Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Anyone that will allow him in.

-Steve

Luke 14.12-14

	Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give and luncheon or dinner
do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your well-off
neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back so you will be repaid.  But
when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the
blind, and you will be blessed.  Although they cannot repay you, you will
be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Shalom,
Richard

    	It might be added that the people Jesus encouraged his host to
    welcome at the banquet were the ones who were not welcome inside
    the perimeter of the Temple.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Luke 14.15

	When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to
Jesus, "Blessed is the man who will eat in the kingdom of God."

Luke 14.16-25

	Jesus replied, "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and
invited many guests.  At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to
tell those who had been invited, 'Come, everything is now ready.'

	"But they all alike began to make excuses.  The first said, 'I
have just bought a field, and I must go and see it.  Please excuse me.'

	"Another said, 'I have just bought 5 yoke of oxen, and I'm on
my way to try them out.  Please excuse me.'

	"Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.'

	"The servant came back and reported this to his master.  Then the
owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly
into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled,
the blind, and the lame.'

	"'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there
is still room.'

	"Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country
lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full.  I tell you, not
one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'"

re Note 961.3 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     	It might be added that the people Jesus encouraged his host to
>     welcome at the banquet were the ones who were not welcome inside
>     the perimeter of the Temple.
  
        Of course there might still be lively debate regarding who of
        those "not welcome inside the perimeter of the Temple" were
        welcome by Jesus.  Did Jesus welcome everyone not welcome in
        the Temple, or only the "the poor, the crippled, the lame,
        the blind."

        Bob

      Hi,
    
        Spiritualizing some more...
    
        He welcomed the poor in Spirit, those who could not walk
        as Jesus walked and those who lacked discernment.
    
        He came not to call the righteouss, but sinners to repentence.
    
        I think, in the spiritual, we are the poor, the lame, the
        indiscerning, and the sinners.
    
        Jesus is willing to break bread with even me.  God forbid
        I be unwilling to break bread with somebody.
    
                                                   Tony

    I think it's important to ask ourselves, "Who is not at the table?
    Who holds the belief they are not welcome at the table?"
    
    I can't believe that in pointing to the disabled that Jesus was pointing
    to them to the exclusion of others.  I believe Jesus was pointing
    especially to the marginalized.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

      Hi Richard,
    
        I think when Jesus said He came to call the sinners to
        repentance within the context of Christ eating and drinking
        with sinners embraces all of us.
    
                                                  Tony

    Then let me throw a curve ball here.
    
    "And when the King came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who
    did not have on a wedding garment.  And he said unto him, Friend, how
    did you come in here not having a wedding garment>  And he was
    speechless.  Then said the King to His servants, Bind him hand and foot
    and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness where there shall
    be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  For many are called, but few are
    chosen."  Matthew 22: 11-14.
    
    A very important closing...Many are called but few are chosen
    			       Many are called but few are chosen
                               Many are called but few are chosen
    
    Whatever the discussion may be, one thing is definite.  All are invited
    but our eating at the table carries Spiritual conditions.  We must meet
    God on His terms and not our own!!
    
    -Jack

What a rotten King!  He invites random people off the streets to come to
his banquet, but because one of them isn't dressed correctly he has him
bound hand and foot and cast into the outer darkness.  Pretty poor
hospitality, if you ask me.

				-- Bob

    Bob:
    
    Surely you jest!  I mean, I certainly agree with your premise here;
    however, it is obvious that there is a deeper meaning here.  On the
    surface, it looks like the King is being a nit pick and a meany!!!
    
    I believe that in order to meet God the Father, it is necessary to be
    clothed if you will, with the righteousness of Jesus Christ...something
    we are completely incapable of by our own effort.  This necessitates
    the power of the cross!!!  He became sin for us who knew no sin; that
    we might be made the righteous of God in Him.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, if you really meant what you wrote, then how do you through the
Bible into it all? Isn't it Faith in Him that really gets one into Heaven? I
mean, do you really think that everyone who has cried out to God on their death
bed, who in their hearts really wanted to be saved, had believed the Bible was
God's Word? Remember, I'm talking about people with hardend hearts, not Bible
believing Christians. If you believe that this has/does happen, then doesn't it
put holes in the, "you must believe the Bible is the Word of God" theory? It
would seem that there are exceptions, don't ya think? Like it is not cut and
dry as many would make it sound?


