course, but that doesn't make it any the less the truth. You might want to consider making it clearer what on earth you are accusing "fundamentalist" Christians of so I might be able to give you a relevant answer. Depends. The Reformers thought it necessary to make it clear that people have sinned against God and deserve punishment for that so that they could have a true appreciation of the gospel of salvation. The contemporary method of telling everybody "Jesus loves you" often fails to convince anyone of their need for salvation. Since we DO need salvation and this method may keep people away from it the method can't be called an act of love. But again, since you aren't being specific, which leaves me to guess at your meaning, I don't know if I'm addressing your point or not. That is correct but I think you have a very limited and fleshly, even profane, idea of the love the Bible talks about.When you quote that, by the way, are you thinking of the substance of the Law and the Prophets or just imposing your own notion of "love" on it? The Law's commandments, if obeyed, do embody love. If you obey them you are loving God and loving neighbor. If disobeyed they describe the offenses that condemn people. The Ten Commandments are love if obeyed as well (not stealing from others is loving them, not coveting their possessions is loving them etc), but if disobeyed they identify the main categories of sin that lead to Hell. And the Prophets' main work seems to have been warning of God's judgment to come for failure to obey the commandments. Are you thinking of all that when you are appreciating Jesus' summary statement that it is all condensed into Love? Aren't you clever. Well, the Reformers traced THEIR doctrine to the original writings of course, back through all the true believers. Your view is nothing but modernism/liberalism which took off in the last century with some roots in the previous century.
=================================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't have time right now to answer your post but I want to say this much:What CONCEPTION they had of being saved at that point is irrelevant. The point is that Jesus was addressing His DISCIPLES, not the whole world. Only those who have God's supernatural life within them through the Holy Spirit, the new birth etc., can obey His commandments rightly.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've understood the first part of that passage to be addressed to the disciples and not to the crowd. In any case we all know the "liberals" love the Sermon on the Mount and think they can obey it while ignoring the rest of the testimony of the Bible, without salvation, even with some pretty nasty opinions about the Bible and "fundamentalists," which you share, and all they are doing is deceiving themselves. Jesus said we must be born again. Without that supernatural work all the attempts to obey the commands are just self-righteousness.Yes of course there are unbelievers who are more loving than some believers. We all come from different backgrounds, we all have different sins to deal with and learn to overcome and I'm far from happy with my own record as I lose my temper easily and really HAVE to learn to rein it in. But sometimes we're merely telling the truth and we're considered hateful and again, you have not bothered to be specific about your accusations.But the point is that you are judging by the surface and denying the real essence of Christian faith. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good grief, I do NOT "dismiss" the Sermon on the Mount, GDR, I've said it's for Christ's disciples, not for unsaved people, not for unbelievers; and that without salvation people deceive themselves who think they are practicing Christianity by trying to obey it.Christianity IS Christ-centered, totally absolutely Christ-centered. He died for us, He's our Lord and Savior, He's far more than an illuminator of truth and error as you see it.

Huh?

We've been over this before, GDR. The accusation of "genocide" and unjust stoning is just evil-speaking against God whose actions are always just. You don't like the death penalty for sin apparently, but that's what is being illustrated in the OT, and it's meant to teach us that sin deserves drastic punishment. It's a foreshadowing of Hell.Or, in other words, it's meant to teach us why we need a Savior, why Jesus came to die in our place so that we don't have to suffer such drastic consequences for our sins.So you get rid of the reason we need a Savior and then you denigrate the idea of a Savior who died for our sins as well. That gets rid of the entire gospel.You like Jesus' teachings, just not His main work.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Now that's just silly. Nothing in scripture makes us EQUAL to God, on the contrary His transcendent majesty is so far above us we're told not to think Him like us at all.And besides, the image of God in us was compromised at the Fall, to put it mildly. Human beings killing anyone intentionally (except of course in the role of executioners of just punishment) are committing murder, but God cannot do anything unjustly. That's a lie, GDR. You know perfectly well it is. It is not compassionate to the murderer's victims to let the murderer live, it is not compassionate to the society in general to tolerate murderers, kidnappers, rapists and so on. Putting them to death satisfies JUSTICE and protects society.As for your image of God argument, here's how God put it to Noah: The blood of the image of God shed by man unjustly is to be avenged. That's a lot of made-up hooha. Where's your evidence? If the execution is just that should not be the effect, the effect should be a sense of justice enacted, and a sense that society has some protection from criminals.Nevertheless they had firing squads so that the actual shooter whose bullet killed the criminal wouldn't know it was his that did it, to protect him from any doubts he might have. I don't know how it is done by other means, but it makes sense that the actual executioner be protected from knowing it. What I find absolutely disgusting is the attitude that would equate murder and other criminal and evil acts with the justice of the death penalty. I find THAT abhorrent in the extreme. I worship a God of perfect justice. You seem to worship a fake god who is fine with letting murderers go free. Your view of Jesus is a complete fabrication. I took that line out of that post so you got an earlier version. I put in how we are to learn from God's severe punishments that sin deserves severe punishment, and that since we've all sinned it's also supposed to teach us that we need a Savior who would take our punishment for us. That's what Jesus did. You get rid of the reason for punishment and then you get rid of the good news that we can be saved from it; in other words you get rid of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ and reduce him to a nice teacher instead.However, you are again a liar. God does NOT "want you involved in genocide" and you know it. You are twisting scripture. And you don't seem to see your own hateful prideful heart in any of this.

This is how you're lying. The entire history of Bible Christianity agrees with me about this, which I'm sure you know. Do you think all those "fundamentalists" can't read as well as you can? They know how to read the OT in relation to the NT, and we all believe ALL of it, CORRECTLY, in its proper context. You are the one who can't read it accurately though you insist on your own misreading despite 2000 years of better exegetes than you are.