Tyler S.

Hey all! Just a quick morality/doctrine question. Like food for thought. There seems to be two types of evangelists in the world; one type I call hellfire preachers and the other I call the goodnews preachers. Type 1 speaks of Hell far more than Christ and they stress the scrutinization of every aspect of your life to weed out your sins lest you burn forever. They more or less try and “scare” people to God and to the faith. Type 2 leans away from teachings of Hell and of punishment and sticks to the Biblical good news of having faith and love and fellowship. Does either group “have it right?” Or does the right way sit somewhere in the middle? I feel like we should adapt our evangelizing to what people respond to in the age...and, like it or not, yelling at people that they’ll burn won’t  bring them IN to the faith it usually scares them off. By the SAME token, however, neglecting the teaching of divine punishment may lead people to believe that God’s grace is a license to sin. Not looking to start a flame war here ? just a sensible and loving conversation! Bless and thanks! 

3 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

Sounds like you need to read some more of the Book of Proverbs. Happy home, happy wife, happy life. 

Are you going into big debt for the new house? Are you squandering money on a giant house or adding bedrooms for when children come along? Are you proud and vain of your house, which will burn in the fire that's coming, or simply grateful to God for an abundant life in a nice neighborhood?

Well I wouldn’t really know about the money aspect as I’m at the mercy of my parents (who do love me and are trying to move the family into a nicer area). I do give God thanks for what I have! I’m just worried that my excitement is loving worldliness too much. I’m well aware that God means more to me than the house though. Thank you for the response!

As a younger individual, I’m worried about when “enjoying life” crosses over into “loving worldliness.” An example would be: we may be moving to a nicer home/area soon and I’m excited. Is me being excited to move to a nicer house “loving worldliness?” I recognize that this good point in my life is a blessing from God and I certainly have thanked him for it...but I feel guilty for my excitement. This is just one example. Getting any new thing, meeting a cool new person, achieving something in life...and being happy about it. Is that happiness sinful? This is really getting at me. Any advice would be appreciated thanks!

I think my final and ultimate confusion about my eternal destination HAS to be the WAY we are saved. Paul, in his many letters, restated over and over and over (and I’m paraphrasing here) that it is by FAITH that we’re saved! He thinks of good works as profitable and pleasing to God and we’ll be rewarded but they don’t SAVE us. This seemed to make sense until I read on to James and saw that, apparently, faith without WORKS is dead and that God doesn’t recognize faith that isn’t augmented by WORKS...but I thought all out righteousness was like filthy rags? So how can I have faith in the finished work of Christ’s mercy and have “assurance” of my salvation if James says I need works...effectively EARNING my salvation. Originally I thought “oh well James wasn’t writing to ME so it’s fine” but, then again, neither was Paul right? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! ?

The more I read the Bible and listen to worship music and such I seem to get this picture of God as a being who loves his children so much he’ll chase them to the ends of the earth to save them. My question is HOW can an infinite creator that created all of us possible have some special love for ME and be paying attention to ME and trying to lead ME to salvation. Like...it seems to be a pervasive image of God ESPECIALLY in modern worship music. So, aside from the lost sheep parable, what biblical basis is there for this image of God? I WANT to believe this image of God. It would be so comforting. Thanks! 

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

God used Israel as tool of His judgment on those nations.  They were not "children of God."   They are creations of God, but not His children.  If you look at what those nations were doing in order to incur God's judgment you would understand. 

The Bible tells us that God does not judge rashly.   He gives people time, ample time to repent, but there is a point in which that window is closed and God's judgment falls.  It wasn't genocide.  It was judgement.

Ok I think I understand. And that’s what I always thought! Didn’t he give em like 400 years too? BUT what about some of the more specific OT laws and things. I’m just imagining a woman “lying about being a virgin” and then being stoned to death by all the men in town. That doesn’t sound like “ample time” or “slow to anger”...like, we today get chances at forgiveness and we have the privledge of living under grace in a more modern age...so why didn’t God allow those poor people back then to have ample chances?

1 minute ago, ambc said:

Your quote at the end is missing the rest. Here is the whole quote: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." You must believe in Christ to achieve salvation, not Thor, Odin, Zeus, or whatever false god. There were indeed millions of ancient people who died without Christ, and unfortunately they can't be a part of God's kingdom. That's just the way things are.

But they didn’t GET the chance to even live in the age of grace as we do today! How can a God of mercy and justice condone that? Honestly...how can you say that a perfect God of mercy and justice must’ve predestined some of his beloved children to eternal torture and anguish? That’s a literal double standard. A contradiction. I want to love the God we see in the New Testament...a forgiving God of love and mercy and justice. But I don’t see the same God all the time in the Old Testament.

