Right Thing, Wrong Reason
By Sam Millen, March 4, 2016: “Why would anyone want to be a martyr?” Maggie Dawn asked that question in an online post for The Christian Century. She continues,
“T. S. Eliot explored this idea in his portrayal of Archbishop Thomas Becket in Murder in the Cathedral. Eliot’s Becket dreamed of martyrdom because he was far less afraid of pain and death than he was of the prospect that his life might be insignificant and forgotten. Becket faces four temptations in the drama; the first three parallel the three temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. But the fourth brings Becket face-to-face with his dream of martyrdom as the tempter asks him:
What can compare with glory of Saints
Dwelling forever in presence of God? . . .
Seek the way of martyrdom, make yourself the lowest
On earth, to be high in heaven.
Becket realizes the subtlety of the temptation. If he became a martyr to satisfy his own desire for fame and immortality, he would not be a true martyr but a traitor to his own ideals. He concludes:
The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”1
Becket’s struggle, as portrayed by T.S. Eliot in this drama reminded me of a familiar verse in 1 Corinthians 13. “And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.” (Verse 3, NASB) Helping the poor is the right thing to do. Being willing to die for our faith is also the right thing to do. But if we don’t do it because we love, it’s worth nothing? If love is the right reason, then what is the wrong reason? Selfishness.
It’s human nature to be selfish. In life, we often do the right thing because we benefit in some way. In a certain sense, there is nothing wrong with that – making good choices because we want the rewards. For instance, we may avoid desserts and get some exercise to improve our health, lose weight, and even live longer, but those are all reasons based on the thinking of, “What’s in it for me? What do I gain from this?” In many cases, it is fine to fulfill our needs and desires, but this can never be the basis of any loving relationship. How would my wife feel if I married her to get Canadian citizenship (which is nice to have!)? But how many Christians are merely using God by aspiring to receive citizenship in heaven? There is nothing wrong with looking forward to walking on streets of gold and living in a mansion, but if our relationship with God is based on that desire alone, it is not love. It is selfishness.
In my view, this is the clearest definition for legalism – selfishness. It is navigating a system to get what we want – heaven. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and an added temptation for Adventists – keeping the right day for the wrong reason. What is the solution for legalism? It is certainly not disregarding God’s law. Immorality is also based on selfishness. Remember Jesus’ story often referred to as the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32). There were actually two sons. The younger son broke all the rules. He was definitely immoral and selfish. But the older son was just as selfish, even though he was very moral and kept all the rules. The problem was, neither son loved the father. The sons did not want a relationship with the father. They only wanted what the father could give them. Both sons were selfish. It is easy for church members to point the finger at the ‘younger sons’ – the sinners who break God’s commandments – and condemn them for being immoral and selfish, but keep in mind that the older son worked very hard and kept all the rules, motivated by a desire to secure his inheritance. He did the right thing for the wrong reason. His behavior was driven by an ambition for inheriting what the father owned. If there is no heart change, ‘younger immoral sons’ simply switch and become ‘older moral sons’ when they join the church – they do the right thing for the wrong reason.2
So what is the solution for legalism? What is the solution to doing the right thing for the wrong reason? What is the solution for selfishness? Love – God’s love. Not just hearing about God’s love, but actually experiencing God’s love. “We love him, because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19, NASB) Only God’s love can change our selfish hearts. I remember when I realized I truly love my wife, Angie. It wasn’t just because she is a very good-looking, educated, and polite Canadian. During a very embarrassing incident when we were dating, Angie showed me unbelievable grace, kindness, and compassion. She demonstrated unconditional love and acceptance. How can I not love her?
I love God because he loves me unconditionally – even though I don’t deserve it, even though I’m a selfish, miserable sinner – he saved a ‘wretch’ like me. I no longer need the promise of eternal life for motivation to do the right thing. As crazy as it sounds, I trust in God’s love so fully that if I don’t end up in heaven, I will still be grateful – it will be for my own good. Heaven is ruled by love. Don’t’ get me wrong, I want to go to heaven as much as the next person, but think about it, if my heart remained selfish, why would God torture me (and everyone else) in heaven forever (remember Lucifer?)? I won’t be tortured in hell forever either (my favourite Adventist doctrine!). The bottom line is this: God loves me more than I could ever comprehend or even imagine – and that is why I love him. Any other reason to follow God is selfish legalism – doing the right thing for the wrong reason. As T.S. Eliot said, “That is the greatest treason.”
- https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2014-02/sunday-march-9-2014
- For much more on this theme, please read Timothy Keller’s book, Prodigal God.
“even though I don’t deserve it, even though I’m a selfish, miserable sinner.”
That is a perfect representative of a “martyr complex. A number of early church father, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, were anxious to become martyrs, even refusing those who wished to save them.
If we are truly God’s children, He sees us as infinitely worthy. Why would He have died for “such a worm” as some claim? Does He love us less than our parents who have never given us such terrible names. I entirely reject that ideology, although often sung in the verses “such a worm as I.” God did not die for worms. Does anyone truly believe God sees us as no more worthy than worms used for fish bait?
Christ never treated the humans he encountered as wretches. Neither should we treat ourselves or others as such. “A new commandment I give you, that you love one another as I have loved you.”
The deity thinks very highly of us. In Christian nomenclature people are “forgiven” by him on a whisper and a whim, which means he doesn’t scald us with condemnation for being human. “Sins” don’t bother him too much or he wouldn’t overlook them with such facility.
One can condemn himself/herself as a slimy worm. It’s a distortion and It isn’t necessary. In fact it ventures into masochism and neurotic guilt which are unnecessary burdens with overtones of “original sin.” Christ befriended people estimated to be “wretched,” without ever labeling them as such and without ever suggesting they should be anything but human.
I’m thrilled to be a human being. I’m not a “sinner,” a Homo Saipan deviant from perfection, but a recipient and reflector of God as love. I am not a mess-up caused by a couple of idiots at creation, but a treasure of a Good Shepherd who doesn’t accuse me of being a screw-up nor a probable future citizen of hell. He and I are best buds. And so is all humanity and that is what his life and ministry attempted to communicate.
Martyrdom and self-loathing (even as a religious metaphor) are vastly overrated in the venue of God as love. If we are loved it is contradictory to label ourselves the abomination of the universe.
Fortunately, God’s love is not unconditional.
Please choose a darker, heavier font as it is very difficult to read at present.
Thank you.
I feel like a few folks here have focused on Sam’s expression of being a sinner, rather than the larger point: that we serve God because he loves us, not because we are forced to.
Loren, a bit of truth to your reply. I just think a proclamation of wretchedness and confession of sinfulness aren’t necessary preambles to the announcement and experience of God as love.
I am sure many think they are worthy of the action of God in giving His Son as and atonement for sin. I guess you think Jesus died for you because you deserve it.
And as Daniel said above, “love is not unconditional” and if it was, Christ died in vain. What an inane thing for Jesus to do for us, since love is unconditional.
Love, by definition, is unconditional. If it is conditional, it is a contract, a negotiation, and accommodation, a covenant……. call it what you will. But it ain’t Love.
Yes, Serge, the love of God is manifested on an experiential level, feeling. Any presumed condition invalidates it as love. If you don’t love, you don’t know god. No ifs about it. Love triggers a response of love, not to it. There are no qualifiers to God as love. Admission of frailty unnecessary and even useless.
That Christ died for our sins isn’t germane to God as love. When was the time He wasn’t love? When in the history of mankind was not love a factor in human experience? Might it be that love as moderator of behavior is all that stands and has ever stood between survival and the self-destruction of humanity? So God can be considered active in history, not as Superguy overseeing a video game but as a presence hidden in plain sight, eternally as a mighty force operating as sure as the four physical forces.
There is a vast difference between saying “God is love” and then equating that to the idea that love is unconditional.
But what could we expect from this forum?
Bill, language you prefer, located in John 3:16, 17, totally contradicts you.
We could expect people who comment to make a reasoned case for their opinion, Bill. Don’t just shoot the messenger, tell us how it is that Love can be conditional, and how it is that God displays His love conditionally.
What conditions do we need to meet for God to love us? By definition, grace is unmerited favor. That’s what makes it so AMAZING!
