• Welcome, Guest. Please login.
November 22, 2019, 10:40:43 am

A Very Interesting Point....

Started by Leah, November 17, 2008, 12:18:46 am

Previous topic - Next topic

The Lord is my banner

 
Quote from: Wordsmith on November 19, 2008, 06:04:43 pm


Oh, man...I'm getting a headache LOL....All things huh?


Yup, sorry, that's what it says!   


Here, take a nice cup of tea and a Nurofen, the pain will go away. 



Night night folks.  Have fun!


churchlady

November 19, 2008, 09:22:07 pm #61 Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 09:35:00 pm by churchlady
Quote from: Pete on November 19, 2008, 12:00:58 am
It is amazing to me how one single statement can change the opinion from...


Quote
I knew you would handle it well, but what I didn't expect was how you would bring in the mandate on love (from scriptures) and insist on THAT being the plumb line of what was tolerated.

Kudos to you my friend!! A rare one, you are.

[/SIZE]
to...

QuoteIMO, your church has opened itself to something that is not supported in scripture at all.  That is quite dangerous.




Quote...in just 3 short months.


I can see that you are very offended by what I have written, Pete....which takes me by surprise, actually. I really didn't mean it as a snap judgement of your church or of any change of how I see you.  My intended focus was entirely on the idea being discussed and obviously it's a doctrinal position that disturbs me.  So please forgive me if what I said came across to you as harsh accusations.  That wasn't my intention, believe me. 


QuoteNote that this is the same church that has helped to mold me into the "rare one" with a mandate for His Love.  Also note that the point Sarah posted about God having forgiven Satan is something we discussed briefly at church more than a year ago.

This is not a dogmatic point for me, as my discourse with leadworship has shown.  It is something that I (and my church) dared to explore.  It's not "dangerous" to ask the difficult question, does God harbor unforgiveness toward Satan.

I agree that it's not dangerous to ask difficult questions or explore ideas.  I believe what made me think it was an accepted fact being advocated by you and your church was that it was first stated as a fact...("God has forgiven Satan too" ) and then when j4gong (who I believe is a member of your church) expounded further on the subject and you agreed with her in the next post...........then I assumed it to be an already accepted belief of your church instead of just something under discussion over a year ago.

QuoteAgain, I'm not talking about Jesus' shed blood for redemption of Satan.  I am not advocating that Satan will repent, nor am I advocating that because of God's forgiveness, Satan will somehow escape the consequences of his actions.  I am talking about simple forgiveness.  There was no requirement of Jesus' shed blood to forgive.  In fact, Jesus commanded His disciples to forgive 70 x 7, BEFORE He went to the cross.  If His blood atonement was a requirement for them to be able to forgive, He would have been asking them to do something impossible for them to do.

So if God IS Love, and Love keeps no records of wrongs, how can God harbor unforgiveness toward Satan?

Note that all of what I've just posted finds plenty of support in scripture. 


I think the question to ask here is....what do YOU mean by forgiveness?  The common definition of the word means......absolutions, remission, amnesty, exoneration, pardon, acquittal...etc.

If God has given this to Satan, and the only reason that Satan doesn't enjoy these benefits is because he won't repent (as you earlier stated), then God is able to remit/pardon sins without the shedding of blood, because I agree with you that the atonement of Christ was for mankind only.  If the Devil can have the pardon of his sins without the shedding of blood, then why was it necessary for God to exonerate us by Christ's blood?

So, I guess where I am confused is....what does this forgiveness that you believe God offers to Satan give him.......what does it do?
De Oppresso Liber

Pete

Quote from: churchlady on November 19, 2008, 09:22:07 pm

I can see that you are very offended by what I have written, Pete....which takes me by surprise, actually. I really didn't mean it as a snap judgement of your church or of any change of how I see you.  My intended focus was entirely on the idea being discussed and obviously it's a doctrinal position that disturbs me.  So please forgive me if what I said came across to you as harsh accusations.  That wasn't my intention, believe me. 



