Because God apparently thought the world needed to wait a few thousand years before Christ showed up. In the meantime, He tried everything else, it seems, floods, giants, plagues, you name it.
Are you saying that God only resolved to send Christ after He had FAILED at trying other things? How does Perfect fail? Jesus' sacrifice applied retroactively. God isn't subject to time, right? The OT righteous were saved by grace through faith, exactly the same way we were.
Besides, I already told you I don't know where the Church is getting the idea that Christ went to Hades to rescue the OT "righteous," including Adam and Eve, nor do I know why Adam and Eve would have been "righteous." All this is nebulous, legendary and mythical to me — and certainly not biblical.
I agree that it isn't Biblical, which is why I don't believe it. I also don't KNOW as a fact that Adam and Eve were saved, I just "think" so. One small clue that Eve, at least, had repented is in Gen. 4:1-2. But, it may not be a slam dunk.
Let's not forget that at His Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Moses and Elijah were there...physically! That means Moses was not in hell...
Excellent point.
FK: "Upon being born again, there is an emergence of a completely new being, not existent before (2 Cor. 5:17). I don't understand why you think it is a play on words."
There is no new being born. There is one and the same person who dropped his arrogance and pride and decided to obey God's will, to accept God's free offer and follow Him, as in "sell everything you have and follow Me." Clinging to God is a decision.
But Jesus says it as plainly as it can be said. What is your interpretation of:
John 3:3 : In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
I can only assume you would say infant baptism. It never occurred to me before that you don't believe there is a very real change of a person at the point of belief. You all believe the Spirit temporarily indwells at infant baptism, and the rest is up to us, so there wouldn't be any need for a change in nature of the person from a slave to sin, to one of righteousness, etc. All the many verses that refer to this transformation just mean "something" else.
I do not believe the Bible is a literal word of God. I believe it contains God's truths, along with legends and myths, embellished with human desires, culture and historical issues.
If the Bible includes human desires in ADDITION to God's truths, then they must oppose each other since if they were the same they would be included as under God's truths. Therefore, you cannot believe the Bible is inerrant. In addition, if human desires are added, then God should prove the Bible to be a document with lies:
Prov 30:5-6 : 5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
I for one do not believe the Bible is a document with lies. :)
I have a strong suspicion that [Paul] did appoint himself, but that he honestly believed it was his destiny.
If Paul did appoint himself, then he could not have been sent. That means he was not one of God's chosen Apostles, and you should discredit absolutely everything he ever said that was not officially sanctioned by the consensus patrum. And, if Paul WAS a fraud, then what does that say about the Church in the areas it agrees with him, based on his writings?
You two have had a most enjoyable conversation lately; thank you for including me as a spectator. It is a testimony to Christian faith that you can do it, and where I cannot, I try.
One day, after we all die, we will look at such talk and be very pleasantly amused. Now we see darkly, but in the Lord’s time we will see it bright.
No, but it sure looks that way, doesn't it!? perfect doesn't fail. We do. As far as I know, God didn't write the Bible. We did. Given all the versions and conversions, and revisions, and additions and substractions...that is obvious.
Jesus' sacrifice applied retroactively. God isn't subject to time, right?
That's correct, except the Divine Economy of our salvation is God's work in our time. God intercedes in time.
But Jesus says it as plainly as it can be said. What is your interpretation of: John 3:3...
Figure of speech.
It never occurred to me before that you don't believe there is a very real change of a person at the point of belief.
There is a very real change, of course, but it's the same person, different direction. At one point we realize that we are mortal, we are humbled. Our pride and arrogance, which obscure God's likeness we were created with, begins to shine through.
The more humble we become, the more it shines, like sun through thinning clouds. Humility sheds our caked sin that obscures God's light. As this happens, we see a totally "new" self in us that we didn't recognize was there all along. It's like a beautiful frescoes on the fall covered with bad wallpaper. As we peel off the layers, we discover the God-painted beauty underneath them.
We are born with mud on our hearts because of our ancestral sin. When that mud get's washed off, with the Holy Spirit, we begin to regain our likeness to God (process of theosis). There kis no new heart. There is the same heart, except cleansed, "shining like new!" :)
You all believe the Spirit temporarily indwells at infant baptism, and the rest is up to us, so there wouldn't be any need for a change in nature of the person from a slave to sin, to one of righteousness, etc.
No, we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins. Whatever sins you have they are forgiven at baptism. We are given a new chance ("life" figuratively speaking) to walk in the steps of Christ.
Baptism is adoption not salvation. We are given a new home, the House of God (Church) in which we can safely grow in the merciful love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and walk in His steps.
so there wouldn't be any need for a change in nature of the person from a slave to sin, to one of righteousness, etc.
There is no change in our nature (essence), we are still psuchesarkoi (bodysoul); what has changed is our choice.
If the Bible includes human desires in ADDITION to God's truths, then they must oppose each other since if they were the same they would be included as under God's truths. Therefore, you cannot believe the Bible is inerrant
I didn't say the Bible is inerrant. I said I don't believe it is a literal word of God. I also maintain that it contains God's truth (message), but not necessarily as literal accounts of events.
I also maintain that Exodus is a Jewish myth, biblically and historically. It never happened.
if human desires are added, then God should prove the Bible to be a document with lies: Prov 30:5-6 : 5 "Every word of God is flawless..."
I agree that every word of God is flawless. I do not agree that every word in the Bible is God's word.
I for one do not believe the Bible is a document with lies
Me neither, just myths and popular beliefs.
If Paul did appoint himself, then he could not have been sent. That means he was not one of God's chosen Apostles, and you should discredit absolutely everything he ever said that was not officially sanctioned by the consensus patrum
You don't have to be sent in order for the Spirit to reveal things to you. +Paul was "sent" in a sense as rain is sent to a drought-stricken region: it took the person he was to embrace Christ with his zeal and save the Church from certain destruction. That doesn't mean everything he said was God's own word. Many times he says it's his commandment, not the Lord's.
The original Apostles were not sent; they were picked, chosen on the spot. We could say that the prophets were "sent" but not the 12 Apostles. Perhaps the word is a misnomer. Disciples (students) is a better word.
But one of the 12 was the devil, as the Bible tells us. If they were all 'sent," then surely Judas was 'sent" too! Are we then to assume that the evil are also "sent" (by whom? by God?), which means Judas was simply doing Christ a divine "favor" and Caiaphas and Pilate were doing God's work!? Was Cain? Was the Pharaoh?
So, they were all "apostles" then? And everything they said and did was God's work!? I don't think so.