Comments on Pro Libertate: The Kidnapping of Cheyenne Irish (Third Update, 10/11)

Part 9 (final) This view of God is wide on mercy,...

2010-10-16T23:14:22.285-06:00

Part 9 (final)

This view of God is wide on mercy, but bereft of justice.

(sarcasm on) Yeah, Jesus dying on a cross, for the sins of the entire world - every person that has ever lived or ever will live - isn't justice. You have to make up for what He didn't do and then you have to maintain it by the way you live once you are saved. (sarcasm off) Again, a works salvation which the Bible offers nowhere.

It is not surprising that Calvinists are so unloving since they have an unloving god that sends people to Heaven against their will and sends people to Hell that want to go to Heaven. And their prophet, John Calvin, emulated their god by torturing people, having them beheaded or burning them at the stake for not accepting his theology.

As the title of another Dave Hunt book asks, What Love Is This?

Part 8 Although this hasn't been mentioned u...

2010-10-16T23:11:48.143-06:00

Part 8

Although this hasn't been mentioned until now, Calvinists believe that justice and mercy are equally ultimate attributes of the character of God. God's character is seen in His dealings with both saved and unsaved man. As it regards saved man specifically, we believe in continuous, active grace and continuous, active chastisement.

You may wish to read Romans 8:1. And then read the rest of Paul's letters to learn about God's grace.

Mister Spock, you indicate that salvation is essentially mental assent to certain facts about Christ

That's a flat out lie. Up until this point you had been civil, but that's a damnable lie, and another example of a Calvinist's typical dishonesty, condescension and arrogance. I said nothing about "mental assent" or anything about "certain facts" about Jesus. Those are your words and your spin to denigrate the beliefs of followers of Christ that you can't understand because the truth of God's word doesn't fit into your "belief system." As a matter of fact, I never addressed the issue of the "how" of salvation, only the "what." However, I did mention it tangentially when I quoted John 3:16, a verse even a child can understand, contrary to what Calvinists teach.

... that is, Christ mentally assented to as Savior, but not Lord, which is commonly referred to as "easy-believism".

A load of crap. I believe what you are trying to do here is denigrate historic, orthodox Christians that believe the truth of John 3:16 and all the similar verses in the Bible by alluding to James 2:19, which says, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." So making a claim that Christians you don't agree with simply "mentally assent" to "certain facts about Christ," you are putting them on par with demons who believe the same thing. Pathetic.

Part 7 You quoted Colossians 2:14 that says the L...

2010-10-16T23:07:46.437-06:00

Part 7

You quoted Colossians 2:14 that says the Law was canceled and nailed to the tree - and it was, as far as being required for salvation. God definitely no longer requires the Old Covenant ceremonies in this period of the New Covenant,

The Law was taken away – period. Not just the ceremonies. Once again, Calvinists just define away parts of scripture they don't like. You don't want to hear this, but when the Bible talks about the Law being canceled and obsolete, that includes the Ten Commandments. When Paul tells us no flesh will be justified by keeping the Law, that includes the Ten Commandments. When Paul says through the Law he died to the Law, that includes the Ten Commandments. When Paul says, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly," that includes the Ten Commandments. Get the idea?

Calvinists recognize…

I know what Calvinists believe. I suspect your elaboration on these issues was not for my benefit but to promote Calvinism to the other readers of this blog. But any serious Christian who takes the time to investigate the "belief system" (as you correctly labeled it) of Calvinism will reject it as heretical with no basis in the Bible.

I'm assuming you're referring to Catholic confessions, perhaps? Maybe not ....

No, I'm referring to any confession other than at the point of salvation to get forgiveness. The Catholics go to their confession booths, and the Protestants say oh, no, you don't have to do that, you can go straight to God to get forgiven and use their 1 John 1:9 bar of soap. But Jesus is up in Heaven yelling down, "It is finished! You don't get forgiven, you ARE forgiven." It's stupid to ask Him for something He's told you that you already have. Instead, thank Him for it.

Part 6 I could go on and on, but there isn't ...