3 minutes ago, ambc said:

Ecclesiastes 10:6 says, "Fools are put in many high positions, while the rich occupy the low ones." In other words, life is unfair. Christ came to save humanity about 2,000 years ago. As for everyone born before that time (except the Hebrews), they unfortunately worshipped false gods and couldn't be saved. Yes, it's unfair, but it's life.

Then you have to state that out God doesn’t institute justice amongst his children that he “loves.” There were innocent people that died and...what...God just must’ve wanted them to die in sin and be condemned to eternal torture?! That’s a complete contradiction to Jesus’s direct words. God must not have loved those women and babies that died worshiping false gods...never knowing the gospel. I refuse to believe that. “God so loved the world.”

2 minutes ago, ambc said:

If someone was born in ancient Greece before the arrival of Christianity and believed in gods like Zeus, Hermes, and Poseidon, he wouldn't make it to heaven because the gods he believed in aren't real. He never heard of the true and living God, and through no fault of his own he didn't get a shot at salvation in God's kingdom. Is it fair considering that he didn't have access to Christianity? It doesn't seem so fair, but no where in the Bible does it say life is fair.

Life it’s fair...but the way God deals with all his children MUST be fair in order for us to truly be able to say that he’s a God of PERFECTION and JUSTICE. He MUST have a plan for those poor people right? Or else you must concede that some people are predestined to HELL which would spit in the face of the fact that Jesus said that Gods will is that NONE shall perish. 

2 minutes ago, ambc said:

The Israelites were Jews, not Christians. They were living in times of reactionary tribalism and barbarism when those scriptures were written. In those days, violence and conflict were a part of the texture of everyday life. The Old Testament verses where God supposedly commanded the Hebrews to commit genocide against rival nations were written by tribal elders. Which is to say, I don't think genocide was divinely inspired or a part of God's plan.

As Christians, we don't practice the Mosaic Law or read the general commands in the Old Testament as instructions for how to live our life. We're under a new covenant now (Hebrews 9:15), the covenant of Christ. Jesus never told his disciples to kill people or start wars. On the contrary, he preached love, forgiveness, and repentance. That is why he is sometimes referred to as "the Prince of Peace." Anyone who behaves in ways opposed to the teachings of our savior doesn't know God (1 John 4:8).

I suppose...but then what about those people (the heathen nations)? They didn’t get to live in the age of peace and grace...so those human beings didn’t get the same shot at salvation as we get today. Doesn’t that seem unfair? 

7 minutes ago, ambc said:

The answer is simple: God is perfect, Christianity is perfect, but Christians as people are far from perfect. Indeed, everything about our religion is perfect, but "all [Christians] have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" (Romans 3:23).

But why, then, did God COMMAND the Israelites to genocide all of those unbelieving tribes? We’re those chidren of God in his image not worth salvation? I just don’t...can’t believe that God would command his people to literally slaughter entire races for “sinning” when saved Christians themselves sin as well. It seems like a double standard and God is not the father of confusion. So I’m really not understanding...

Hello all. I am happy to say that I am a believing Christian and I’ve begun to feel called to study the history of the faith more as well as study the scriptures. In this pursuit I’ve stumbles across some worrying things that have, and I regrettably and humbly say this, question, not the existence of, but the nature and ways of our God. See, I read AND hear that our God is a god of justice, love, peace, righteousness, mercy, and grace. I do believe this. Thank GOD that he is because where would we be without his sacrifice if Jesus? But, in light of this, I sometimes wonder how Christians, in the past, have done some of the most HORRIBLE things imaginable and claimed wholeheartedly that God backed them on it. Do you think, for example, it really was the White Man’s “manifested destiny” to basically poach what amounted to over 90% of all Native Americans (peaceful ones or otherwise)? That doesn’t sound like peaceful conversion, loving thy neighbor, and not killing. And it made me think “there’s no way God wanted that! How is that justice? God love ALL his creations and surely he wanted them to come to the truth through peace and careful teaching” and then I read how God dealt with the Canaanites in the Old Testament....and my entire image of my loving, slow to anger, merciful, and most importantly JUST God....was turned on it’s head. I want to make it CLEAR that im still a believing Christian and I’m honestly just trying to understand this. Because, as a Christian today, I can’t imagine myself claiming that God told me to steal somebody else’s land and kill them...whether they’re a believer or not. Please help! Any advice is appreciated! Please keep it civil too as I know that this is a contentious issue. Bless!

Just now, Your closest friendnt said:

the pastor say something the people need to follow. 

That's how it is....

