Exactly, but keep in mind, God is more powerful than anyone and everyone. If you noticed, "Papa" never seems stressed about it. Seems that Papa has a lot in control while dancing to a hip hop tune.
We are the ones who seem to be wringing our hands in frustration while the world appears to be going to hell in a hand basket.
Also we need to reconcile ourselves to one another. It's a hot topic because many are still struggling with this reconciliation issue. It should be the most exciting topic of the entire bible!
Reconciliation against our will may be the most exciting theme for this new "Cheap Grace" doctrine, but it is not a doctrine from the Bible.
Jesus "struggled" or more accurately lamented the fate of Jerusalem, echoing the words of the prophet Jeremiah. The people would not repent and God, powerful though he is, voluntarily refrains from forcing them to repent nor does he send them, in most cases straight to Hell. But our love for God cannot exist without free will to choose to love him. Therefore, God must allow for the possibility of our choosing death and Hell. Typically God gives time for repentence, but certainly God did pass immediate judgment upon those whose iniquity was "full". For example, the sinners among the Children of Israel in their post-Exodus sojourn in the Wilderness of the Sinai died immediately in a state of mortal sin, testing God's patience past the breaking point.
"Reconciliation against our will may be the most exciting theme for this new "Cheap Grace" doctrine, but it is not a doctrine from the Bible."
Nobody here said it was. Obviously, you think God is all about damnation and hell. Sorry to hear that.
"Jesus "struggled" or more accurately lamented the fate of Jerusalem, echoing the words of the prophet Jeremiah." Yes, he did. And that prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple was destroyed. But that does not mean that they will spend "eternity in hell".
God's grace will cover all, and no they are not "forced" to repent. But if they are not forced to repent, then why are they forced to suffer in hell? Is that not the same thing? At least, the other way, they have a chance to repent, but sent to hell according to your "gospel", they have no chance at all to repent. Ever thought about that?
And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments
March 30 2009, 8:58 PM
This is the gospel I believe:
16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
16:23 And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.
16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Nothing was ever said about those not having proclaimed Christ receiving eternal life... GET OVER IT!
I didn't post the original comment to resurrect the reconciliation religious argument... I posted it because what I heard supports what you have been saying... That without acceptance of Christ, there is no life... but also explains what we have been trying to say about reconciliation.
That said....
So, you are going to base your doctrine of hell on a parable?
While some are willing to interpret this as literal, most are not...
My understanding on how parables are to be interpreted are a story with "a punch-line". Your task is to figure out what the punch line is... This link has some reasonable guidelines around the interpretation of that passage.
There are plenty of other texts relating to death after life...
Ramblinman, with all due respect--and I do respect you a lot--you seem to be the victim of a knee-jerk-style reaction. Whenever you see the word "Reconciliation" here, you immediately associate it with the supposedly unbiblical doctrine of "Universal Reconciliation." I don't see that anywhere in this "strip." (Threads are for textiles! )
What I do see bornnude and Boyd arguing here is the need for us Christian naturists to be reconciled with our textiled brothers and sisters, and for non-Christian naturists to hear the true Gospel and thus ultimately, perhaps, be reconciled with God and us. I doubt you'd argue those points. I'm not advocating Universal Reconciliation, about which I have my own beliefs; but neither is Boyd, at least not here.
So shall we discuss the need for reconciliation with our clothed brethren?
My remarks about Hell and salvation were not in response to your original post, but were addressed to the subsequent post and to a lesser extent previous posts on this forum. I hope I made it clear that my disagreement is not with you, at least not on that issue.
You asked, "So, you are going to base your doctrine of hell on a parable?"
Yes, this passage is one of many that explain the tragic reality of Hell, the eternal destination for those who reject Christ or Moses and the Prophets for that matter.
The text does not demand that the rich man in the parable refer to a specific individual, but if Jesus taught this parable or any parable with no intention of teaching us about salvation, Hell, etc, then we can only assume that the Bible was written for entertainment value and not for our instruction.
Trying to plan a trip to the Moon without the use of Calculus
March 31 2009, 4:47 PM
Jochanaan,
If I thought you were unreasonable, I would be wasting my time in dialog with you, but as you can see, I am glad to continue this discussion.
I reread the previous posts and you are the first one to suggest that the reconciliation issue only refers to nudist versus textile rather than the broader context of World (lost souls) vs those who proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If you want to narrow the topic to N vs T, that's fine.
Let me begin by throwing a rock at the hornet nest: What's to reconcile?