2010-10-16T23:06:41.476-06:00

Part 6

I could go on and on, but there isn't enough space. Read the book of Galatians, the second and third chapters specifically, so you understand the grace of God instead of focusing on something that is obsolete, canceled, and was nailed to the cross.

And while you are there, you will discover the true purpose of the Law, which is not to sanctify us:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Gal 3:24

That's the purpose of the Law – to lead us to Christ by showing us how incapable we are of keeping it. It's like a mirror – the mirror can show you that your face is dirty, but you don't use the mirror to clean your face.

And not only are we are saved by Christ, we are also sanctified by Him:

For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren Heb 2:11

By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb 10:10

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Heb 10:14

HE sanctifies us. You have nothing at all to do with your salvation or maintaining it.

Part 5 In regards to the Law, many people mistake...

2010-10-16T23:05:42.873-06:00

Part 5

In regards to the Law, many people mistakenly think that Calvinists (and theonomists) believe we are saved by the Law. However, this is not the case at all. God's Law is not for salvation, but rather for sanctification, so that we will know how He expects us to live as believers. In other words, while good works are not the path to salvation, good works are the path of the saved man!

Once we become believers, our desire is now to please God, which leads us to ask ... 'how then shall we live'?

The Law describes God and shows us how He lives, thus guiding our own lives as believers

Again, you are wrong. Nowhere does the Bible tell us once we are saved that we are to follow the Law, or that it is there to tell us how to live or to sanctify us. If that was the case, you would attend church on Saturday, for one thing, and you don't, do you? And the Bible tells us if we break one point of the Law, we've broken them all. Jesus told us looking at a woman with lust is the same as adultery. So where does that leave you?

Rather than making up a purpose for the Law, why not just believe what the Bible says? First, as I mentioned, the Law is gone.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. Colossians 2:13,14

It says nothing about keeping it around to tell us how to live. And here's a verse I didn't quote:

When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. Heb 8:13

What new meaning does the Calvinist assign to 'obsolete' when they redefine words in scripture they don't like?

Part 4 Ironically, in part #2, the verses you pos...

2010-10-16T23:02:37.901-06:00

Part 4

Ironically, in part #2, the verses you posted from Hebrews say that those sacrifices did not take away sins. That was done by Christ alone.

No irony there at all. That's why I posted that. I was making the point salvation is more than forgiveness, and before salvation could be offered, the forgiveness issue had to be dealt with once and for all. Please re-read the two verses I quoted and my comment:

"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10:1-4

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Hebrews 10:11

The point? Under the Old Covenant, animal sacrifices could not make you perfect, and could not take away sins. Temporarily cover them? Yes - that's atonement. Take them away? No.

See? Until you understand that having your sins totally forgiven and put behind God's back never to be seen again is not salvation, you will continue to be confused.

Part 3 As mentioned in my earlier 2-part post, th...

2010-10-16T23:01:50.423-06:00

Part 3

As mentioned in my earlier 2-part post, the animal blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were a type or shadow of Christ's sacrifice. This was not a "system for getting sins forgiven", but rather a demonstration (or type) of God's salvation through Christ's blood, prior to His sacrifice.

While you are correct that animal sacrifices were a type of Christ's sacrifice, you are in error regarding forgiveness. You may wish to acquaint yourself with the book of Leviticus. And while the atonement provided by those sacrifices was only temporary (see the verses I mentioned previously), there was forgiveness, nonetheless.

Since God is not constrained by time, He knew Christ paid the price for all believers' sins before and after that event happened.

Another error of Calvinism – Christ paid for everyone's sins, not just believers. That is repeatedly made clear in the Bible. But since Calvinists can't stand the idea that they aren't someone special, they redefine words in the Bible to make it say something it doesn't.

E.g., I quoted 1 Peter 3:18: For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

All means all. But according to the Calvinists, it really means just some.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29

According to the Calvinists, the world doesn't mean the world, it just means believers.

And while I mentioned 1 John 2:2, but did not quote it, let's take a look:

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

That's pretty clear, isn't it? But when you confuse forgiveness with salvation, as Ex-JBS has, then you have to redefine words, because God can't possibly have meant what He said – the whole world doesn't mean the whole world.

