The beautiful people, all send their excuses:
(Real estate and sex lives, livestock and ex-wives)
But the poor are coming, the lame are running
In their sleazy clothes and orthopedic shoes
There’s a harelip spokesman shouting out the news
“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”
There’s a string ensemble, and the King’s court jester
Telling parables and big jokes, to mongoloids and old folks
The blind are seeing, the dead are breathing
And the mummies dance in geriatric style
The amputees are rolling down the aisles
“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”
Candlelight and party hats, duck and pheasant under glass
Aluminum walkers, thin white canes, caviar and pink champagne
The bride and the groom waltz on
Club foot lane at the banquet at the world’s end
The banquet at the world’s end
The banquet at the world’s end
Say the beautiful people (the poor are coming)
“We’ll live with the lights out (the lame are running)
Leave us alone now because (the blind are seeing)
Hell feels like home now” (the dead are breathing)
Meanwhile…
But the poor are coming, the lame are running
In their sleazy clothes and orthopedic shoes
There’s a harelip spokesman shouting out the news
“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”
“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”
“Come to the banquet at the world’s end!”
from the album “MotorCycle”
Words and Music by Terry Taylor
©1993 Twitchen Vibes Music / Brainstorm Artists Int’l. (ASCAP)
Matthew 22:1-14
103 Comments(+Add)
So let’s get this straight. Jesus actually said that unless you are deformed,crippled, and on welfare, you don’t get in. Silly me, I thought it was faith the God gives graciously to man, in Christ alone, that saves men.
Wow, way to miss the point, Chris!
The point is unless you realize you’re deformed, crippled, etc. (the welfare thing was an unnecessary swipe) than you’ll miss the kingdom. There’s no room for self-sufficiency in the Kingdom of God.
Chris P,
We are all deformed, crippled and on welfare… without Jesus… you seemed to not grasp the lyrics of this song at all…
Without Jesus we have nothing… but I guess you disagree as that is the point of the song…
Have a great day! May the Lord Bless you abundantly,
iggy
PS: are you sure you commented on the right post as you seem way out of context in how much you missed this.
Phil,
I guess Jesus’ words mean nothing to Chris P once again… what a great song!
iggy
hmmmm….
and Chris P says other people don’t understand Scripture?
We Christians cannot see past the red white and blue, the Republican party, and the capitalist society. Somebody suggests compassion for people and some are deceived into believing that too much compassion DILUTES the message.
Deception is not a circle, it is a sphere.
I understand the scripture perfectly.
The songwriter doesn’t.
My point, and the scriptures point, is salvation is by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves.
Why don’t we teach/sing what the Word actually says instead of writing pathetic paraphrases predicated upon pablum.
We don’t need Joan Baez/Woody Guthrie wannabes.
This is why I listen to very few contemporary “christian” artists.
Chris P.,
Are you saying Jesus is somehow misrepresenting God in the parable then? The song is basically a retelling of that parable.
God’s grace is freely offered to all. Those who don’t and can’t accept it because they are trying to save themselves miss the Kingdom.
And Terry Taylor is an absolutely brilliant writer.
And since many Christians (Ingrid, etc.) have made abortion an intregal part of the Christian message, what will they say about McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin from Alaska who is pro-life AND Roman Catholic?
Experience? Mayor of a 8000 people city, 1 and 1/2 years as Alaskan governor. AND, she has 5 children, one with special needs, how can she be a keeper at home AND the vice president of the United States? We have made the pro-life position as an idol. You can be pro-life and still be lost.
Politics – it just keeps getting better and I am not even sure there is even ONE nickel in that spittoon!
Good to see the Terry Taylor love here!
“perfectly” no less…
ick.
Chris P,
Then as I stated, you disagree with JEsus’ sermon on the Mount… and you still say you understand Scripture?
Blessed are the poor, hmmm so you are saying people on welfare cannot be saved because they are on welfare?
…hmmm you are right with the Law but not with grace as only those without blemish could worship in the temple… the lame and other with deformities could not… one of the signs that proved Jesus was Messiah was healing the lame, blind and deaf… these were signs the Kingdom was near… and if it was near then, it is even closer now.
