Conference yukon::christian_v7

    
  ! Are we really sinners in the hands of an angry God?
    	Absolutely. God hates sin. Some have slurred this to mean, God
    hates sin but loves the sinner. But the truth is God hates sin. Man
    fell and therefore his very thoughts are hostile toward God. God has
    even stated this. Hence, God is an angry God - but a just and merciful
    God.
    
    What people are quick to point out is that Christianity is a religion
    of hate and condemnation. What they fail to recognize is that God hates
    sin, we are sinners and therefore we are hostile toward God and he
    toward our sins.
    
    The unfortuante part of all this, is that if we look ONLY at the law,
    we fall short for all eternity. What we need to do as christians is to
    (yes, point out the law, but then) - PROCLAIM the GOSPEL. It is only
    throught the gospel that we learn those that accept Christ are no
    longer sinners in God's eyes and therefore no longer hostile to him nor
    HE us. - Yes, those that accept Christ are without sin in God's eyes.
    Those that choose not to accept the gospel, God redemption, still cling
    to their hostility that they could freely and carelessly could toss
    away. 
    
    Summary, - this world clings to sin and therefore see God as hostile
    and angry. When in fact, we (the saved) know that God is merciful and
    loving. We need to proclaim the good news, that is where we
    (collectively as redeemed children, ALL DENOMINATIONS) have fallen far
    short of God's work for us and have jeopardized the lives of many many
    people. No wonder God is patient, thanks be to God that He is, lest He
    lose even one sheep...
    
    
    PDM
    

    re .0 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>   Many critics, some from within the camp, say that Christianity is a 
>  "slaughterhouse", or "bloodthirsty" religion, our God being a God of
>   wrath and anger, requiring bloodshed to appease Him.
>  
>  Propitiate - to appease, to conciliate, to gain the favor of...Websters.
    ...
>  Are we really sinners in the hands of an angry God?
>
>  Mark S , how do you feel about this ?
    
    	I knew this topic was coming, but I'm not sure what your point is
    [i.e., what the point of contention is on this matter, betweeen my
    beliefs and yours].
    
    	My confusion notwithstanding, my answer to your question is as
    follows:
    
    	All men are sinners who are ultimately in the hands of God; but I
    wouldn't say that God's foremost quality is anger [that we might think
    of him as being "the angry God"], especially since the scriptures say
    "God is love".
    
    	Sin, especially willful sin, can provoke God to anger (though the
    Bible says Jehovah is "slow to anger"); and the eventual destruction of
    the wicked will be a display of God's righteous anger against the
    wicked.  But none of this contradicts the meaning of the propitiatory
    sacrifice of Christ (as far as I can tell), for it reconciles those who
    accept it and put faith in it with God.  Those who reject it leave
    themselves vulnerable to God's 'wrath', his adverse judgment.
    
    	The verses you quote all point out that God himself, out of love,
    provided the means to heal the breach between man and Himself --
    this being through the sacrifice of Christ.  Given that "propitiate"
    can mean "gain the favor of", those that reject it clearly DON'T gain
    God's favor.
    
    	Peter wrote that, 
    
    		"The Lord [Jehovah] is not slow about his
    		promise [to bring about the "destruction
    		of ungodly men", 2Pet 3:7 RSV] as some
    		count slowness, but is forbearing toward
    		you, not wishing that any should perish,
    		but that all should reach repentance."
    		(2Pet 3:9 RSV).
    
    If ALL people would "reach repentance", then no one would be destroyed
    -- thus, in theory, God would be well pleased NOT to have to shed the
    blood of anyone in adverse judgment.  However, the scriptures also
    account for the reality that "all" WON'T "reach repentance".  Thus the
    propitiatory value of Christ's sacrifice doesn't cover those who fail to
    repent, for they themselves reject its value.
    
    	I can't imagine, at this point, what the controversy over this
    issue is, but I anxiously await your reply.
    
    								-mark.

>    	All men are sinners who are ultimately in the hands of God; but I
>    wouldn't say that God's foremost quality is anger [that we might think
>    of him as being "the angry God"], especially since the scriptures say
>   "God is love".

Very good.  Anger is not God's foremost quality but being a God of Love does
not preclude being a God of justice and mercy, grace and judgment.  The
attributes of God are many and varied and should this come as any surprise
to humans who also have many an varied attributes?  Thankfully, God is true
to His word and not changable, which means we are not left to arbitrary
means of love or consequences of standing in rebellion to God, as Phil put well.
If we find ourselves in the hands of an angry God, we need to look to ourselves
to find out what cause God to be angry, since He is slow to anger.  Sometimes,
we can be a stiff-necked people.

Mark

    I think the last half of Jonah addresses this, first God was going to
    destroy Nineva, then after Jonah told them, they repented and God did
    not destroy them.  Then Jonah was mad that God didn't destroy them so
    explained Compassion to Jonah.
    
    God does hate sin, even to the point of forsaking Jesus on the cross
    while he took the sins of the world upon himself, but he also loves his
    people and waits for their repentance .ie the prodigal son.
    
    Sparky

  Re .2 Mark S

  Very interesting reponse Mark,

   Contention, controversy... um, well maybe there isnt as much as I
   thought. Btw, Can be use such words as "difference". Some might think
   we're going to put on the gloves and get in the ring.  :-(  .
   Remember Batman " POW!  SOCK! "   :-).

   1) With that in mind : I noticed that the NWT in the Hebrews 2:17 passage
   the word _brethren_ is in quotation marks. What is the signifigance of
   this? From your point a view is/was Jesus a "real" human being or
   something else?

   2) How do you respond to the I John 2:2 passage; that He is the propitation
   for the sins of *the whole world*?

   3) In the Romans 3 passage, what does "propitiation by his blood" mean to
      you?

   4) In your view , does Jesus blood have the same value as any other Man's?


               Hank   

    re .5 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>   1) With that in mind : I noticed that the NWT in the Hebrews 2:17 passage
>   the word _brethren_ is in quotation marks. What is the signifigance of
>   this? From your point a view is/was Jesus a "real" human being or
>   something else?
    
    	Yes, Jesus was a real human being.
    
    	I've never heard this verse called into question before, and I know
    of no special significance to the term "brothers", except that we
    believe that it refers particularly to anointed Christians who will
    join him in heaven; anointed Christians being 'born again sons of God'
    of which there are only 144,000.
    
    	As to why it's in quotes, I suspect it's because Heb 2:12 quotes
    Psalm 22:22 as something Christ himself says with respect to his
    spiritual brothers:
    
    		"I will declare your name to my brothers, in
    		the middle of the congregation I will 
    		praise you with song." (Heb 2:12 NWT)
    
    Verse 11 sets up the quote:
    
    		"... for this cause he is not ashamed to call
    		the "brothers" ..." (NWT)
    
    I gather that all the NWT is attempting to convey is that the
    "brothers" are not Jesus' fleshly half-brothers, but rather, his
    afore-prophecied human spiritual brothers who will join him in heaven,
    they being the ones referred to by the Psalmist.  I think the quotes
    were simply meant to give emphasis to fact that their being Christ's
    brothers was established by prophetic Scripture.
    
