Scream of the Damned
| Posted On: 11/11/09 10:36:54 AM |
Age 65, SC |
"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." Rom. 2:13 The damned are those who refuse to obey this law to save themselves. And they will surely scream for not obeying God by this Way of righteousness. You people really need to find out what law Paul is referring too.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Total Heresy!
| Posted On: 07/21/08 05:52:37 PM |
Age 21, MN |
AMEN!
My GOD (The God of the Bible) Never Damns Innocent lives. We can only be a sacrifice!
Click here to reply to this post
|
Are you kidding?
| Posted On: 07/16/08 08:32:08 AM |
Age 44, KS |
Steve,
Your association of these men with things like The Shack or the emerging church movement is irresponsible. If you take issue with their interpretation of Scripture or their use of certain words (damned) to describe Christ's atoning work on the cross, fine. But to associate them with "theatrics" or infer that they do not believe in the sufficiency of Scripture is ridiculous. Both of them have been champions of biblical exposition and have modeled to a generation of young people how wonderfully sufficient Scripture is. You are making big claims with little evidence.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- GOD IS NOT UNJUST
| Posted On: 07/17/08 05:31:49 PM | | Age 64, OH |
To say that God would damned the innocent or put the innocent under the wrath of God is to say that God is unjust. A prophet of God does not call God unjust. To call God unjust is a very serious matter indeed. Lou
Click here to reply to this post
Your article equivocates like nobody's business
| Posted On: 07/15/08 05:56:31 PM |
Age 19, CA |
Problem is, when you think "damned" you think "unregenerate sinner under the wrath of God for his own personal sin forever with no hope of escape" and when they say damned it means "under the wrath of God". There's no need to pit "damned" against "sinless submission."
Jesus was both under the wrath of God and personally sinless at the same time (though standing in on behalf of the elect). These men did not mean to communicate what you insinuate, nor did I understand them to communicate what you insinuate. I think YOU are the one who is trying to be provocative by misinterpreting men of God and then calling them out on heresy. Shameful.
Perhaps if you had come at it from an angle of "let me clarify for people who might misinterpret them", I wouldn't be so riled up right now...
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Even Steve believes is *substitutionary* atonement
| Posted On: 07/19/08 02:30:44 PM | | Age 19, CA |
And so he should! It is after all necessary for the possibility of sinners being saved. I'm surprised how many people have been so quick to say that Jesus was *not* under the wrath of God. How can you read Isaiah 53 and hold that Jesus was not the recipient of God's anger, at least for a time?
This is a quote from Calvin that Steve uses in his above discourse: "He could not cease to be the object of his Father's love, and yet he [Jesus] endured his [the Father's] wrath." I guess I just understand that to mean that Jesus was under the wrath of God. He endured the wrath of the Father that was meant for sinners. Is this unjustified or incorrect?
Understand also that "God", "Lord", "Yahweh/Jehovah", etc. are all Biblically legitimate ways to refer to the Father. So for the person who said Jesus wasn't under God's wrath because Jesus himself is God, that's what I meant. I was referring to the Father.
Also, even Calvin's exegesis of Gal 3:13 confuses me. He makes much was what the strange phrase "made a curse" is *not* (ie it is not "he was cursed"), yet isn't that what the Old Testament quotation says? "**Cursed** is everyone who is hanged on a tree." I think this distinction between "Cursed" and "made a curse" is making a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps "made a curse" doesn't mean the same thing as "cursed", but nevertheless, Gal 3:13 says Jesus was cursed on our behalf, since it quotes the Old Testament that everyone who is hanged on a tree is cursed, and the Bible says that Jesus was indeed hanged on a tree! Therefore, by logical deduction, Jesus was cursed.
If I'm missing something here, please let me know, because the logic doesn't seem to complicated, but enough people are missing it to worry me...
Click here to reply to this post
- IT WAS EVIL MEN WHO CRUCIFIED JESUS
| Posted On: 07/20/08 10:31:31 PM | | Age 64, OH |
Jesus said if you see Me you have seen The Father. God the Father says in Isaiah that we will have no other Savior except for Him. God died willingly for our sins, but He did not commit suicide but did not stop evil men from crucifying Him. Jesus was not accused by God but by evil men. Jesus was not tried by God but by evil men. Jesus was not crucified by God but by evil men. Lou
Click here to reply to this post
- THE INNOCENT WILL NEVER BE UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD
| Posted On: 07/17/08 05:28:30 PM | | Age 64, OH |
If the Lord Jesus was innocent as you agree, but also "under the wrath of God" then how could we escape God's wrath by being under the blood of this innocent Man. If the fact that Jesus was innocent did not protect Him from God's wrath then why would the blood of the innocent protect us. That is why the blood of an innocent animal protected a man who sacrificed it, because the animal was innocent. BEING INNOCENT PROTECTS ANY MAN FROM THE WRATH OF GOD OR GOD IS NOT JUST. Are you saying that God would put an innocent Man under His wrath. The problem for us is that we are NOT innocent. There is another fact that flies in the face of "Jesus was under the wrath of God" and that is the fact that Jesus was The Everlasting Father and God Almighty.