So you seem to be at odds with Jesus…
But, again, you prove that to you being right in your own eyes is more important than Scripture.
Praying that you…”grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.”
iggy
Iggy,
“Blessed are the poor, hmmm so you are saying people on welfare cannot be saved because they are on welfare?”
You are crazy so Jesus was talking about people with a lack of money. This is so laughable. The poor is spirit. Why must people rip everything out of context??? I do agree with your overall premise that Jesus came to tose who where sick becasue they are the one that need a doctor. He came to seek and save the lost, not the righteous. Just crazy it is like that crazy new poverty bible. Just make stuff up and hey we are helping the poor so it must be right and good.
And by sick and doctor that means sin and saviour.
Anyone making less than $20,000 a year cannot be saved.
Whew, I just barely make!!
Kyle,
actually Matthew says “in spirit”, but Luke simply says, “the poor”.
Let’s just make sure we’re clear that it’s not only the “dirty liberals” that interpret to their presuppositions.
the plain meaning of Luke speaks of an economic reality.
the plain meaning of Matthew speaks of a spiritual reality.
you actually can have both…
and before anybody gets jiggy with it…don’t throw out the binary garbage that I’m a “government is the answer for everything liberal”…reality and people are more nuanced than cable news networks would like you to believe.
I mean, at the end of the day, I know it’s just such a betrayal of God’s heart to want to care about systemic problems, not just personal circumstances…
sheeesh.
I don’t think you can draw a hard line between the literal sick and the spiritually sick in Jesus’ thinking.
Jesus sure did a lot of physical healing for people too.
My bottom line is that I think it’s both.
God/Jesus is concerned about the whole person…
OK guys, instead of dissecting the sermon on the mount until it loses all meaning, let us all agree Jesus is calling us to sacrificial and unusual outreach to the poor, sick, and hurting of this world. That is not THE gospel, but it emanates from the gospel.
Kyle I must say that yesterday I wasn’t offended when you said I was ignorant because we disagreed but with your continued string of name-calling I’m reconsidering.
Your interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, while a common evangelical thought, really doesn’t jive with the greek, historical evidence, nor does it jive with many commentaries. I suggest a reading of Dallas Willards “The divine conspiracy” might give you a little more perspective.
Chris P. – *shakes head and walks away*
chris – you are not ignorant because you disagree with Kyle.
It’s other things things.
Chris P,
The whole song is a metaphor for sin and that only those who come to the cross recognizing their poor pitiful condition will be accepted by God. I mean really, is that so difficult to grasp? Of course volitionally coming to the cross when invited/wooed by the Holy Spirit is the antithesis of your world view. At least on the surface your beef seems to be soly that this song contradicts Calvinism for it certainly does not contradict Scripture.
Yes, the song is ugly. So is sin, especially pride. That’s the whole point.
In your world view God irresistibly calls His elect. However the Bible is clear that the majority of those He calls are the “weak things of the world”. It is interisting that by and large, American Calvinists seem to be quite unconcerned that He seems to call mostly only the white middle class and to hell with China and the Middle East. Funny how its turned out that way, but that’s His business not ours, right?
Again, the song is ugly, but that’s the whole point. I, for one, would have thought a Calvinist of all people would appreciate how the song exposes our poor retched state prior to Christ.
When a song contradicts Calvinism I just can’t help humming that tune!
John – the theology of unconditional election renders the earthly condition of a sinner as irrelevant. If God didn’t care enough about a poor sinner to offer redemption, why in the world would I care about his condition? Why would I waste money to feed the non-elect when God hates them?
Jesus Christ main mission was salvation from sins. Yes God does care for all of us and will also redeem our bodies.
Our biggest problem is not that we lack money, food, housing but that we rebel against God and sin against him daily. I am not disagreeing but we Christ talks about poor and poor in spirit what is he talking about is he talking about earthly riches. I was not saying I disagree with anything. I was saying that the use of poor in spirit by Christ was ripped out of context. I was not calling anyone crazy just the way the text was used to justify something based on socio-economic classes.