>   2) How do you respond to the I John 2:2 passage; that He is the propitation
>   for the sins of *the whole world*?
    
    	Witnesses believe there is a subtle distinction between those
    chosen to receive the spirit anointing as Christ's brothers and those
    who will inherit eternal earthly life; thus John was writing primarily
    to those who, like him, were at that time already set apart from the
    world as anointed Christians.  John's point was that Jesus' sacrifice
    not only applied to those who had been so anointed, but to the rest of
    the world as well.  Regardless of one's prospective hope (heavenly or
    earthly), Jesus' sacrifice made them both possible.
    
    	The NWT has a cross-reference to John 1:29, which is John the
    Baptist's declaration (at the approach of Jesus for baptism):
    
    		"See, the Lamb of God that takes away the
    		sin of the world."
    
    Since other scriptures plainly predict a destruction of "ungodly men",
    it must be true that the entire world will NOT experience a
    mass-conversion to righteousness.  In both orthodox belief and Witness
    belief, the wicked receive an eternal punishment of some sort (orthodox
    believe in eternal, conscious torment in Hell; Witnesses believe in
    eternal annihilation in the figurative "lake of fire") -- thus although
    Jesus' sacrifice was in propitiation for the sins of the "whole
    world," it wasn't going the make the whole world sinless and faithful.
    
    	Again, God only applies the value of Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice
    to those who accept it and put faith in it.  Hebrews also says:
    
    		"If we practice sin willfully after having
    		received the accurate knowledge of the truth,
    		there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left,
    		but there is a certain fearful expectation of
    		judgment and there is a fiery jealousy that is
    		going to consume those in opposition."  
    		(Heb 10:26,27 NWT)
    
    So, again, "whole world" is a relative term, since many in the literal
    "whole world" will not be covered by the value of his sacrifice because
    of their willful rejection of the truth.  It's also a term in contrast
    to Jesus' anointed "brothers," who have literally been "bought from the
    earth" (Rev 5:9 NWT).
    
>   3) In the Romans 3 passage, what does "propitiation by his blood" mean to
>      you?
    
    	I never compared this verse in the NWT with others before, so this
    is the first time I've taken note of what could be potential
    differences.  The NWT reads:
    
    		"God sent him [Christ Jesus] forth as an 
    		offering for propitiation through faith
    		in his blood.  This was in order to exhibit
    		his own righteousness,because he was forgiving
    		sins that occurred in the past while God
    		was exercising forbearance; so as to exhibit
    		his own righteousness in this present season,
    		that he might be righteous even when 
    		declaring righteous the man that has faith
    		in Jesus."  (Rom 3:25,26)
    
    The RSV says (in part):
    
    		"... God put [Christ Jesus] forward as an
    		expiation by his blood, to be received by
    		faith.  This was to show God's righteousness
    		... and that he justifies hiim who as faith
    		in Jesus."
    
    The NWT reading seems to make the point stand out more that the
    propiatory value of Jesus' blood is contingent on faith; but on the
    whole I don't think there is major conflict between these readings.
    
    	In light of the above, what this passage means to me is that for me
    to benefit from the propitiatory value of Christ's sacrifice, I need to
    put faith in it [and demonstrate that my faith is real, in more than in
    word, only].

>   4) In your view , does Jesus blood have the same value as any other Man's?
    
    	No ... for all other men (and women) are sinful, and thus could not
    pay the ransom price for Adam's sin [which he committed while he was
    perfect].
    
    
    								-mark.

    
    Angry?  Be assured that there are certain things that anger God, (read
    deliberate sin). 
      
     But we are also told throughout the old testament that God is 
    
     "..merciful,longsuffering and full of compassion."  The crux of the
    story of Jonah is that 1. Jonah had such a relationship with God that
    he _knew_ what God's response would be if the evil Ninevites would
    repent; forgivness.  He also knew what God's reaction would be if they
    did not;destruction...Jonah want the latter.  You see
    merciful,longsuffering and full of compassion is a blessing to the
    Christian, and it is a curse to the unsaved...time will someday run
    out.
    
    Dan 

    Heard in church the other day....
    
    Non-christian says to christian, "Why does God allow all this hatred,
    anger, sin, <insert evil act of choice here> happen if he is such a
    loving God?"  Christian's reply, "Ya know, God could say the same thing
    about you."
    
    -sandy
    

    I don't think God looks at "the redeemed" as sinners, although
    periodically we still do sin. For me, it seems to be a progressive 
    changing, with each day closer to God, less sin, day by day.
    
    I think He looks at us "the redeemed" as sinless, as He looks at us
    through the blood. He has given us the power to become the sons and
    daughters of God. Whether or not we choose to call upon that power, is
    a choice by choice situation, an act of will.
    
    Using the word of God, as the sword of the Spirit, in a moment of
    temptation, seems to work very well. Whether or not I choose to use the
    word, depends upon my desire to please God, or please myself.
    
    Lord, help us to be always pleasing to You, and let You decide in what
    area You would like to see us enjoy life, and not as the world enjoys,
    as we are not of the world.
    
    Bob
    
    

      Hi,
    
        Not meaning to rathole, but mark me as one dissentor here
        in terms of the position that God gets angry in the same
        sense that we do.
    
        After God allowed Satan to heap a whole lot of calamity on
        Job, He says (parpaphrase) "You incited Me to destroy him."
        And God didn't lift a finger against Job.  Here we find a
        case where the language of scripture means other than what
        it plainly seems to mean, but we find the meaning by letting
        the Bible interpret itself.
    
        I see God with tears in His eyes like when Jesus said "O Jeru-
        salem, O Jeruslam.  How I would have gathered you like a mother
        hen gathers her chicks, but you would not!"
    
        I know, I know, I am a lone dissentor.  That's ok, but that is
        how I understand things.  There is no room in His heart for
        anger.  He will unveil His presence and it will destroy the
        unsaved.  This act will sear the conscioussness of the redeemed
        and the unfallen with a revelation of the ultimate course of sin
        unchecked and (along with a full revelation of the course of 
        righteoussness) will safeguard His universe from ever touching 
        sin again.
    
        The atonement is finished.  Reconciliation is fully and universally
        attained.
    
        We've been through it all before.  I won't debate, but this is
        what my 'word upon word', 'line upon line', 'precept upon precept',
        'here a little, there a little' study of God's character (most
        notably in this respect - God's wrath) has led me to believe.
    
