Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
S.T.Ranger

Temporal Justification versus Eternal Redemption

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Usually there is a link on bottom of home page to get you there but an update must have removed it. So i'll post it in news for now.

good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, S.T.Ranger said:

It's up to the teacher to get the student's attention, and still deliver the knowledge you want to teach them. And I have to admit I am a little mystified by your statement, that Justification, "...even with an explanation makes little sense." A man is charged with murder and all the evidence points to his being guilty. A court trial proceeds and the evidence, when thoroughly examined, shows that the man was telling the truth that he didn't kill the victim. He has been justified. In the case of Mankind and sin, Mankind is under condemnation. This would have in view the previous man not being justified through a court proceeding and actually found guilty. He has been, like all of mankind, condemned to death. He stands under a declaration of unrighteousness, of being unjust. The natural man stands in that condemnation, the verdict has already been rendered. We are conceived and born into the world under that condemnation. The man in the earthly court trial receives justification or condemnation in a temporal context. The natural man stands in condemnation in an eternal context, meaning that his standing is relevant to both a temporal and eternal standing. And only God can reverse the condemnation, or familiar terms, grant a reprieve. When God does that He declares that man to be Justified. The man has a standing of being righteous rather than unrighteous.

And I would point out that our standing before God is not a result of what we do, either in the case of condemnation or justification on either a temporal or eternal basis. Men are born separated from God due to Adam's sin. I do not take the view they inherit a "sin nature" from their parents, but that they are simply separated from God thus are incapable of righteousness. Particularly righteousness on a level that they might come into relationship with God. If you read from Genesis to Revelation you are going to find one consistent practice: God always initiates relationship. We can divide those relationships into two categories as well, temporal and eternal. And it might surprise you to hear me say that an eternal relationship between God and Man did not begin until Pentecost. Most think Adam had "spiritual life" and lost it when he sinned. Adam had a physical relationship with God, and that is what he lost. And because access was denied mankind to the Garden, and thus with God, all men are born out of relationship with God and will inevitably sin. So it is, in my view, to understand that being justified is not to be equated with Eternal Salvation/Redemption. God eternally redeemed men by bringing them into eternal union with Himself, and they have a standing of Eternal Justification. We receive the life Christ came to bestow (John 3:16) when He eternally indwells us. No man had this life prior to Pentecost, not even Adam.

Think about it: man is under condemnation. Really? 

What I'm saying is people don't buy this today, they don't buy that we are separated from God, they don't buy that we are condemned. They don't even understand what you're talking about or when you do talk about it, they ignore you (not you but speaking in general terms).

That a good God condemns us for what? All are condemned - so much for a good God. Another one of those Church Fathers that you're not so fond of spoke of being born in the image of God (i.e. intelligent beings) but having to become the likeness of God (moral beings, like Christ). Back in the 2nd or 3rd C CE, he recognized that we were born young as a human race and it took time for us to, let's call it, evolve. 

Ranger, you must realize that it is the very notion of a God who condemns that is a major problem for many and a stumbling block to belief in God.  is not that we have to change it, it is that we have to be able to explain this myth and what it says about the relationship between God and man. 

Bottom line, if some in your audience don't buy that we are condemned, then there is no need to be justified. Why then is Jesus important? What is he about? Does he make a difference? Unless you have a captive audience who 'buys' that we are condemned or you put it on God for not enlightening them - you have some work, some explaining to do.

Here's a question for you: if there were no sin, would God in Jesus still have been incarnated? Would God still 'enter into' human life?

How are we 'simply separated from God?'  For me, it is not that we are incapable of righteousness on our own and in need of God, it is that we cannot even be human without God.

23 hours ago, S.T.Ranger said:

The Lord did teach about the Trinity, as I have shown in John 14:15-23, however, men were not meant to understand that at that time. They could not even understand the Gospel, that Christ would die, be buried, and rise again. This is why Peter and John are amazed when they find the tomb empty:

 

Ranger, I take issue with this. You are quoting gosepls which are all post-pentecost and therefore when they did understand that Jesus did die, was raised and they expected and waited for his return. As readers, we are in on the secret, we know this and we are 'looking back' into the time of Jesus. As for the Trinity, you are talking about the gospel of Joh, perhaps the most theological gospel and 60-70 years after the events. So I agree that the kernel of the idea of Trinity is present. 

23 hours ago, S.T.Ranger said:

Again, I believe we can see at least three specific Kingdoms referred to by Christ: the Kingdom that is in the hearts of believers (and has always existed); the Millennial Kingdom (which was prophesied in the Old Testament, and from whence most gained their expectation (this is the Kingdom Peter took up the sword in hopes of ushering it in by saving his King)); and the Eternal Kingdom. Membership in the first has changed significantly since we are now immersed into Christ upon entrance, hence we have eternal life whereas the Old Testament aints did not.

Ranger, there is only one Kingdom, where does Jesus talk or allude to a Millennial  or Eternal Kingdom? This is more your interpretation than coming from Jesus.