Understood.  Please forgive me for misreading your intention and reacting instead of responding.  As I explained in an earlier post, I apologize for my unnecessarily defensive response.

Quote from: churchlady on November 19, 2008, 09:22:07 pm
I think the question to ask here is....what do YOU mean by forgiveness?  The common definition of the word means......absolutions, remission, amnesty, exoneration, pardon, acquittal...etc.



The first definition of forgive in the dictionary is to give up resentment of or claim to requital for.  That is what I am talking about.  God isn't holding a grudge, or looking to "get even" with Satan.  That's all I'm trying to say.  Satan will face righteous judgment because of his actions.

Quote from: churchlady on November 19, 2008, 09:22:07 pm
If God has given this to Satan, and the only reason that Satan doesn't enjoy these benefits is because he won't repent (as you earlier stated), then God is able to remit sins without the shedding of blood, because I agree with you that the atonement of Christ was for mankind only.  If the Devil can have the pardon of his sins without the shedding of blood, then why was it necessary for God to exonerate us by Christ's blood?



Here's a troublesome passage of scripture to that line of thought;

Mark 2:5-10 (NIV)
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."  6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ."...


At this point, no blood has been shed by Christ.  In fact, NO blood was shed at all, not even an animal's blood.  So then the question could just as easily be asked, if the paralytic can have the pardon of his sins without the shedding of blood, then why was it necessary for God to exonerate us by Christ's blood?

Quote from: churchlady on November 19, 2008, 09:22:07 pm
So, I guess where I am confused is....what does this forgiveness that you believe God offers to Satan give him.......what does it do?


This, for me, has nothing to do with Satan, and everything to do with the nature of God.  It has to do with the belief that God can not harbor unforgiveness.
"There is no charge for awesomeness -- or attractiveness."

Wordsmith

Quoteby Pete...This, for me, has nothing to do with Satan, and everything to do with the nature of God.  It has to do with the belief that God can not harbor unforgiveness.


But can't God issue righteous judgement as the just judge? What does harboring unforgivness have to do with what He judges as right? If a judge decides that someone is going to prison for the rest of his life, it's based on the offense committed,  not how the judge feels about it. So where does God holding unforgiveness because the person was sentanced for the offenses come in?
Be as loving as the Truth allows, even if it's
mis-interpreted,
because everyone  you meet is fighting
some kind of battle.

churchlady

Quote from: Pete on November 19, 2008, 09:56:14 pmUnderstood.  Please forgive me for misreading your intention and reacting instead of responding.  As I explained in an earlier post, I apologize for my unnecessarily defensive response.


All is well.


QuoteThe first definition of forgive in the dictionary is to give up resentment of or claim to requital for.  That is what I am talking about.  God isn't holding a grudge, or looking to "get even" with Satan.  That's all I'm trying to say.  Satan will face righteous judgment because of his actions.


If this is all you mean by unforgiveness (holding a grudge or wanting to get even), then I think we would all agree that this is not God's nature.  I am surprised that anyone would leave your church over this definition.


QuoteHere's a troublesome passage of scripture to that line of thought;

Mark 2:5-10 (NIV)
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."  6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ."...


At this point, no blood has been shed by Christ.  In fact, NO blood was shed at all, not even an animal's blood.  So then the question could just as easily be asked, if the paralytic can have the pardon of his sins without the shedding of blood, then why was it necessary for God to exonerate us by Christ's blood?


This passage doesn't trouble me because it is understood that the "lamb was slain before the foundation of the world", so that those under the Old Covenant and those under the New Covernant are alike saved by faith...............one in the coming Messiah, and the other in the 'having-come' Messiah.

While those under the Old Covenant couldn't yet experience the indwelling Christ, they could most definitely experience the forgiveness of their sins committed while still in their flesh through the sacrifices made by the levitical priesthood. 