        Have a wonderful weekend you all.
    
                                                       Tony
                 

  We could prove from scripture all of the objections of the critics
  of historic christianity :

  Slaughterhouse religion : He was led as a sheep to the slaughter..."

  Bloodthirsty God "without the shedding of blood there is no remission..."

  Sinners in the hands of an angry God?

  "All have sinned...",
  "God is angry with the wicked all day long..."
  "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God"

  But thats only half the story

  "shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"
  "God himself shall provide the sacrifice..."

  In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God hath sent His
  only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this 
  is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be
  the *propitiation* for our sins.    I John 4:9-10

  The Lamb of God *has* been "slaughtered", His Blood *has* been shed.
  Our Heavenly Father is not angry with His *children* but has himself provided
  the sacrifice and its well pleased with Him and those who are "in Him".


  As an aside : in the first 200 years of the church everyone (for the most
  part) those who held to the teaching of the deity of Christ (either in form 
  or essence) looked upon each other as true (howbeit errorneous) christians
  based not on the Person of Christ and His deity (both granting His deity), 
  but on the propitiatory nature of His Blood Atonement. going into the
  year 300 (approx) began the pronouncing of anathemas and eventually
  bloodshed.  

  Mark S (and others) I guess Im fishing for something that would be indicated
  in the following questions

  Mark

  Once you have believed in the Son of God, do you know for certain that you
  have eternal life (some where and in some form)?

  Others 

  Can we justify the position of many orthodox that those who hold to the
  form-deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ, though they are trusting in
  his Blood Atonement, will not be "saved".

  Can we justify the position of many orthodox that those who hold to the
  essence-deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ, though they cannot say
  for sure that they know they will be "saved", that they, in fact, will not 
  be "saved"?

  In short (I guess) : What (or who) is the guarantee (if any) of eternal life?

   
                      Hank

    re .11 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>                              -< Hard questions? >-
    
    Making the questions hard?   :-)
    
>  Mark
>
>  Once you have believed in the Son of God, do you know for certain that you
>  have eternal life (some where and in some form)?
    
    	I don't believe in the notion of "once saved always saved", for I
    think the Scriptures make it clear from that a believer can fall away
    on his own (into, say, apostacy, or into some other form of sin which
    would cause him to lose God's favor, assuming he didn't repent), and
    thus lose out on eternal life.
    
    	However, I also don't believe that God arbitrarily withdraws the
    hope of eternal life from believers just to keep them guessing.  God is
    faithful to his promises.  
    
    	Jesus said:
    
    		"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' 
    		shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who
    		does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
    		(Mat 7:21 RSV)
    
    Clearly, those who say "Lord, Lord" are believers in the Son of God --
    but it takes more than mere belief.  In fact, as Jesus went on to say,
    even those with the ability to "prophecy", "cast out demons", and "do
    many mighty works" in Jesus' name would be considered "evildoers",
    evidently because they would NOT be doing the will of his Father.
    
    	If you're asking me, personally, "do you [I] know for certain that
    you [I] have eternal life?", my answer is that I have faith in God's
    promises, and thus don't worry that they won't come true.  However,
    Paul wrote:
    
    		"Let any one who thinks he stands take heed
    		lest he fall" (1Cor 10:12 RSV),
    
    which seems like good advice to me.  Of course, Paul wasn't trying to
    sow seeds of doubt and undermine our faith in God, but rather, to point
    out that people need to continually examine themselves, and rely on God
    rather than on what could be misguided self-confidence (ref. v.13ff). 
    A view verses earlier he wrote:
    
    		"but I pommel by body and subdue it, lest after
    		preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."
    		(1Cor 9:27 RSV)
    
    Again, Paul didn't doubt his own faith and loyalty to God, but he
    knew that if he didn't keep after himself ('stay tough' with himself),
    he could be "disqualified" from receiving the "imperishable" "prize"
    (v.25,24) set before him.
    
    
    								-mark.

>  Can we justify the position of many orthodox that those who hold to the
>  form-deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ, though they are trusting in
>  his Blood Atonement, will not be "saved".

>  Can we justify the position of many orthodox that those who hold to the
>  essence-deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ, though they cannot say
>  for sure that they know they will be "saved", that they, in fact, will not 
>  be "saved"?

Can you define "form-deity" and "essence-deity" for me, and give examples?

I'm guessing that you're referring to the doctrine that Christ was fully God,
one in "essence" (homoousious) with the Father, true God and true man, as
"essence-deity", and the notion that Christ's divinity/deity was of a more
restricted kind -- where he was divine, but not quite God made flesh -- as
form-deity?

>  As an aside : in the first 200 years of the church everyone (for the most
>  part) those who held to the teaching of the deity of Christ (either in form 
>  or essence) looked upon each other as true (howbeit errorneous) christians
>  based not on the Person of Christ and His deity (both granting His deity), 
>  but on the propitiatory nature of His Blood Atonement. going into the
>  year 300 (approx) began the pronouncing of anathemas and eventually
>  bloodshed.  

I'm not sure I can properly parse this.  Are you saying that before the
Council of Nicea (325) and the Arian controversy that there were two groups of
Christians, those who believed in "form-deity" and those who believed in
"essence-deity", who disagreed with one another but still thought one another
orthodox, but that at the time of the Arian controversy, they began to condemn
one another?  And how are you relating the propitiatory nature of his blood
atonement in here?  As far as I know this did not play a role in the contro-
versy; the main controversy was over whether Christ was uncreated, eternally
begotten, and one in essence with the Father and the Spirit, or whether he was
of like essence with the Father and the first creation of the Father.

I think what you may be referring to is the argument that only the sacrifice of
God Himself would be sufficient/acceptable/propitatory for taking away man's
sins.  However, I doubt this issue came up in the 4th century, because this
concept of Christ being a sacrifice to placate an angry God was really never
developed or widespread before St. Anselm developed the concept in the 11th 
century.  (A Romanist heresy, as some would say.) I don't even regard this 
perspective of the reason Christ had to be sacrificed as central to the 
Christian faith.  The facts are that Christ was sacrificed to free us from sin, 
Satan, and condemnation, and that by Christ's sacrifice we have salvation and 
the forgiveness of ours sins.  But nothing in Scripture demands that we 
understand this in the sense of God demanding an infinite sacrifice to placate 
His anger.

Eric

  Re 427.12 Mark S

 Thanks for your response, these answers are what I expected, and as you
 already know, there are quite a few christians (of all sorts) who do
 not adhere to OSAS. I do, but I dont want to ignite another fire storm
 around this doctrine. I would like to make some observations : The 
 language of faith and salvation is just a little bit distorted by the 
 KJV. In the gospels, especially in John, such as a favorite : John 3:16
 "that whosever believeth on Him" has the preposition "eis" for the word
 "on". The english equivalent : "whoever believes into Him" a little
 foreign to the english speaker, but might be interpreted as "whoevers
 belief brings him into Him". (presumably into the Body of Christ). Also
 in Luke 3:16 (John the Baptist speaking) "I indeed baptize you with water...
 He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost..." "with" is "en" and should be
 "I baptize you in water...but He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost".
 Salvation is of the Lord and it is HE who positions us in the Spirit. 