 

Well blindly following the teachings of a pastor can be a slippery slope and can lead you away from the literal word...but it’s less about that and my question was more along the lines of: will the lord fight for ME and I need only be still? Or will he fight for the Jews and THEY need only be still? I’m asking if God’s word as written in the context of the old covenant can still apply to our lives today because so many people use it to win people over or encourage others. Thanks!

As the church of gentile Christians living in the ministry of Paul, how should we interpret and keep the Old Testament/covenant? I see many songs and preachers nowadays valiantly proclaiming such encouraging verses as, for example, Exodus 14:14 or Lamentations 3:21-24 to ease peoples mind and praise the lord. If the Old Testament/covenant was written to the Israelite Jews...then how can many of us today, as Christians of the church age, use these verses to worship and encourage and ease minds if these promises were never meant or written to US? Thanks for any advice or responses!

2 hours ago, Willie T said:

You are going to get tired of explaining and re-explaining those definitions.  Why not just type the words out in the first place, and you won't be confusing so many of us with abbreviations we can't find online anywhere?  (It will only add about four to eight seconds to a post.)

3 hours ago, Still Alive said:

No, not Christian Identity.

CI = Condintional Immortality - only the saved have eternal life. The rest die. Not just their body that they occupy in this age, but their person. "They" die as well.

VS

ECT - Eternal conscious torment - all have eternal life but one group "goes to heaven" and the other "goes to hell".

http://jewishnotgreek.com/

Ah thank you ?. I was worried there. And yes that is an interesting interpretation! So how would you reconcile Jesus’ references to hellfire or the Bible’s references to eternal punishment? 

5 hours ago, Still Alive said:

I believe universalism is possibly true. But for me it rests on two things:

1. how one defines the greek "aion, aionion and aionios" vs the English "forever/eternity".

2. Just as those in the previous age, though they had what we call the old testament, didn't have much (if any) of a clue regarding this age and the content of the New testament, we are in their position regarding the age(s) to come.

I'm an adherent to CI, but I would not be surprised if there is a form of Universalism at play. But, IMO, ECT is just a whacked method to keep pews filled and money bags full. And it seriously harms the Christian message.

Hey! Thank you for the advice and explanations! How would you define CI. I’m assuming you mean Christian Identity? I’d love to know cuz I got a pretty worrying response online ?. Thanks! 

3 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I believe universalism is possibly true. But for me it rests on two things:

1. how one defines the greek "aion, aionion and aionios" vs the English "forever/eternity".

2. Just as those in the previous age, though they had what we call the old testament, didn't have much (if any) of a clue regarding this age and the content of the New testament, we are in their position regarding the age(s) to come.

I'm an adherent to CI, but I would not be surprised if there is a form of Universalism at play. But, IMO, ECT is just a whacked method to keep pews filled and money bags full. And it seriously harms the Christian message.

You seem very well versed in various new age Christian philosophies and I’m afraid that I am not ?. If ECT is what I THINK it is then I’d totally agree. It kinda takes responsibility away from us and just plays on people’s desire to turn away from accountability. But I think that, as you said, a type of universalism may be at play if “every knee will bow” and “every mouth confess Christ as lord” then wouldn’t, technically, all people come to the truth eventually? I’ve often pondered the subject because there are people in the world who’ve never even been exposed to the good news or were exposed to it in a corrupted fashion...and if God is a God of justice then I feel as though he’d have a plan for those people as well. Thanks! 

2 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Yep. I look at it this way: Imagine you had a loving, generous and wise father who taught you how to do the right thing and live a happy and productive life for both yourself and those you came into contact with. Would you ever find yourself thinking that you had better not do a thing your dad counselled against because you were afraid he'd write you out of the will, or because you knew it was simply the wrong thing to do and you knew his instruction was given in the spirit of instruction for a joyful life?

And we are described as his heirs.

6 minutes ago, Willie T said:

Every word you said is right on target.

I agree with you both and, as I’ve read, that’s the same conclusion that I myself have come to. I feel as though this is actually coming pretty close to universalism though. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that describe universalism as a viable thing (and yes I know there are also verses that contradict it). What are your thoughts on this subject? Because it’s definitly interesting to me! Thanks again! ??

4 minutes ago, Willie T said:

You are right at the door.  They were being told that the old system was about to be destroyed (it WAS, just 40 years later) and that such a system would no longer be what they needed to look toward for Eternal Life.

Ah I understand. So would you say that SALVATION ITSELF doesn’t come from what we do because none of us could EVER do enough to EARN our way to God? That being said I’m well aware that God still desires us to strive for holiness for holiness sake. 

8 minutes ago, Willie T said:

Yes, you have the correct time period.  However, they were almost all there because they were devout, God-Fearing Jews, and it was part of their religious worship to make that long, arduous journey to Jerusalem to perform a religious ritual.  These were not defilers of God's word.  They were not deliberate sinners.  These were people who were far more religious and God-oriented than most of us today.