Hebrews 9: 13-14  "For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh;  how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
QuoteThis, for me, has nothing to do with Satan, and everything to do with the nature of God.  It has to do with the belief that God can not harbor unforgiveness.


Well now that I know you just mean a "grudge" or "wanting to get even", I would agree.  If people are leaving your church, shouting heresy, they are getting a different impression of what your church means by forgiveness than what you state here.
De Oppresso Liber

Pete

Quote from: Wordsmith on November 19, 2008, 10:48:43 pm
But can't God issue righteous judgement as the just judge?


Yes.

Quote from: Wordsmith on November 19, 2008, 10:48:43 pm

What does harboring unforgivness have to do with what He judges as right?



Nothing.

Quote from: Wordsmith on November 19, 2008, 10:48:43 pm

If a judge decides that someone is going to prison for the rest of his life, it's based on the offense committed,  not how the judge feels about it. So where does God holding unforgiveness because the person was sentanced for the offenses come in?


I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

You said earlier you disagree that God can not harbor unforgiveness.  I don't understand that.  It is one thing to say that forgivness is a non-issue, which it seemed to me like what you were originally saying.  But now you seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that God CAN harbor unforgiveness. That's different than it not being an issue at all.

"There is no charge for awesomeness -- or attractiveness."

Pete

Quote from: churchlady on November 19, 2008, 11:08:56 pm

All is well.

If this is all you mean by unforgiveness (holding a grudge or wanting to get even), then I think we would all agree that this is not God's nature.  I am surprised that anyone would leave your church over this definition.



It doesn't surprise me in the least.  We've had people leave our church because they didn't like the color we painted the walls.

And it's not like it's some bizarre definition of forgiveness.  It's the Merriam-Webster definition of what forgiveness is.  As Christians we attach a whole lot of connotations to the word "forgiveness" that do not otherwise exist in the simple definition of the word "forgiveness".

Quote from: churchlady on November 19, 2008, 11:08:56 pm

This passage doesn't trouble me because it is understood that the "lamb was slain before the foundation of the world", so that those under the Old Covenant and those under the New Covernant are alike saved by faith...............one in the coming Messiah, and the other in the 'having-come' Messiah.

While those under the Old Covenant couldn't yet experience the indwelling Christ, they could most definitely experience the forgiveness of their sins committed while still in their flesh through the sacrifices made by the levitical priesthood. 

Hebrews 9: 13-14  "For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh;  how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"   



Correct.  But in the case of the paralytic, NO sacrifice was made.  There was no animal sacrifice, and Jesus had not yet gone to the cross.  Yet He still said to the man, "Your sins are forgiven", without any sacrifice of any kind.  That seems in violation of how atonement is made for sins, which is why the teachers of the law were upset when He said it.  It's a perplexing scripture, as is much of Jesus ministry on earth. 

Quote from: churchlady on November 19, 2008, 11:08:56 pm
Well now that I know you just mean a "grudge" or "wanting to get even", I would agree.  If people are leaving your church, shouting heresy, they are getting a different impression of what your church means by forgiveness than what you state here.


I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it.  Like I said, I've seen a lot of people come and go from my church in the 29 years I've attended, for various reasons.

Now that I think about it, it's really not that much different than discussing the belief that Jesus died spiritually, and was separated from God.  People assign all kinds of wrong meanings to that, and fight over it intensely, as if our finite minds are able to comprehend precisely what happened between the crucifixion and the resurrection.  Why?  Because they make a ton of ASSUMPTIONS, and then when you try to explain to them what you REALLY believe, they've already made up their mind.

That is usually why people have left our church over the years over doctrinal differences.
"There is no charge for awesomeness -- or attractiveness."

churchlady

Quote from: The Lord is my banner on November 19, 2008, 10:07:29 am
There is one scripture that implies that Jesus' blood has bought peace for more than mankind.   
What do we do with this?

Colossians 1:19,20 says of Jesus:  For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earthor things in heaven,
by making peace through his blood, shed on thecross.  Reconciliation and peace for ALL things?!   