Here are some conditions:
Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice
Jesus Christ’s calling and choosing us
God does not love me apart from His Love for His only begotten Son. God’s love is conditional.
I should have included: God does not love any individual divisibly from His love for Israel. Israel is irrevocably chosen.
Hmm, interesting, William. God’s love for Israel is irrevocable. Can one therefore say God’s love for Israel is unconditional? And yet, Israel has specifically rejected the very two conditions you stated earlier. It does not compute.
Serge,
Nicodemus said the same thing. “It doesn’t compute”. How is it that a ruler of the Jews must be born again?
Yet he can not enter into the kingdom of heaven without being born of water and of spirit.
Anyway, Jesus Christ is the king of Israel, not Persia or Poland. Israel is chosen. The election of God is without repentance. It says so in the bible.
William Abbot and BIll Sorrenson, why are the “yes, buts,” always attached to Christs actual words as counter offers to his free gift offers by you and others, who earn my label of “theologicrats” by doing so. It is grossly anti-christian to attach improvised addendums (religious IED-improvised explosive devices) of requirements to his fine offer of free gifts. Is that what Adventism still is? It certainly is what it has been. Why does anyone want to belong to a system that insists on looking the free gift of God in the mouth as if it is a horse of uncertain health. Thriving Adventists don’t buy this carp. And a large gaggle of us have walked away because of it, with no incentive to return.
” grace is unmerited favor.”
Unmerited favor does not equate to “unconditional favor”. The bible is full of conditions for the favor of God. And neither is there any “unconditional love.” It equates to pure antinomianism.
And God’s love is mediated to us by way of the atonement of the Cross and the intercession of Christ in heaven. So love is not unconditional, or Christ died in vain.
Bill,
Exactly so.
They are smitten with idolatry. They worship the Doctrine of Equality. God unconditionally loves everyone equally. They have standing before God. They can lay claim to what is theirs. God must love them unconditionally. God is not free. He is bound by their doctrine. He must render unto them what He owes them. Unconditional love.
Bill, I just don’t think you get it. Where in John 3:16, 17, are the conditions? I’m beginning to suspect you feel you have to do something, apparently starting with your proclamation of being an undeserving worm, abjectly unworthy. You represent the core of Adventism, I think, which refuses to be radiated with God as love because it is too simple and too easy. Pleasing Superguy requires pain, work, sacrifice and misery, bribery in the form of propitiation. This offers no joy in Adventistville.
Unmerited favor vrs. unconditional favor? There’s a distinction without a difference. Even as a dad I love my children with unmerited and unconditional favor. God offers less? I abandoned that miserable view of god 45 years ago with undiminished joy, to this day.
I have a pastor friend who had an Adventist church member whose only joy was being good enough to have a short burn in hell. He was certain the conditions to receive the love of God could never be met. What do you think of that?
“Bill, I just don’t think you get it. Where in John 3:16, 17, are the conditions?”
“……..that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
And this is a very comprehensive “condition” to be a Christian. Apparently, you think “believing” is incidental with little meaning or application. But “believing” in the bible covers a vast amount of territory.
if people think the ceremonial law was comprehensive in all its directions, instructions and mandates, it was nothing compared to all the instruction given in the new testament of what is required to be a Christian.
Do you still read the bible, Bugs? Or have you “matured” beyond the bible like all the rest of your theology?
I reread John 3:16, 17. Does that count for Bible Reading?
Bill, God and I are best buds. He seems to like me just fine. And I find him to be a loyal friend. He hasn’t given me a list of to-do stuff in order to maintain his friendship. He did say to review his “new commandment” often, which I do. Does that count as Bible Reading? Here’s where it is, John 13:34. Check it out for yourself.
Bill S. and William A. represent too many Adventists who treasure the exclusivity of a very small group who have a DIY belief system; a system that has driven many from the church with the uncertainty of ever achieving the impossible that some would demand.
Thank God, that is not what Christ came to this earth for–to tell us we must live even more strictly than the Israelites who were totally unable to do do. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” is far too easy for the church dogmatists. Many of us had to leave the church to find joy and peace. In such Adventism there were never any joy or peace, only hard, struggling work to be “good enough.” Even children resent such strictures.E
Yes, they have placed themselves to be subject to the Ten Commandments, of which it is impossible to measure up. The legal fallout takes its toll. To be without love is a sad experience.
Earl,
“Yes, they have placed themselves to be subject to the Ten Commandments, of which it is impossible to measure up.”
Do you believe this statement because of experience or because you picked it up in the SDA church teaching?
I challenge A Today to do a survey ..anywhere… to get responses on…Can Christians stop sinning B4 they die? Can Christians keep the 10 commandments B4 they die? (or before translation)
The SDA denomination is spending 13 weeks on a lesson study which has the great controversy words many times in the lessons.
What is succinct essence of the Great controversy?
Any reader>>do a Google on “great controversy theme” and you will see Wikipedia page on SDA and other SDA input. on the first Google search page. I would say most SDA do not even know what main points the controversy is about. The dumbing down is getting worse every week.
Do a survey to see how many ever read Step to Christ, Desire of Ages, Great Controversy… close to NADA!!! Do a survey to see what percentage of SDA ever read the bible through ONCE in their life. DO a survey to see how many even read through the SS lesson. Do a survey to see how many SDA watch less than 3 hours of TV a week.
The SDA church is getting more ignorant/fanatic by the week.
Elaine,
You know me. I believe the bible. If it says: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” I believe it. It actually says; “…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shalt be saved and thy house.”
My question to you is; is this a condition? Sounds like it to me. Sounds like so many other passages of Scripture: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
All I said is God’s love is conditional through Jesus Christ. Is this the crap Bugs has walked away from? This is what Bugs doesn’t believe?
First of all, William, I didn’t say what you said I did. I wrote “carp!!!” So apologize, por favor! Naw, not necessary, you just didn’t copy my word correctly!
And where do you get the idea God’s love is “conditional through Jesus Christ?” Even John 3:16 doesn’t say that. Just that God “so loved the world. . .” That was primary. Even human love that is conditional isn’t love.
As to quoting scriptures to support a point of view, we can blast endlessly, pick and choose our ammunition, since I can fire back with ones I like. The Bible is loaded with bullets to fit every imaginable gun.
And there is common sense. In your quote, whose house is being “saved?” Lucky visitors, rebellious kids, drunk grandad, too? And “saved” from what? Bad construction? Poor Abraham and all those OT characters who won’t be “saved” because they didn’t know to believe in Jesus! Lucky you for being around at the right time!
Whoa, someone is knocking on my door. It’s Jesus. I’m going to have to let him in. He wants to come in for a snack and a gab session. I may throw some fish on the barby. He and I are best buds and have a great time together. Oh, and he has never brought any law books to my house.
Later.
PS I think he would like to have a lunch with you. OK?
Bugs, I have re-read your post. I have concluded you misspelled ‘crap’. How’s that for blaming the victim? It’s like the time me wife backed her car up right behind mine making it almost certain I would back into her – and leaving me with no alternative but to plead, ‘guilty’. My bad. I must be more careful. But… “We don’t buy this ‘carp'” remains an unusual construction.
Now let’s get to the meat; who is misrepresenting whose statement? Here is what I wrote in response to God’s love being ‘unconditional’:
Here are some conditions:
Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice
Jesus Christ’s calling and choosing us
God does not love me apart from His Love for His only begotten Son. God’s love is conditional.
Now tell me exactly what part of my post is untrue?
Elaine is the one who brought up belief as a condition of salvation. It surely is, isn’t it?
God so loved the world He saved it – At infinite risk and cost to Himself in Jesus Christ. God’s love for us is indivisible from His love for this, one, chosen man who was God – His only begotten son. Christ is the conditionality of God’s love. Christ is why God loves us. Christ is how God saves us. Christ saves us from sin and death. You still believe in sin and death, right?
I don’t want to carp Larry. I have to keep going back to scripture. There is no other authority for knowing the truth. You can trust your head and your heart if you want to. I will trust the Word of God.
I don’t like using traditional Christian language because It plays into what I see is a false narrative, that is, humans are damnable creatures, deviants from perfection, barely redeemable by a an insulted god who is leaving heaven’s door open a tiny crack so a few might slither through.
