Will you ever learn to interpret passages within their contexts? To whom was Jesus' sermon preached? Was it not to the Jews, who at that time, were the only covenant people of God on earth? God is only the Father of those who love him and trust in him. God is only the Father of his covenant people. He is only the Father of HIS adopted sons and daughters whom he brings into his family. (We do not adopt God, but he adopts his elect!)

Whoa, chief: Specifically, just who does God love? I have never said on this forum that God loves every single human being on this planet. In fact, I can provide scriptures to the contrary!

Also, be clear on this, and remove the cobwebs from your attic: I have constantly maintained that "unconditional" love is love that is manifested to undeserving sinners. Therefore, the reason for that love is never found in its object. Unconditional love is love that motivates and moves God to choose sinners, according to His good pleasure, to enter into his kingdom. It is also love that regenerates those chosen sinners so that they will freely confess their sins, repent of those sins and put their trust in Christ for their salvation. But once a sinner is converted to a saint and has been brought into God's family, that saint is expected to behave like a family member. That sinner is expected to reciprocate God's love back to him. He is expected to live a life of faith. And this faith should issue forth in good works, etc. Again, I could provide many texts that talk of this "conditional" love. Here's but one:

Rom 8:28
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
NASB

Note very carefully please: God DOES NOT work all things for good to the entire world -- to each each and every person on planet earth. He only works for those who love Him. And that, sir, is a CONDITION! Certainly, it's a condition from an infidel's perspective, is it not!?

John 3:16 is not teaching that God loves the whole world -- as in each and every human being on the planet without exception. Rather it is teaching that God loves Jews and Gentiles (which to a Jewish mind would be the whole world) without distinction. In other words, God has no regard for race or ethnicity. And to the Jewish mindset, this was a remarkable revelation (although it shouldn't have been) since the Jews, at that time, were the only covenant people of God on earth. God's covenant, at that time, was very narrowly restricted to one tiny nation and any Gentile who wanted to join himself to that nation. But, of course, all that has changed when Christ instituted a far better covenant -- the New Covenant.

Even in the larger context of the passage in which Jn 3:16 is found, this supposed universal love for all without exception is soundly refuted!

John 3:36
36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
NASB

And I'm here to tell that "abides" is the PRESENT tense -- just as the verb "has" is also in the present tense. This passage is not talking about some distant future, down-the-road wrath. It's talking about the here and now. Now, there would be a serious contradiction in the bible with universal love idea and God also being angry with those he loved.

Also, Eph 2:3 teaches that all unbelievers are children of wrath by nature!

And unbelievers are also called "sons of disobedience" upon whom the "wrath of God comes" (Eph 5:6). So, these people can hardly be called "sons of God" or members of God's family.

Conversely, of God's elect it is written:

1 Thess 5:9
9 For God has not destined us for wrath , but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
NASB

Why hasn't God destined his people for wrath? The answer should be obvious: Because he loves His chosen people. He dearly loves his adopted sons and daughters with whom he has entered into a personal and intimate covenant relationship and has made all of them heirs of all his great promises.

God never "originally professed to love all". He loves his elect. And that love was unconditional and it was that kind of love that moved him to bestow saving grace upon them.

I get a lot of flack like the great Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards did when preached his awesome sermon, "Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God"! And I tell you a truth, that sermon was dead on the mark! And that's why he took so much flack. The church today does a very great disservice to the lost, when they go around preaching their pink ribbon, fluff, feel-good gospel, "Oh, do you know that God loves you so...? Or "God loves everyone in the world"? That's wishful thinking. That's the cosmic Santa Claus view of God. God may have a "general" love for all, but by no means a familial love.
I, too, have a general love for my neighbors around me, but I don't love them like family. Conversely, I love my church family deeply because we are all members of God's family.

Good luck with that, too... But I will leave you with this one passage to ponder:

Rom 9:13
13 Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
NASB

Guess which one was chosen by God to receive the spiritual inheritance originally promised to Abraham?