We don't like wearing clothes in ambient conditions, they insist that we do, under pain of legal prosecution.
Are you suggesting that we make further concessions to those who loathe the sight of the creature made in God's image?
My heart grieves for those who struggle with poor self-image and those who find the sight of nudity a cause for lust rather than a moment to glorify the Creator. Perhaps we can gain a right to be heard when we reach out in love to those who are crippled by self-destructive attitudes.
It is possible to teach healthy body image and demystify nudity without nude living, but it makes our overall gospel message much easier to communicate when our talk (philosophy and faith) is backed up by our walk (including nudity).
To me trying to teach body image without practical everyday nudity is like trying to calculate a moon launch without calculus, using just algebra alone.
Try planning a trip to freedom in Christ without Grace
April 1 2009, 8:23 AM
Ramblinman,
I think you are struggling with the concept of grace. Grace, something that is very biblical, and something that God sent through his son, Jesus Christ, is the one thing Churches lack these days.
You somehow believe that we must believe Jesus (or Moses, as if that is an option) and that alone is enough. Sure, Jesus is enough, but we cannot leave out the human factor. Jesus became flesh, human, so he can extend grace to humanity. It is undeserved pardon. Nobody on this earth deserves grace, yet God, in his mercy and love, extends it to all.
For the sake of many of the nudists who are still struggling with grace, may only look at reconciliation as between clothed and unclothed. But it is far reaching than that. Grace is something that has to extend to all peoples.
You wrote "My heart grieves for those who struggle with poor self-image and those who find the sight of nudity a cause for lust rather than a moment to glorify the Creator".
My heart grieves for those who struggle with poor self-image, not because they find nudity so bad, but that they find themselves without the understanding of grace from their creator. They do not see the love of Christ coming through the Church. CNC wants to extend that love for all of humanity, not just a handful.
I do personally believe God gave grace and reconciliation to ALL of humanity. Now, if you want to condemn me for something I did NOT say, then go ahead. Grace apparently, is not in the vocabulary of those who wants to condemn. I said simply that Jesus came to save, not to condemn (biblical) and that he did say "forgive them for they know not what they are doing".
Can we all agree we are at God's mercy when it comes to not knowing what we are doing? God showed his grace and mercy (died for our sins) while we were yet still sinners! While we were yet still sinners. I repeat: While WE, YOU AND I, were STILL SINNING! He died for YOU, and ME while WE were Still Sinning! Do we get that??? Do we understand grace? If not, then we are still in our sins, and we have no hope.
It would be very nice if we can reconcile between the clothed and unclothed. But if all we get is a chance to go naked, then that is all our reward. And it will be a naked and unfulfilling reward. For if we do not extend grace to humanity, then we are still at square one. The only difference is that we are naked people with no grace rather than clothed people with no grace.
I am reading a book called "What's So Amazing About Grace?" by Philip Yancey. I would recommend that to our group when you get a chance to read it.
I do not plan to move forward with CNC without grace and reconciliation.
Boyd, If you and I are not struggling with grace, if we have lost our sense of wonder about it, then we still don't understand it as we should. For grace to be "Amazing", some aspects of grace must of necessity be a bit beyond our full comprehension. But the Bible does lay a strong foundation upon which to start our discovery of grace.
For instance, I know that God's grace doesn't exist apart from all of God's other attributes: wrath, justice, righteousness, holiness, to name a few.
If God is just and holy, and I believe with certainty that he is, then we must take seriously those passages in the Bible that teach the destruction of the wicked. We are not being "condemning" when we affirm God's clear condemnation of sin. God does not punish sinners out of spite. The Bible says that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But the earth and mankind were created for a purpose and God is not going to let his purpose be thwarted forever. Stopping a sinner in his tracks may elicit a terrible outcry that God is unjust in denying the sinner the right to continue in his sins forever, but the day will come when God will say "enough". He did it in Noah's generation and he has promised to do it again.
I don't like to read long posts, so I'll stop with this, but hope to discuss the other issues you raised as well, all in due time.
You previously wrote "Reconciliation against our will may be the most exciting theme for this new "Cheap Grace" doctrine, but it is not a doctrine from the Bible." then you say that God is going to force people to repent.
I'd like to ask you something. How does one repent? How do you force someone to love God? Without grace and reconciliation, you can't.