But I do recognize there is a body of believers who gleefully embrace this outlook with its version of god and aren’t about to revise it. The pain of self-flagellation and the terror of hanging by a single thread over fiery hell seems to be a required routine to satiate their god. Add the Ten Commandments as the perpetual claxon of standards failure and masochism is morphed into a religious statement, or experience. Martyrdom might be the perfect device to sneak past this irritated god and his heavenly cracked door.
Picking and choosing what one likes, perhaps predisposed by many factors, including one’s character and personality, is the universal process of assembling a landscape of faith. I choose the love of God as my of view life. It is the perpetual balm for my soul. The adoptees of the view I have outlined above will die just like me, each without verifiable eternal benefit. My joy is sourced differently than theirs. Is mine better? It is for me. And the benefit is now.
One more thing. Traditional Christian language wasn’t created by Christ.
This was a great blog Sam Millen; and I mean great! Much thanks, brother.
Bugs: “The adoptees of the view I have outlined above will die just like me, each without verifiable eternal benefit.”
Wow! What you appear to be saying is that your “benefit” must be “verifiable.” That’s the essence of the FAITH of the adoptees of the view that you reject, Bugs! “The substance of things hoped for…” Maybe you should re-read Sam’s blog. The younger son wanted his benefit “now” too—much like you. This means there is hope for you to return to faith in a real Father, because Super Dad will certainly take you back. But you must believe that He exists (and it sure doesn’t hurt to believe that He will reward those who search their way back to Him).
God is like…just like…the father in the parable. Get over it.
My point, Stephen, is that since all post-death benefits are imaginary, it makes sense to adopt an outlook that is valuable and beneficial for being living life. Imaginary benefits delayed aren’t beneficial because they get interrupted by death. That is, unless gazing out the window by means of pipe dreams are the benefit sought.
And you seem to be advocating the power of thought as creator of reality. There is a divide between reality and virtual reality. I know, faith is purposefully ignorant.
I can’t return to Superdad because I killed him. Now I’m an orphan. Deicide. Wasn’t hard. He’s a figment of universal Christian imagination. Don’t you miss him?
Our preceding posts, your and mine, tell the whole story; and are literally reflective of the differences in our two outlooks.
When I here this faith as “imagination” I always remember the pastor who said something like this: If you are right, I will never know it but will have lived a full life with the assurance of a God who loves me. If I am right (about God’s existence), then you will be the big time loser, and you will know it.
I know it’s not the best motive in the long run, but it makes sense for a beginning and to not reject the idea of God and heaven.
“an insulted god who is leaving heaven’s door open a tiny crack so a few might slither through.”
Have you ever done a web search on the estimates of how many people have been born on Earth since Adam?
Most will not be saved because they remained, wicked, deceived, LAW trashing, GOD hating, TRUTH trampling criminal rebels.
99% of Christianity =deceived right now.
This topic of God’s love is so warped in churches.
I hear sermons & radio preachers try to address pew warmers anxiety by saying God’s love is unconditional so all of the sin does not trash His love for you.
The issue is not so much God’s love, it is the person’s reaction,response, behavior, obedience. Heb 11:6 –pleasing God.
I am pleased when my adult children live according to Godly principles instead of like barbarians. If they goof on their decisions or relationships, I don’t stop loving them, but I am not pleased because I am aware of the suffering/consequences of their decisions.
God’s love is worthless to a non repentant rebel.
Those in the church should not be deceived by pastors & teachers who address, bad behavior, by saying God loves you and Jesus will never leave you or forsake you. They need to tell them to repent.
Many years ago as a guest summer speaker (I was a pastor in the Missouri conference) I preached a sermon about the love of God in a St. Louis church. Several people came out in tears reporting they had never heard such, one came out with a frown, looked me angrily in the eye and said, “we need to hear more sermons about hell.” There is a faith continental divide (it’s a Colorado metaphor) that isn’t adjustable. Some people live on one side and the rest on the other.
Stephen Foster has referenced that pretty accurately above.
“Several people came out in tears reporting they had never heard such”
Is their life just sermons? God’s love is mentioned in the bible. If they don’t read it then they are victims of ignorance and their depraved minds.
This is what happens when pastors do not encourage independent bible study. By presenting nurture, therapy , troubleshooting sermons, they are made to depend on the religious shrink. 2 of the NON SDA churches I go to, the bulletin has a sermon note sheet to fill in the blanks..every week. I have yet in 45+ years gone to an SDA church where a pew warmer had a note sheet to fill out. It is just warm a pew and see if any itches get scratched.
jimbob, when your church majors in minors as it has for 145 years with the doctrine of proper Sabbath keeping along with how important it always is to be sin free prepared for the Second Coming (which will come as a thief in the night), reading about a loving God doesn’t register, in fact, is only an impossible theory.
Uh ..Larry can’t you tell from my posts that the SDA is not my darling denomination?
“I don’t have cheerleader pom poms out saying “Push sin back, push sin back,,,,,waaaaaaay back”
I have countered the SDA old wine skin teaching approaches since I was baptized. I stick around so I can get the experience that Jesus got…confronting Pharisees.
Jimbob, how many people since Adam? You’re joking, right? That’s like asking how many rabbits have been tossed into the briar patch since Brer Rabbit tricked Brer Fox into giving him the heave ho. It’s a trick question. Now if you are an Ussher aficionado you can mosey off to dreamsville for an imaginary census based on willfiul delusion about a sluggish “god” and his two screwy idiots mucking up perfection for the benefit of religious nuts.
Excuse me, Jimbo, I would rather be “deceived” by an accurate portrayal by pastors and teachers presenting a concept of God who isn’t deterred in loving us by anything we do, than by a purposeful elevation of an allegory, a myth of creation to an impossible, phantasmal reality.
“Jimbob, how many people since Adam? You’re joking, right?”
I gather U didn’t Google it.
The estimates are 60-130 billion…now what is 1%?
600 million to 1.3 billion. Is that enough saints for you?
Jimbob, i formed the opinion of years of observing legalist traditional SDA’s. Usually, should you disagree with their viewpoints, they are quick to respond with vitriolic criticism, ridiculing your
lack of study and “truth”. Rarely with a brotherly love response. Intimating, “how can you be so stupid”.
Accusative of your lack of Bible study placing you amongst the lost souls. i am willing to agree to disagree, without condemning them to perdition. My understanding is “how can they know for a certainty”, of my being unacceptable to the Godhead??
I’m glad you don’t work for God, Jimbob. How in H can you make this statement? ” Most will not be saved because they remained, wicked, deceived, LAW trashing, GOD hating, TRUTH trampling criminal rebels. 99% of Christianity =deceived right now.” Are you privy to the mind of God? How do you know that?
If I were investigating Christianity to possibly adopt, and read your assessment, I would run away as fast as possible and join the millions of other who find nothing worthwhile or attractive in it. I’m sorry for you. You won’t make the grade either, using your criteria. It will be mostly vacant anyway.
I just accept what Jesus said in Matt 7:14 and remember that only 8 got on the ark and God telling Elijah that he had 7,000 who did not bow knee to Baal.
How about 1 Pet 4:18??
And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
Yes, I checked on the world population through the eons, but that isn’t the same the number as from creation and Adam and Eve, those real walking talking wackos I was sure you were referencing. Now you have a big boat with dinosaurs and scorpions on it, and 8 people. My briar patch metaphor applies here.
If God were smart, he wouldn’t worry about a handful of disgusting humans, just wipe the slate clean of us all and start over. He has already made the mistake so just might as well admit it. But he isn’t too bright else why let the universe get messed up by his miscreant pair when he could have exiled them to the planet Gork so that billions of earth people wouldn’t suffer and die? Or maybe he feels guilty about his screw up.
As to Baal, carefully read the Judean/Jewish history, Baal and other gods were venerated by God’s “Chosen” people so often that the Elijah experience could be considered an anomaly.
How do you know who the “ungodly” are. Aren’t you one, too? I don’t like your version of God. I don’t care where you got it. God is my best bud, and he is as far as east is from west from your miserable creation, Superguy.
Larry,
Hmmm. Do you happen to hang out on Craigslist Religious forum?
That is probably where Christ would hang out if he was here.