Part 2 It may interest you to know that I saw Rus...

2010-10-16T23:00:54.310-06:00

Part 2

It may interest you to know that I saw Rushdoony speak many years ago, I have seen Dave Hunt speak, and I have seen James White, whom Hunt debated in the book I recommended, as well. I've also been to White's church, here in Phoenix. White does a great job on apologetics in general, debating Mormons and Catholics, wrote a great book on the King James Only movement, etc. But as intelligent as people like Rushdoony and White are (were), that doesn't make them right about all theology, and you give that away in your next statement:

As a Christian Reconstructionist, I am aware of the many attacks by dispensationalists on my belief system.

You hit the nail on the head – Calvinism is a belief system. It is a grid through which you read scripture. It involves rejecting the truth of God's word and redefining the words in the text to have them read what your system requires. And that is why you are in error when you say that Calvinism

...represent[s] the full tradition of the historic Protestant faith.

It does not. And don't make the same mistake the Catholics do of putting tradition over the truth of God's word.

Christian Reconstructionists recognize that dispensationalists are fellow believers in Christ, but we are concerned that their lack of cultural involvement (while they await Christ's return) contributes to the ever present growth of secular humanism in this country.

A statement that is certainly not true of all dispensationalists, as I have known many that are heavily involved in the culture – both politically and spiritually. I, too, lament when Christians of any particular theological or denominational persuasion reject their duty to be salt and light in a fallen world. But why a Calvinist would be bothered by that is beyond me, since they believe it's all predestined, anyway. Apparently God forced salvation on some people, but doesn't force cultural involvement on them – go figure.

Reply to Ex-JBS, Part 1 It is not my intention to...

2010-10-16T22:59:58.632-06:00

Reply to Ex-JBS, Part 1

It is not my intention to debate Calvinism in this blog. My purpose for the previous posts was to shed some light on common misunderstandings of salvation and forgiveness from the Biblical perspective. However, since Ex-JBS posted so much regarding Calvinism, I will make several comments on what he said, and then drop the issue. He may have the last word, if he likes. I will, however, continue to comment/answer questions re the original subject if any come up. And my apologies for the length of this, but I'm guessing that only Ex-JBS will be reading it, and everyone else has moved on to Will's latest.

Ex-JBS: I am familiar with dispensationalist Dave Hunt, who, by the way, wrote a book criticizing R. J. Rushdoony's Christian philosophy. Those who followed Will Grigg's writings in The New American will probably recognize Rushdoony's name…as the intellectual father of the homeschool movement

As far as I'm concerned, Will has the best blog on the net, and I've stated that repeatedly -publicly and privately to many people – I am not sucking up to him. :-) But the fact that Will has mentioned him in the context of homeschooling (my kids were homeschooled, fwiw) in TNA or here adds no credibility to Rushdoony's heretical theology.

Wish I could say I am surprised by the characteriz...

2010-10-13T18:31:47.510-06:00

Wish I could say I am surprised by the characterization of "neglect" used to justify a kidnapping. Unfortunately, the loose definition of "neglect" (read any convenient excuse) was in a local case known to me; different circumstances, same result.

Such is the nature of legal chaos, when malum prohibitum includes the "illicit" possession of one's own body. This is the same concept that aroused the anger of abortion advocates. Will they lend a voice or two?

(continuing Section B, from above) You quoted Colo...

2010-10-13T17:19:48.646-06:00

(continuing Section B, from above)
You quoted Colossians 2:14 that says the Law was canceled and nailed to the tree - and it was, in so far as God definitely no longer requires the Old Covenant ceremonies in this period of the New Covenant, where the focus is now on how His children live. Matthew 5:16-18 admonishes us to "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

There is one more critical point on salvation by faith - that being, what is the source of that faith? If the source of faith is man, then faith thereby becomes a meritorious work of man, thereby undermining sola fide, and effectively turning it to works-based salvation.