Rick no straw men please.
Kyle,
Just for clarification.
Yes, Jesus states the “poor in spirit”, yet, this does not negate the overall teaching that we are not to neglect to poor… notice that after the “poor in spirit” comes this…
Jesus contrasts the “poor in spirit” with the rich… those who lived in comfort and had food… the “poor in spirit” did not just need food, but also spiritual food as well, but again, this does not take away that Jesus is stating that the rich should care for the poor…
Also, James takes this thought further in
So I agree that you are right to a point, but still it seems you missed that Jesus was teaching two things at once…
The poor were not considered to be humans. Much like the caste system in India, if you were poor, it was thought God not bless them because of their sin or whatever… to be rich meant one was blessed of God and favored…
James makes a point to not play favoritism…
So as far as context if you realize James was the brother of Jesus and built on Jesus teaching what you read in James, then what I am saying is right in line with Jesus teaching. James takes Jesus teaching the same as I have…
Again, Jesus stated that with two meanings and two messages in mind. Those that were poor were being lifted equal if not above those that were rich…
I am not disagreeing with the premise, just the use of the verse. I agree God has a special love for those are afflicted and cry out to Him. That is not the issue, just the use of the verse.
“I agree God has a special love for those are afflicted and cry out to Him.”
Unless they are non-elect and then He hates them. That is not a straw man, that just illuminates the “Tin Man” God of Calvinism with no heart.
The only people who talk like this are the ones who generally have money, food, housing, etc. I’m not judging you, Kyle, but generally even the poorest Americans are in better condition than the really poor and destitute people in the world.
The people Jesus were talking during the Sermon on the Mount were for the most part the poor, the left out, the forgotten. Frankly, at that time, the forgiveness of sins was probably not even on their minds. They were probably wondering how they would survive the next week.
The shocking thing about the Sermon on the Mount is that Jesus says these people are now blessed, not cursed! Jesus says the Kingdom is at hand for them! God is for them, not against them, despite the lies society has told them.
There is no point in talking with you becasue you do not care. You can keep your staw man and stuff as full as you want but that still does not negate the fact the God love is a really love that actual save’s people who do not deserve it, rather that just making them saveable. Christ’s blood and mission where accomplised and His love was shown.
The really question is not how can so many bad things happen to good people, but how good things can happen to bad people.
Keep your agruement’s there are no good, you can not handles that good not only hates sin but also hates the people that do it! No this is love that Christ died while we were still sinners deserving wrath and hatered but God so loved us that He sent His only Son to save us.
Do you hear anything like that in my comments. Saying well your God is like… Please try to refrain from straw men agrumentation. It would better serve your side of the debate.
The Sermon on the Mount was scandalous. It was so blunt, so sacrificial, so self denying, and seemingly so unattainable that later generations of Christians, even those who espouse literalism, have massaged much of Christ’s sermon into a systematic theological package, because, we all KNOW He could not have meant what He said.
The devil has told us that we cannot care for the poor and hurting and sick without in some way compromising the gospel. So when you look to the original Greek, the Sermon on the Mount is actually a veiled teaching on the chronology of regeneration.
Phil,
God and his mission for humankind from the start was to redeem them through Christ. Not to give them there best life now. If life not more than food and clothes?
I agree this was shocking to the hearers because God blessing was on those who where well to due and had important roles in soceity. The missed the point! That has nothing to do with God blessing and it is clearly seen throughout the bible that God gives grace to the humble that God cares for the orphan and widow.
Go ask any christian in any part of the world. ” would you give up Christ to live in America and have earthly comforts?” Why are we so focused on this life and things that the moth eats, stuff that rust., things that can be stolen. It is not about MONEY or status, or color. It is about Christ dying for sinners. This is a trust worthy saying that Jesus came to seek and SAVE the LOST. Not poor, rich, white, black, jew, gentile, American or Iranian. God sent Chrsit to save the LOST and sinners.