Glen

  >> "you must believe the Bible is the Word of God" 
    
    Actually, I never stated this as a prerequisite for eternal life.  I
    will state however, that if one doesn't believe the word to be
    inerrant, then the doctrine can be manipulated by the reader to fit
    their own agenda.  i.e. Pauls writings in Romans 1 are wrong because
    they are homophobic in nature and do not fit the way I picture God to
    be.  
    
    >>Isn't it Faith in Him that really gets one into Heaven?
    
    This is a broad brush statement.  The demons have faith in Him and yet
    they await the coming judgement.  Many have faith in Jesus as a great
    teacher; yet do not believe in the atoning power of the cross and
    stand condemned in their sin.  
    
    Having faith in Him...How?  This is the big question.  If one has faith 
    that Jesus walked the earth, set an example, lived a Godly life, was a
    great spiritual teacher, then one does well.  If one believes in all
    these things, yet rejects the forgiving power of his death and
    resurrection, then one stands hopelessly lost and will face unspeakable
    judgement, something I in my natural state deserve.  "For how shall we
    escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?" Rhetorical question!
    I do not stand here as one who judges, I stand as one who pleas to
    the readers here.  I cannot atone for my own sin, it must be payed for
    by one who can afford to.  If we don't have faith in the finished work
    of the cross, then we must pay for our sin on our own, which is
    impossible.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 961.14 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>

| >> "you must believe the Bible is the Word of God"

| Actually, I never stated this as a prerequisite for eternal life.  I will 
| state however, that if one doesn't believe the word to be inerrant, then the 
| doctrine can be manipulated by the reader to fit their own agenda.  i.e. 
| Pauls writings in Romans 1 are wrong because they are homophobic in nature 
| and do not fit the way I picture God to be.

	Jack, I have to question what you wrote above. I do so because I think
you MIGHT be missing something. Is it possible that from reading the Bible, a
person can get a view of how God is, and then read Paul, who you must admit is
very opinionated, and see that for MANY reasons, Paul's writings seem to go
against a picture that the Bible formed in someone's mind of God? 

	Also, I know the Paul thing was not directed at me, but you do know my
position on the Bible. There are many reasons why I believe as I do, and have
listed them many times. But you will also note that when I listed the reasons,
they were numerous. They included many more things other than homosexuality. I
get the feeling you may think I have an agenda about homosexuality and the
Bible, but homosexuality has nothing to do with my position on the Bible. I
believe the verses are being taken out of context.

| >>Isn't it Faith in Him that really gets one into Heaven?

| This is a broad brush statement.  The demons have faith in Him and yet they 
| await the coming judgement.  Many have faith in Jesus as a great teacher; yet 
| do not believe in the atoning power of the cross and stand condemned in their 
| sin.

	OK, it was a broad brush statement. Thanks for clarifying that. Let me
rephrase it. Isn't it FAITH in Him, as our Savior, as our Guide, as our
Teacher, won't that really get one into Heaven?

Glen

    Greetings Glen:
    
>>    Is it possible that from reading the Bible, person can get a view of how 
>>    God is, and then read Paul, who you must admit is very opinionated, and 
>>    see that for MANY reasons, Paul's writings seem to go against a picture 
>>    that the Bible formed in someone's mind of God?
    
    First we must define who God is before we can answer this.  I believe
    the Bible and nature are God's way of revealing himself to us.  I
    believe that Paul is an authority on the precepts of the Old Testament
    and the law.  I believe as you do that Paul is very opinionated but I
    also believe his opinion is rooted in doctrinal truth.  In regards to
    God, I break it into two elements.  Merciful...and Holy.  This is 
    paradox because Holiness requires...requires...Requires accountability
    and payment.  In our case, God's mercy requires mediatorship...an 
    advocate on our behalf before God.  This is what allows Gods mercy to
    overshadow the Holiness aspect.  It is His Holiness that condemns us
    but it is his mercy that saves us.  
    
    Pauls epistles touch highly on the building of the local body, the
    keeping of doctrines, and setting ourselves apart from the world.  In
    my mind, alot of his "opinions" are spoken for this purpose. 
    Therefore, I conclude that Paul's writings DO NOT go against the
    picture of what Jesus did on the cross.
    
    "Shall we continue to sin that grace may abound?  God forbid, for how 
    can we who are dead to sin still remain therein?"  
    
   >> But you will also note that when I listed the reasons, they were numerous. 
   >> They included many more things other than homosexuality. I get the feeling 
   >> you may think I have an agenda about homosexuality and the Bible, but 
   >> homosexuality has nothing to do with my position on the Bible. I
   >> believe the verses are being taken out of context.
    