Click here to reply to this post
- To ponder...
| Posted On: 07/16/08 12:44:02 PM | | Age 47, MO |
Brother, nothing to add or take away from your being riled up, you can respond as you like. However, I would like to take issue with your statement that Jesus was "under the wrath of God." Jesus wasn't under wrath of God, he is God and paid the penalty for sin. Wrath is still to come and is reserved for the damned. Jesus wasn't damned in the normal sense of the word, which is why I side with Steve on this issue. Semantics perhaps, but like sin or an onion, the truth is peeled away one layer at a time to the point of being no longer discernable. John
Click here to reply to this post
- The wrath of God
| Posted On: 07/16/08 10:58:23 AM | | Age 61, MO |
Jesus was not "under the wrath of God." Jesus defeated the wrath of God on the Cross. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," was a cry of anguish of being separated from God, but only briefly, and always in control. I don't know what these men meant to communicate, but they succeded in highly agitating this reader. George Cancilla
Click here to reply to this post
PSALM 22
| Posted On: 07/15/08 04:16:11 PM |
Age 64, OH |
I WOULD THINK THAT WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT PSALM 22 IS A PICTURE OF JESUS ON THE CROSS 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.
19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 FOR HE HAS NOT DESPISED OR DISDAINED THE SUFFERING OF THE AFFLICTED ONE; HE HAS NOT HIDDEN HIS FACE FROM HIM BUT HAS LISTENED TO HIS CRY FOR HELP. (It was right after Jesus cried out "My God why have you forsaken me" that Jesus gave up His Spirit and died. So one could say that God did help Jesus right after He prayed)--- Lou
Click here to reply to this post
|
Choking on a Gnat
| Posted On: 07/15/08 09:05:35 AM |
Age 44, KS |
This appears to be a tempest in a tea pot in my estimation. Anyone who is familiar with the ministries of these two men (Mahaney and Piper) know that they are not given to theological imprecision. The concept which these sermons communicate by using the phrase "damned" is that on the cross Jesus was condemned the place of sinners taking their punishment and absorbing the wrath of God in their place. It is not to suggest that Jesus was actually guilty or worthy of punishment in any way. As the hymn says, "bearing shame and scoffing rude, in my place condemned he stood..." Though the actual word "damned" may not be used in this connection, surely the concept is clearly communicated in Scripture. The term "substitutionary atonement" isn't used in the Greek New Testament either. Are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to use it in a sermon to describe what Scripture teaches about the atonement? It seems that a better use of your time might be to defend the gospel against those who are attacking it instead of casting shadows on the work of those who are so ardently preaching the gospel in our time.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- IS GOD UNJUST
| Posted On: 07/15/08 11:47:13 AM | | Age 64, OH |
Is the Truth and something that is not true both OK. Jesus is The Everlasting Father as Isaiah says in 9:6 and there is no Savior except for The Creator of all that exists. So how could He separate Himself from Himself. God Almighty became a Man born of a woman and as to His Manhood was fully a Man. But as to His Godhood he was God Almighty. Jesus was unjustly accused by evil men, Jesus was unjustly tried by evil men. Jesus was unjustly crucified by evil men. If Jesus was damned by God or Himself then is God also unjust by unjustly damning an innocent Man. Jesus was without sin, is without sin, and will always be without sin. So how could Jesus be made sin (in reality and not to represent sin) and still be without sin. The same scripture tells us that Jesus who knew no sin was made the sin offering. How could Jesus be made sin itself and still know no sin. Lou
Click here to reply to this post
- Indeed
| Posted On: 07/31/08 07:46:40 AM | | Age 48, MO |
Well Spoken!!!