Kyle – your basic premise is correct. But God uses our good deeds to draw attention to Christ through us. In that, the gospel can be preached. I totally agree that money has nothing to do with it.
Kyle,
One can be poor in spirit without money… and sometimes that is a spiritual affliction as one deems themselves less worthy of the grace of God… Jesus is acknowledging they already feel worthless in spirit because they are poor. Jesus is stating to them that they are blessed, as though they are poor in spirit… Which means they realize their worthlessness… they will inherit the Kingdom.
I understand what you are saying, but there is more than one way to see this verse and still be in context.
iggy
Kyle,
No one disagrees with this… it is that you miss the point of the Cross when you state God still hates people. Jesus died to save us not condemn us… It is the Kindness of God that leads us to repentance, not his anger or wrath… Jesus took the wrath, we are forgiven… only we must now respond in humility and receive it… the also receive the life of the Resurrection… for we are reconciled at the Cross and then saved by the Resurrection… Romans 5: 10 states this clearly.
iggy
I agree also, but there seems to be a peroccupation with how much money you have or where you are from. Those barriers where broken down by Christ through the cross. He took the two bodies Jew and Gentile and made them one through His blood.
Also yes Christ commands to care for the poor ect…He commands us to be perfect, he was fulfilling the Torah while preaching on the Mount. He was the new Moses fully exaplaining and fullfuling the Law. Which everyone is bound to both heathen and christian. The point Chrsit makes is that where are poor, ie incable of doing it on and of oursleves. Just like the poor in material things. No poor person wants to be poor. But Jesus tells them that are poor in spirit that you are blessed, you have the specail favor of God. Not becsue of who you are or what you have or what you have done, but becaue God bless those who are poor in spirit who mourn, who thrist and hunger ect..
What is the start of wisdom. Is God fierce and scarry and something to be feared. Yes, BUT he is also good, a rich in mercy. You can not seperate who He is. If Christ took the wrath for every sin for everyone, why do people go to hell?
“If Christ took the wrath for every sin for everyone, why do people go to hell?”
Unbelief.
No, Kyle the poor are saved by the blood of Jesus by Grace as the rich are… there is no “special” favor as I pointed out in the passages in James. THis is where you take it wrong and make it something Jesus did not intend or teach.
There is no favoritism in God’s view of man… He sees only what Jesus did… Man is only saved by what Jesus did.
In fact, you are sort of restating in a crude way what I stated. I stated Jesus lifted the poor above the rich, but that is because they have their reward now if they only live for their wealth and use it selfishly.
If you read what you wrote, you contradict yourself… sorry bro…
Again, as Phil pointed out Luke does not state “in spirit” so Jesus may have stated it differently for different reasons… in Matthew it is a reflection back to the Law and how the rich should care for the poor… In Luke which is written for Gentile believers, they did not have the foundation of Moses… as you put it… so Luke simply states “Blessed are the poor” and does not state “in spirit”.
THis is why I quoted Luke and not Matthew… as that was the context.
iggy
This is only an issue when you are stuck looking at the atonement in one way. Personally, I don’t think the cross was a way to appease God’s wrath so much. I believe it was an instrument to end the tyranny of sin, death, and the devil’s works.
I was not saying poor in material things, to be blessed means to have the specail favor of God. It is grace. again back to money. Christ was not speaking of money.
The point Chrsit makes is that where are poor, ie incable of doing it on and of oursleves. Just like the poor in material things. No poor person wants to be poor. But Jesus tells them that are poor in spirit that you are blessed, you have the specail favor of God. Not becsue of who you are or what you have or what you have done, but becaue God bless those who are poor in spirit who mourn, who thrist and hunger ect..
Rick,
Did not Christ die for unbelif also?
So is it better to be poor? Should we all go live in monestaries so we can be blessed by God. Since that is what He meant when he said poor? Or maybe he was not talking about earthly riches and poverty, but spiritual poverty?
“Did not Christ die for unbelif also?”
Yes, but only belief in Christ can forgive unbelief. That is actually repentance.
So did Christ do this for eveyone that has ever lived. Or for those who belive in Him?