    I acknowledge that your issues expand far more than the gay issue.  
    I stand on the belief that if an individual takes the liberty to pick
    and choose what they want to believe, then this leads to apostasy.
    If I took a Constitutional law course and the professor wrote out a
    syllabus with all the required material, the professor is the 
    authority.  Say one of the required readings was the Federalist Papers
    and on my final I wrote the following...
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question: In the case of Madison vs. Marbury, what were the three major 
    points of the protagonist view to the justices?
    
    Answer: Professor Hinkle, I chose to omit this required reading due to 
    the fact that those portrayed in the book were slave owners and I don't 
    feel should be authorities in Constitutional law.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Glen, if you were my professor, my authority if you will, I would think 
    looking hindsight that you would see me as a paumpous
    arse...furthermore, I wouldn't expect to get anything better than an F
    for your course.  
    
    So now I ask, Who are you to put God in a little box?  Who are you to
    try to portray God as politically correct?  Who are you to exert
    authority over God's essence and nature?   And finally, who are to to
    determine which portion of scripture is inspired and which portion
    isn't?          
    
    >>OK, it was a broad brush statement. Thanks for clarifying that. Let me
    >>rephrase it. Isn't it FAITH in Him, as our Savior, as our Guide, as our
    >>Teacher, won't that really get one into Heaven? 
    
    I did want to clarify because there are many who have faith in Jesus
    but reject the power of the cross and the redemption offered by Jesus
    through his death and resurrection.  I had an aunt who was a nun, and a
    beautiful woman at that.  She was spry and with it if you know what I
    mean.  I shared this with her and she rejected it.  She believed that
    all alive would enter eternal life in the end.  I cordially disagreed
    with her and that was the end.  Anyway, she was killed in a car
    accident a few years ago.  As lovely as she was, I pray that God used
    me to have planted a seed in her life and hopefully she saw her need to
    be redeemed through the blood of the cross.  She had faith in Jesus as
    a teacher, a great spiritual leader...but when I spoke to her,  she 
    rejected the very atonement she needed to inherit eternal life.  Now,
    back to the point.
    
    The answer is a resounding YES to your question.  Believeing the Bible 
    as 100% inspired to me is not required for eternal life.  Furthermore,
    I am not a Bible worshipper.  I look at it strictly as our source of
    God's nature and essence.  Our only requirement for salvation is to 
    hear...to believe...and to receive.  The epistles deal in Spiritual
    growth, both individually and as a local body.

    Jack,
    
    Since you insist that Holiness requires accountability and payment
    Whom do you see God as accountable to?
    
    
    The ideas you espouse about holiness are significantly contrary to my
    definition of holiness.

      re: .11
    
      Hi Bob,
    
        I believe that there is a reality that one in whom is
        sin will be destroyed in the unveiled presence of God
        because "all things that are exposed are made manifest 
        by the light for whatever makes manifest is light" 
        Eph. 5:13.  And this is a reality that God cannot help.
        The fire of God's love will fully manifest the destructive
        force of sin and God can't help that!
    
        Anyway, with the above thought in mind, God did virtually
        all He could to get us to begin to wear the heavenly robe
        of Christ's righteoussness.  He could do no more.
    
        And He cannot help that if one refused to wear righteoussness
        (and life/salvation is inherent to righteoussness) that that
        person is lost.
    
        This is an excellent example of the truth that the deeper 
        things are seen, the more one sees God's character as it
        really is.  And the less deep things are seen, the worse God's
        character seems.
    
                                                  Tony

      re: .17
    
      Mine too.
    
                                  Tony

| <<< Note 961.16 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| First we must define who God is before we can answer this.  I believe the 
| Bible and nature are God's way of revealing himself to us.  

	You say that one way is through nature, but am I to believe if one only
used nature that this would not be good enough?

| I believe that Paul is an authority on the precepts of the Old Testament and 
| the law.  I believe as you do that Paul is very opinionated but I also believe
| his opinion is rooted in doctrinal truth.  

	Based on what? He already said what he was about to say is not from God
in a book that is supposed to be God's Word. Right there it does show he was
opinionated as we both think, but if this book is supposed to be God's, why is
he taking credit for something? You know, everything is from God, we should not
be taking any credit for anything, yet Paul clearly does? Doesn't it contradict
that part of the Bible (as he does take credit) along with making it the Word
according to God/Paul?

| In regards to God, I break it into two elements.  Merciful...and Holy.  This 
| is paradox because Holiness requires...requires...Requires accountability and 
| payment.  In our case, God's mercy requires mediatorship...an advocate on our 
| behalf before God.  This is what allows Gods mercy to overshadow the Holiness 
| aspect.  It is His Holiness that condemns us but it is his mercy that saves us

	I like this ideal you have Jack. It really is a paradox of sorts. But
is it really defined in just 2 elements? What about all the other things God
is? Just, friend, companion, etc? Are they all tied into mercy maybe? If so,
how?

| Pauls epistles touch highly on the building of the local body, the keeping of 
| doctrines, and setting ourselves apart from the world.  In my mind, alot of 
| his "opinions" are spoken for this purpose. Therefore, I conclude that Paul's 
| writings DO NOT go against the picture of what Jesus did on the cross.