Click here to reply to this post
- Not choking on a gnat: grave theological error
| Posted On: 07/15/08 10:59:43 AM | | Age 61, MO |
The reason I don't put much confindence in popular theologians is because they are not infallible. Jesus was not made sin. He was the Living Lamb of God: a living SACRIFICE for sin. "For such a high priest (Jesus Christ) was fitting for us, Who is holy, harmless, undefiled, SEPARATE FROM SINNERS, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests (OT priests), to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this He did once, when He offered up Himself." (Hebrews 7:26-27). A "screaming, damned Christ" is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures. George Cancilla
Click here to reply to this post
- missing the point
| Posted On: 07/16/08 08:18:14 AM | | Age 44, KS |
George,
I think you are missing the point here. Neither Piper or Mahaney would ever suggest that Jesus was actually a sinner or guilty or deserving of any punishment. Yet, Jesus the sinless Son of God did suffer in the place of sinners the very punishment they deserved. He was condemned. He served the sentence of all the condemned sinners who would trust in Him. He suffered as the just in the place of the unjust (1 Pet. 3:18). He was made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). It seems to me that the point of the messages from Piper and Mahaney is to emphasize the stark reality that Jesus was treated like a "damned" or condemned sinner. Is this not the point of Romans 3:25-26? Paul says that God is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus precisely because His justice was demonstrated by punishing the sins of those who believe upon His Son. God publicly displayed His righteousness by Jesus being the propitiation for sin through His death on the cross. What is the basis for God being gracious to sinners without compromising His justice? It is because Jesus suffered the penalty of sin in the place of the believing sinner. In other words, Jesus suffered as the damned in the place of the believer so that he or she wouldn't have to be damned.
Click here to reply to this post
- Missing the point
| Posted On: 07/16/08 10:50:27 AM | | Age 61, MO |
It is not I, or any of the others here who have taken issue with Piper and Mahaney, who have missed the point. Your reasons for Christ on the Cross are correct. It is Piper and Mahaney who have chosen to confuse the point. At best, it comes across as the selling of "fire insurance." I'll have none of it, and will never read another thing of Piper's. George Cancilla
Click here to reply to this post
JESUS DID NOT BECOME SIN BUT BECAME OUR SIN REPRESENTATIVE
| Posted On: 07/15/08 08:04:29 AM |
Age 64, OH |
What does the scripture mean when it says that Jesus became sin for us. Remember this, the scriptures also say that Jesus never knew any sin. 2 Cor 5:21God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Footnotes: for [a] 1. 2 Corinthians 5:21 Or be a sin offering - If we look in the Wuest New Testament we see "He who did not know sin in an experiential way, on behalf of us and instead of us, was made (the representative of ) sin, in order that, as for us, we might become a righteousness of God in Him.- Amplified 21For our sake He made Christ [virtually] to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in and through Him we might become [[a]endued with, viewed as being in, and examples of] the righteousness of God [what we ought to be, approved and acceptable and in right relationship with Him, by His goodness].- Virtual reality is not reality but a representation of it. Virtual means in name only or a representation of it. New Living 21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin,[a] so that we could be made right with God through Christ.- KJV 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.- The KJV says that Jesus was made sin FOR US or Jesus paid the penalty but it goes on to say "who knew no sin" if Jesus knew no sin then He could not really become sin for then He would know sin. Jesus became the representative of our sin or our scapegoat. But Jesus was not really sin or never did know sin.-ESV 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.- Again Jesus was made SIN FOR US or our scapegoat.- Think about it, Jesus could not in reality become sin and still know no sin. If Jesus became sin then He would not have been sinless at that time. Jesus was sinless, is sinless, and always will be sinless. Lou
Click here to reply to this post
|
- SIN OFFERRING
| Posted On: 07/15/08 11:33:10 AM | | Age 64, OH |
After I posted this , George sent me a private email and showed me that the Septuagint uses the same exact Greek word that 2 Cor 5:21 translates as sin in many places and translates that same Greek word as SIN OFFERING. ie Ex 29:14,36 and Lev 4:3,8. So it is a proper translation to translate this Greek word as SIN or SIN OFFERING. Lou
Click here to reply to this post
Please read ALL of Psalm 22
| Posted On: 07/15/08 07:51:46 AM |
Age 53, WA |
I wrestled with this issue of Jesus being "forsaken" by His Father for many years. It made no sense to me; He did exactly what was asked of Him and He did it without sin. Why would God forsake Him? (And to say that "God cannot look upon sin" is repeated so often people actually believe it. Satan himself was in God's presence. I doubt God turned His head from Him as they conversed.) The answer came when I read Psalm 22 in its entirety. The answer is in verse 24: "For He has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; He has not hidden His face from Him but has listened to His cry for help." This is in context and specifically refers back to vs 1. God never walked away from Jesus, turned His face from Him, or any such thing. This interpretation of what happened has twisted and perverted the holiness of this moment between Father and Son, between God and our Savior. Scripture will always interpret Scripture. Never add to it or take away from it.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- True
| Posted On: 07/15/08 10:55:24 AM | | Age 47, MO |
Indeed! It seems that we listen to pastors, teachers, and seminary professors to fill our minds we their percieved truths, and then carry that with us as a framework to discern all truth. Yet, as you said, Scripture interprets Scripture but ALL must be discerned by His Spirit. Many false doctrines are believed to be true, such as the way we do church, that God can't hear the prayers of sinners, Jesus din't possess the curse of Adam's sin, etc. But if God can't hear sinners, can he be God? If Jesus didn't have Adam's sin, is He 100% human? Is doing church supposed to be a spectator event for 95% of the body? John
Click here to reply to this post
Forsaken?