I'm not sure what you meant by "reconciliation against our will", and you say that grace is not of the bible, then go on to say that the bible lays a strong foundation for our discovery of grace. How can one discover grace through force? Is not grace something we discover by living through the process of grace in our lives? By needing it disparately ourselves? Paul pointed out the flaws of grace, it may very well give some people the idea that if too much grace abounds, then will not sin be more attractive? Will more people sin because grace abounds? But he does not say to stop giving grace, but to understand what grace is and live a grace life, without sin. But sin is something we face every day. So our judgment, when is meant to be carried out by God, not by us, should first be given with grace, not condemnation. "For I did not come to condemn the world but to save it" Jesus said.
God does pour out his anger and justice, against sin. But the sinner, he extended grace. Jesus was so disturbed by sin, that he nailed it and killed it on the cross. He bore ALL our sins, every sin that ever existed and ever will, and destroyed it on the cross. His vengeance has been met.
"He did it in Noah's generation and he has promised to do it again." Really? Like in the days of Noah? Then what is the rainbow for? Go back again, and read those promises.
We are taking God's sacrifice out of his hands and trying to save the world with our own works and justice. The extreme religious right wants to mix politics and religion, when that is the worst thing that can happen. There is no grace when the religious right tries to force Christian "values" on the rest of the world. There is no grace in that at all. It is all works, all legalism, and no way to harness love out of all this. All it does is recreate the middle ages.
There was a famous leader of a country who forced his country into Christian values, such as no pornography, no movies, no alcohol, and he refrained from drinking and smoking and such "vices". He put a nationwide ban on these horrible things that the National Religious community supported and praised him for. He burned books that was not Christian in nature. Then proceeded to clean up anything and anyone he felt was not of his righteous caliber. His name was Hitler.
We can force people to follow "Christian" rules, but we cannot lead them to the Father without grace. Lots and lots and lots of grace.
Often, we focus too much on the problems around us, the "non-kingdom" of God rather than focusing on the Kingdom of God right now.
Jesus and Paul both had issues in those days that were far worse than today. Abortion? Today? Nothing by comparison to what was going on then. Then, they let the baby come to full term, are born, then toss them out alive by the road for the wild animals. Child porn? Then, older men had sex slaves of younger boys. Both were legal and accepted then. How much does the bible talk about these things? How much did Jesus or Paul talk about them? They didn't say much at all. In fact, nothing really. Paul did say something about same sex practices, but nothing about the boys and older men. And not a word about the children being tossed by the road. Except maybe in the old testament where God talked about Israel being the baby tossed to one side.
Now I'm not condoning these practices, I'm just pointing out how much they were talking about grace and love for humanity that eventually, speaking of the Kingdom of God by their immediate lives, they can change the world with good news and the world in turn will learn these practices are wrong. NOT because an old Mosaic law says so, but because the love and grace of God is in them, and they cannot do these things. Grace so abound in their lives that grace spills out to their children, so children will be loved and protected, not tossed to the wild animals. Grace begets grace, law begets condemnation and death.
Hi guys;
I have noticed something about these debates on grace. Folks are trying so hard to win that things get twisted. You say the "R" word and he sees doctrine even when it's not there, but sometimes it is. Ramblin man and I believe that grace is like air, it's all around you and free to everyone, but you have to accept it to benefit from it. Now from this stand point you said that he thinks that all God cares about is hell and damnation. That is a debating trick of throwing his point all the way to one extreme. I love you guys, but these debates bother me. No one wants to know the truth, everyone wants to push his belief. What would it take to reach an agreement? What proof would make one side or the other say, "you know I was wrong about that, thanks for showing me"? The Bible? That doesn't work. You can explain a 1,000 scriptures and simply get a, "that's just a parable, or your reading the wrong translation, etc." If ramblin man and I are wrong and Boyd's theory is right, than we have harmed no one. We simply erred on the side of caution. However, if we are right and Salvation only comes by accepting Jesus as a savior. Then this forum could be responsible for sending an untold number of people into the lake of fire. I don't know if it will do any good, but let's look at scripture. In Acts chapter 2 after Peter's sermon, it says the men were pricked in their hearts and asked men and brothers what shall we do?
At this point Peter could have said, "nothing, Jesus paid it all, just live in what has been done for you." We know this is not what was said, instead he said, "repent". Repenting is part of accepting Jesus, and when we do our dead spirit is then reborn, with God's Holy Spirit living inside it. Maybe we should ask God who has the correct doctrine? I have been man enough to admit I was wrong before about nudity. If God will clear this up, I will follow whatever he says. Is there some way He can show us here, that all of us would accept?