	Errr agreed..... but I don't ever recall saying they did. I thought I
mentioned that they kind of go against the premise that the Bible is the Word
of God, an opinion is human so it goes against the Bible being inerrant along
with showing the Bible contradicts itself (taking no credit).

| I acknowledge that your issues expand far more than the gay issue.
| I stand on the belief that if an individual takes the liberty to pick
| and choose what they want to believe, then this leads to apostasy.

	Agreed. But is it because I do not believe as you do that you think I
have chosen a "pick and choose" method and that it could not be that when I say
I believe X to mean <insert meaning>, that I just could not have come to that
conclusion from reading what I have? I really would appreciate if ya could
explain this Jack. :-)

| Question: In the case of Madison vs. Marbury, what were the three major
| points of the protagonist view to the justices?

| Answer: Professor Hinkle, I chose to omit this required reading due to
| the fact that those portrayed in the book were slave owners and I don't
| feel should be authorities in Constitutional law.
| -------------------------------------------------------------------

	Jack, me thinks you need to understand something. Show me where I have
ever said I omit any part of the Bible? You won't find it anywhere. You WILL
find that I have stated again and again that I do not always come to the same
conclusions to what the writings say. I have given examples of what and why I
believe I do. Maybe this is where the problem is in your thinking about me? So
I guess if you would, show me where I have omitted any part of the Bible.

| Glen, if you were my professor, my authority if you will, I would think 
| looking hindsight that you would see me as a paumpous arse...furthermore, I 
| wouldn't expect to get anything better than an F for your course.

	Jack, if that is the grade you would expect to get, why would you ever
turn in your work? I do not expect to get the same grade for my beliefs. I'll
hold off on the paumpous ass part until ya answer the above! heh heh (sorry,
couldn't resist).

| So now I ask, Who are you to put God in a little box?  

	That's just it Jack. I am not confining Him anywhere. He is everywhere.
He's in the Bible, He's in the theif, He's in women and men, He's in all of
natures beauty and in all of it's disatores. I don't confine Him to a book.

| Who are you to try to portray God as politically correct?  

	Wow, this is new. Where/how have I done that?

| Who are you to exert authority over God's essence and nature?   

	Again, where/how have I done that?

| And finally, who are to to determine which portion of scripture is inspired 
| and which portion isn't?

	I believe the entire Bible to be inspired by God. But because of free
will, something He gave each and every one of us, I don't believe the book to
be inerrant. If it ain't inerrant, how can it be the Word of God?

| >>OK, it was a broad brush statement. Thanks for clarifying that. Let me
| >>rephrase it. Isn't it FAITH in Him, as our Savior, as our Guide, as our
| >>Teacher, won't that really get one into Heaven?

| The answer is a resounding YES to your question.  Believeing the Bible as 100%
| inspired to me is not required for eternal life.  

	Then I guess I have to wonder..... why did we have the above
conversation? :-)

| Furthermore, I am not a Bible worshipper.  I look at it strictly as our source
| of God's nature and essence.  

	Then we are in agreement.

| Our only requirement for salvation is to hear...to believe...and to receive.  

	Him, correct?


Glen

    >    Who would Jesus break bread with?
    
    Jesus broke bread with sinners and saints while on earth.  He came as a
    physician to heal the sick (sinful).  
    
    When it comes to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, only those who serve
    Him as God and believe in Him will break bread with Him.
    
    Mike

    >>Since you insist that Holiness requires accountability and payment
    >>Whom do you see God as accountable to?
    
    Patricia, hope everything is well with you.  Let's see if hopefully we
    can come to some concensus on this.
    
    The American Heritage Dictionary:
    Holy - Greek word Agias: Spiritually pure; saintly.  Worthy of special 
           honor and respect or awe.
    
