Does God's love and mercy transcend theology?

[Elijah John]

Is God bigger than any given theology? Does His love and mercy transcend theological claims of exclusivity, such as found in Fundamentalist Islam or Fundamentalist Christianity?

Does God's love and mercy go well beyond even John 3.16 or John 14.6?

Does God judge people on getting their theology "right", believing the right things about Jesus, for example?

Or is God more concerned about the loving-kindness in our hearts and how we treat our fellow human beings?

[De Maria]

Is God bigger than any given theology? Does His love and mercy transcend theological claims of exclusivity, such as found in Fundamentalist Islam or Fundamentalist Christianity?

Does God's love and mercy go well beyond even John 3.16 or John 14.6?

Does God judge people on getting their theology "right", believing the right things about Jesus, for example?

Or is God more concerned about the loving-kindness in our hearts and how we treat our fellow human beings?

God is not a respecter of persons. Thus, God's love transcends any claims of exclusivity made by men:

Romans 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.� 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

[Wootah]

Is God bigger than any given theology? Does His love and mercy transcend theological claims of exclusivity, such as found in Fundamentalist Islam or Fundamentalist Christianity?

Does God's love and mercy go well beyond even John 3.16 or John 14.6?

Does God judge people on getting their theology "right", believing the right things about Jesus, for example?

Or is God more concerned about the loving-kindness in our hearts and how we treat our fellow human beings?

Are you claiming new revelation? If not, then the revelation we have testifies enough.

[JehovahsWitness]

Or is God more concerned about the loving-kindness in our hearts and how we treat our fellow human beings?

Those things are important or course, but more important than our love for each other is our love for God, it is after all the Greatest commandment. If scripture is to be believed our love for God is expressed through our obedience to Him.

1 JOHN 5:3

For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments

JW



RELATED POSTS


Is being "a loving person" God enough to be saved?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 356#844356

How is the love(agape) a Christian has superior to other forms of love one might have?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 939#798939

What does the bible expression "God is love" actually mean?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 754#954754







.

[PinSeeker]

It is by actions not words that a man's character is revealed. To claim some religious stamp on his right arm or left leg, instilling faith, is rather silly.

Can not a man perform acts contrary to his true character? You know, only for appearances' sake? It would be very naive to think not...

it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are (God's) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

I love Paul's purpose clauses, heavy with proud certainty of his rectitude, explaining God to the nations. He is making things up as he goes along.

I, too, am fond of Paul -- though I be not facetiously speaking, as you obviously are. But everything Paul says is very firmly grounded in the Old Testament (which at that time was just referred to as Scripture, because there was, as yet, no New Testament). So rather than "making things up as he went along," he was expounding on all that had come before him. It was new information to the Gentiles to whom he was preaching, for sure. because they had never heard it.

<chuckle> Methinks it's you who is making things up as he goes along.

It is ludicrous to suggest a new-born infant has faith and any creed that so suggests is hardly worth troubling about.

God can change a heart and work faith in him or her at any age. Mental cognition is not a prerequisite. The heart -- who and what the person is at his/her core -- is the instrument of faith, not the brain. There are Biblical examples of that: David and John, to name two.

"all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment..."

I understand this to mean "self-righteous" or "hypocritical" deeds, else the statement is rubbish.

Sure, well, the word of the cross is foolishness to all those who are perishing. It's offensive. Obscene, even.

When a person shows kindness to another, that is all that life requires. It is not necessary to bring God in on the act.

Humanly speaking, yes. But that's not all there is. Far from it.

Some religious folk might say that God is acting through the participant; others would say that goodness exists outside of religious communities.

I would say both. Saving faith is not a prerequisite for being capable of or doing acts of kindness and mercy. But without faith, those acts of kindness and mercy are as filthy rags regarding His great salvation.

[William]

[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]

more important than our love for each other is our love for God,

A Panentheist sees no difference in either expression, for each is the same.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]

more important than our love for each other is our love for God,

A Panentheist sees no difference in either expression, for each is the same.

If we have love, then, for God, would we not adhere to what he says in the Book that is widely accepted as his own? He clearly tells us throughout that there is only one way to attain salvation.....not ten thousand ways (that is, it is not "all roads lead to the same place"). He has particular ways that we are to achieve and maintain a relationship with him.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

The thing is......YHVH made rules that run the universe, and he added more rules when his first humans rebelled. Because they caused the death of all of their offspring (DNA is what it is), they were guilty of shedding much blood. One big new rule for the human race: "there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood." (Hebrews 9:22) Blood for blood. This is YHVH's rule, and if we are going to go by what the Bible says, we have to accept that.

It might not be pleasant to us, but it is a rule ordained by God Himself. We can call Him heartless or cruel, but it doesn't change the fact that that is one of His rules.

Why keep hitting ourselves "against the goads"? (Acts 26:14) Jesus has already shed his blood. YHVH has accepted his sacrifice. Why should we complain? It's all taken care of. All we have to do is follow Jesus' steps and do what he says. (I Peter 2:21)

No one HAS to shed their blood again. YHVH and Jesus tell us in the Bible that we are to be peaceful and wait on Him (I Thess.1:10; Psalm 37:7).

"If we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." (I John 1:7, NASB)

Any comment on my post #3?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

The thing is......YHVH made rules that run the universe, and he added more rules when his first humans rebelled. Because they caused the death of all of their offspring (DNA is what it is), they were guilty of shedding much blood. One big new rule for the human race: "there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood." (Hebrews 9:22) Blood for blood. This is YHVH's rule, and if we are going to go by what the Bible says, we have to accept that.

It might not be pleasant to us, but it is a rule ordained by God Himself. We can call Him heartless or cruel, but it doesn't change the fact that that is one of His rules.