Kyle,
John the Baptist stated, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! notice he did not say only the elect?
Also in
The wrath is gone… people go to hell for rejecting Jesus as Messiah… they reject Jesus and forgiveness and Life….
Many are just forgiven dead men that need life… and the Life is in the Son.
iggy
“Many are just forgiven dead men that need life”
So are there forgiven people in Hell??
Christ came to give His life as a ransom for the many?? Did not Christ say that at the end that the anti christ would lead astray the elect if it where possible??
These versus you mention are not taking about all the world, but that there was a finally once for all sacrifice for sin, that the sacrifice would not need to be repeated as it was with the blood of animals.
No, you’re still misunderstanding what the Sermon on the Mount is all about. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. Jesus isn’t giving a new law. He describing what life in the Kingdom of God, not what one has to do to get in it. Actually, Jesus is saying it’s freely available to all. It’s not about doing the right thing to get in at all.
You can’t separate the Sermon on the Mount from how Jesus started His ministry in Luke 4:
So Jesus is once again proclaiming the Kingdom is at hand. God’s blessing is upon Israel. He’s breaking into history to set the captives free from the power of Satan. Now certainly there is a spiritual aspect to this, but you can’t deny it was a physical deliverance from the effects of sins as well.
Now of course the Jews naturally thought that Jesus would lead them to overthrow Rome, and He did, but not in a way they thought. He overthrew the oppressors by dying and rising again.
I think we call all agree that there is a set number of people going to heaven and hell. One sees it as God looking down time to see who would accept Christ, the other sees it as God chosing based on His plan who will be saved
Isn’t life and people more nuanced than this?
Was the “best life” a reference to Joel Osteen?
Tigers and Zebras both have stripes but they are not the same animal!
Actually most of the sermon on the mount is Law, just more clearly defined. As both Moses and Jesus fasted for 40 days and then both delieverd God’s law on a mountain. It is both describing and prescribing the life in God’s kingdom. Here Jesus is fulfilling what lacked in the OT by bring about the fullness of the Law. he did not come to abloish but to fulfill.
Also I agree about the physical delerverince from sin, but we will not see that full until Christ returns in power.
I would argue that Jesus fulfilled the Laws requirements in being the ultimate sacrifice to restore man unto God. Not teach us a more perfect law to live by.
Maybe I’m missing what you’re saying?
Kyle,
Yes Kyle…
If one rejects Jesus, they go to hell as John tells us…
Also it is not just the reconciliation of the Elect, but of all people…
For the rejection of the Jews for rejecting Jesus… (notice that?) the Gentiles now also have the same reconciliation.
Calvin saw the power of the blood of Jesus, but realized if what he read was true that would be Universalism… and he rejected that. Yet, instead of looking at the Resurrection which saves us by the Life of Christ… note the verse I quoted earlier… it is His Life that saves us… it is His blood that reconciles us.
You are doing the same thing Calvin did… and are missing that we are not saved by the Cross… we are forgiven and reconciled at the Cross… we are saved by the Life of Christ by the Power of the Resurrection.
iggy
I think life is pretty simple acutally and we tend to make it complicated.
Yes, a reference to anyone who preaches a promise of creature comforts we God has never made such a promise. A lot of the time our eyes on stuck on the wroong prize. We look to things we do and have as the prize rather than Christ. I trying to say that life is more important than those things and we tend to focus on them a lot. Both rich and poor we focus on things of this world when they are worthless. A sparrow can not die apart from God’s will, how much more is He active and concerned with our lives?
I don’t agree. It’s not a “set number”. Even if God sees through time, He didn’t set the number.
Jesus doesn’t abolish the law, but He shows that the law can be fulfilled when one’s motives come from the heart, not just external actions.
Actually, this is what He is getting at when He says ,
He was making a mockery of the Pharisee’s thinking that said it was all about the externals. Jesus is making an ad absurdum argument with the Pharisee’s extra rules and regulations. Even a bloody stump with no eyes can have sinful thoughts. What people need is renovation of the heart, not religion.