| Posted On: 07/15/08 05:33:20 AM |
Age 44, IL |
I had a discussion about this awhile back on an apologetics board, where people were focussing on guys like Copeland making too much, and carrying too far, the idea of Jesus taking on the nature of sin. I chose to zero in on the "forsaken" phrase and suggested that even a momentary separation of the trinity would put paid to the sin of mankind, invoking the common belief that "eternal death" = "eternal separtation from God."
I was hammered on two points, which I present for discussion here:
1) The Bible does not define spiritual death as separtation from God.
2) Jesus was not actually forsaken by God the Father, despite His cry; this would mean that the unchanging, trinitarian Godhead changed. Ergo, Jesus was just expressing how He FELT at that moment, and, of course, fulfilling prophetic scripture.
I find these explanations unsatisfying and somewhat diminishing. What say ye?
Click here to reply to this post
|
Psalm 69
| Posted On: 07/14/08 11:02:39 PM |
Age 26, GA |
If you want to cry, read Psalm 69 with the view of this being the prayer of our Saviour hanging on a cross to a God who will not save him.
God hates sinners, (Psalm 5:5) Jesus Christ took possession of our sins on the cross, (Psalm 69:5) he was hated in our place. (2 Cor 5:21)
It is vital that we do not downplay the rending of the Holy Trinity and the pain that was endured by all three Persons during its slow and painful separation. When Christ was separated from his Father, sin was separated from the Father.
To say that there was any love for Christ on the Cross from God in Heaven is to misunderstand the sinfulness of sin.
"It pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin..." - Isaiah 53:10
- Pastor Canyon
Click here to reply to this post
|
- WHO RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD
| Posted On: 07/15/08 06:48:45 AM | | Age 64, OH |
If what you say is true then how did Jesus say He would raise Himself from the dead. John 2:18‑22
Then the Jews demanded of Him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all tHis?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy tHis temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” The Jews replied, “It has taken forty‑six years to build tHis temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was His body. After he was raised from the dead, His disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. Lou
Click here to reply to this post
- JESUS SAID GOD IS ONE
| Posted On: 07/15/08 06:42:04 AM | | Age 64, OH |
I find your post one of confusion. if one wants to believe some of the Bible then they would have no problem with your post. But if one wants to believe all of the Bible then it seems to me there is a problem. When Jesus was asked what is the most important commandment He said:Mark 12:29
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.- Notice that Jesus had a perfect opportunity to say three in one but He did not. He said God is One.- Let us look further into the scriptures at Isaiah 9: 6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.-- So Isaiah says that when God became a Man and born as the child Jesus He would be The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, and the Wonderful Counselor or The Holy Spirit. Isaiah plainly tells us that the child Jesus is The Father and The Holy Spirit or that God is One. - If we look at what God Himself says in Isaiah 43: Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no savior.
15 I am the LORD, your Holy One,
Israel's Creator, your King."
25 "I, even I, am he who blots out
your transgressions, for my own sake,
and remembers your sins no more.-- The most important principle in the Bible is that there is One and Only One God. That God is omnipresent and can be on the throne in heaven and also become a Man born of a woman and shed His Blood for us. As to His Manhood Jesus has made Himself a little lower than the angels and is a Man and less than God. But as to His Godhood Jesus is God Almighty. It was God Almighty that paid for our sins and shed His blood for us. Mary was not the mother of God. Mary was the mother of the human body of Jesus only. For Jesus was the Creator and Father of Mary. Jesus was both Man and God. Jesus was not some little god but He was The One and Only God Almighty. Otherwise there is no difference between our faith and the JW. Lou
Click here to reply to this post
- Confused...
| Posted On: 12/16/08 05:14:17 PM | | Age 29, MD |
Lou, forgive me, but I am finding *your* post confusing...are you rejecting the Trinity in favor of modalism?
Click here to reply to this post
Read More Feedback
|
|
|
