Posted on 04/08/2014 9:59:32 AM PDT by Clintons-B-Gone
In today’s society, whenever someone dares to criticize ANY type of action or behavior, it isn’t uncommon for a person to say that “you shouldn’t cast stones.”
It has long been my experience that people generally don’t like being told that something they are doing is wrong.
It starts as children. But many of them eventually grow out of it and start to behave like moral and responsible adults.
(Excerpt) Read more at clashdaily.com ...
I may not have been too clear in my response. I would say as follows: God also created Hell before man came into the world so then apply your own logic; i.e. any provision for wrath preceded the creation of man and any forgiveness asked for or refused.. The term wrath is often used to describe the Lord’s conduct. Was it love that sent the flood and destroyed every man, woman, child and beast except Noah? Was it love that annihilated Sodom and Gomorrah? I merely say God hates the sinner in his sin. God loves the PENITENT sinner. It is not love that places a person in Hell, and yes we will all stand before God and he will say “Depart” to those who did not follow his rules. They will be “PLACED” in hell. God is not always “Warm & Fuzzy!”
I am not asking about other passages where conditional terms are used. There are no conditional terms in Romans 5:8. There is an explicit, unconditional statement that God proved his love for us by Christ dying for us while we were still sinners. The core point of that passage, the proof of God’s love, is lost if the thing that proved it (us still being sinners when Christ died for us) is taken away. Dragging in conditionals from other texts doesn’t solve this puzzle, at least not for me. This is a clear statement that God loved sinners, and proved it in the death of Christ. Do you have a way of reconciling that clear teaching with the other passages on which you are relying?
See my previous response. We apparently crossed. The same methods of interpretation apply to you as to me; i.e. first one must take the intent of the entire Bible; then words have their ordinary meaning unless an absurdity would result; etc. etc. I have not gone and read the verse you rely upon and I probably will not today. However, I take Christ at his word, many will go to destruction few will be saved; in John it says MIGHT be saved and the term MIGHT is discretionary not mandatory. God did not go to all that trouble to create hell out of love, unless one places a perverted meaning on the term “Love.”
“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?... And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?... Do you not know that we shall judge angels?... How much more, things that pertain to this life?.. If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge ? (1 Corinthians 6:1-5).
Many commands of God require the exercise of righteous judgment.
“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
“And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14,15).
“Teach and exhort these things. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wrangling of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself” (2 Timothy 6:2b-5).
“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple” (Romans 16:17,18).
All these commands require the careful exercise of righteousness judgment. Do not be deceived by smooth words and flattering speech. Beware of wolves who come to you with a sheep’s skin.
We must be careful not to make unqualified judgments. But we must judge appropriately when commanded to do so.
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24).
Jesus couldn't!
Under the LAW, 2 or 3 witnesses are required to CONDEMN.
HE had witnessed NOTHING, and no one else was owning up to seeing anything as well.
Thus the release with the admonition; "Go and sin no more."; indicating that HE did 'know' something about what had happened.
My ways are not your ways, and My thoughts are not your thoughts."
Trying to figger out WHY GOD has set up the way things are is a fool's errand.
It never crosses their mind the HE is also a WRATHFUL god?
"I'd never worship a god like that!" would be the response you'd get.
And if it IS true???
And anyhow, the quintessential voluntary nature of love makes refusal possible. We don’t see any direct equivalent in this mortal coil but we can see some parallels.
Love is God-centric in God’s economy. God is generous and forgiving, but things have to be done His way and so as to glorify Him, in order to receive the generosity and forgiveness. It is a narrow way, but not a robotic way (ranges of choice still exist). But it is also a powerful way.
You said it better than I.
We just LOVE to quote John 3:16
Why do you NEVER see John 3:18 held up on a sheet at ballgames???
Because God makes all things beautiful in their time.
And then the next minute they think “Oh that bastard so and so! He ought to suffer for doing that!”
However, we should get one thing VERY, EXTREMELY clear.
God IS love.
God HAS wrath.
Never ever ever forget the distinction. Never!
Excellent point. Another one is that the other half of the scenario was missing. That of the man. The law required BOTH participants to be present. It was nothing more than a test of Christ.
He sounds like a fan of ‘christian universalism’.
So if one participant got away the other got off scot free... not sure that’s the meaning here.
However. Two witnesses were needed. The idea seems that of a notorious sin, one that went on in spite of the attention of two or more witnesses. Private sins were dealt with more leniently. Probably they had all barged in on the couple, distorting the intent.
There are a good deal of teaching points in this small event, one of which was the Jews were illegally trying a person of a crime (both participants had to be there). Another was a trap to see if Jesus would uphold the law and put Him in a contradiction of Roman law since only Rome could mete out capital punishment (adultery was punishable by stoning), then He would be an enemy of Rome as well as of the Pharisees.
Probably they had all barged in on the couple, distorting the intent.
She may not have even been guilty of what they accused her of. It may have been a set up from the beginning. Something to ponder...
Similarly, "turn the other cheek." Jesus said to turn the other cheek if someone strikes you on one cheek. He didn't say "turn the other cheek" if someone is trying to rape your wife and kill your children.
Maybe that’s how tradition had it — I won’t argue. I’m going by the bible. Leviticus requires that both be punished. Deuteronomy requires that two or three witnesses accuse. Jesus would observe the scripture, not the tradition.
Well, He sent Christ before we had the penitent sinner. Or maybe n ot. There have always been those that wanted be be closer to God and to please Him.
However, whether to go to hell or not is the choice of said sinner. God just gives him what he wanted. ‘Course he probably won’t be wnating it when the time comes.
In any event, despite some quibbling over terms, I think we both have the essence of what is going to happen.
In the meantime, we aren’t God, and we are allowed to love the sinner and hate the sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.