Does this mean you don’t accept the doctrine of righteousness by faith that Christ’s life was given as a substitute for our sins? Yes, we are sinful (usually this means selfish or self-centered and results in sinful acts against others–in contemporary language). But God found sin so horrible He was willing to sacrifice His son for us (and perhaps destabilize the cosmos). A peaceful heaven/new earth could not exist with it. But for those who do not reject Christ and His righteousness, all sins are forgiven.
The righteousness by faith in the Third Angels Message is the rest found in Christ from working our way to heaven. The Sabbath is important because it symbolizes rest in Jesus.
It might be helpful if we look at possible definitions of the word ‘love.’ The Greeks, of course, had multiple words for its various aspects. Agape, philos, eros, storge being the most mentioned. Clearly, they had a wide view of its meaning. In this discussion, I suspect we all think we are talking about Agape, the so-called ‘divine principle’ of Love.
Some modern definitions are: ‘Love is the disillusion of separateness.’ Similarly, ‘Love is the dissolution of separateness.’ I think this one is the more frequently used: ‘Love is unconditional regard.’ And I wonder if this is the sense in which EGW uses it:
‘Enfeebled and defective as it may appear, the church is the one object upon which God bestows in a special sense His supreme regard.’ AA 12.1
Does this sentence suggest EGW also thought of God’s love as unconditional?
(I note, William A. that the nation of Israel does not get specific mention as the object of God’s supreme regard. Likewise, she does not here appear to differentiate ‘the church’ from the SDA denomination.)
Serge,
Your post is not good biblical exegesis. Mrs. White said we wouldn’t need her if we would read our bibles. God’s supreme regard is for Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ’s disciples are His church. Jesus Christ’s office is King of the Jews. The King of Israel said: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” In another place He told the Samaritan woman: …salvation is of the Jews.
Can’t you see that God’s supreme regard is for the King of Israel, Jesus Christ? If love is the dissolution of separateness, then how shall we be reconciled to God if we are unbelieving? Won’t our carcasses rot in the wilderness in unbelief? Didn’t Jesus Christ say belief in Him is what heals us? Isn’t forgiveness the condition of reconciliation with God? How can we forgive or be forgiven if we are mired in unbelief like Cain? God’s love is neither equal nor unconditional. God’s love is infinite, sovereign and free. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Now that we are all agreed that God’s love is unconditional and that He is no respector of persons, be they circumcised or not, I would like to comment on what is to me the point of Sam’s article: motive. What is our motive in seeking ‘salvation?’ Do we seek salvation OF our egoic self, or FROM it? What is the cause of our problems? From the Edenic beginning it is egoic self-interest. Ergo, ego must go. To be replaced by what? Our TRUE Self, ie, Christ. (Christ in you, the hope of glory!)
Parable of the prodigal son illustrates. Went his own egoic/selfish way until he found himself in the usual miserable place. Then he remembered something. He remembered who he was. On his return journey to his father’s house, it was he who contrived all the ‘conditions’ which he thought would make him acceptable to return to his father’s house. His Pharisaical brother agreed, there had ot be conditions, but Father would have none of it. ‘He was dead, in ignorance. Rejoice, he is alive, he remembered he is my son.’
If you call ‘remembering who you truly are’ a condition, then there are conditions on one’s return to our Father. Apart from that, none at all.
A final note- Sam said he would also accept God’s decision to leave him out of heaven, since he relies on God’s love. Reminds me of something the (SDA) world’s nicest heretic (Des Ford) said once: You’re not ready for heaven til you are prepared to go without it.’ Unreformed ego says, no way!
Who can disagree with Serge? No one can argue with Serge. Midst the rubble Serge declares victory and moves on. Thank you Serge for your thoughtful response. Earl, if God’s love was unconditional, both thieves would be today in paradise with Jesus Christ. Earl do you have secret knowledge about thief number two?
Joseph Ratzinger writes that the older brother in, The Parable of the Two Brothers, is Israel. I like that exegesis. It makes sense contextually. It especially makes sense when we remember Jesus’ emphasis on Jews needing conversion, (Nicodemus and Baptism and all that). What is textually as plain as the nose on your face is at no time are the two brothers equal. They are not treated equally, they do not have equal status. Equality is not the gift of the Father, nor the natural, rightful, status of the two brothers. The parable is about inequality and forgiveness.
The younger son, considering the laws of primogeniture, did something completely natural in separating himself from the father and the brother’s household. As the younger brother he doesn’t stand to inherit any of the estate. The younger brother takes the father’s gifts, which are his inheritance, and then squanders them in riotous living. When he returns, nothing regarding the estate has changed. The Father says to the older brother, “Son, thou art ever with me, and all that is mine is thine.”
Remember all that biblical stuff about the first-born?
God’s love is “unconditional”. The thief on the cross was promised Paradise, by God, Jesus Christ. You think not, that the Ancient of Days wouldn’t honor that promise?? Come , let us reason together, Not a single soul on Earth today will be resurrected to life, unless God’s love is unconditional, as all have sinned, and deserve the permanent death penalty. By God’s grace you are saved. Being justified freely
by His grace, through our faith in Jesus Christ. We have no righteousness, His righteousness covers our sinful natures. Our very best is as filthy rags. Who can be saved?? All who love the Lord Jesus Christ. How about those who died before Jesus Christ. By their faith in the Creator God, they are covered by God’s grace. How about those who never knew God?? All with a sound mind knew God, “The heavens
declare the glory of God, and the Earth showeth His handiwork”!! God has not permitted creating billions of new life on this Earth to suffer and die, in the past, today, and the future, if only 144,000 will be saved. Come on, COME ON, Let us reason together. God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, and who so ever believeth in Him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life. Amen.
” By their faith in the Creator God, they are covered by God’s grace.”
I thought you said it was “unconditional”?
But now you add “faith”. Is faith a condition? And if it is, then it is not unconditional. I tend to doubt the reasoning power of some who post. It is more like “pontificating” with no rational position nor a rational conclusion.
If we are “justified by faith”, then you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that faith is the condition for justification. There is no “unconditional love” nor “unconditional salvation”, nor “unconditional pardon and forgiveness.”
God has ordained the plan of salvation so that man saves himself by how he responds to the law and gospel in the biblical context. And while God enlightens, empowers, and motivates the sinner, God will not “believe” nor “repent” nor “obey” all of which is the human obligation and response to the law and gospel.
Bill,
Man can’t save himself. You are saved by faith, through grace and that not of itself, it is a gift of God.
God chooses us. We do not choose Him. We can not and not save ourselves – that in not a biblical concept.
“God chooses us. We do not choose Him. We can not and not save ourselves – that in not a biblical concept.”
Your position is false. “Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua.
And this is how we “save ourselves” by responding to the word of God as He has stated in His word.
Bill,
What did Jesus mean when he said, “I chose you, you did not choose me”?
William, if you accept the Scriptural revelation of God as love (yes, Serge, one of the first things one learns in Biblical Greek classes, mine gleaned from Mervyn and Graham Maxwell classes, are the Greek words translated as love), there is no who’s on first question. Yes, that is a slight warping of a metaphor to address the issue of who chose who first.
It’s a moot issue. Gravity is present when one is born, so is God as love.
So Jesus’ word have no significance. Moot point? Nobody here doing any choosing? That makes quick work of the exegesis
The thing that wasn’t explained in Greek class, Bugs, was that agape is a pagan concept. Specifically, agape kind of love is defined by that pagan philosopher, Plato, as the kind of high, pure principle which we simply and often loosely call love, mostly unaware of its multiple meanings. Plato, however, whose many other ‘principles,’ influenced Hellenic thought to such an extent that even the NT is thoroughly imbued with his, and his numerous followers’ ideas. So much for failing to examine one’s assumptions.
” Bill Sorensen quotes my paraphrase of Jn 15:16 and says my position is false.”
Nothing in the bible is stated in a vacuum. It must be considered in light of the whole of scripture. God chose go give the human family His Son as the “second Adam”. And so there is a corporate sense in which “many are called, but few are chosen.” Coupled with “whosoever will may come” it should be obvious that when we respond to the call we “choose ourselves to be saved” just as God has ordained the plan of salvation.
Jesus chose His disciples, but in turn, they must choose to follow Him. Jesus never set aside the obligation of the sinner to respond in the God ordained way for the sinner to be saved.