 Now, if you mean this or something similar to this when you say "mere belief
 is not enough" , then I would agree, apparently there is a "belief" in
 Jesus Christ that does not result in being baptised into the Body of Christ.

 Christians come to the erroneous conclusion that those who believe OSAS
 are using this doctrine as a cloke for their evil deeds (and this may be true
 of some). However, OSAS christians do not have a monopoly as "evil doers"
 which has recently been demonstrated on national TV.

 What I am coming to is the fact that those who are positioned by the Lord in 
 the Spirit and Body of Christ are promised "I will in no wise cast out". 
 However they are also the recipients of and made to presently share in the 
 nature of God, one of whose attributes is the love of truth and righteousness. 

 These cannot sin with the full force of their will, and we are warned many
 times in the scriptures to avoid such who give this appearance of "commiting
 sin" for if they can feel comfortable with sin and practise evil deeds, then
 they are pronounced by the scriptures as the children of the devil.

 "In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest,
  whoever does not practise righteousness is not of God nor is he who does
  not love his brother. Now this is the message that you heard from the
  beginning, that we should love one another"

 so again, I would agree with you Mark, that some sort of evidence will 
 manifest itself by the practise of outward deeds and love for one's 
 fellow man. This is an an outflowing of the nature of God through the Holy 
 Spirit,  these "works" are "evidence" of salvation and not the "cause".
 We may not totally agree on this one, I'm not sure. If one reverses the
 order and we say that my deeds postion me favorably with God then what does
 this do to the propitiatory value of the sacrifice of Christ?

 Now, there are those who "fall", but we are told of their unhappy end. In
 I Corinthians we are told that many of the Corinthian christians "sleep"
 because of their evil deeds. Again in Hebrews we are told that we will be
 "chastised" or punished, when necessay, by our heavenly Father unless we 
 are (perhaps)  "illegitimate". Think of the sad results reaped in the lives
 of David and Samson. We are admonished to take heed and let them be examples
 of Our Heavenly Father's heavy hand (when necessary).
 I would say they come under the umbrella of having their flesh destroyed
 that their spirit might be saved.

 Finally for those who doubt that they won't be "saved" 

 "For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knows all
  things"  I John 3:20.

 If we continuously look at our sins we'll fall face down in the mud.... 

 "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith"

                       Hank
 

 Re 427.13 Eric

 Yes Eric I am alluding to the Arian controversy, "orthodox" however might
 not be applicable, didnt the followers of Athanasius use this term of all
 those who adhered to trinitarianism? I am refering to before these things
 got nasty; within the first 2 centuries. 

 essence-deity vs form-deity : yes you guessed right. essence is trinitarian;
 (three distinct persons in one divine essence [hupostasis]) form is 
 non-trinitarian (that is Christ came in the "form" of God" created, howbeit 
 unique and highly exaulted above any other creature).

 What I am trying to do is demonstrate our differences with non-trinitarians.
 Early on in the Church, both form and essence christian fellowship was around 
 the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ not the nature of His Person, thats all
 I'm saying.

  > But nothing in scripture demands that we understand this in the sense of
    God demanding an infinite sacrifice to placate His anger.

  I agree with this because of the "we"... 

  however, 

  "He who believes on the Son has everlasting life, and he who does not believe
   the Son, shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him" John 3:36.

  The wrath of God is clearly defined in the Apocalyse...

                  Hank
 

> Early on in the Church, both form and essence christian fellowship was around 
> the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ not the nature of His Person, thats all
> I'm saying.

Well, I would agree that the focus of Christian _kerygma_ (proclamation of the
Good News) during that time of persecution before 311 was not on the nature of
the Person of Christ in the intense theological sense that it was later. How-
ever, I don't think that you are correct in painting a picture of groups of
"form Christians" and groups of "essence Christians" living distinctly but in
harmony with one another.  I argue that Christian theology was not developed
enough to have those two distinct groups: not only was the nature of Christ's
Person not a focus of Christian fellowship, it was not a focus of Christian
theology, either.  In other words, there _were_ no "Form Christians" and
"Essence Christians" at that time, because the theological issues of form
and essence had not yet arisen.  The reason for the Arian controversy was not
because the "form Christians" and the "essence Christians" which had lived in
harmony for so long decided they couldn't get along; it was because what had 
been a common theological tradition that had never examined or addressed the 
issue of the nature of Christ's Person began to examine and address it, and in 
this development of doctrine, there arose the Arian side and the Trinitarian 
side, which then came into conflict.

Remember that there really wasn't much of a chance for theological intercourse
among Christians while they were all being thrown to the lions and burned to
illuminate the grounds of the Emperors.  The Christians weren't exactly free to
found universities and monasteries, nor free to consult easily with Christians
throughout the world.  The end of persecution, however, permitted Christians to
come together and study theology in peace (well, in peace until disputes 
arose!).  But before this, the theology was not well developed.

Eric

 True, the frictional intensity of the differences amongst the early church 
 christians appears minimal, probably due, as you say, to the persecutions
 and the intensity of their bond of agape love. Was is Clement who wanted 
 to be eaten by lions and turned into "the bread of Christ"? But not all 
 christians everywhere suffered persecution either and there is a definite
 cleavage in the early patristic writings (that I remember reading) along
 the lines of substance (hupostasis) and form (Morphe) teaching concerning 
 Christ and His relationship to the Father, not in a combative or antagonistic 
 or even in an argumentive way, but simply by way of scripture emphasis, words 
 and illustrations used in their epistles and homilies. He was "begotten of
 the Father" and (imo) it didnt make a lot of difference to them whether it was
 in "time" or "eternity" or whether he "came out of" or "shined forth from"
 the Father. Call it an emerging distinction if you will.

 It was better then.
 
                     Hank

> Was is Clement who wanted to be eaten by lions and turned into "the bread 
> of Christ"?

No, St. Ignatius of Antioch: "I am God's wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of
wild beasts that I may be found pure bread [of Christ]." (Romans 4:1)

Relevant quotes to the topic:

Letter of Pope St. Dionysius of Rome to Dionysius of Alexandria, A.D. 262
1. It is necessary, however, that the Divine Word be united with the God of
the Universe; and the Holy Spirit must abide and dwell in God.  Therefore the
Divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in One, a Summer, as it
were-- I mean, the omnipotent God of the Universe. ... 2. Nor are they less to
be blamed who hold that the Son is a work [creation], and think that the Lord
was made, as if He were one of those things which were truly made. The divine
statements bear witness to a generation suitable and becoming to Him, but not
to any fashioning or making.
   It is a blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the
Lord is in any way a handiwork.  If if He came to be Son, then once He was not;
but if, as He says Himself, He be in the Father, and if, which you know the
Divine Scripture says, Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power, and these
attributes be powers of God, then He always existed. ... 3. Thus both the
Divine Trinity and the sacred proclamation of the Monarchy will be preserved.