Calvinists recognize that our source of faith is God, not man. This is a fundamental divide between Calvinists and Arminians. We believe that man is dead in his sins, totally depraved, and will never willingly chose to serve the Lord according to his own will. The Lord breaks our fallen will, and gives us a renewed spirit. The Arminian, on the other hand, doesn't believe that man is truly fallen, and can pick himself up by his own bootstraps and conjure up the faith to believe, thus making man a God -- which is really the same old sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden.

(it's going to take a 3rd post - see below)

(continued from above) You quoted Colossians 2:14 ...

2010-10-13T16:59:00.382-06:00

(continued from above)
You quoted Colossians 2:14 that says the Law was canceled and nailed to the tree - and it was, as far as being required for salvation. God definitely no longer requires the Old Covenant ceremonies in this period of the New Covenant, where the focus is on how His children live. Matthew 5:16-18 admonishes us to "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

There is one more critical point on salvation by faith - that being, what is the source of that faith? If the source of faith is man, then faith thereby becomes a meritorious work of man, thereby undermining sola fide, and effectively turning it to works-based salvation.

Calvinists recognize that our source of faith is God, not man. This is a fundamental divide between Calvinists and Arminians. We believe that man is dead in his sins, totally depraved, and will never willing chose to serve the Lord according to his own will. The Lord breaks our fallen will, and gives us a renewed spirit. The Arminian, on the other hand, doesn't believe that man is truly fallen, and can pick himself up by his own bootstraps and conjure up the faith to believe, thus making man a God -- which is really the same old sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden.

(C) In part #7, you state that "God punishes no one for their sins" ... that "if you believe that God will punish you for your sin, and that you have to confess your sins to get forgiveness, you are denying Christ's work on the cross, denying the truth of God's word, and claiming that you can make yourself acceptable to God by doing something that Jesus wasn't capable of doing for you."

I'm assuming you're referring to Catholic confessions, perhaps? Maybe not ....

Although this hasn't been mentioned until now, Calvinists believe that justice and mercy are equally ultimate attributes of the character of God. God's character is seen in His dealings with both saved and unsaved man. As it regards saved man specifically, we believe in continuous, active grace and continuous, active chastisement. This is not to say that our salvation is not an accomplished fact, for it very much is. Unlike what Catholics believe, we have no need of continual grace in the sense that our eternal state remains uncertain or is otherwise dependent on our actions (or those of an intercessor). We have assurance of salvation, but are constantly in need of God's grace in order to live as He would have us live. On the other hand - while the grace of God in salvation not only forgives, but transforms - a lack of obedience or transformation in a person's life is warrant to doubt that they have been born again.

Mister Spock, you indicate that salvation is essentially mental assent to certain facts about Christ ... that is, Christ mentally assented to as Savior, but not Lord, which is commonly referred to as "easy-believism".
(see http://www.gotquestions.org/easy-believism.html )

This view of God is wide on mercy, but bereft of justice.

(My 2-part response, above, was submitted late las...

2010-10-13T16:32:55.116-06:00

(My 2-part response, above, was submitted late last night, but was written before Mr. Grigg had posted Mister Spock's 7-part response. So, the following 2-parter is responding to Spock's latest post.)

Mister Spock, you and I are in agreement with much of what you posted last night, but with these exceptions -

(A) In part #1, you wrote, "If just getting our sins forgiven was the issue, why did Jesus have to die? There was already a system for getting your sins forgiven."

As mentioned in my earlier 2-part post, the animal blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were a type or shadow of Christ's sacrifice. This was not a "system for getting sins forgiven", but rather a demonstration (or type) of God's salvation through Christ's blood, prior to His sacrifice.

Since God is not constrained by time, He knew Christ paid the price for all believers' sins before and after that event happened. Don't forget that Moses and Ezekiel came down during the transfiguration from heaven, and not from purgatory or some other temporary holding place.

Ironically, in part #2, the verses you posted from Hebrews say that those sacrifices did not take away sins. That was done by Christ alone.