    As believers, we are called to be Holy.  We are called to be set apart 
    from the world.  We are called to be sanctified (pure before God). 
    You may disagree with this but one absolutely unshakable truth.  God
    cannot sin, God is the supreme sovereign creator of all things, it is
    against God's very nature to commit sin.  He is the creator, we are
    the created... God is accountable to us in one way and one way only...
    this is that our eternal life is based on a promise that God made and
    he is accountable to keep His word...i.e. God is accountable to not
    lie which is sin...which he cannot do!  God cannot sin anymore than we
    can flap our arms and fly.  It contradicts his very essence and being.  
    
    >>The ideas you espouse about holiness are significantly contrary to
    >>my definition of holiness.
    
    Patricia, my definition of holiness is based on the greek translation
    of the word Holy, i.e. to be set apart.  It also conforms to the
    dictionaries definition, i.e. spiritually pure.
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

re: Note 961.22 by Jack

I agree that God cannot sin, but there are (at least) a couple of ways to
interpret that.  Two come immediately to my mind.

One is that what God has defined as sin God cannot do.  Another one is that 
*by definition*, whatever God does is not sin.  This could mean, for example, 
that when God wiped out various peoples, it was not sin, simply because God 
did it.  I don't think I can buy the second meaning.  It seems rather circular 
to me, but it also sounds like a lot of rationalizations I've hear from people 
in my lifetime.

Just musing...

Jim

    Jim:
    
    You are making the assumption that killing is a sin...which obviously
    it is in many cases.  However, you may recall that the law of Moses
    instituted the death penalty for many crimes, some as simple as working
    on the Sabbath.  After each edict, it was written, "I Am the Lord",
    therefore, I believe that although Moses penned the words, the Word was
    actually from God!
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

re: Note 961.24 by Jack

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.  The point I was trying to illustrate is 
that one could have the viewpoint that WHATEVER God did, no matter how heinous 
it was, even if for a human to do it is sinning, that if God did it it would 
NOT be a sin, simply because God did it.  Because by definition, God does not 
sin.

Understand that I don't agree with this chain of thought.

Peace,

Jim

    Oh...Okay...now I got ya!
    
    -Jack

    .24  Think, Jack.  After the exodus experience, Moses and the
    Hebrew chillun lived a nomadic lifestyle.  There was no such thing
    as prisons.  Extermination was seen as a practical solution to
    violating supposedly divinely-bestowed rules and regulations.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    Not necessarily.  For one thing, there were many laws where if broken,
    were punishable with lighter fines, i.e. you must pay back twofold, 
    etc.  Secondly, God did not bestow the death penalty for convenience
    sake.  I agree they lived as nomads; however, I believe the death
    penalty would have existed even if they had returned to Egypt.  It
    wasn't institiuted because of lack of prisons.  It was there to
    demonstrate the seriousness of sin; just as capital punishment today is
    here to demonstrate justice to the victim and the seriousness of
    lawlessness in the eyes of society.
    
    -Jack

    Yeah, Jack.  God instituted the death penalty.  The only people
    who've ever been assigned the death penalty deserved it.  And God
    agreed with it and blessed it.
    
    The death penalty had nothing to do with being a nomadic society
    at the time the law was given (both the first and second time).
    
    God never changes God's mind, right?  What's true in the Bible is
    true forever, right?
    
    Richard
    

    We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting
    in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies.  We
    are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table.  But
    thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy.  Grant
    us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus
    Christ, and to drink his blood, that we may evermore dwell in him, and
    he in us.  Amen.

   >> The death penalty had nothing to do with being a nomadic society
   >> at the time the law was given (both the first and second time).
    
    Okay Richard, fine. Please explain to me why people were stoned to
    death for working on the Sabbath.  
    
    "For prophecy came not in old times by the will of man, but Holy men of
    God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."  1st Peter.
    
    Remember that Moses was a prophet, not merely the law giver.  
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

Note 961.31

>    Okay Richard, fine. Please explain to me why people were stoned to
>    death for working on the Sabbath.  

What is the highest and holiest day Jews observe even today?  I'm not
talking just Jewish fundamentalists here.  I'm talking even Reformed Jews.

Is it Rosh Hashanah?



No.

Is it Yom Kippur?



No.

Is it Passover?



No, it is Shabbot, the Sabbath.  Ask a Jew.

    No...I'm asking you!  You were the cynic..not I.  

      re: .32
    
      Same day I believe God calls me to keep by the way!
    
                                                Tony

  I too am a Sabbath Keeper.

  All who are resting in Jesus Christ are Sabbath Keepers.

  Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy ladened and I will give you rest
  for your souls.

  Hank

    Amen Hank!  With Jesus, everyday is a Sabbath!