The Trinity, written by Novatian, circa 235 A.D.

11. We do not treat of the substance of [Christ's] body in such a way as to
say that He was only and solely a man; rather, we hold that by the association
of the divinity of the Word in that very corporality, He was, in accord with
the Scriptures, also God.

31. ... [A]ssuredly, [Christ] is God proceeding from God, causing, as Son, a
second Person after the Father, but not taking away from the Father the fact
that God is one.

St. Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2,15, circa 181 A.D.:
"The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity:
God, His Word, and His Wisdom." (This is the first use of the term Trinity
referring to the Godhead.)

Athanagoras' Plea, chapter 10, circa 177 A.D.:

       "Let no one think it stupid for me to say that God has a Son.  For
    we do not think of God the Father or of the Son in the way of the
    poets, who weave their myths by showing that gods are no better than
    men.  But the Son of God is his Word in idea and in actuality; for by
    him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being
    one.  And since the son is in the Father and the Father in the Son by
    the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the mind and Word
    of the Father.

       "But if, owing to your sharp intelligence, it occurs to you to
    inquire further what is meant by the Son, I shall briefly explain.  He
    is the first offspring of the Father.  I do not mean that he was
    created, for, since God is eternal mind, he had his Word within himself
    from the beginning, being eternally wise. . . .

       "Indeed we say that the Holy Spirit himself, who inspires those who
    utter prophecies, is an effluence from God, flowing from him and
    returning like a ray of the sun.  Who, then, would not be astonished to
    hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and
    the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity in power and their
    distinction in rank?"

I would also note that St. Ignatius of Antioch, d. 110 A.D., refers to Christ
as God zillions of times, so I won't quote them here, but he uses such
terms as "God's blood" and "the Passion of my God" and "Our God, Jesus the
Christ, was conceived by Mary" and "God incarnate" and "God was revealing
himself as a man".

Actually I would contend that the Arian controversy was not whether Jesus was
God in "form" or in "essence" but whether he was God at all.  I don't recall
Arius arguing that Jesus was God, but in form only; he denied such titles as
the "Mother of God" (or "God bearer") to the Virgin Mary because he objected
to calling Christ God.

Eric

� No, St. Ignatius of Antioch: "I am God's wheat, and I am ground by the 
� teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread [of Christ]." (Romans 4:1)

Romans 4:1 reads: 
  "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the 
   flesh has found?"
  - considering Abraham's belief in God which was counted as righteousness

I'm not convinced that this is strictly pertinent to Ignatius' observation...

							Andrew

 St. Ignatius of Antioch... of course, I knew that   :-).

 I'm aware of the trinitarian writings  , and if we read only the trinitarian
 side, we would come to the conclusion that the dispute was between Jesus as
 God or man rather than *merely man*. Probably everyone semantically over
 reacted. There were also myriad (I assume you know this) errors within 
 trinitarianism.  My feeling about all this is as follows:

 1)There was a spirit of error in the early Church, which if it had been 
 treated in a different and wiser way (and I'm not sure what that is) things 
 would have worked themselves out to a better ending. But the murder and 
 bloodshed perpetrated by all factions  (up to , what shall we say? the 17th 
 century) never can and never will be justified.  :=(

 2) Personally (underline that word) I dont believe "form deity" is a deadly 
 error. (and I hope with all my heart this is so).

 Love one another...  
                    Hank

    re 427.14 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> belief brings him into Him". (presumably into the Body of Christ). Also
>                                                                    Also
> in Luke 3:16 (John the Baptist speaking) "I indeed baptize you with water...
> He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost..." "with" is "en" and should be
> "I baptize you in water...but He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost".
> Salvation is of the Lord and it is HE who positions us in the Spirit. 
    
    	Quoting the RSV, that verse reads:
    
    		"I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier
    		than I ... will baptize you with the Holy Spirit
    		and with fire."
    
    I quote the RSV just to show that "with" is a fairly modern "orthodox"
    rendering of "en", and also to point out that there is also a baptism
    "_en_ fire".  If we're supposed to read the passage as "in water" and
    "in the Holy Spirit", then we should also read "in fire", right?  This
    reading seems a little strange.
    
    	Not knowing Greek myself, I'll have to go lookup what "en" could
    mean; but I suspect that it means "in" or "with" depending on context.
    Dare I say it, but you seem to be forceably translating an theological
    point into the verse.
    
> Now, if you mean this or something similar to this when you say "mere belief
> is not enough" , then I would agree, apparently there is a "belief" in
> Jesus Christ that does not result in being baptised into the Body of Christ.
    
    	Well, oddly enough, I can agree with what your words literally say,
    but not for the same reason you say it.  In the Witness view, the
    144,000 who are privileged to receive the heavenly resurrection are the
    ones who are "baptized into the Body of Christ".  The unlimitted
    majority who have the hope of life on earth are not officially part of
    the "body of Christ" in this particular sense.
    
    	I suspect that you mean that one can believe in Jesus and not be
    "baptised into the Body of Christ" in the sense that, say, the demons
    believe in him; which is to say that they know the truth about him but
    are far removed from unity with him due to their own willful sin.  Or
    else you mean that people believe in Jesus, but really only
    superficially, and that God knows this and doesn't accept them into the
    "body of Christ" (even though they think, by their belief and actions,
    and perhaps, fellowship with those truly in the body of Christ, that
    they are so accepted).
    
    	I don't doubt the existence of 'superficial Christians' -- but it
    strikes me that your standards for saying who is and is not truly in
    the body of Christ [== saved?] are a bit vague -- though they do allow
    you to say about one who falls away, "well, he must not have really
    been saved".
    
> Christians come to the erroneous conclusion that those who believe OSAS
> are using this doctrine as a cloke for their evil deeds (and this may be true
> of some). However, OSAS christians do not have a monopoly as "evil doers"
> which has recently been demonstrated on national TV.
    
    	Are you saying that a person who is "OSAS" is truly immune from the
    effects of sin, and that he (or she) could not possibly, by an act of
    free will, do something that would bring God's condemnation upon them?
    If so, then what's the point of the Bible's warning to Christians who
    ARE "OSAS" that they need to watch out for "the devil ... [who is]
    seeking some one to devour" (1Pet 5:8 RSV)?  Does God only give the
    'unsaved' up to the 'Devil's wrath'?
    