Boxcar

Still nothing. Nada. Zip.

Actor has brought a lot more than you have. Very easy to stand outside and criticize. I have posted on many topics other than Buddhism. But all have one overriding central point. Most refer to an inner psychological/spiritual growth, and that is where the emphasis should be.

Sorry , but you criticize Buddhism apparently without the slightest understanding of anything outside of your book.

Speaking of Zen....

"Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?"

As for Actor, all I mostly hear from him is " I am an Atheist, I am an Atheist"....He still belives Darwin got it right and not God....Hey, even Darwin in his waning years confessed that his theories had many deadends and blind alleys....The Bible states that all of the creatures who have had life on this Earth, were made directly, to their own likeness by the hand of God, my God....Does anyone with any true common sense believe that, given the gigantic odds against it happening due to evolution, that we evolved from Amoebas ??? Haha what a laugher....God spelled it out thousands of years before Darwin ever dreamed up his worthy endeavor....Go Figure....

As for Zen, a nice way to live I think, but what of the soul and the connection to our Creator ?...

Have a Happy Happy all the same...

You say I am reading too much in the text. It is apparent what is happening. The author states about Job that Job is like no other man on earth and then conveys the concept that satan basically says, to God I will make him like all other men on earth, if you will lift your protection and deliver Job into my power. That premises is clear cut. The why is clearly expressed.

There was a reason I told you we were speaking about different things, apples to oranges. You want to make the why about God's hidden ways. You want to demonstrate your knowledge about God's hidden way. Do you think your emphasis on the why of God's hidden ways, might be contrary to the lesson of Job? Did not Job learn man cannot know the hidden ways of God?

Your responses are adding to the text. You read into the text extra doctrines, doctrines of extra Grace, etc. extras which are no where addressed in the specific text.

Thank you for your kind offer. I will ask you this question, does the author say explicitly Job was without sin? Your answer to this question, will demonstrate why I don't see the need to discuss any errors based upon whether Job was perfect.

Let me refresh your memory the lesson I concluded, from the story of Job, is as follows: Also this story teaches man that your faith can deepen as a result of suffering. Man is finite and cannot understand or grasp the Divine will that governs the world, even if you have a relationship with God.

You agreed with the concepts faith can deepen through suffering and man, due to his nature, can't phantom the hidden things of God.

The only correction, I believe you can offer. is your paradigm of your belief in predestination. Predestination is a concept Luther, founder of Reform, railed against. Luther called the concept of predestination, man attempting to know God's hidden things.

I am not as harsh as the father of Reformation toward predestination. I willingly admit, I do not know the hidden ways of God. Predestination may be one method God applies to certain men. But the real question is it the only method God uses? Scripture seems to say otherwise, as the story of Job suggests without any extra doctrines added to the story.

Therefore, I am not going to judge your belief and call it an error, per Luther, because it is very possible predestination is one of many tools that God may or may not use to complete his will that all men be saved.

The major point, I want to convey, in many of my posts, is the human perception of God is incorrect. I know you are trying to express the same. You have posted many times God is a God of love and of bottomless mercy and gives Grace as a gift.

God should not be perceived, like the pagan gods, that he as the pagan notion of gods stand in mans' way and toys with man or as, "A cruel and vengeful God...who would even team up with his sworn enemy, Satan...in order to play cruel jokes on his servants, to test their faith and allegiance to him".

Your insistence about you knowing God's hidden ways, through your personal interpretation of Scripture, by arguing minuscule details, adding doctrines, which are not expressed in a specific writings and the other mechanics to deny what is written plainly, enforces the perception that the One, True God acts pettily like the pagan stereotypical gods.

It is not necessary to debate the majority of or each and everyone statements by professing Christians, whom profess, "“I am a Christian; that is, the Son of God was made flesh and was born; He has redeemed me and is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and He is my Savior.”