So in a generic sense, everyone is chosen to be saved, but only those who respond in the scriptural way are actually saved at last. Any idea or doctrine that negates human accountability in the salvation process is false doctrine.
The Holy Spirit liberates the will to choose Christ and all that implies which is very comprehensive, or, remain lost. The choice is ours.
Bill,
You are not addressing Christ’s words, “You did not choose me.” You are saying the disciples have to choose to follow Christ, which seems to contradict Christ’s words. What is the significance of Christ’s words, “You did not choose me?”
I believe we are all chosen to be saved, but many will reject being chosen. It’s a personal choice usually gradual; sometimes spontaneous. It’s called the unforgivable sin — a rejection of Christ’s sacrifice and love to Him and others. It can be done by a very religious person or sinful one who over time has given up their freedom to choose.
Sam: I like your blog; it’s right on and I think we know that in our hearts.
Serge, most of Christian thought, via Judaism, is rooted in pagan thought. So discounting functional terms for that reason negates Christianity.
There truly is nothing new under the sun. Judaism was a Johnny-come-lately on the world stage. It didn’t invent monotheism, as an example. Nor human and animal sacrifice. You know the history, I’m sure.
Every theological construct, every religious concept, is defective in one way or another. So, examining ones assumptions, presuppositions, is an exercise in futility in that one is just as blemished as another.
Agape is a Greek term, but classical rabbinic literature encompasses the idea and scope. Plato borrowed it from the vast repertoire of ageless circulating concepts.
It says what it says. Does anybody care? Bill Sorensen quotes my paraphrase of Jn 15:16 and says my position is false. My position? EM says we are all chosen to be saved. Is that scriptural? Can it be true if it contradicts the scripture. Does anybody care about the words spoken by Jesus Christ and what they mean?
Jesus was referring to the same people He was referring to Revelation 3:20. In other words, if you doubt that Jesus was talking to all who will answer the door, then you are in unbelief.
Stephen, Now you are shifting texts on me. Just like Bill Sorensen. Serge? He doesn’t bother with texts. Love is something Plato and Mrs. White thought up.
The text says Jesus Christ does the choosing. He chooses His disciples. He says His disciples did not choose him. There are a multitude of texts that express a similar idea that God is choosing us, saving us, healing us. We aren’t healing and saving ourselves. He is doing it all. Bill Sorensen says: “it should be obvious that when we respond to the call we “choose ourselves to be saved” just as God has ordained the plan of salvation.”
Fine Bill, but you are making your beliefs an authority, rather than having your beliefs conformed to the authority of the Word of God. You are rationalizing.
The scripture says: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Faith is how we accept the gift of salvation. But faith is not originating in us. Faith itself is a gift from God.
Bill you say; “Your position is false. “Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Are you implying choosing to serve the Lord saves a man and his house? This text in Joshua is not an explanation of what Jesus Christ said when He said, you did not choose me.
” Are you implying choosing to serve the Lord saves a man and his house?”
Absolutely. God does not by pass the moral accountability of man to choose who he will serve. Of course, the sinner has no choice until he is enlightened by the gospel that God has dealt with the sin problem in the person of His Son by paying the penalty for sin.
But this in no way liberates the sinner from the necessity of faith, repentance and obedience to be saved. God liberates to responsible freedom. The devil advocates irresponsible freedom that does away with the law as having any relevance to be saved.
In fact, once you state that justification is by faith, you have brought the human factor into salvation. God forces no one to believe, unless you are a Calvinist. Neither will God force anyone to repent or obey His will.
So, unless you believe, repent, and return to loyalty to God by obeying His will (the moral law), you are not saved. I don’t care what you think or claim for yourself.
Even the reformers only used the phrase “faith alone” to affirm that Christ alone paid for sin and merited our salvation. They never used “faith alone” the way it is used in modern Christanity and apostate Adventism.
They were warring against Rome who claimed the believer could merit salvation and pay for his sins by various means the church had ordained.
They never denied the necessity to obey the law as a moral imperative as a child of God. Free from the curse of the law, but not its…
authority. The is no “love God and do as you please” by way of Augustine. It is love God and submit to His authority to “command and demand obedience of His loyal children”.
God never abandon His authority by way of the gospel. But this is how many of you would convolute the gospel. Solomon said, “Fear God and keep His commandments……” and this is how you can be saved.
But if you think this is how you can merit heaven, then you are still far from the teaching of the bible. Salvation is a free gift, but it comes with moral obligations. And the obligations do not negate the fact that it is still a “free gift.” And Jesus might well say, “Go learn what that meaneth.”
If you understand that salvation is to responsible freedom, you might avoid the many errors advocated on this forum.
Bill your version of Christianity is so complicated, convoluted, bloated and parsimonious you must be the only holy person in the world, at least the only one who understands it. Obviously it is very good for you. But it comes across as poison to me. Just my opinion.
Bill,
For the most part your comment is simply preaching to the choir. I’m not an antinomian trying to escape from God’s Law. Jesus Christ establishes the law and fulfills its requirements. He did not come to do away with the law. Plainly He teaches that men who do not teach and keep all God’s law will be called ‘least’ in the kingdom of heaven. Salvation does not relieve us of any moral obligations. Salvation illumines our moral obligations. We are to be obedient even like Jesus Christ was obedient, even to a death on the cross.
Where we disagree is what the scripture says. Scripture, illumined by the Holy Spirit, is how we know what is true. I want to know what is true in Jesus Christ’s words; You did not choose me. I can not skip over the parts of scripture that don’t fit my understanding. My understanding has to be conformed to the Word of God.
Jesus explains to Nicodemus that even a ruler of the Jews, even an obedient and faithful servant of the God of Israel has to be converted. He has to be born again. Nicodemus wonders at this. He can not will his birth or rebirth. Besides, Conversion is for gentiles. Jesus explains: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Belief in Jesus Christ a gift from God. “But go ye and learn what that meaneth”
“Belief in Jesus Christ a gift from God. “But go ye and learn what that meaneth”
Am I to assume you mean that you will be “forced” to believe since you call it a “gift of God?” Or, can the gift be opposed and refused?
If you must accept the gift, then you save yourself by accepting the gift. Unless you are telling me God forces the gift on you against your will.
And I am not “preaching to the choir” on this forum. For the most part, on this forum, people don’t know what they mean. And neither can they explain to anyone else, or even themselves, what they mean.
But in the end, it can only be rationally interpreted as this. “Jesus died and did away with the law.” If the law does not function on any level as a means of salvation, then the law doesn’t function at all. Because all we need to know or care about in this world of sin is one question, “What must I do to be saved?”
But if faith and obedience are a requirement for salvation, then the law is not only relevant, but mandatory. In which case, the pre-advent judgment is equally valid and we will be judged by the law to determine if we have accepted the conditions that are stated to qualify us for heaven.
We don’t keep the law to merit and earn heaven, but we must keep the law to qualify for a fitness for heaven. And if you don’t know the difference, you don’t know the bible and are doomed to ongoing total confusion from now to eternity. While Jesus is our title, He is not our moral…
fitness. The name of Jesus is our legal right to heaven. This is “justification by faith alone”, but a moral fitness is required and we obtain that by following His example. Thus, Jesus is Lord and Savior. Not just Savior. Nor is He just Lord. “If you love me, keep my commandments.” This is a moral imperative for salvation. If you think this is legalism, you are deluded. Only if you think this is how you merit heaven is it legalism.
People have such a shallow view of the bible and what it teaches, they only confusion and delude themselves by their superficial ideas of salvation. And so they deny the comprehensive teaching of the bible and attack EGW and the historic SDA message in the name of their “higher enlightenment”.
Their “higher enlightenment” is nothing but total darkness. But they get massive doses of affirmation from each other and go on and on to perdition. “Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”
But like Paul, if possible, “I will by all means, save some.”
Bill,
Clarification: To the extent your comment was a reply to me, much of what you said was preaching to the choir. Like you, I know God’s law remains. Jesus plainly said, He did not come to do away with the law. Belief, Faith, Trust and Obedience are manifest in the people He has chosen.
You have not addressed what Jesus Christ said to His disciples: I chose you. You did not choose me. Specifically you have repeatedly contradicted what our Lord said when He said, “you did not choose me”. Your logic defies the Word of God.