> What I am coming to is the fact that those who are positioned by the Lord in 
> the Spirit and Body of Christ are promised "I will in no wise cast out". 
> However they are also the recipients of and made to presently share in the 
> nature of God, one of whose attributes is the love of truth and righteousness.
    
    	Off-hand I don't know where this quote is from; but I had it in the
    back of my mind when I said [in a previous reply] that I don't believe
    that God arbitrarily withdraws the promised reward to the faithful.
    This was an assurance to the faithful that they would receive God's
    promised rewards for their faithfulness; it wasn't a guarantee that no
    truly faithful individual would ever fall away.
    
> These cannot sin with the full force of their will, and we are warned many
> times in the scriptures to avoid such who give this appearance of "commiting
> sin" for if they can feel comfortable with sin and practise evil deeds, then
> they are pronounced by the scriptures as the children of the devil.
>
> "In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest,
>  whoever does not practise righteousness is not of God nor is he who does
>  not love his brother. Now this is the message that you heard from the
>  beginning, that we should love one another"
    
    	This isn't a proof that 'saved Christians' "cannot sin with the
    full force of their will"; it only proves that God judges people based
    on their actions, not just their verbal professions.
    
> Finally for those who doubt that they won't be "saved" 
>
> "For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knows all
>  things"  I John 3:20.
    
    	Again, this isn't proof that a person can't fall away; but rather,
    it's encouragement for us not to get too weighted down by human
    feelings to the point of wrongly thinking God has rejected us when he
    hasn't.
    
    ==*==
    
    	You know, I'm *still* not sure what the point of this topic string
    is.
    
    
    								-mark.

  Re .21 Mark S

  "EN" :

  It is impossible to determine if "en" is in the locative case (in) or 
  in the instrumental case (with) in Luke 3:16 and Matt 3:11 by looking at the
  case ending of the object nouns, since both are spelled the same., however
  the word baptismo and its root bapto have for several thousand years 
  meant to place one thing into another : locative; to dip, emmerse, plunge
  bury. Used of "dipping" garments into dye, plunging a dagger or sword into
  one's enemy, (the dagger is baptised, not the victim), interning a corpse
  into a grave, etc; Kittel's TDNT; Vol 1, Pg. 529.

  The word is locative by nature and its objects are *always* locative (in).
  The KJV translators (no one's perfect) practised sprinkling as the mode of
  baptism and chose to transliterate the word "baptise, baptism" (emmerse and
  emmersion being too explicit) from the greek and use the preposition "with"
  to favor the insrtumental case, presumably to support this doctrine. 
  Unfortunately they did the same to the prepostional phrase "with the Holy
  Spirit" and it has stuck to this day.

  Other passages verify the locative case...

  ...As many of us as were baptised into (eis) Christ Jesus were
  baptised Into His death  Cor 12:13  NKJV

  For by one Spirit we were all baptised into (eis) one Body I Cor 12:13

  Of those who will be positioned in this Body...

  "My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me and I give
  them eternal life, and they shall shall never perish, neither shall anyone
  snatch them out of my hand, My Father who has given [them] to Me is greater 
  than all , and no one is able to snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and
  My Father are one." (sharing the same figurative hand - that is the same
  essence - I just had to do that Mark  :-) ).

  > "baptismo...en puri" baptise...with fire

  Actually the "en" is not there, its says "kai puri" ; "and fire".

  s/b "He shall baptise you in [the] Holy Spirit and fire"

  > What does this mean, well thats a good question and most (I believe)
  answer by pointing to Acts 2-Joel 2 as a fulfilment of Jesus Promise of
  the Holy Spirit (and it might be a partial or test fulfilment). However
  it seems better to look at this passage a little further (Matt 3:12)

  His winnowing fan is in His hand and He will thoroughly purge His threshing
  floor and gather His wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff
  with unquenchable fire".

  Here John the Baptist is speaking to a mixed crowd of "believers",
  "not quite believers" and non-believers and is simply saying that those who
  would believe in the "coming one" would be baptised in the Holy Spirit,
  while those who were unbelieving or had non-saving "belief" toward Him
  would be baptized in fire, probably not aware of the several centuries of
  interlude before He would come "in His glory".

  The wheat and the tares...Matt 13:30

  Let them grow together until the harvest, and at the time of the harvest
  I will say to the reapers "first gather together the tares and bind them 
  in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into by barn (garner)".

  The lake of fire... Rev 20:14-15

  Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
  death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into
  the lake of fire.

  Sometimes "fire" speaks of Our Father's "purifying fire". 

  Speaking of the "day of the Lord"  Zech 13:9.

  I will bring the one-third (survivors) through the fire [which] will refine 
  them as silver is tested and test them as gold is tested, they will call on
  My name, and I will answer them. I will say "This is my people" and each 
  will say "Jehovah is my God".

  Re non-saving "belief"

  > in the sense that, say, the demons believe in Him

  yes, due to the defective nature and quality of their belief (non-trusting)
  and probably  not desiring to be "saved", the Lord will not place them into 
  the Body of Christ.

  > are you saying that a person who is "OSAS" is truly immune from the effects
    of sin...

  No, only those who are true belivers and only to the extent that "they will
  never perish" physical death not the second death being the ulimate temporal 
  result of their earthly sins (of great gravity and undealt with).

  > the point of this topic string

  The point is that Our Heavenly Father *has been* propitiated through the
  Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ and those who truly believe "will never 
  perish". One's position in Christ dosn't depend on the believers faithfulness
  but on the value of Christs' sacrifice and Our Fathers faithfulness to 
  keep His word.

                              Hank

>  The KJV translators (no one's perfect) practised sprinkling as the mode of
>  baptism and chose to transliterate the word "baptise, baptism" (emmerse and
>  emmersion being too explicit) from the greek and use the preposition "with"
>  to favor the insrtumental case, presumably to support this doctrine. 

Can you document that the KJV translators practised sprinkling?

As far as I know, the instructions in the Book of Common Prayer were:

    "he shall dip him in the Water discreetly, or shall pour Water
     upon him, saying, `N., I baptize thee In the Name of the Father,
     and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'"

/john

  You are right, I am wrong.

  replace "sprinkling" with "pouring" in the offending paragraph

  My mistake and I apologize...


                     Hank

>� No, St. Ignatius of Antioch: "I am God's wheat, and I am ground by the 
>� teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread [of Christ]." 
>� (Romans 4:1)

> Romans 4:1 reads: 
>  "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the 
>   flesh has found?"
>  - considering Abraham's belief in God which was counted as righteousness

> I'm not convinced that this is strictly pertinent to Ignatius' observation...