Of course, it can be expected questions will be asked to clarify what the poster meant if the questioner does not understand what was posted, as Overlay did. However, once the thought is expresses and it does not challenge the roots of Christian faith, it needs to be let go of. Boxcar, your belief in double predestination is not a root item of Christian faith, as practiced by the majority of Christians. However, faith and works is a root item in both Judaism and Christianity.

When you open your lips and praise God, it is a work, when Abraham prepared the alter for the sacrifice of his son, it was a work. When you feed and give food to the hungry, for God's great glory it is a work, etc. If God test someone it is how the person responds is important and his response is a work.

And please don't respond you can't be saved by works alone, for I, as a Christian, understand works alone do not bring about salvation. After all you wrote," If a person has true faith, his life will be transformed. He will be a different human being." What shows the person is transformed? Is it not his works?

My brother in Christ I bless you. I pray you may see you are treating your fellow Christians with disdain, as if they are ignorant and only your interpretations explain the hidden things of God. Furthermore, your actions foster the perception among non-Christians that God is unloving, shows no mercy, and has no pity for our sufferings by offering unneeded correction based on your individual paradigm of belief.

I understand the above is not what you intended, but this is how your actions are perceived, which lead many to resist and/or reject what you say.

sorry hcap, I did not forget your questions to me, as you can see I have been sidetracked.

hcap:

I account for it as in most human affairs power, politics and money were involved.

A large part of the reason, which made Reformation possible, was the political climate. Monarchies were chaffing at the bit to be rid of Rome's rule and influence over the ruler of the geographic area. Also, the idea of humanism began around the same time. Luther became a rallying point for freedom from Rome's influences. Luther even aligned with the Humanist, even though he did not embrace their ideals, to further his desire to destroy Rome.

Luther discovered corruption among some men of the Church. Luther posted his complaints on the Church door as customary , for the times, to notify the Church the need to change this corruption. To keep this simple I will focus on one of the main complaints related to works. There is that troublesome word again.

Luther discovered corruption involving the collection of money to be used for construction of a Cathedral. Luther found out the money was being raised by certain individuals to pay a bribe and not for building. The corrupt money was being raised through a doctrine of plenary indulgences. Briefly plenary indulgences are works in the temporal world, that will mitigate punishment in the after-life. Luther was upset that the the doctrine was being used for corrupt purposes and the rich were being an opportunity denied to the poor, as the poor could not afford to pay money to gain mitigation as the rich could. Also, it has been alleged some priests became very rich by "selling" indulgences.

At this time Luther had no dispute with the doctrine itself, but the corrupt and unfair use. Luther, most likely, believed once he exposed the corruption Rome would stop it. For whatever reasons, this did not happen to Luther's dismay.
Luther being disappointed started on his journey to reform the Church from the outside, instead of within.

Luther's knowledge of the abuse resulting in corruption that could be used through works is a main reason why he tried to remove works from the understood form of faith and works. Luther limited it to faith alone.

Luther reasoned there is no need for works because man is depraved and is incapable of doing any works, as God controls all actions. By now, after reading many postings, I am sure you are somewhat familiar the controversy about man's merit, righteousness, or the lack of.

As anything man is involved there are mixed results. I believe it was correct to stop greedy men from abusing doctrines and having one entity making political decisions for the whole world. However, Luther's Reform did not stop religion from persecuting people based on religious ideas . Luther actually made the religious environment more dangerous and violent. (see Peasant War) and set the stage for anarchy in beliefs. Luther understood, in hind sight, he encouraged doctrines to be interpreted in as many different ways as there are heads. Additionally, he failed in his main purpose to kill Rome.

Prior to the Reformation The Great Schism happened separating the Church into East and West. However, the schism did not result in anyone making theological doctrines.

The main problem, for me, is how theology is formed. Luther opened the door to interpretation of Scripture, to any theologian or non-theologian without any safe guards. Now anyone could declare theological doctrines per their personal agendas and prejudices.

However, I have no problem with a person reading Scripture and believing how Scripture speaks to the individual person and to the particular circumstances of the specific individual.