Since the fall of man, all of creation has been out of sorts, corrupted, moving more and more toward chaos and brokeness (law of entropy).  God's nature is truth, love, law, order, justice, holiness, wholeness, beauty, perfection, etc. etc.  All of creation will one day be brought back to the state of pre-fall conditions, perfectly reconiled to God's nature.

One meaning of the word 'reconcile' is 'restore'. 

This is my 2 cents, anyway.
De Oppresso Liber

churchlady

Quote from: Pete on November 19, 2008, 11:41:01 pm
And it's not like it's some bizarre definition of forgiveness.  It's the Merriam-Webster definition of what forgiveness is.  As Christians we attach a whole lot of connotations to the word "forgiveness" that do not otherwise exist in the simple definition of the word "forgiveness".


I use an electronic Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus and the definition that it gives for forgiveness is.....

noun - release from guilt........

with synonyms: absolution, remission, shrift, amnesty, exoneration, pardon, forgiveness, acquittal........and

antonym: conviction.

I think this is more how people think when the word forgiveness is used.
 
QuoteCorrect.  But in the case of the paralytic, NO sacrifice was made.  There was no animal sacrifice, and Jesus had not yet gone to the cross.  Yet He still said to the man, "Your sins are forgiven", without any sacrifice of any kind.  That seems in violation of how atonement is made for sins, which is why the teachers of the law were upset when He said it.  It's a perplexing scripture, as is much of Jesus ministry on earth.


I'm not sure I get where you are coming from on this one.  The levitical priesthood was in place during this time, with it's once a year atonement (covering) sacrifice for the people, along with the periodic specific sacrifices that people could make.  Why do you assume this man was not an observer of these things, showing his faith for a coming Messiah?

The teachers of the law were upset because here is Jesus who is not a levitical priest, assuming to do what they thought only such a priest could do?  They couldn't see that He was the very "lamb that was slain", which the levitical priesthood shadowed.
De Oppresso Liber

Wordsmith

November 20, 2008, 01:45:32 am #69 Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 02:08:52 am by Wordsmith
Quote from: Pete on November 19, 2008, 11:23:53 pm

Yes.
 
Nothing.
 

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

You said earlier you disagree that God can not harbor unforgiveness.  I don't understand that.  It is one thing to say that forgivness is a non-issue, which it seemed to me like what you were originally saying.  But now you seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that God CAN harbor unforgiveness. That's different than it not being an issue at all.




Am I making your eyes do that Pete? LOL..I'm sorry.

What I'm saying that even though God is the righteous judge that
He is, and some will be punished, doesn't mean that God is holding grudges, or harboring
unforgiveness if they're sentenced. Most people send themselves to judgement. God doesn't have to do anything at all.   So in that respect He's just being the righteous Judge
that He is, minus all the human frailties such as harboring unforgivness. It's not needed or present.  Not that He doesn't have the ablility to choose not to forgive. He chose to commended His love towards us. He chose to do so through
His Son. God made a choice. I'm glad for all of us that He did. So God has the ability to chose to do whatever He so chooses.
Be as loving as the Truth allows, even if it's
mis-interpreted,
because everyone  you meet is fighting
some kind of battle.

The Lord is my banner

 
Quote from: churchlady on November 19, 2008, 11:56:37 pm


Since the fall of man, all of creation has been out of sorts, corrupted, moving more and more toward chaos and brokeness (law of entropy).  God's nature is truth, love, law, order, justice, holiness, wholeness, beauty, perfection, etc. etc.  All of creation will one day be brought back to the state of pre-fall conditions, perfectly reconiled to God's nature.

One meaning of the word 'reconcile' is 'restore'. 

This is my 2 cents, anyway.


Yes, totally understand that.

But satan, fallen angels, unrepentant humans are also part of that creation, so where does this verse leave room for non-reconciliation of any of those?