(B) In part #6, you quote Galatians 3:21, saying that the Law does not impart righteousness. But yet Psalms 119:172 defines righteousness by saying, "All Your commandments are righteousness." To understand these sorts of conflicting verses, we must use the presuppositions of intelligibility (applying laws of reason and logic, etc.) We can toss verses back and forth all day and never come to any agreement, unless we take the whole of the Bible to determine the essence of what God is saying, as well as in deducting things left unsaid.

In regards to the Law, many people mistakenly think that Calvinists (and theonomists) believe we are saved by the Law. However, this is not the case at all. God's Law is not for salvation, but rather for sanctification, so that we will know how He expects us to live as believers. In other words, while good works are not the path to salvation, good works are the path of the saved man!

Christ didn't come to do away with the law, but to fulfill the law. Once we become believers, our desire is now to please God, which leads us to ask ... 'how then shall we live'? The Law describes God and shows us how He lives, thus guiding our own lives as believers, rather than becoming 'carnal' Christians.

(continued below)

(continued from above) - Lastly, as to your recom...

2010-10-12T22:58:16.995-06:00

(continued from above) -

Lastly, as to your recommendation for reading material - yes, I am familiar with dispensationalist Dave Hunt, who, by the way, wrote a book criticizing R. J. Rushdoony's Christian philosophy. Those who followed Will Grigg's writings in The New American will probably recognize Rushdoony's name, since he was mentioned numerous times in that publication by various writers regarding his involvement as the intellectual father of the homeschool movement and as one of the founders of Christian Reconstruction.

As a Christian Reconstructionist, I am aware of the many attacks by dispensationalists on my belief system. In fact, there's a book available online -

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gddc.pdf

about a public debate held in 1988 in Dallas, with dispensational premillennialists Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice representing that recent school of biblical interpretation ... over against Christian Reconstructionists Gary DeMar and Gary North representing the full tradition of the historic Protestant faith.

For any who are interested in a concise summary of what Christian Reconstructionists actually believe, Ken Gentry has a good list at -

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gddc.pdf

and adds that Christian Reconstructionism is "a branch of historic reformed Calvinism ... a conservative, evangelical theology generating a full-orbed Christian worldview and Christian social theory".

Christian Reconstructionists recognize that dispensationalists are fellow believers in Christ, but we are concerned that their lack of cultural involvement (while they await Christ's return) contributes to the ever present growth of secular humanism in this country.

In fact, during my involvement in the JBS, I met more than a few dispensational premillinealists who, rather than working to reform our humanistic culture, instead looked forward to America's continual decline, believing that Christ's return hinged upon that decline - truly a perversion of the Christian mandate.

Mister Spock - The first of this two-part answer ...

2010-10-12T22:48:09.147-06:00

Mister Spock -
The first of this two-part answer has new input on 3 previous points:

(1) It's good to see that we at least agree about theological matters not being the same as 'nitpicking' or 'minutiae'.

(2) You stated that you believe in the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith. So do I, but the faith to believe is given to me by God, rather than being something I generated within myself as a good work.

(3) You stated that God punished King David for adultery and murder because this occurred prior to Christ's redemption. But I must point out that God's character is immutable. He is not temporally constrained, as the creation is. The overarching structure of God's interaction with man should be understood as a covenant, which grows with time (not punctuated dispensations). While Christ's sacrifice made unnecessary the types and shadows of the old system, God's character, nevertheless, is unchanging.

(continued below ...)

Part 7 (final) We accept man's testimony, but...

2010-10-12T20:46:12.210-06:00

Part 7 (final)

We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:9-13

It's just that simple. The contrast between our life in Adam, dead, and in Christ, alive, is all through the New Testament. That's the gospel - the good news - that God was in Christ, reconciling you unto Himself, not counting your sins against you, and that you can know, not hope, that you have His eternal life. If you are in Christ, you have (don't get) eternal life. Why? Because your sins have been (not will be) forgiven. That's what salvation is, and why you can't lose it and why God punishes no one for their sin(s.) If you believe that God will punish you for your sin, and that you have to confess your sins to get forgiveness, you are denying Christ's work on the cross, denying the truth of God's word, and claiming that you can make yourself acceptable to God by doing something that Jesus wasn't capable of doing for you. That's a works salvation, and is not Biblical.