Ephesians 2:8 says: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; You respond to this text with a question: “Am I to assume you mean that you will be “forced” to believe since you call it a “gift of God?” Or, can the gift be opposed and refused?
It’s like you think I am making the text say what it says. You are not explaining what the text says, you are explaining away what the text says.
I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt… …I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD.
Salvation is all of God. It is not about us willing and choosing to accept His gift.
“Salvation is all of God. It is not about us willing and choosing to accept His gift.”
And this is the lawless antinomian reply we can expect on this forum. No accountability to accept the gift.
Bill,
How can you repeatedly reply without addressing what the text says? The Bible text. The rule of our faith. Is that what I am to expect on this forum? A disregard for the Word of God? Write about what the Scripture says and means. For example: God, in Sovereignty, led Israel our of Egypt. That salvation was all of God. That is the story of Israel’s salvation, and it foreshadowing our salvation.
God chose Israel, did he not? Israel didn’t choose God. “you did not choose me” you deny the Word of God, is that not so?
William Abbott,
The words of Jesus are one whole; and all parts are in harmony when understood properly. If we think that they are not in harmony, and that He meant one thing at one time and place and something totally contradictory or in diametric opposition in the other place, it can only mean that we have misunderstood at least one of those sayings.
Here is the absolute and incontrovertible proof that you are preaching/advocating/arguing heresy: you think that Jesus is totally contradicting Himself.
He has chosen us to be saved and not lost because He died for the sins of all of us. It’s like some billionaire choosing to adopt me, after my parents’ demise, as an adult. He has chosen to adopt me and to give me an inheritance. He cannot make me accept him as my father if I don’t want to be his son; and he cannot make me accept that inheritance against my will.
Jesus’ offer in Revelation 3:20 is self explanatory and does not contradict anything else He ever said. If anything, it explains everything else He ever said. How is that erroneous?
Stephen, my good friend, Why did you write this? Here is the absolute and incontrovertible proof that you are preaching/advocating/arguing heresy: you think that Jesus is totally contradicting Himself.
Always, both out loud and in my heart I proclaim there is no contradiction with God. Jesus Christ does not contradict Himself when he says, I chose you, you did not choose me. Are you Stephen contradicting God by emphasizing your logic and reason over and against what the King of Israel has plainly said?
“People have such a shallow view of the bible and what it teaches, they only confusion and delude themselves by their superficial ideas of salvation. And so they deny the comprehensive teaching of the bible and attack EGW and the historic SDA message in the name of their “higher enlightenment”.”
That comes from inept teaching approaches and from listeners who are of the world and apathetic to spiritual matters.
SDA pastors & SS teachers are very inept in this regard. They teach topics and do not explain what the bible verses clearly mean. This is because they don’t know either.
Most pastors & SS teachers do not know what the gospel is , what grace means and what salvation is. How can I say this? Because they don’t define or explain it. They just keep parroting obscure, religious lingo.
As far as attacking EG White……that is normal. People avoid and/or kill prophets.
“God chose Israel, did he not? Israel didn’t choose God. “you did not choose me” you deny the Word of God, is that not so?”
I answered this before, but you didn’t like the answer. Nothing in the bible is written in a vacuum. People will pull some quote from the bible and place their own idea of what they think it ought to mean, and ignore the full scope of the meaning by way of all the scripture.
God does choose individuals for a purpose, and this before they even know that He will do it. But unless the also “choose” to respond, God will not force anyone to do His will. As you stated, “God chose Israel.” But you either deny or ignore the words of Joshua, “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve……”
God saves us to a responsible freedom that demands the response He defines and articulates. The overview is “faith, repentance, and a return to loyalty to God by obedience to His will.”
God saves no one outside this condition. There is no unconditional salvation, or forgiveness, or love. The “unconditional” ideas presented by most on this forum are far outside the scriptural mandate and the “gift” God gives us is the ability to accept the conditions and fulfill them.
And fulfilling the conditions does not merit or earn heaven. This is the fatal error many assume and embrace and so reject the conditions assuming if we do them, or even advocate them, we are legalists. Of course, if you think you can merit heaven by doing them, you are a legalist. So…
you claim to avoid legalism by advocating antinomianism. The sad part is this, you are still a legalist, because you still don’t know the true function of the law and still assume the law is automatically legalism. Instead of defining the true function of the law, you simply throw out the law to show everybody you are not a legalist. But you are one anyway. Just because you try to remove the law won’t save you from the curse of the law. The antinomian is a legalist who tries to avoid the label by throwing out the law. But you are still a legalist in spirit and to pretend you are not accountable to the law “will not save you.”
God did not save you to the irresponsible freedom you have embraced. God’s salvation is to the responsible freedom He ordained in heaven for all created moral beings. You have been deluded by the devil and his advocates who are far and wide, even in the SDA church.
Bill S: “God will not force anyone to do His will…’
Tell that to Pharaoh, Bill. And you’d better set Paul straight while you are at it.
Rom.9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, (yes, we all have to radically adjust our concept of ‘free will’) nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
In describing the exchanges between Moses and Pharaoh just before the Exodus, it is stated many times, ‘the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.’ And later, other enemy kings had their hearts hardened also. The Bible, OT and New are quite ok with the idea of God forcing certain individuals to do His will. This ‘deus ex machina’ rulz.
“In describing the exchanges between Moses and Pharaoh just before the Exodus, it is stated many times, ‘the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.’ ”
Well, this is typical of how scripture is wrested to the destruction of the one doing it.
God kept presenting the gospel to Pharaoh, and he kept resisting. And God keeps presenting the same truth to the world today, and they keep resisting it. And this is the only sense in which it can be stated that God hardened anyone’s heart.
People love to make the bible say what they hope it will say and then reject the obvious meaning because it condemns their false doctrine.
“God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
This, of course, doesn’t fit your agenda, so you must “make” the bible fit what you want it to, and not what it is really saying and meaning.
Bill, Lets suppose you are correct. Let us suppose every time Pharaoh’s heart is hardened it coincides with an opportunity to yield his spirit and will to the God of Israel, the God of Moses. Pharaoh is exercising free will and is hardening his own heart through unbelief. Egypt is destroyed, but still Pharaoh will not believe. Pharaoh is literally driven mad in unbelief and destroys himself and his army driving them into the sea pursuing the very people he has driven out of Egypt a few days before.
Let us further assume Abraham is choosing God just as intently as God is choosing Abraham. Abraham exercises his truly free will to obey God and sacrifice Isaac, the child of promise. Abraham is choosing to obey God – no matter what. Let’s assume Eve is exercising free will when she disobeys God.
So we have made man’s free will a given assumption; for discussions sake. Free will is not the question.
Serge points out that in Scripture, repeatedly all is put all to God’s will. Serge doesn’t include the story of Job, but he might. God is explicitly responsible for Job’s suffering, according to Job and his friends. The account of Satan appearing before God and the ensuing dialogue leaves no doubt God considers God responsible for what is going to happen to Job.
Remember: For discussion’s sake this way of talking about God’s Sovereign will over all wills is not negating man’s free will – continued
continued… Can there be another purpose to Jesus saying, you did not choose me other than to deny man’s free will? I believe the answer may be yes.
In the parable of the two brothers, aka, the prodigal son? You have the issue of status. The status of the first-born. The inferior status of the younger brother. The status of the servant. The status of inheritance. Notice, that neither son ever changes his status. The younger son can not change his status to servant, not matter his sincerity. His Father might, but chooses not. The elder brother fears his status is threatened, but the Father chooses and assures him it is not. One brother goes in the other remains outside, their wills are free but their status is chosen for them.
God’s choosing has to do with our status, our identity. We can not assign ourselves identity. I can not choose for myself, say, the identity of a woman. God has made me a man. I will always be the first born in my family. God did the choosing. We can not come before God with any status apart from the status He has chosen for us. This is why I rail against the Doctrine of Equality because contrives to alter our status before God. It would make equal the things God has ordained to be unequal. The scripture is not the enemy of free will so much as it is the enemy of equality.
We have no status in which we can save our selves. The status of savior belongs to Christ.
“We have no status in which we can save our selves. The status of savior belongs to Christ.”
Again you are wrong. Man is a free as God chooses for him to be. This makes God ultimately sovereign. And God has willed that man can save himself by the way the sinner responds to the word of God. This is how God has “willed” it to be.