Another question for everyone -

We're trying to define forgiveness based on an English dictionary, but do any of you understand Greek and Hebrew in order to be certain that they were all talking about the same thing we are?
I know those languages usually have a greater, richer meaning per word than we do, so might we be missing something?


Pete

November 20, 2008, 08:57:00 am #71 Last Edit: November 20, 2008, 09:07:53 am by Pete
Quote from: churchlady on November 20, 2008, 12:21:09 am

I use an electronic Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus and the definition that it gives for forgiveness is.....

noun - release from guilt........


It's odd that the electronic Merriam-Webster dictionary would give a different definition than the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, but I guess it just goes to show how many different ways one word can be defined.  In any event, the definition of the word "forgive" from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary can be seen here;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forgive

1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for <forgive an insult> b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>   

2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : pardon<forgive one's enemies>intransitive verb


Quote from: churchlady on November 20, 2008, 12:21:09 am

with synonyms: absolution, remission, shrift, amnesty, exoneration, pardon, forgiveness, acquittal........and



Well, sure, you could use the word forgive in any of those cases.  But we should also remember that a synonym has a similar (but not the same) meaning as the original word.

Quote from: churchlady on November 20, 2008, 12:21:09 am
   
I'm not sure I get where you are coming from on this one.  The levitical priesthood was in place during this time, with it's once a year atonement (covering) sacrifice for the people, along with the periodic specific sacrifices that people could make.  Why do you assume this man was not an observer of these things, showing his faith for a coming Messiah?



Why do you assume that he was? 

Mark 2:3-10 (NIV)
3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." ...

This is particularly interesting, because it says when Jesus saw, not the faith of the paralytic, but the faith of his friends, He said to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven".  From this account, no sacrifice had been made, and it wasn't even the faith of the paralytic that Jesus was making this statement in response to.

Then, Jesus says something else.  "...that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..."  This is an interesting statement.  Jesus is not saying here that the forgiveness that He gives is because of the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood, nor is He even stating that it is because of His shed blood.  He is simply stating that HE has authority to forgive sins on earth, before He went to the cross.  No wonder the teachers of the law thought He was speaking blasphemy!

My mind can't comprehend how that's possible, knowing that it is through the shed blood of Jesus that we are saved.  I know by faith that what Jesus said here is True.  But the thought that Jesus' authority to forgive sin while still on earth was related to the annual atonement of the Levitical priests is not something that His statement supports, IMO.
"There is no charge for awesomeness -- or attractiveness."

churchlady

Quote from: The Lord is my banner on November 20, 2008, 04:24:08 am
We're trying to define forgiveness based on an English dictionary, but do any of you understand Greek and Hebrew in order to be certain that they were all talking about the same thing we are?
I know those languages usually have a greater, richer meaning per word than we do, so might we be missing something?


Very good point, Sue.  Here's something interesting in that regard........