Part 6 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the prom...

2010-10-12T20:45:44.310-06:00

Part 6

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. Galatians 3:21

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

In him was life, and that life was the light of men. John 1:4

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. John 5:39,40

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" John 11:25,26

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4,5

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. Colossians 2:13,14

There is a lot of meat in those last two verses, and they teach exactly the opposite of what many Christians think the Bible teaches about sin, salvation, forgiveness, the Law in general and the Ten Commandments in particular. Now please read this last passage carefully:

Part 5 As I mentioned at the beginning, we are of...

2010-10-12T20:45:14.990-06:00

Part 5

As I mentioned at the beginning, we are often told that Jesus' death on the cross is what saves us. Is it? No. As we have seen above, His death took away our sins and reconciles us to God – but it does not save us. So what saves us if it isn't His death? Paul answers that question:

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Romans 5:10

That's a key verse that people often read quickly without thinking about it. Christ's death on the cross reconciled us to God, but it is His resurrection life that saves us.

What's the most famous verse in the Bible?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

That's salvation - Christ's life. It doesn't say whoever believes in Him gets their sins forgiven, but whoever believes in him shall have eternal life. Let's look at a few more verses with the idea of life in mind:

Part 4 We are told in Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, ...

2010-10-12T20:44:44.666-06:00

Part 4

We are told in Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2 and 4:17, that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. That means God was totally satisfied with His sacrifice. The debt is paid in full.

So is this salvation? No. This was God dealing with the sin issue. What it did was take away the barrier between man and God:

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 2 Cor. 5:18,19

Again, that's an amazing verse - God is not counting our sins against us. If you think about that for a moment instead of just reading on, I'm sure you will realize how mind-boggling that is. God is not counting our sins against us! – let that sink in. We HAVE BEEN reconciled - past tense - and our ministry is to spread the good news.

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation. Colossians 1:19-22

God desired all men to be reconciled to Him. And He provided that reconciliation for everyone at the cross. But is that salvation? Obviously not, or that would be universal salvation. Salvation isn't just getting your sins forgiven, although that is certainly part of it. But dealing with the sin issue and reconciling us unto Himself, is what then allows Him to offer us salvation.

Part 3 Now look at what it says about Jesus, our ...

2010-10-12T20:44:10.482-06:00

Part 3

Now look at what it says about Jesus, our High Priest:

But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. Hebrews 10:12-14

For how long? All time. How many sacrifices? One. And then what? He sat down. Why? His work was finished - just as He said on the cross.

"The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." Hebrews 10:16-18

Note: "have been forgiven." That's past tense. It's a done deal. Note also there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Why? It's over. One time, done. Tetelestai. He forgave us completely, and His sacrifice took away our sins:

All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Acts 10:43

I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name. 1 John 2:12

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. 1 Peter 3:18

But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. 1 John 3:5

Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 9:28

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29

Part 2 Get the idea? What does a dead man need? F...

2010-10-12T20:43:31.543-06:00

Part 2

Get the idea? What does a dead man need? Forgiveness? What's the point of being a forgiven corpse? A dead man needs life, not forgiveness. But Jesus had to deal with the forgiveness issue once and for all, or, as I mentioned previously, you would lose your salvation and have to get saved again. Why? Because as Romans 6:23 says, and Anonymous reminded us, the "wages of sin is death." If the sin issue wasn't dealt with once and for all, every time you sinned you would lose your salvation, and have to get forgiven again. And you would never have the certainty of your salvation. What if you forgot to confess that one last sin (or ten thousand) before you died?

But the Bible tells us that to get any more forgiveness, Jesus would have to die again, because "the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22) Is Jesus going to die again? Nope. Why not? Because He dealt with the sin issue once and for all.

When Jesus died, the New Covenant went into effect. If you read through the book of Hebrews, especially chapters 7 through 10, it explains all of that. The point is that under the New Covenant, God has said He has forgiven our sins, and will remember them no more. (Hebrews 8:12) Why? How is that possible?