When Adam sinned, God took away his free will to choose and all man could do was follow Satan. He had no choice in the matter. This was the curse of sin. But God took the penalty of sin upon Himself in the person of His Son, and is now able to justly restore the freewill of man on the basis of the atonement. In light of the cross, man can again choose to accept the responsible freedom God has to offer, or, he can simply continue to serve Satan.
Man is as free as God chooses for him to be. And God has ordained that sinful man can save himself by how he will respond to the freedom God has given him in light of the cross. Thus, the Holy Spirit enlightens and empowers the sinner to be free to choose whether he will remain lost, or, opt into God’s kingdom of grace.
And God will not save man except by this method He has ordained and the self government Adam and Eve had in the garden. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
Free to do what? Free to “Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve,……”
So man is a free as God chooses for Him to be. And God did not afflict Job. He allowed Satan…
Again Bill; you simply do not listen to the word of God. You say I am wrong. But all I do is quote scripture. I’ve even ceded you the field, we are assuming their is no argument: still you argue with the Scripture. Look here below at the text:
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
In Job chapters 1 and 2 Satan has no power, except what God ordains. God and Satan are in agreement here – God is responsible for what is happening to Job. Remember I’m just quoting the scripture. Speak to the text not to me.
Satan to do it. And Satan is only as free as God allows him to be as well.
People blame God because He has ordained this system of freedom when God could have done otherwise. This is Satan’s argument in heaven. Namely, “If God created me, knowing I would sin, then He is responsible for my sinning.”
But this is a false dilemma. Just because God knew he would sin, does not make God responsible because God could have chosen not to create him.
The only question to be considered and answered is this. Did Lucifer have enough information about God, His love, and His kingdom so he could make a viable decision not to rebel? The same applies to Adam and Eve. And in fact to all created beings.
The devil and his followers say “no”. But true believers say “yes”. We can save ourselves by the way we respond to the will of God in His word. Can we do this on our own? NO. But if God wills that we can, then we can. The atonement restores our freedom to choose.
To deny this, is to side with Satan and claim we have no part in our own salvation. God must save us, period. And this is Satan’s argument that many opt for and will be “on the outside, looking in.” They reject the responsible freedom God offers and opt for the irresponsible freedom Satan claims we all should embrace and blame God if we are not saved.
To reject this responsibility, is to rebel against God.
What about Cain, didn’t God encourage Cain to exercise his freewill? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, … But Cain was to upset about his status as unchosen to hear God and believe. God rejected Cain’s offering (the scripture doesn’t say why). Cain wanted God to be a god of equality. Something God can not do. So he took matters into his own hands and with his hands he slew his brother. He eliminated his rival for status. He was destroyed in his unbelief.
Well there is a whole boat-load of stuff being debated here. Why am I not surprised?
Let me offer a few thoughts for all of you “theologicrats” to ponder.
By permitting (but not causing) sin, God is indeed responsible (but not guilty) for sin. Just as, if my minor child damages something, I as his or her parent must take responsibility, even though I am not morally guilty and did not cause the damage.
So how does God take responsibility for sin? The Cross demonstrates God’s answer to this question. On the cross, Jesus took responsibility for all of the sins of the world. The specifics of how this works have been debated by theologicrats for two millennia. We cannot fully explain this but we can believe it and accept it.
God did not cause sin and destruction and death. But God can and does and will deal with the consequences.
Jim,
I agree. Your analogy about parents being responsible for children is weak, but its a starting point. God is absolutely free and sovereign. Sinful, mortal, man is not. God wills knowing the end from the beginning. The future is opaque to sinners. The human beings that want to glorify free will will find precious little in the Scripture to support their idolatry. Free will is best understood as man choosing ‘death’ rather than believing God. We are free to doubt. And God takes responsibility for our unbelief, i.e. Pharoah.
Hell will be full of forgiven sinners. (I did not invent this phrase – I borrowed it from a now-deceased theologicrat.)
How can this be? Is it more of a mystery to understand how a human steeped in rebellion, can accept God’s grace, or how a human exposed to God’s grace can refuse to accept it? And theologicrats have been debating these mysteries for two millennia.
The traditional view of hell as punishment for sin, is seriously flawed. Hell is a consequence of refusing God’s grace. The most loving thing God can do for those who refuse grace, is to delete them from existence. They are forever forgiven and forever gone.
If you do not want God in your life then you cannot live. There is no such thing as life without God. Eventually God will honor your choice.
Bugs, Live fully now, please. Enjoy the short time left to you; take more stunning, beautiful photos. (you have a gift). Be kind to your children and your wife. You apparently have no hope for a personal future beyond death. Live now. No one can resolve the tension between God’s free, sovereign and omnipotent will and our own pathetic, covetous, now sinful wills. We are created in His image, but the image is marred. So, as you say, respect the unknown, don’t mock it.
Jim, Hell is full of forgiven sinners? What did Jesus mean when He said He did not come to judge the world, but to save it? Is everyone, everything in the world saved? Almost everyone and everything? He didn’t make me a judge, I’m just asking. Is Hell purgatory? Is that biblical?
For me, and I hope to meet a couple Adventists who are with me, lets figure out exactly what the Scripture says and take it as authority. We need William Noel’s guide, the Holy Spirit and William Noel needs to know it is through the Scripture the Holy Spirit guides us. This is exactly what Jesus Christ did. Let’s follow Him. Let’s search the scriptures, they testify of Him. He believed the Scriptures.
Bill Sorensen may someday write: “The bible can’t mean what it says because I don’t believe that” He’s gotten close on this thread. What about Job, Bill? Does the text mean what it says?
Read the entirety of the discourse of Jesus Christ to Nicodemus.
1) Humans must be born again. Flesh can give birth only to fleshly life. Only the Spirit can give birth to spiritual life. In other words, without the Spirit humans are (figuratively now and ultimately literally) DEAD.
2) Jesus did not come to [judge/condemn] humans but to save us.
3) We humans [judge/condemn] ourselves by whether we come to the Light (a metaphor for Jesus Christ) or turn away from the Light.
Without a Savior we are doomed. If we reject the Savior we are doomed. that is the bad news. The good news is that we have a Savior who will empty-out all of heaven and turn earth upside-down and inside-out to save us.
Now that’s what I call REALLY GOOD NEWS.
Hell is not Purgatory. Hell is not Expiation. Hell is extinction.
” Eventually God will honor your choice.”
This part is true. And this is why the sinner plays a part in his own salvation. And this is why “Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve……” is a salvational issue.
But there are no forgiven sinners in hell. No one is forgiven unless they repent and if they repent (change mind) they will not be in hell.
Forgiveness is conditional. It is not universal. That God extended probation for Adam and his family and this is unconditional, it was for the purpose for the sinner to evaluate the situation and then have a chance to repent, or remain lost. Adam opted out for himself and all his family. But we can individually opt in, so that “Who ever will may come.”
We must repent and remain in a state of repentance, or we will not be forgiven in the end. And if we are not forgiven in the end, we were not forgiven at all. This is what the judgment and final atonement is all about.
If in the end, we continue to choose irresponsible freedom, then it is true, God will grant our wish and death is the ultimate irresponsible freedom that we have chosen. You are not responsible for anything when you are dead. So, scripture says, “Those who hate me, love death.
It is really sad that most of the human family choose death instead of the responsible freedom God has ordained that gives tremendous value to our choices and actions. NO, we can not merit heaven. But this does not mean there is no value in our choices.
You conflate Forgiveness and Redemption.
When the Bible calls Jesus Christ the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world” it is saying (among other things) that God knew that humans would sin, and God decided to forgive humans.
When I held my oldest son in my arms for the first time, I consciously and intentionally decided to forgive him, in advance, for any wrong that he might commit against me, regardless of how much pain it caused to me. I did not wait for him to know that he had hurt me, or to ask for forgiveness.
I find it hard to believe that God loves me less than I love my own sons.
God’s forgiveness is complete. My acceptance of that forgiveness is at best incomplete and inadequate and inconsistent. I cannot truly repent, but God can and does truly forgive. God intentionally forgave me before I ever existed.
Hell will be full of forgiven sinners.