Lost in translation
When an English-speaking person hears a Bible term, he perceives its meaning according to his present day understanding of the English language. The term he hears may mean one thing to him, while the Greek or Hebrew word has a specific meaning within the given context. Numerous times a word translated from Hebrew in the Old Testament would be repeated in the New Testament. The challenge there was that a Greek word could not be found to carry the meaning without losing its significance. The English translators found it necessary to use words that actually diminished or altered its original intent in the Hebrew text. The word "forgive" is a prime example of how meanings can be lost in translation.
The Hebrew word translated "forgive" means "forgive."  While Jesus walked on this earth, the Jews were still under the Law. They understood forgiveness according to their Hebrew language and how the blood atonement preceded forgiveness. Jesus used the word "forgiveness," and in some instances Paul and others would use the word "forgiveness."  But in both cases, they were addressing the Jews - not Gentiles.
There are four Greek words translated into the English word "forgive."
1. Aphiemi means "to send forth," and was translated "forgive" in Matthew 6:12: "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." This was in reference to the relationships between people.
Several other words were used to translate the same Greek word, with none being synonymous with "forgive". It is vital that we grasp this. For example, these are some of the words that were used: "uttered" (Mark 15:37), "left" (Mark 1:18), "neglecting" (Mark 7:8), and "did not allow" (Luke 8:51 NAS).
2. Aphesis means "freedom" (or "pardon").  The translators used four English words to convey its meaning: "forgiveness," "liberty," "release," and "remission." Whichever of the preceding six words we use, the intent is to describe the gift Jesus provided through His shed blood. For example, He granted "forgiveness" [pardon] to all - we need not ask for it. Like He said, "It is finished." (John 19:30) The Greek definition for "finished" is "to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt)." Jesus provided "freedom" from flesh and its penalty of death, and now man must surrender his self-life - the flesh-life - to the regeneration by the Holy Spirit. The pardon provided through the blood of Jesus canceled the death sentence upon flesh for all who would receive Life in God's only begotten Son.
This next verse uses two of the synonyms for "pardon."
- "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor; he hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised." (Luke 4:18)
3. Apoluo means "to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss, (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce."  It was used in these two examples in Jesus' words:
- "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 5:32 NKJV)
- "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:37 NKJV)
4. Charizomai means "to grant as a favor, i.e. gratuitiously, in kindness, pardon or rescue."  Two examples of English words used by the translators are:
- "And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32 NKJV)
- "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11 NKJV)
Although the word "forgive" was used in translation of each of the four main Greek words we just discussed, we cannot assume that they are synonymous. Whatever we perceive to be the meaning of "forgive," we must remember that forgiveness/pardon was granted through Jesus' shed blood. And now, we must follow Jesus by way of the Cross and die to the flesh so His Spirit can be our Life.
The most important type of forgiveness Jesus taught was the forgiveness that we as believers must give and receive as we live on this earth. If we expect the Father to forgive our "trespasses" [Greek: side slips],  we must be willing to forgive the trespasses of others.  How can we not follow the example Jesus set on the Cross when He cried, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do?" (Luke 23:34)
De Oppresso Liber

Pete

Quote from: Wordsmith on November 20, 2008, 01:45:32 am

Am I making your eyes do that Pete? LOL..I'm sorry.



It's all good.  A new day, my eyes have stopped spinning...  for the moment. 

Quote from: Wordsmith on November 20, 2008, 01:45:32 am

What I'm saying that even though God is the righteous judge that
He is, and some will be punished, doesn't mean that God is holding grudges, or harboring
unforgiveness if they're sentenced. Most people send themselves to judgement. God doesn't have to do anything at all.   So in that respect He's just being the righteous Judge
that He is, minus all the human frailties such as harboring unforgivness. It's not needed or present.  Not that He doesn't have the ablility to choose not to forgive. He chose to commended His love towards us. He chose to do so through
His Son. God made a choice. I'm glad for all of us that He did. So God has the ability to chose to do whatever He so chooses.


So it sounds to me like you're saying that God has the ability to choose unforgiveness, but He doesn't.  Is that what you're saying?

And I'm not sure I'd agree that God has the ability to do whatever He so chooses.  One scripture in particular that riled people up at CF was this one (in 20 different translations )

____________________________________

Hebrews 6:18 (NIV)
God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.

Hebrews 6:18 (NASB)
so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
Hebrews 6:18 (TMSG)
When God wanted to guarantee his promises, he gave his word, a rock-solid guarantee--God can't break his word. And because his word cannot change, the promise is likewise unchangeable.

Hebrews 6:18 (AMP)
This was so that, by two unchangeable things [His promise and His oath] in which it is impossible for God ever to prove false or deceive us,we who have fled [to Him] for refuge might have mighty indwellingstrength and strong encouragement to grasp and hold fast the hopeappointed for us and set before [us].

Hebrews 6:18 (NLT)
So God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore, we who have fled to him for refuge can have great confidence as we hold to the hope that lies before us.

Hebrews 6:18 (KJV)
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Hebrews 6:18 (ESV)
so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.