I know Chris recommended The Divine Conspiracy earlier. I would second that. It’s probably the best handling of the Sermon on the Mount I’ve read.
That is some intresting stuff.
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.
And they sang a new song, saying,”Worthy are you to take the scrolland to open its seals,for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for Godfrom every tribe and language and people and nation,
And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.
Forgiveness if found in the blood and death of Christ. But He was raised for our justification.
How can someone who is foriging be punished forever?
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
The book was written before the world. So it would seems to be that there is a set amount. It is just a view of what is the cause. Man’s freewill decision or God’s frewill desciion.
Aren’t we back to that other recent post about being saved to do good works?
Scripture is pretty clear that the end of salvation–it’s purpose, its telos–is to place us in position to do good works prepared in advance for us to do…
this whole so-called “conservative” insistence on the soul as priority over the body is the flip side of the same wooden nickel. The other being the so called “liberal” side that emphasizes the body while denying the need of the soul.
Even the granting of the ministry to bodies is merely an outworking of the priority of the soul really misses the mark.
The go hand in hand…so for the “conservative” they need to bring the body back up to the front seat of the car…for the “liberal” they need to bring the “soul” dimension into balance.
it’s like this:
the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, etc.) are intangibles that can only be evidenced in deeds–the way people act…
nobody can just say “I’m loving” and nobody can claim “that person is loving” without assessing their embodied actions….
make sense?
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
They are punished by themselves, in a way. By their refusal to submit their wills to God, they never truly understand the true nature of God. Thus instead of a fire that warms and gives light, they see Him as a fire that consumes and destroys.
It’s not that God has two natures – it’s that in order to truly see Him as he is and as He desires to be seen, we have to submit to Him. It’s like in the Chronicles of Narnia. To his enemies, Aslan appeared terrifying and horrible. To those who loved Him, He was gentle and loving.
Sorry I did not finish this thought…
Calvin created limited atonement.
Yet, it is not atonement that Jesus did as Hebrews points out… for the blood of bulls and goats were for atonement… Jesus was the propitiation of our sin… He took the wrath for us and upon himself in our place.
Jesus took away the sins of the world as John the Baptist said he would.
Jesus blood was better than bulls and goats as Jesus sat down on the chair in the Holy of Holies… that chair was only for God to sit down in.. as the High Priest work was never finished. Yet, Jesus work of total forgiveness was on the Cross…
One can come to the cross and if they do not receive life, then they are still dead. Dead yet forgiven… Now, then the only thing left if one rejects Jesus is to be judged by their own works… with Jesus as the standard… and no one can hit that mark.
So, without Jesus all that is left is judgement.
If one is in Christ and there is no sin in Jesus, then we are sinless… yet if one keeps on sinning, there is no other sacrifice for sins left other than Jesus sacrifice on the Cross for sins…
again, it is the rejection of Jesus that sends people to hell…. it is the acceptance of Jesus and all He did that gives us Life.
iggy
Correct. You must have an Orthdoxoy that will always lead to an orhtopraxy. Faith with out works is dead! You are not saved by good works, but for good works. As the reforms always said. You are saved by faith alone but that faith is never alone.
Iggy,
I really do not see a split between life and forgiveness. I do not understand how someone can be in hell if Christ paid there way to heaven with His life, death and ressurection. This seems very counter to everything in the bible. there is no reason for anyone to go to hell if everyone’s sins are forgiven and the wrath of God is gone.
The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
So with out Christ you are not forigven but the wrath of God abides on you still. That means there has been no propitation and atonment for the sins. That is why there are in hell. they have not been forgiven but the wrath of God abides on them still.
Phil, that was the point I was making God is like the lion, fearfil but He is good. Aslan i”isn’t safe. But he’s good. …
Kyle,
The way you see it, God will be eternally in a state of wrath. I just don’t see that the Bible portrays God in such a way. If anything, His wrath is always portrayed as a temporary thing, and it isn’t described as one of his eternal attributes.
Like I said earlier, most of these “issues” you bring up come from the fact that you are looking at the Atonement through one very narrow lens.