BTW...I also never said that men do not need to repent. Where did we get that idea from? I am shocked that this is coming out of what I am saying! Of course we have to repent!! That is what reconciliation is all about! It gives us the opportunity to repent!
I have repeatedly explained what reconciliation is about and repeatedly, I have to go back and explain it again and again. Not once did I say that Jesus is not the way or that men should not repent! I have told about God's love through Jesus Christ in so many ways, that grace is what God is about! Grace and reconciliation is what leads us to repentance!
Where did I go wrong here? Why is this such a hard subject? Where did the idea that reconciliation is some sort of 'New Age' thing? It's in the bible! God has cried out for Israel to come back many times. Amazing Grace is sung in churches all over the world, yet they give no grace. I am being condemned for preaching grace and reconciliation, the very subject of the early church!
The Salvation Army gives grace unconditionally.
Hospice gives grace unconditionally,
Red Cross gives grace unconditionally
AA gives grace unconditionally
Sure, they need to make changes in their lives, but grace has always come first!
There is no "safety net" teaching about hell. It only confirms their end without grace. What they want to know is, can they get out of the hell they are already in? Yes! Jesus Christ! His UNCONDITIONAL Love! Often, we make God's love conditional. For God so loved the world...before we repented. God forgave us long before we knew of God. Grace comes first always and foremost. Then repentance comes out of grace. Yes we repent, but only after we see Christ through the eyes of grace.
Once these people who Peter preached to, saw, then they repented! Repenting is changing the way we see God. Often, we try to change so that God will see us differently and change his mind about us. We are asking God to repent! NO! WE repent! That is what I have been saying all along, and now this forum may be a tool for sending people to hell?? How? I am preaching God's love and grace and mercy to all of humanity so they won't have to face hell!
We should be dancing in the streets! Instead, I am getting a barrage of conflicting ideas and people too afraid to give out grace to very thirsty and hungry people! Jesus gave bread and fish to people who could not give back. He told the disciples to feed these hungry people. He healed people who were not in any position to do any good to society. He forgave prostitutes and thieves, and yes, they repented, but only after they saw how much love and grace Jesus had for them already.
That is what caused them to repent, by witnessing Jesus' love for them unconditionally. Then he told them to go and sin no more. He did not threaten them, or forced them to repent. They came like a thirsty sheep to water. The ones he threatened to hell (thus the story of Lazarus and the Rich man) was the Pharisees! The religious leaders who thought they had righteousness! It was not about hell and the damned, it was about the Church and how they failed to serve humanity! How they failed to dispense grace to the weak and fatherless.
Yes, Peter told them to repent, to "change their minds about Jesus" because of the grace and love and reconciliation Jesus already gave to them! He asked them to stop living the old lives they are living, to get out of the hell they are in and start living in the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ! The way is through grace and reconciliation Jesus gave them in advance. They were blind, now they see, so that way, they can repent.
I just completed the book, "Whats So Amazing About Grace" by Philip Yancey. PLEASE read this book!
Ramblinman, you were right and I was wrong about the wider applications of "Reconciliation." I apologize for trying to shut off dialogue about them.
I do not deny that Hell is real, nor that humans who don't believe in Jesus will go there. But I wonder if we realize just what's involved in "believing Jesus." I'm sure you've heard the parable about the tightrope walker about to cross Niagara Falls pushing a wheelbarrow. He asked his admiring audience, "Who believes I can cross this tightrope with this wheelbarrow?" Lots of hands shot up. "All right, who wants to get in the wheelbarrow?"
...
...
...
As far as I can tell, "accepting" Jesus and "believing in Jesus" really mean to get in the wheelbarrow, to follow Him even to the Cross. Anything less is not saving belief.
"As far as I can tell, "accepting" Jesus and "believing in Jesus" really mean to get in the wheelbarrow, to follow Him even to the Cross. Anything less is not saving belief."
After I posted this, I realized I should have gone on to say that even this saving belief comes through God's grace. What belief we lack, He will allow for, as long as we will to follow Him.
And as for those who have never heard the true Gospel of Jesus the Anointed Prince, or have only heard a distorted version of it, or have had bad experiences with churches, I believe that God will do everything He can to bring them to Himself. He may even develop their character so much they shame many who believe, or say they believe. But I'm not willing to develop a doctrine around this point. I may be wrong!
Sometimes I believe we need less "doctrine" and more connection with the Godhead. But to close this connection, we must be reconciled...
)