No, the premise is not clear cut at all. Where in the book does it tell us why God stuck Satan, like a mad dog, onto Job? Point to the specific passage, please.

Also, the only thing Job admitted was that he spoke without knowledge. Where does it say that he couldn't know this,that or some other.

Narratives are very often graphic illustrations of theological or doctrinal truths. To say that God didn't manifest extra grace toward Job is to all but dismiss the clear teaching that God revealed himself to Job in a very special way toward the end of his ordeal. Even Job himself acknowledged this! But you don't!? You just brush that aside, as though Job had a normal day?

Job 42:1-6
42:1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,

2 "I know that Thou canst do all things,
And that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted.
3'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?'
"Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."
4'Hear, now, and I will speak;
I will ask Thee, and do Thou instruct me.'
5 "I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear;
BUT NOW my eye sees Thee;
6 THEREFORE, I retract,
And I repent in dust and ashes. "
NASB

In other words, Job had a life-changing moment (some might even call this an "epiphany" moment) that very, very few human beings have ever had with their Creator-- yet you will deny that God's revelation of himself to Job in this way was a kind, gracious, loving act toward him? You're going to diminish God's grace and his role in Job's repentance so that you can elevate Job's righteousness and good works? I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but from where I sit, this is what it appears you are doing. You elevate but just about dismiss God's role in Job's repentance and deliverance from the Evil One.

And more than this: You say that Job's ordeal was certainly God-ordained, right? But what does that mean? It means that God turned Satan loose on Job! Job was in Satan's hand and he could do anything he wanted to do with Job within the limits God placed on Satan's power. So then, are you also going to deny that God delivered Job out of Satan's hand? This narrative is a poignant illustration of the doctrine taught in Psalm 97. God knows how to preserve his godly and deliver them from the hand of the wicked. Isn't that what happened to Job? Yet, you don't see God's delivering grace in this?

No, the author does not! That was the point to me quoting the passage in two different versions. So, now please answer my question that I posed to you in 6738.

Boxcar

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
 

Martin Luther...

Was a virulent anti-Semite and misogynist. An opponent of reason and science.

Huh? I didn't even mention "predestination" in my 6740 because it wasn't relevant to the immediate discussion at hand.

Well...maybe sometime we'll get around to discussing what you think those other tools are. "For whom God foreknew, He predestined..."

Maybe my recent post to Light will reveal more of what I think of God as one of his adopted sons (cf. post #6751).

I never said I know God's secret ways. I'm in full agreement with Moses when he also said in the same passage that I quoted earlier, but the things revealed belong to us and our sons forever. Is not the doctrine of predestination a revealed doctrine in scripture? So, now why do you say that I have been insisting that I know God's "hidden ways"? :confused:

Au contraire! It is most certainly an important doctrine because lost human beings need to know that they are in the hands of an angry God -- whether they like hearing that or not. I'm not here to share a "feel good" gospel or to tickle anyone's ears. Lost people need to know the extent of their lostness and that they must repent of their sins and believe in Christ in order to be saved. They need to know what they must do to extricate themselves from the wrath that rests upon them now! And when lost people (like Thask) have a rare honest moment and tell me that it's not in their nature to believe the gospel or the bible or spiritual truth or whatever...then they need to know that they should flee to the one who is able to help their unbelief! Lost people need to know the straight skinny on God's love -- not that he's some cosmic Santa Claus floating around in the clouds wishing everyone on the planet best wishes. God does NOT love every single person on this planet with a familial love. This is an extremely evident truth in the scriptures. Yet, the church today largely presents God as loving all, regardless of who they are. And this is false gospel and heretical to the core.

Yes, it his works -- that issue forth from his faith, which was gifted to him by God in the first place. But what you don't want to seem to understand is that our works cannot be added to the finished work of Christ on Cross. We cannot add anything to his perfect and finished work! When he said "It is finished", he meant that in the fullest, most complete and absolute sense possible! Our works do not save us! Christ saves us. Nor does our faith save us because faith is a divine gift. Nor does repentance save us because that, too, is a divine gift. The only thing that saves is God grace through faith in Christ's finished work. This is the central or core doctrine of salvation by GRACE and grace alone. It's all grace. Pure, unadulterated, undiluted grace.