I figured this might happen! :-)

I was quoting the Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, chapter
four, verse 1.  Since I had already said I was quoting Ignatius, I referred to
it as "Romans 4:1" instead of "Ignatius to the Romans, 4:1"; this is a common
practice when quoting patristic writings.  Note that my reference to Romans 4:1
is outside of the quotes, not inside, attributing the source of the quote, not
quoting a reference by Ignatius to the book of Romans.

Ignatius wrote epistles to a number of churches, including the Romans, the
Trallians, the Magnesians, the Smyrneans, and the Philadelphians.  And one
epistle to St. Polycarp of Smyrna.

Eric

Thanks Eric!  I just felt it ought to be underlined that we weren't talking 
what's normally understood by 'Romans' - inspired scripture - here!

								Andrew

re "chose to transliterate the greek word to baptize rather than use
    immerse"

You also imply that the word "baptize" was not already the common English
term for the sacrament before the KJV translators used it.

That, too, is wrong.  The word had been in use for quite some time, and
the KJV was by no means the first English translation of the bible to
use the word.

And, in fact, the word "baptize" -- in English -- is much more specific than
"immerse" in referring to the spiritual cleansing associated with both John
the Baptist's form of baptism (a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness
of sins, Mk 1:4) and the baptism instituted by Jesus.

/john

    
    On baptism:
    
    Was Jesus laid in the ground?
    
    In the Bible, are the saints ever "immersed" in the Spirit?
    
    How prevalent were bodies of water in Israel and other Middle East
    countries at the time?
    
    How many people did John the Baptist baptize?  How many people can a
    man baptize in an hour in the immersion method?  How many people can a
    man physically immerse before losing strength?
    
    What was the form of Baptism in Judaism?
    
    Where was the jailer and his family baptized?  Did Paul leave the
    prison or courtyard?

   Ok , ok everyone, I'm not refuting sprinkling or pouring or trying
   to prove water baptism by immersion only.

   I know the transliterated word was used before the KJV translators, but
   the word baptize in english takes its nuance from the mode of baptism
   used in the european churches and not from the koine meaning. 

   I'm only trying to show that we are positioned "in the Spirit"

   Jesus was put *into* a tomb.

   John baptised *in* the Jordan becuase there was "much water" there

   I dont know the exact number he baptized, does anyone, prepositional
   phrases used with baptismo are locative (in, into, out of) not instrumental
   (with ,by, by means of) Thats all I'm saying. He might have had help, 
   maybe he baptised someone, they baptised someone else,,,etc, etc.

   I dont know the exact mode of baptism in Judaism in Jesus day, but we are
   not discussing that we are talking about John's baptism and the verbs, 
   nouns and prepositions of the inspired text.

   Where was the jailer baptized? I dont know, but public baths were very
   popular in Macedonia.
    
   If the word "emmerse" had been used early on, then it would probably have 
   a different nuance today and yes, we probably could say we are "immersed"
   in the Spirit (water being a metaphor for Spirit).

   I dont really care how you were baptized in or with water.
   
   I love you all no matter.
     

                    Hank

    
    You may search the Scriptures and not find one reference to immersion
    in the Spirit.  You will, however, find every occasion of the reference
    to the Spirit being manifested to men to not be associated with
    immersion and most often associated with the something close to the
    opposite of immersion.
    
    jeff

 
  Re .29

  > I dont care...

  I dont mean its not intrinsically important, its just unimportant to me in 
  our context.

     Hank

John 3:23 
 "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was
  much water there: and they came, and were baptized."

A quantity of water was apparently a pre-requisite here...

I heard that even by the time the KJV was translated there was considerable
debate, and a close vote over whether 'baptize' or 'immerse' should be used. 

And the picture of Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 seems to imply immersion
very strongly :
 "We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order 
  that ... we may too live a new life"
 "...having been buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through 
  your faith in the power of God, Who raised Him from the dead"

Obviously it can be bent as 'only a token',  rather than a precise picture,
but the conformance of the picture with the original enhances the validity
of the picture. 

Uh, and I did hear that the baptism by fire will be by immersion too... As in 
Mathew 3:10..  25:41.., Luke 3:16-17.. Revelation 21:8.

Not trying to sidetrack or stir ... Just thought it's worth mentioning as 
the stance is not without foundation...

							Andrew

Certainly the images of immersion baptism are important -- descent into a
medium in which human life is not possible, and rising out of this medium.

I don't think any ecclesial community refuses to practice immersion baptism
if the facilities can be made available.

But the Church has always taught that there are three kinds of baptism:

	1. water (the regular way)   
	2. blood (dying as a martyr for Christ before being baptized)
	3. desire (dying before baptism but being desirous of it)

I see rejection of anything but full immersion as excessive legalism.

/john

  Well , I guess I started this, but for what its worth, baptism (imo)
  is a matter of individual conscience, and if a brother or sister
  feels that they have fulfilled the biblical requirements 
  (whether symbolically or actually (by any mode)) then im ok yur ok.
  And I say this out of a conviction which overrides what I feel is
  the correct mode because of the health and well-being of the Body of 
  Christ. Its not good to quarrel about these which divide us.

                      Hank

Time to reopen this string, but on a different tack.  I was having a good
conversation with a friend of mine and he made the statement that
God (the Father) in the Old Testament was a God of Wrath and Jesus (the Son)
was the God fo compassion, tenderness, and peace.  He seemed to indicate 
that God chose to change His nature by ushering in the New Covenant and
becoming the God of forgiveness instead of the punishing, wrathful God.

I reflected that I have heard similar charges against the God of the Old
Testament before and it bothered me that a certain prejudice about this
view of God was being perpetuated.  Several verses leap out, such as
God being the same yesterday, today, and forever, and Holy, holy, is the Lord
God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.

I protested saying that the God of the Old Testament is F A R from a God
of wrath but a God of great compassion, mercy, and long-suffering.  I cited
three instances: King David, Jonah, and Sodom.  King David had his relationship
stored, even through the consequences of his sin were dire. David extolled 
the mercies of the Lord in his Psalms.   

God was going to destroy the wicked city of Nineveh; Jonah was called to 
preach the last sermon of repentence; ran away; swallowed by a great fish;
vomited up on shore; he preached; they repented; Jonah went out on a hill
waiting for the fireworks that never came.  Jonah got hot; God grew a shade
bush for him and Jonah was happy; God killed the shade bush the next day;
Jonah got mad.  Jonah had more compassion on a plant than he did a city 
of many thousands.  God demonstrated his mercy and love because of Ninevah's
repentence.

With Sodom, the same was offered (though the story is a little different).
God came to Abraham before judgment was passed.  Abraham said, "will not
the Lord do right?"  They talked a bit and God promised that he would
not destroy Sodom for even 10 righteous people in the city.  God demonstrated
that He was not dispassionately and arbitrarily nuking a city because he
didn't like them; He was demnonstrating that there was already no other 
recourse.  Like a surgeon who diagnoses a leg wih gangrene, does all he can
to save the leg, finally must amputate the leg to save the patient -- God
demonstrated to Abraham (and to us) that ("the leg could not be saved")
there was no recourse left to Him but judgment.  In fact, He displayed
an added mercy by extracting Abraham's nephew.  