23 hours ago, S.T.Ranger said:

Only the disciples were wrong, and that in this way: they only had the revelation of the Kingdom that would be established on earth (for the most part), at least that is the only understanding they had. They did not understand the Kingdom of His dear Son (into which we are translated), or the Eternal State/Kingdom. Peter did not want the Messiah to die because the Kingdom he awaited could not be established if He did. That Kingdom will still be established, but that is not the Kingdom Christ established at the time of His death and Resurrection.

 

Jesus fully expected the Kingdom to be established in the lifetime of some of his followers. He did not speak of other Kingdoms. Again this is reading in, not reading what is written. It is convenient but not in the gospels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, S.T.Ranger said:

Precisely, lol. Thus we must make Justification understandable to the newer generations, and we don't have to talk in their language to do that, lol.

Jesus used parable, we are not really parable people in the 21st C. If you don't translate it, don't explain it in ways that new generations, new people can really understand it - it goes nowhere, it falls and does not grow.

23 hours ago, S.T.Ranger said:

Precisely, lol. Thus we must make Justification understandable to the newer generations, and we don't have to talk in their language to do that, lol.

Sure he does. That is the risk and beauty of creation. God, in my view is not merely a supernatural being, residing in his external world and occasionally intervening, miraculously, in the natural world. We have our being in God or God is and has always been with us in the ordinary, everyday moments of life, of our world. 

I suggest that God is always incarnational, he always works in and through us in order to enable, empower us to become his child, his Likeness. Look at Jesus, he was the Word in the flesh. How much easier to hear than when it is spoken by one such as us. But it always is.

His Word is always spoken through our words; his Spirit/Love is always given in our love. If God spoke to us directly, out of the blue, many of us world drop dead :+} However if we have done something wrong, and in a discussion with another, we come to realize our error, how we have hurt another and if we change - then the old is dead and a new person has emerged. We have become different, we have become more Like God. Do you think the words that we heard, the words that revealed the error of our ways, the words that enabled us to heal, the words that gave us life were only human words? The Word that is Life, speaks in and through us, to give enlightenment and life to us. The Spirit that is Love, give us love's encouragement and empowers us to respond to the word and be more like Christ. 

We are the co-creators: the one who was willing to help us, to speak to us, the one who loved and encouraged us is co-operating with God. God always has the initiative but it was this person who co-created with God so that the other could hear, respond and be on the Way. Was Hitler a co-creator? Why not? There was no willingness to be open to the Word and the Spirit, no willingness to co--operate with God or in older terms, there was no openness to be the instrument of God.  

Ranger, read Baum - you might enjoy it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, S.T.Ranger said:

For most I think it's a slothful approach to study.

Too harsh. If you come across a kid who can't hear, are they slothful or do they just need someone to recognize that they are different and take the time to learn sign language and 'translate' the spoken gospels to one they can see the gospel? The fault is not always in the receiver, this is not always easy stuff: time, care and patience are required.

Enough for now, we exhaust me :+}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 12:38 PM, S.T.Ranger said:

I couldn't even save myself, much less anyone else, lol. Basically, Thormas, I look at it like this: all of us are natural men when God intervenes and enlightens our minds. We then respond. If we believe the truth delivered us we are made sons of God by being immersed into Him (the Baptism with the Holy Ghost); if we reject the truth we remain in darkness. Salvation is wholly the work of Holy God.

Actually, we do - simply not by ourselves but in relationship with God and in the human response to God (i.e. faith).

God has no need to intervene, he is already here.present, however I do agree that the Word in and through the words of man, does or can bring enlightenment.

It is not simply believing, if you mean giving assent to truth as information, it is the responding that 'makes' is a child of God.

Salvation or human fulfillment is the work of God - in relationship wit man but such salvation or wholeness is not only in and through Christ for this limits God.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 12:38 PM, S.T.Ranger said:

Agreed, God does use men to preach the Gospel, but it still remains that only He can make someone understand the Gospel, and embrace it as truth.

 

Ranger, this is one of those statements that has to be explained - not to me but to an audience or congregation. How does God make someone understand and if they don't understood but only God can do it, it seems logical to assume that God has failed. Or, if only God gives understanding and if someone doesn't, they cannot be responsible so they must be righteous because they would be innocent and not responsible for not understanding. 

Now I know you disagree but this must be explained in a way that makes sense to a person of any age, of all ages in today's world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 12:38 PM, S.T.Ranger said:

Only the disciples were wrong, and that in this way: they only had the revelation of the Kingdom that would be established on earth (for the most part), at least that is the only understanding they had. They did not understand the Kingdom of His dear Son (into which we are translated), or the Eternal State/Kingdom. Peter did not want the Messiah to die because the Kingdom he awaited could not be established if He did. That Kingdom will still be established, but that is not the Kingdom Christ established at the time of His death and Resurrection.

Ranger, 

Maybe I missed it but Jesus preaches the Kingdom to be established in this world - that was the Jewish expectation and he was a Jew of that time. Where does he  plainly distinguish between Kingdoms? Don't give me your interpretation give me the words of Jesus.