Nor can a saint be credited with maintaining his salvation after regeneration because sanctification is entirely a work of God. So, my friend, man is not saved by grace and his works. He is saved only by grace. But that saving, effectual grace will be transformational in a person's soul and good works will flow from that grace. In short, salvation is not a quid pro quo deal that God cuts with the sinner, i.e. if you do good works, I'll save you by my grace. That's not the gospel.

I have treated none of my fellow Christians with disdain. However, I have a great disdain for unrighteousness (which includes doctrinal impurities of a fundamentally important nature). I cannot and will not just brush aside the the mumerous serious errors that divide the RCC (or any other religious sect) and Evangelical Christians in the name of peace, tolerance and ecumenicalism. I am commanded in scripture to embrace sound doctrine. And there is good reason for this command. Doctrine first makes it to our mind. But then when it eventually sinks down into our hearts, its impacts our affections, our passions and emotions -- then those desires impact how we live and how we can impact the lives of those with whom we come into contact. This is why doctrine is always stated first in the epistles, and then followed with practical exhortations.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you could try perceiving me in this biblical role:

Prov 27:17
7 Iron sharpens iron,
So one man sharpens another.
NASB

I cannot begin to tell you how much I have learned during my Christian life by having a brother or sister challenge me or engage me in thought-provoking conversations, which inspired me to study the scriptures. I'm just trying to "pay it forward". :)

Boxcar

(emphases mine)

Huh? I don't get it. You have no problem with subjective interpretation of an individual, yet you also say that you do have a problem with how theology is formed -- because it's formed "without any safe guards"?

Boxcar

This is my last post about Job.

That is your assumption as I did not say any such thing. If I did please post my statement for me to review.

"How about If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon at the door, his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master". Gn 4, 7.

The story of Job is about man's merit. I know this is a theological problem for you. In Genesis does God tell Cain, you need my Grace to avoid sin? No. He tells Cain that it is in Cain's power to master sin.

But do not interpret anything I have posted before, including my post that I do not believe Grace is a gift, faith a gift of Grace, etc.

The question is why did God deliver Job to satan's hand? The answer is in that Job is blameless and upright in God's eyes and God used suffering to deepen Job's Faith.

As, I said I will take the understanding of the people closer to time to the events related in the story and what it meant to them in their human experience as it relates to God. Job was able to master sin, seeing that Job was blameless and upright, which Cain did not do.

That is why I said personal circumstances. What I or you take from the Bible, regarding a personal matter, does not make it doctrine for the public.

Just like our discussion about you know who.

It does if we're fulfilling Christ's Great Commission. If we are, then how can it not be "doctrine for the public"?

Boxcar

It is not that I feel this way. Do you not notice the complaints and the comments about you driving away people. It is not you being attacked for Christ's sake, it is your attitude at times and your consistent challenging, which brings about the attacks.

You are being about as successful as St. Paul was in spreading the Gospel to the Jews. :)

I agree you can learn a lot, as you described above, but in that situation you are in a different environment. What works in one place does not mean it will work in every other place.

And I will ask you the same question I have repeatedly asked box, about original sin which he has not answered honestly. If original sin was absent from Christian dogma how much of Christianity would remain?

hcap:

Christianity's dogma would be intact.

The simple answer about baptism is: Types of this sacrament are to be found among the Jews and Gentiles. Its place in the sacramental system of the Old Law was taken by circumcision, which is called by some of the Fathers "the washing of blood" to distinguish it from "the washing of water". By the rite of circumcision, the recipient was incorporated into the people of God and made a partaker in the Messianic promises; a name was bestowed upon him and he was reckoned among the children of Abraham, the father of all believers. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)

Baptism is a rite of introduction, with spiritual properties.

If the Resurrection were eliminated that would cause Christianity to cease.