Re: [TruthTalk] Basis of Unity (Bill)

[Bill Taylor]

jt: My question is how are you so sure? Scripture does not address where babies/children go to validate the above. Shouldn't we be silent where the scripture is silent?   The Scriptures are not silent, Judy, e.g. "When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these'"; "for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them"; "And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life"  (Mark 10.14; 2Cor 5.19; Rom 5.16-18).   jt: Well Proverbs tells us that God's wisdom dances in the streets saying "come in here" and we know from Romans that God gives  everyone a conscience wherein dwells a natural awareness that there is a God only most prefer the darkness they are living in and few search for Him, or if they do begin to search the devil is quick to come up with carnal substitutes that appeal to the flesh.   I do not disagree with you here, Judy. As I said, I am familiar with the passages at issue in this conversation; however, I believe it takes more than a vague awareness of a distant God to send people to hell in the face of the justifying work of our Lord Jesus Christ.    jt: His children are ONLY those already in Christ    "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist" (Col 1.15-17).   jt: If I were presented with both Bill and were still in darkness and ignorance I'd go for yours because the way I read it, you can't lose.  He does the doing and I do the receiving. However, it's too late now because I've spent so much time searching the Word myself and I have read 1 Pet 4:18 "And if the righteous SCARCELY BE SAVED, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" So that's blown it for me.   Bummer.   jt: They wouldn't Bill. I would much rather hear your version than Izzys.  Only there is no fear of God in it. Don't ppl need to know what they are being saved from?    I have yet to meet the person who does not know he is a sinner. As soon as he lets down his guard, he readily admits he is sinful. But if I do meet such a person, I will be sure to tell him what he is being saved from. Until then, I will tell him first what he is saved for.   jt: Don't they need to be aware that if they do not have a LOVE for the truth that God Himself will send them strong delusion? This past Sunday the pastor at our Church told the ppl that he had been hired by the elders to tell us all how bad we are and he is trying his best to do a good job.   I'll bet that got your attention!   jt: There are two sides to God's nature Bill and from my perspective you appear to completely ignore one of them.   I very much disagree with you here. God's nature is not as you suggest, if indeed you are speaking of his love on one side and justice on the other. The Hebrew word from which we get "justice" also conveys the ideas of "righteousness" and "mercy." There is no justice in God's economy, which is not also righteous and merciful. In the Greek language this concept took two words to fully communicate, one contains the idea of justice and righteousness, the other mercy, which began to force a split in the concept. But when Latin became the official language of the Western church, that concept of mercy was mostly absent in the Latin translation of the Bible, as there were now three words from which to choose when translating this very Hebrew concept. Hence the Hebrew and Greek words were nearly always translated either "justice" or "righteousness" and they very seldom conveyed the idea of mercy; therefore as this biblical concept of God's justice was Latinized in the RCC, it tended to become quite unmerciful. As English speakers, we have inherited that Latin problem. Our concept of mercy has been so marginalized via the evolution of our language that it stands now as a counter to justice, thereby it has forced a split in our thinking about God -- love on one side of his personality and justice on the other, with mercy falling on the love side, quite removed from justice, where it quite legitimately belongs. This will not do for sensitive readers of Scripture, and so we must very deliberately read mercy back into our understanding of the justice of God, thereby closing the gap between love and justice -- for it we do not, we will be guilty of doing a great injustice to our God.   Thanks for your thoughtful comments,   Bill