Any comment on my post #3?

God's rules? How about John performing "baptism's of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"

No blood letting there at all, human or animal. Yet sins were forgiven then, if the Bible is to be believed.

And how about the Lord's prayer, in which Jesus himself instructs us to ask the Father for forgiveness, again with no mention of bloodletting, at all.

And how about Jesus' own Beattitude, "blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy". What does that Beattitude have to do with the shedding of blood?

And how about Jesus own Parables, tales of Divine forgiveness, again, with no mention of the shedding of blood in order to obtain forgiveness. Just simple repentance and a return to the welcoming Father.

We Christians have been conditioned by centuries of misplaced focus on legalistic blood-theology at the expense of Jesus real teachings of the Father's mercy.

It seems that Trinitarian Protestants as well as more Monotheistic JWs have bought into the RCC doctrine of blood atonement, hook, line and sinker.

Father YHVH is not some pagan deity who needs or desires to be appeased with blood.

Consider also Micah 6.6-8

6 Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? 7 will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?

So who do you believe, the Bible and Jesus? Or the unknown author of Hebrews, who, it seems got it very wrong. According the Jesus and John, according to the Prophets and according to the Gospels, there IS forgiveness of sins, without the shedding of blood.

So that in and of itself is Biblical evidence that God's love and mercy transcends human blood theology, as put forward by the unknown author of Hebrews, and the self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

[Elijah John]

Are you claiming new revelation? If not, then the revelation we have testifies enough.

No, see my post #18 reply to onewithhim. My position is solidly grounded in the Bible, and I have provided plenty of Biblical evidence to support it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by Elijah John]

DOES THE REPORT OF JOHN'S BAPTISMS ATTRIBUTE SIN ATONING PROPERTIES TO THE CEREMONY?

♦ANSWER No, the Apostle Peter explains that freedom from sIn comes through the " precious blood, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, ... of Christ". Indeed Peter explains that baptism, doesn't cleans people of sin ( " the filth of the flesh") but rather is {quote} "the request to God for a good conscience" {end quote}. So baptism constitutes a step towards having a good relationship with God by showing publically that person is sorry for their transgressions, but baptism, of itself, cannot atone for sin.

QUESTION: If the above is true what about Luke 3:3?

LUKE 3:3

And he [John the Baptist] came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins - New American Standard 1977

Some inaccurately suppose that the baptism of John atoned for sin, but first notice the baptism is said to have been for "the forgiveness" of sin not for the "atonement of sin". To forgive means to no longer feel resentment for a wrong, to be willing to refrain from imposing a penalty or punishment for something done that might merit such. Anyone can forgive at any time. To ATONE basically means to cover over, so it cannot be seen, to wipe it out. Scripturally only God can accept an atoning for sin and he ONLY does so on the basis of blood sacdifice. God's forgiveness (past and present) is based on his acceptance of the atoning sacrifice of Christ (see above).

A baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins

Not only do those that claim John's baptism atoned for sin misunderstand the difference between forgiveness and atonement, but they also misunderstand the description provided of the baptism itself. The John's Bapptism is described was a {quote} "Baptism of Repentance" was FOR ---> the forgiveness of sins" {end quote}. Referring to Strong's Greek Concordance we find the word translated into the English "for" (Gr eis) has a very wide variety of meanings, including

(figuratively) purpose (result, etc.);..., for (intent, purpose), ... to the intent that, ... (so) that .

So the baptism of John, rather than being "the end" was in fact "the means to the end" ie, the step or the first part of the process with the "intent that" or "result" that, sins (eventually) be forgiven (iIn its fullest sense) through the Messiahs blood sacrifice. This is completely in line with John's role as a Prophet sent to "prepare the way" so that "all flesh will see the saving means of God" (see Luke 3:5, 6).

To illustrate: If a parent tells their child "get a good education so that/ to the intent that... you can get a good job. This does not mean that school will give them a good job, only that their education will eventually lead to that good job. Just as John's baptism was "A baptism for the forgiveness of sin" such an education could be described as: "An education for the containment of a good job"

The Jews had strayed from adherence to the law and John was calling for them to recognize this and be baptized as an outward sign or symbol that they sincerely regretted their wayward course. In short John's baptism did not atone for or wash away sins, neither did his baptism exist in opposition to the temple arrangement, but rather it was the first step for sincere Jews to eventually come to the atoning sacrifice of their Messiah .

Various commentators present the following explanations:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: ... not for the obtaining the remission of sins, as if either repentance, or baptism, were the causes of pardon of sin; but the sense is, that John preached that men should repent of their sins, and believe in Christ, who was to come; and upon their repentance and faith, be baptized; in which ordinance, they might be led to a fresh view of the free and full forgiveness of their sins, through Christ; whose blood was to be shed for many, to obtain it: see Acts 2:38

Pulpit Commentary: The baptism of John was the profession of their penitence. Hence they who were baptized with his baptism confessed their sins, and thus made the first step towards the forgiving mercy which was to be found in Christ;

Insight on the Scriptures, Vol I p. 249 The baptism did not wash away their sins, but the repentance [...] The baptism performed by John was therefore not a special cleansing from God through his servant John, but a public demonstration and symbol of the individual’s repentance over his sins against the Law, which was to lead them to Christ. (Ga 3:24)

JW


RELATED POSTS

What is the difference between mercy, forgiveness and atonement?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 929#837929

Is being "a loving person" enough to be saved?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 356#844356


Does BAPTISM have sin atoning properties?
viewtopic.php?p=962539#p962539

Does a public declaration invalidate a private dedication?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 61#p877061

Is asking baptism candidates unscriptural?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 59#p877059

Go to other posts related to DEDICATION, SIN and ...RANSOM