 

Note:

I'm breaking this down into smaller segments to make it easier to read and respond as the long responses are amazingly long.

Also, waiting on your site info again. You can't transfer from here per the rules of engagement but at least 75% of what I write is offline and is substantially different from what I put as a final response so I can post on both sites, as others also post on more than one site, without being in violation of the site terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 12:38 PM, S.T.Ranger said:

I don't view divinity as something that can be "incarnate" other than the Incarnation itself. While we partaker of the divine nature we ourselves do not become divine. No more than a car becomes human when we get into them, lol.

 

Ranger,

Then there is the insight of Athanasius: 'God became man and so that man could become God' - or a preferable translation is 'so that we might become deified.' We are to become the sons and daughters of God. I'll leave how literally we should take this to you, but if one shares the life of another (say a boy to a Father figure) and makes important to him what is important to that Father figure (by the way this is the definition of obedience) then the boy shares in and participates in the life of the Father. And as he grows, the Father sees himself in the son and seeing that boy is 'like' seeing the Father. This is what we are born for and I suggest it is not adoption, it is the fulfillment of our 'nature' given to us in creation, that is realized (in God). 

Gotta run again - more on the honey-do list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/4/2020 at 12:38 PM, S.T.Ranger said:

No atheist will enter the Kingdom of God. That is just basic, Thormas. The "love" shown by atheists should not be compared on an equal plane with the love of God or that of believers.:


Luke 6:32 King James Version (KJV)

32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

Ranger,

You seem to equate an atheist with a sinner but where is it in the NT that the two are shown or said to be the same? Don't give me an interpretation, show me the exact text. 

One of my favorite lines is (paraphrasing) "it is not the one who says 'Lord, Lord' it is the one who does the will of God." So it seems that the emphasis is on the doing of the will of God - which is to love. If the atheist loves not only 'those that love her' but many others, from the neighbor to the stranger,  such love shows the compassionate concern and care that Jesus showed. The atheist is doing what the Father wills and it matters not if she calls "Lord, Lord." 

Who enters the Kingdom of God, the atheist who loves or the Christian who does not really do such a good job of loving, such as a Hitler or a Trump?  LOL!!!!

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2020 at 1:54 PM, S.T.Ranger said:

Yes, but not in the way you imply in your statement (...God is eternally for man). God is not "for" men that reject His will. While I would agree that God has eternally had a plan for Man's good, that doesn't negate His righteous dealing with sin and the sins of men. We can't say "God is eternally for man" when God is eternally against the unrighteousness of men who will face eternal judgment.

You can't know this or perhaps you can but it is the opposite of what you believe. Again the Prodigal rejects his father's will but when he turns back, after he reaches his lowest point, the Father not only accepts him but rejoices to the point of throwing a party. 

God is against the sin but as the Prodigal indicates, he is not against the sinner and neither should the good son be against or judge the sinner.

Interesting thing about judgment is that it presents a moment of crisis, on one side is chaos on the other is opportunity. Judgment is for man, it is for the sinner - the opportunity to change must always be there. Plus God cannot be All in all if 'eternal judgment' means hell or the eternal loss of God 

You should read David Bentley Hart's 'All Shall be Saved' as he gives some startling information from the scriptures which basically show that we have had it wrong about 'hell.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 12:38 PM, S.T.Ranger said:

Holy and human are not the same things. Holiness is a state of separation and refers to both being separated from something by our own choice and by God. But that is another topic entirely, lol. Sanctification is also a Doctrine that has two types, progressive and positional.

Now it's lol on me: I meant wholly not holy.

However, I think both are appropriate (and it is the same topic). I can't remember the author but it was once said. "I was born a man, now I must learn to be human." To learn and become human is possible only when one loves, when one embodies (and is the likeness of) God/Love or to put the initiative on God, when God/Love 'resides' in man. This is (the continuing process of) incarnation: even without sin, the Lover would have 'become One' with the Beloved.

Incarnation was not a rescue operation it was the purpose of creation: God always intended to incarnate and thereby empower man to become Human and have Abundant Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 12:38 PM, S.T.Ranger said:

While Jesus was a man, we must also remember that He was God with us, and in that respect He was not "one of us." He came for the specific purpose of taking upon Himself the penalty of our sin that we might become the sons of God. He came, as John 3:16 teaches, that we might receive eternal life. Again, no man received eternal life until Christ died, arose, returned to Heaven, and began baptizing men into Himself.

 

Remembered he was God?

If he was not fully man, there is no salvation. But exactly right, "that we might become the sons of God" goes to sharing the life of God...........and the continued incarnating of the divine in the human (although we are not and do not become God).

In the transfiguration where did the other two guys come from? The certainly look 'glorified' but where did they come from, especially given the Jewish understanding of 'after death' at the time of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2020 at 8:46 AM, thormas said:
Remembered he was God?

Apologizes Ranger as I misread your comment on the above.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service