Jim, now God is co-sinner. So the ultimate sacrifice of His Son is an admission of guilt on His part then, a reparation offered by him because of his participation as co-conspirator. So, in his lame position, He is willing to accept proper thinking as the ticket to admission to his kingdom without requiring character perfection. So there will be the “saved” running around heaven with fleas transferred because of the acceptance of proffered salvation. Ordinary people, in other words, will populate heaven. Might there be a crime problem, pollution, and even trash along the golden streets? Wouldn’t that be the continued exercise of free will? If one can’t be free to pollute wouldn’t one be a robot, the ultimate denial of free will?
Discussion of how to get “saved,” who gets a home in heaven, proper thinking, are nothing but helium filled, trial balloons that float off to burst in space with nothing but theoretical notes, like confetti falling from their unraveling strings. Notes forever retied to new balloons with the same endless result. If one looks up from his casket, he can see the worn jottings of theory floating down on his open lid while he sleeps peacefully in the hands of the Whatever-Will-Be.
Self-flagellation in the name of repentance, regardless of the degree of sincerity, even as a function of proper thinking, doesn’t deter death, nor adjust what happens afterward.
Live fully, love now. Respect the Unknown. Talk to Earl about heaven.
Sorry Bugs-Larry. Go back and read what I actually wrote. Do not mis-represent what I wrote.
God chooses to take responsibility for my sin. I am the guilty party, not God. But God takes the consequences. God is the ultimate Love Guy.
Apologies, Jim, for misrepresenting your view. So I will credit myself for it because It seems to me that is the result of a good God whose perfection was uncontrollably smeared because of the operative argument of free will. Since I didn’t choose life, it was thrust upon me (which is good for me!) how am i legally guilty of infractions when I didn’t agree to the impossible to keep legal system, unalterably predisposed to failure?
And how do you explain the mayhem of heaven populated by forgiven sinners when forgiveness doesn’t modify character, even when God “remembers sins no more?” You can argue that all arriving there will be so grateful they will behave. But everybody lies (a truism line from House, MD, a TV show).
Yep, Heaven would definitely be indistinguishable from Hell if God does not have, and exercise, the capability to change the hearts and minds and souls and bodies of sinners.
The Bible assures us that God can and will do this very thing. Theologicrats have lots of different explanations for how and when this will happen. I certainly do not understand it. But I do hope and pray and believe that it happens.
And Heaven would definitely be indistinguishable from Hell, if God admits humans who refuse the free gift of transforming Grace. And rather than condemning those who refuse, to an eternity in Hell, God will eventually press the Delete button for these unfortunate souls. It will be the ultimate act of Divine mercy.
Bill Sorenson…. “just because God knew he would sin (before creating Lucifer), God was responsible for his sinning”. TRUE, not false. Had Lucifer not been created, and placed in Eden, he could not have foiled God’s Almighty beautiful plan for Earth. Think about it!!!! Otherwise God doesn’t know the end from the beginning???? This is the reason the Creation story is allegorical… No doubt evil is alive and well on Earth; very probable that evil spirits inhabit Earth. Does more than one eternal Cosmic entity inhabit the Cosmos??? One that is LOVE, and one that is evil, with battle grounds through out the Cosmos?? Otherwise, a wise God of Love would never subject His Earthly creation
to billions of years of pain, suffering and death, before His plan of reclamation. No logic to it????
William Abbot, Larry speaks the truth about the unknown fate of man. He has chosen to live a life of Love, today, and as long as he has breath. He doesn’t say there is no eternal presence!!!! He lives now, in a state of love, which is the singular declaration of God the Christ, Jesus.
As to William Noel’s Holy Spirit…….the Holy Spirit is alive and well on the Earth today…. He or it, is not only available in the scriptures. Jesus stated He would give you a “Comforter”, so you would not be unknowledgeable, of the here and now, and the future. That He the Holy Spirit would lead you to truth, knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Do you not believe the Master?? The Holy Spirit is a reality in my life. Once you make the connection, you will never fear for the future. i live daily with the Spirit of God loving me and speaking words of Cosmic wisdom to me to share. Let the Holy Spirit into your heart today.
let it be…..let it be…….let it be………let it be…….. speaking words of wisdom……..let it be
Earl,
Are you all right? Oh well, we will let that be.
We have to test the spirits. Scripture is the measure, the reagent. Otherwise, all sorts of wickedness is conducted in the name of the Holy Spirit.
It not a problem, the Holy Spirit never contradicts the Word of God. That is all I’m saying.
Wrong, William Abbot. I have hope, not detailed like yours. I differ from you in that I don’t pretend I know what can’t be known. Neither of us can “figure out” what the Scripture “says.” In fact, it says nothing. It is print on paper. Every reader is properly an interpreter, a diviner of meaning, a miner of suspected nuggets. Every reader “figures out” a meaning and determines a relationship to it. The use of the Holy Spirit as guide to hereafter appears useless since every variation administrator claims It be the perfect provider of the corpus of their comprehension, while in disunity and even contradiction to others.
The quandary of religious hope, as well as punishment, is it can’t be realized until after death. One can cover their bets by acting as if it is it will be transpire, giving a purpose and structure to life. But it is direction based on opinion with a double blind of conjectural outcome.
Living a full life can be realized with or without eternal speculations. There isn’t one shred of evidence of post-death blessing or curses following human “expiration.” Dust to dust.
If God is love it is well with my soul to completely trust in that for now and ever. No concordance or footnotes needed.
Thank you for giving me the pleasure of sharing my photo view of the world with you!
Bugs,
You have hope, that’s good. The opposite of hope is despair. Tell me about your hope. I have certainly told you about mine. Christ is Risen! Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I just told you of my hope. Reread my next to the last paragaraph
Yes Bugs you did. But your hope seems ephemeral to me. Like life itself. Fragile and brief. No real substance. “If God is love…” That is okay only if you know who God is and what he is like. How can you know anything about God? Does He talk to you? Are you sure its Him? How can you know for sure? Maybe you are just delusional?
Tell the hundreds of young girls who have been taken and raped repeatedly by the Boko Haram about hell. Tell the many Yazidi young girls who are first checked for virginity (just as did the Israelites taking captive slave girls) about hell they should be concerned about.
Millions today are actually living in hell and is worse than can be imagined by those who claim to know who will go there– forgiven sinners! What future could possibly be worse for them than the one they are living in today? How easy to sit in comfort today and tell others about the certainty of who will go to hell. Why listen to such vain total misrepresentation of Christ’s message to sinners: “Come unto me….”
This is the message that has driven millions from all religions. But maybe it is the mission of those who feel it necessary to winnow down the numbers to 144,000 so the Lord can come. Oh, what a perversion of the Gospel!
I happen to think a LOT more people will be in heaven, then some Bible-beaters could possibly imagine.
I agree with Elaine that for many of not most inhabitants, life on earth IS hell. That is why i fervently hope this mess ends sooner rather than later.
Repeat after me – –
Hell is not Purgatory, hell is not Expiation, hell is Extinction. Nothing more and nothing less.
Now I would much prefer to think about heaven. It is hard to even imagine a place where there is no such thing as evil. Better than winning the lottery by far! And the “ticket” is absolutely free. No strings attached. No mail-in rebates or annoying robo-calls. Whosoever will may come.
“I happen to think a LOT more people will be in heaven, then some Bible-beaters could possibly imagine.”
And Jesus said a lot less will be in heaven than most people think.
Bill,
I’m thinking that you are remembering Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Indeed there have been few which have found the ‘narrow way’ in this life, so far. This is confirmed by Rev. 14 where John reports “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” We are all Babylonians by this assertion.
The reason that Babylon falls is because “6 … I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”
Note the ‘loud voice’ used to make clear to ‘every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people’ the Gospel of Jesus, himself the narrow gate. The only gate.
As John says in Chapter 3 of his Gospel, “17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
God sent Jesus to save the world, and he did. In this life, though, few it is who sense that.
I can see two logical outcomes of the “God’s love is unconditional” error:
1. Universalism (how can God say one person gets eternal life and one gets Lake of Fire if he loves them both the same?)
2. At the end time when persecution comes, this error will be used by the persecutors on God’s people, telling them they are doing it because of their love for them.
No doubt there are other possible outcomes of this error from Satan.