Because Jesus' sacrifice did what animal sacrifice could not do:

"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10:1-4

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Hebrews 10:11

The point? Under the Old Covenant, animal sacrifices could not make you perfect, and could not take away sins. Temporarily cover them? Yes - that's atonement. Take them away? No.

Part 1 re sin, salvation and forgiveness Often Ch...

2010-10-12T20:42:58.751-06:00

Part 1 re sin, salvation and forgiveness

Often Christendom teaches that our problem is that we are sinners, we need to get our sins forgiven, and salvation is getting our sins forgiven. That's not true. If just getting our sins forgiven was the issue, why did Jesus have to die? There was already a system for getting your sins forgiven. Why not stick with that? Why would God humble Himself and become a man and die on a cross for our sins if He had already instituted a method for getting sins forgiven? Stop and think about that for a minute before you read past this paragraph. If someone asked you why God became a man and died for your sins when He had already given us a system for getting forgiveness, what would you say?

Our problem isn't that we need forgiveness; our problem is that we are dead. The Bible is clear that because of Adam's sin we are born spiritually dead:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins Ephesians 2:1

even when we were dead in our transgressions Ephesians 2:5

When you were dead in your transgressions Colossians 2:13

through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men Romans 5:12

For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one Romans 5:17

For the wages of sin is death Romans 6:23

the law of sin and of death. Romans 8:2

For since by a man came death 1 Corinthians 15:21

For as in Adam all die1 Corinthians 15:22

Mr. Spock, I respect and admire your faith and yo...

2010-10-12T19:50:08.788-06:00

Mr. Spock,

I respect and admire your faith and your commitment to it. We do differ on our attitude towards Zionism. I have no quarrel with Jews, who are mostly very nice, smart, socially conscious people. I also have no quarrel with basic Judaism, which is a great religion. (As well as the foundation of Christianity, although Judaism does not recognize the legitimacy of Christ's message and the new Covenant.)

I do have a problem with Zionism, as do a great many Jews themselves (Go look up the website of Neturei Karta,) and its imperial ambitions, and the myriad vile human atrocities committed in furtherance of Zionist ambitions. And I do have a problem with certain things said in the Talmud about Christians and other non-Jews.

BUT, many "holy" scriptures contain things which are regretful - there are some things in the Koran and the Hadith (commentaries by Mohammed's circle of followers, which is like a Muslim Talmud,) which are plain barbaric and violently hostile to other faiths, and which contradict the words of Mohammed himself.

As far as the"Holocaust" or Shoah, ("holocaust" is a Greek word meaning a burnt offering or sacrifice, which is not a proper way to describe mass murder,) which is THE central fact of modern Judiasm and Jewish life and attitudes, there is a very strong argument that the Shoah was caused by the attitudes and actions of the Zionist Jews themselves, who in fact ADVOCATED the Nazi anti-Jewish laws of 1933-1939, as a means to encourage sophisticated, educated German Jews to leave Germany and emigrate to Palestine. I am sure, had they known what would be the "final solution," the Zionists would not have been so happy to see Jews persecuted in Nazi Germany.

Unfortunately, before all the German Jews could be induced to emigrate, a war happened and all international civil travel was ended. Those who had not emigrated already suffered terribly.

Also unfortunately, there are always - ALWAYS - unintended consequences to corrupt and evil political actions - evil means used for supposedly good ends. It ALWAYS backfires. We in America are ourselves living through the unintended consequences of the Bush Administration's evil means - lies, terrorism, illegal wars - which were no doubt undertaken for the most worthy of ends.

Can we agree on any of this?

Yours respectfully,
Lemuel Gulliver.

Mr. Spock, I respect and admire your faith and yo...

2010-10-12T19:50:03.543-06:00

That video from the Concord Hospital protest is an...

2010-10-12T14:07:27.423-06:00

That video from the Concord Hospital protest is an unauthorized, uncredited excerpt from my 9m29s original, which can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpJUgkIOx5o or http://adventuresinthefreestate.com/2010/10/oppression-by-oath.html