Real Gospel or Pseudo-Gospel?

Joshua,

Where did sin come from? Are you saying that God created the world with sin as part of it's nature? So now you blame God for sin?

 

ChurchBoy,

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God is ultimately reponsible for the world. Either there is something intrinsic to creating a mortal world that makes sin a reality, or God chose to make one like that.

Joshua

 

Aww c'mon Joshua, of course we are animals too, but our death is more signifigant than the death of another kind of animal because we also are spiritual beings in a way the other kinds of animals are not.

 

Paul,

I don't make that distinction. I don't think that we're spiritual beings and other animals are not. We're all spiritual beings.

Joshua

 

Joshua said:

Holy Cow! You are kidding, right?

Diane

 

Mike, Only when I'm testing a paragraph to see how it sounds. None of the menagerie seems to listen though, but I can't say that disqualifies them because it makes them just like my congregation .

I don't see language as a prerequisite for spirituality. Nor is a certain level of intelligence. Can a person be too stupid or illiterate to have a soul? (Insert generic joke about Pres. Bush here ) If humans have a spiritual component - an element of the divine or eternal - than so does the rest of creation.

I even have a scripture reference if you want one. Lev 17:14 twice speaks of the "life essence" or "soul" (/nephesh/) of every creature being in its blood.

Joshua

 

Yes, God created the potential for sin and evil but mankind actualizes sin in this world. Mankind brought sin into this world not God. When people have children they are bringing into the world the potential for sin. Their children can potentially become violent criminals but we don't blame the parents for the acts of their children do we?

 

ChurchBoy, parents are not omnipotent - God is. Are you saying that God was unable to create people who would chose not to sin?

Joshua

 

Paul,

How did non-spiritual ape-like creatures evolve into spiritual humans? Was there a transitional form that was partly spiritual?

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see any reason to part from the literal Genesis 2 account here - after having created man from the dust of the earth (which I take as a metaphor of the evolutionary process) God took Adam and breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul.

And after that He took him over to the special garden He had prepared for him.

So that's how I deal with it now, and if I'm wrong an a particular here or there, well, it won't be the first or last time I was wrong about something.

Now I don't think that the soul of man is really in the breath, moving in and out of the lungs. Rather, it is in the mind of man; the fact that we can potentially entertain any possible thought; that we can understand concepts like love, morality, responsibility, stewardship, justice, mercy, to name a few.

 

God could have made people incapable of sin but then there would be no "free will". God doesn't want a bunch of mindless robots worshipping Him. Why did God make man capable of sin? I have no clue and I doubt I will ever know. Are you claiming that God made man with sin as part of his nature? I guess God wouldn't be Holy then?

 

Could God have made humans in such a way that they had free will but were predestined to choose not to sin? If not then God is not omnipotent. If so, then God chose not to.

Presumably, the perfect Garden of Eden would have been a place populated by automatons, otherwise they wouldn't have been perfect.

Either way, God made the world in such a way that it is now a broken place full of sin which separates us from the nature of God.

Joshua

 

Partly, yeah, but only in the nicest sort of serious way.

Partly, yeah, I can comprehend what you are saying, I just can't understand how anyone could think that.

The very first distinctive of Pelagianism is the denial of original sin. The denial that there was an actual, real, first sin of mankind. You deny this:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

There is no logical reason why you would not feel free to deny this:

Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

You don't deny we are broken, you just deny we broke.

You don't deny we are in darkness, you just deny the light went out.

You don't deny we are spiritualy dead, you just deny we died.

 

Rev. Josh, I have watched this with great interest.

This is one of many reasons why the gospel you preach is not the same as the one we preach. As much as you have tried to convince many of us otherwise, you have only succeeded in convincing the mods and other libs that we are all on the same side on this issue.

Given that it is absolutely necessary to correctly understand and preach the gospel, I am willing to say you are wrong and a preacher of another gospel.

1. You start off by saying that sin is by nature, part of a world that has flaws. In other words, mankind entered the scene of a world already known to have sin in it.

The scripture states that sin entered the world (thus not part of its original conception) through the rebellion of man (Rom. 5:12). I might also include that this is one reason why you fail to understand the significance of the virgin birth.

2. The salvation you preach is more of a restoration of the divine. In other words, your own view of social justice and ideals have clouded your view of what salvation even it and why it is needed.

The scripture declares that all are under the wrath of God apart from justification. That is what people must be saved FROM.

3. Your view stating that people are animals should not be surprising. I actually expect this point. Considering your view of homosexuality and abortion, it only makes sense. Since both of those behaviors are animalistic, you would be correct.

The scripture declares that people are made in the image of God. God breathed life into man. The man and woman were created by direct, miraculous care. Adam was given reign over the animal kingdom. Even your evolutionism betrays you at this point. If man truly "evolved" from the animals, it represents that we are better, stronger, and more able to destroy what we want, when we want, whoever we want, and it would all be the correct thing to do.

Your evolution goes against all of your social concerns. The goal is to dominate in evolution, not help.

 

Gunther,

1. Although the debate about whether sin entered the world through one person or enters it through all people (since everyone rebels against God) is an interesting one from an academic perspective, it is irrelevant in practice. Whether through Adam's sin or human nature I am a sinner in need of God's grace through Jesus.

At some point creation may have been perfect (in a sense at least), but in recorded human history it has never been.

2. I'm not sure you've been reading me correctly. I argue strongly against any humanistic approach to salvation. Salvation only comes through divine action in the person of Jesus Christ.

3. Being stronger or more articulate or having more complex social structures does not make us any less animals. We can be the dominant animals and still be animals.

Yes, we are created in the image of God. I'm sure that if dolphins have oral scriptures, they also proclaim that dolphins are the crowning point of creation and made in the image of God.

As for evolution going against my social concerns, compassion and cooperation can be tools which allow something to thrive in certain environments. Eating everything in sight isn't the only way to adapt to one's environment.

Joshua

 

Hardly.

Add in our Covenant and Mission Statement and you get a pretty clear image of the Alliance's identity.

Joshua