But despite all they tried hard to do to keep the commandments, and keep the 613 Jewish laws, and tithe regularly, and feed the poor, and stay ceremonially "clean", etc...…  John and Jesus BOTH told them what?  They told these VERY God-Fearing and religious people who never would dream of deliberately sinning in any way, to "REPENT."

Now, doesn't that sound a little strange?  Just what were they telling them to do?  Clean up their evil lives?  Feel sorry for all the bad things they did all the time?  Hardly.  It was something else.  What do you suppose it was?

Well I doubt they were “sinless” only Christ was. So maybe he was calling for them to renew their minds in Christ’s new covenant truth? To realize their imminent deaths in sin and turn to HIM for salvation rather than to THEMSELVES and their WORKS for salvation? Thank you for engaging with me!

7 minutes ago, Willie T said:

You bring up some good points, but I had something more direct in mind.  Perhaps I should have been more specific.

When Jerusalem was full of people from all over the country and they heard John The Baptist and Jesus preaching, exactly who were most of these people, and how was it that they were all in Jerusalem at that particular time?

I apologize ? I suppose I’ve always just thought of it in such general terms. I guess that’s dumbing it down though, in which case I’m afraid I don’t actually know. Are you referring to when the apostles spoke on tongues and all the different peoples were able to hear the scripture in their native languages? If you are weren’t they called there BECAUSE they heard talk of a messiah? I’m sorry I guess I really don’t know the answer in specific enough terms ?. Thanks! 

50 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Don't judge them. Don't push them. Not everyone is chosen. Many Christians see the human race as two groups: Sheep and Goats. I see it as three groups: Found sheep, lost sheep and goats. If you are talking to someone that is not a found sheep, they are either a lost sheep or a goat. Don't try to turn goats into found sheep. Just share the gospel, enjoy people's company and let the Lord do the rest.

BTW, This verse may already have been brought up, but if not (bold mine):

I Corinthians 5: 9-11

 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

This really strikes at the HEART of my issue... “don’t even eat with such people?” Wouldn’t outright shunning the sinners TRULY damn them? They may do bad things but I don’t think that I can name a single person who can do something bad enough for me to HATE them and purposefully keep Gods love from their lives....that would essentially be me condemning them to hell. And the whole analogy of the sheep and goats makes me think...if the world truly is divided up that way does that mean that some people are...just goats? And are therefore PREDESTINED to hell?! That would completely erase everything I hold true. Aren’t all able to come as they are regardless of their pasts and be saved and accept the truth? I mean come on...what would have happened if Jesus had basically shunned the theif on the cross who’d spent his whole life doing the wrong thing? I feel like the phrase “don’t even eat with them” is wayyyy harsh and doesn’t reflect the way Jesus himself treated the “bad” people of society. Thoughts? Am I wrong? Did I miss the picture? Thanks!

12 minutes ago, Willie T said:

On a little side-note to think about.....  Usually, what specific people was it that Jesus, John, et al, were telling to "repent?"  (nationality and religious practices)

Wasn’t it the lowly people of the society? Pagans, lepers, the poor, the hated (like the tax collector), he even saved the Canaanite woman. Also he instructed that all, even gentiles, are available to be saved. The only people he really rebuked were the Pharisees as far as I can see. Also, follow up, do you think that if a Pharisee who’d spent his whole life basically focusing on the wrong things and attacking the credibility of Christ, therefore leading others astray, would be accepted by Jesus if he repented of his ways and found the truth? 

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

There is NOTHING loving about that. It's not the gospel. It's not the message of Jesus or his apostles. The book of acts can be helpful.

But read this: http://jewishnotgreek.com/

I agree with you! But can’t you see where they come from? It makes me question if I’m doing it right because they seem to have biblical backing for “exposing sin” and “judging righteously.” But I don’t want to judge! That’d be hypocritical because I too, though I work to stop it, sin of course ?. And I feel like “exposing” them and all that would push them MORE away from God’s love. Thoughts? Is there a middle balance to come to? Thanks!

3 hours ago, Willie T said:

I feel it is important that we understand what "repentance" actually is.  If you like, I can PM you an article that puts a clearer light on it than most of the explanations I've read.  But, first, I am curious as to what you believe the word "repent" means.

Again, I thank you all SO much for the eye-opening discussion and advice. It really is helping me! And to Willie T? I believe, personally and I may be incorrect, that repentance is the act of realizing that you’re dead in sin and NEED jesus to reform the way you live. It’s kinda like a change of the mind a “renewing.” And, from that, comes the natural DESIRE to live a better life and be more loving. How does that sound?