Now was this love to kill so many people?  Some people love to point out that
a God who kills is not a God of love.  Then neither is the surgeon doing right
by amputating a leg even if it saves the life of the patient.  As I said, 
removal of the Sodomites was an act of love towards the rest of the world
and an act of righteous judgment when there was no recourse for repentence
left (as the lesson of Ninevah suggests).  And also remember that as Creator, 
"death" is a tragedy to us on the human level.  Let's assume that there
were oh, eight, rightoues people who died in Sodom's judgment (because
so-called innicent people do suffer because of the society in which they live).
Where do the righteous go upon physical death but to God?  St. Paul said to
be absent from the body is to be with Christ.  So while we may view the
death of a righteous person a tragedy, it is a tragedy to us, but not to 
the righteous person.  And as for the unrighteous person, judgment is passed
when the means for reconcilliation is rejected for the last time.  Who
determines the last time?  The Creator - God.

I think many people make the mistake of attributing to God fewer characteristics
that we ourselves have.  God has all these characteristics and more but in
pure and holy form.  (Purity is a good subject in which to meditate.)
Did God have wrath?  Yes, he did!  Did God execute judgment on people?
Yes, He did!  Does this diminish His being a loving God?  Not at all!!!!
To diminsh this aspect of God would be to create God in our image.
But when you come from the idea that God, pure and holy and at the core
of His essence is love, then some of the wrath and the judgment begins to
be understood from the proper perspective.  (When you come at it from
the other way around, you've turned it upside down by coming at it from
the failings of humanity.)

Mark

Also, it is the same God of the Old Testament who is the God of John 3:16
who loved the world so much to give His Son, prophesied to come from the very
beginning.  If a view of the OT God is predominantly one of wrath and
punishment, then it is a very skewed view of who God is and what God is
like.

MM

Good one, Mark .... 

I preached on this a couple of months back, it spoke to my heart so
strongly.  The Sodom & Gomorrah debate of Abraham with God is an
interseting one.  Most people seem to view it as Abraham trying to persuade
God, but there's a number of factors which show it up in a different light.
Like at the end, God has finished speaking with Abraham (Genesis 18:23) -
not vice versa.  God was using the situation to grow Abraham's faith and
trust.  After it, Abraham *knew* God would do righteously.  And we're told
that it was out of His special love for Abraham, that God saved Lot
(Genesis 19:29). 

On top of that there's various verses that show God's love for mankind
(Israel in particular), and His working, even back then, towards His
salvation plan.  The only difference is that in the Old Testament days,
mankind was still at the stage of having to learn that he couldn't achieve
righteousness in his own strength.  He needed to come to the point of
hungering for the LORD Jesus.  Starting with Job 9:33 "If only there were
someone to arbitrate between us, to lay his hand upon us both...", and
going on to Malachi 3:16 "Then those who feared the LORD talked with each
other, and the LORD listened and heard.  A scroll of remembrance was
written in His presence concerning those who feared the LROD and honoured
His Name."...  A sort of O.T. anticipation of wehat is required for the
second coming ... Matthew 23:39 "I tell you, you will not see me again
until you say 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD'" 


								Andrew

Thanks Andrew. 
----

In continuing my conversation with my good friend, I sought to convey
the fact that the New Covenant didn't simply appear when Jesus happened
on the scene but was in place from the very beginning.  The Law was given
to codify the spirit of the law, but the spirit of the law preceded the
codification.

What is the spirit of the law?  We can see an example of it back in Genesis 2.
"You can do whatever you want, except this."  In our relationship to God,
the law is bound up in obedience.  And obedience is a product of love,
whereas disobedience is a product of rebellion.  

When Jesus was asked about which of the commandments was greatest, he didn't
even hesitate: "Love God with everything you are and have."  He went on to 
say that ALL of the [codified and spiritual] law was hinged on this one thing!
Because we love, we also obey.

Codification of the law was given because of man.  We constantly ask like
the rich young ruler "What must I *do* to be saved."  Instead, we should
ask, "What must I be to be saved?"  It is our being that drives our action;
our attitudes which place us into obedience or rebellion.  (Incidently,
the rich young ruler received his answer.  What you and I must *do* to 
be saved may be completely different than this young wealthy man.  Why?
Because what this man must *do* was remove the barrier between him and God
and *his* barrier was his possessions.  Our barriers may be different.
Consider what barriers exist between God and you.)

Anyway, the spirit of the law existed before the codification of the law,
and Jesus came to reestablish it.  Jesus said, "Think not that I am come 
to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
In other words, the spirit of the law never changed.  God never shifted 
his position on what the spirit (or the letter) of the law meant.  

And we should be careful when we assign different attributes to the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, as if they had unique (as opposed to distinct) functions
or properties.  We need to remember that Jesus and the Father are One.
The Elohim are One God.

And one more thing... (next note)

Mark

Some of Jesus' disciples picked out a blind man and asked who sinned,
the blind man, or his parents.  Jesus corrected their thinking that
the purpose of the man's blindness was not punishment, but for God
to be glorified.

The purpose of "bad things" is what I want to speak about.  The purpose
of punishment for God's children, as has been cited in other notes, is 
to draw them closer to God.  To consider less than this is to make God
an ogre of a parent who delights in torturing his children.  

We can see in human parents how discipline and punishment are used or 
abused, but that punishment in and of itself can be beneficial or 
detrimental depending on how it is applies and why.  To consider punishment
as being bad, then we make God the perpetrator of bad.  But this is 
again thinking backwards instead of forwards.

To think forwards, we must start with a Loving Father God.  Punishment and
judgment are then righteous for a purpose and not arbitrary, ill-advised,
or mean-spirited.  

We tend to think of "handicaps" or "challenges" such as blindness to be
misfortune and tragic, but speak to different blind people and you will
find some who bless their physical blindness because of how it drew them
to God.  Would they like to see?  You bet they would, but they understand
more competely than do you or I what it means to enter into heaven without
sight in your eyes than to see your way to hell.

So we need to reconsider even what we consider to be tragedies of life from
the perspective of eternity, justice, righteousness, holiness, and purity.
Safety and security and prosperty are very nice to have in this life, if
you can pass the test of using these resources to God's glory (multiplying
the talents to which the Master has entrusted you).  But heed the warning
that Jesus gives to those who would gain the world but lose their soul.
Rather, pass the test of walking humbly with your God, for this is all He
requires of us... and the rest (which is added unto us) is blessing!

Mark

God is so Good!