Hebrews 6:18 (CEV)
God cannot tell lies! And so his promises and vows are twothings that can never be changed. We have run to God for safety. Nowhis promises should greatly encourage us to take hold of the hope thatis right in front of us.

Hebrews 6:18 (NKJV)
that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

Hebrews 6:18 (21st Century KJV)
that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we, who have fled for refuge, might have strong consolation to lay hold upon the hope set before us.

Hebrews 6:18 (ASV)
that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us:

Hebrews 6:18 (YLT)
that through two immutable things, in which [it is] impossible for God to lie, a strong comfort we may have who did flee for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before [us],

Hebrews 6:18 (Darby)
that by two unchangeable things, in which [it was] impossible thatGod should lie, we might have a strong encouragement, who have fled forrefuge to lay hold on the hope set before us,

Hebrews 6:18 (NLV)
God gave these two things that cannot be changed and God cannot lie. We who have turned to Him can have great comfort knowing that He will do what He has promised.

Hebrews 6:18 (HCSB)
so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us.

Hebrews 6:18 (NIRV)
God took an oath so we would have good reason not to give up. Wehave run away from everything else to take hold of the hope offered tous in God's promise. So God gave his promise and his oath. Those twothings can't change. He couldn't lie about them.

Hebrews 6:18 (WNT)
that by two things unmoveable, by which it is impossible that God lie, we have a strongest solace, that flee together to hold the hope that is put forth to us.

Hebrews 6:18 (WENT)
These two things cannot be changed and God cannot lie about them. So we can trust him. We have run to him to get what he has promised us.

Hebrews 6:18 (NIV - UK)
God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.

Hebrews 6:18 (TNIV)
God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.

____________________________________

So here is at least one thing that scripture tells us God CAN NOT (not will not) do.  Lie.  God can not lie.  It is impossible for Him to do so.  Therefore, God can not choose to lie.
"There is no charge for awesomeness -- or attractiveness."

Pete

 
Quote from: The Lord is my banner on November 20, 2008, 04:24:08 am

Another question for everyone -

We're trying to define forgiveness based on an English dictionary, but do any of you understand Greek and Hebrew in order to be certain that they were all talking about the same thing we are?
I know those languages usually have a greater, richer meaning per word than we do, so might we be missing something?


I'm no Greek scholar (but I play one on TV...)

"There is no charge for awesomeness -- or attractiveness."

Wordsmith

November 20, 2008, 01:22:37 pm #75 Last Edit: November 21, 2008, 10:32:26 am by Wordsmith
Quotequote by Pete..So it sounds to me like you're saying that God has the ability to choose unforgiveness, but He doesn't.  Is that what you're saying?

And I'm not sure I'd agree that God has the ability to do whatever He so chooses.  One scripture in particular that riled people up at CF was this one (in 20 different translations )


Yeah, I know..But I look at things that God has chosen to do..like it repented Him that He made man. That's a choice,  chose to send the flood..that's a choice, etc etc. But I think what we're looking at is the severity of God, compared to the goodness of God being found thru Jesus Christ. That scripture about Him unable to lie, I would interpret that He's the embodiment of the Spirit of Truth, so He couldn't lie any how.  Satan is the spirit of lies. Yes I think that God if he chose not to forgive, could do it if He wanted to. What about Esau that sought forgiveness with much diligence,  through repenting and many tears, yet couldn't obtain forgiveness? I know this was before Jesus came, but God delt with Esau as He saw fit. To some it might appear that God was unjust, but when He already knows what's in a persons heart, then it's not unjust.

Mat 6:15But if ye
forgive
not men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive
your trespasses.


God having the ability not to forgive.
Be as loving as the Truth allows, even if it's
mis-interpreted,
because everyone  you meet is fighting
some kind of battle.

The Lord is my banner

 
Quote from: churchlady on November 20, 2008, 08:59:06 am


Very good point, Sue.  Here's something interesting in that regard........

Lost in translation ...



Wow!   See?  The word is so complicated!