No the atonment has many ascepts to it. Is hell enternal?
Kyle,
Let’s try it this way….
In a sense you are right… Yet, it is that reconciliation is given to all men so that they may be saved. People must still believe in Jesus to be saved. For the Life is in the Son… Life is not in the forgiveness… forgiveness is what leads us to Jesus and Life.
Was the blood of Jesus sufficient for forgiveness for all? For what you seem to be stating, (not putting words in your mouth but stating what I hear you say) is that Jesus blood was not sufficient for all, but only for “the many”. The reason it states, “the many” is not all come to Life… Narrow is the road and few that find it…
I hear you saying that Jesus blood was not sufficient for all and if that is true, then Jesus would need to die over and over again for us… but the bible states once for all.
Now you stated that was just for the many… Yet if you read Hebrews in context and read it for what it says… you will find you are wrong.
The context is that God has reconciled all thing unto Himself, yet only those that believe in Jesus will receive the Life that is eternal.
IN fact if you read this passage in 2 Corinthians 5: for what it states it states clearly that we are reconcile through Christ… and Paul stated in Romans that this was while we were still enemies…. it is not just those ” in Christ” Yet, we must be “in Christ” to be the New Creation.
Read it…
Notice it states we are reconciled through Christ… resulting in us being New Creations? You can tell as Paul uses the past tense… ” who reconciled all”
Note again that we are reconciled and that Paul states “be reconciled to God.” ? Why? SO that we can become New Creations.
Calvinist insist that this is all about those already in Christ… but why tell them to “be reconciled to God.” if they already are?
I hope you can see what I am saying.
iggy
Christ died for every man and that atonement is made available to every one that believes. When God closes His offer, only that which has been appropriated will be applicable.
Meaning in the end, all of Christ’s redeeming blood will have been used on the redeemed. The sinners in hell will not have been covered. But until then it is available to everyone.
I would say wrath will only be present as long as there is sin. Once it is satisfied then it is gone.
Noah’s ark was opened to all, but when the door was shut the offer was as well. Those that did not enter suffered God’s judgment even though they were offered an escape.
Iggy,
I agree you must be in Christ and that is where there is forgivenss and life and no where else. God’s decree’s are work out in time. Christ died and got ride of the hostility between to parties us and God. Now we have reconcilation to announce to the world. That God has laid to waste what once seperated us. The message is for all peoples of all nations only God can draw them and chagne there hearts to accept that message.
The blood of Chrsit does what it intendeds to do.
John 6
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
All that has been given to Christ by God the Father WILL come to Him. And what is the will of the Father to LOSE NOTHING OF ALL that he has given to Christ.
Where does it say that all could enter the ark? I am looking right now but can’t find anything yet.
And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Kyle,
I know how hard it is to talk to 2 or 3 people at once, so I am bowing out… in fact I have been up over 24 hrs and am very tired… Also I do not expect to change your mind about things… in fact I don’t want to… I want God to teach you and not me.
I do want to thank you for a great conversation. I appreciate your civil tone. I hope we can do this again sometime.
Be blessed,
iggy
Yeah, I think I am done to, my fingers hurt and I just pulled landscaping duty??
Have a good day all.
Iggy,
I’m coming in late, and don’t want to get into a quoting match, but I have a couple questions.
Firstly, as Kyle pointed out, where does it say that all were given option to escape into and through the ark at the flood? I understand the point you are making, but I just don’t see that there.
Secondly, in response to a question asking whether you believed there are actually forgiven people in hell, you said yes and to suport the argument have cited:
I’m sorry, but while that does clearly indicate any who do not have the Son, (believe on Christ) do not have life (Salvation), and those that do believe do have life; I simply don’t see where it even hints that people in Hell are forgiven. Nor can I find where that jives with the rest of the Bible.
If you were simply saying that Christ’s blood is sufficient for even those who end up in hell, I wouldn’t be nagging. But that is not what you said.
Thanks
SJ – what kind of a theatrical and perfunctory exercise would it be if God had alraedy decided to make Ninevah repent, but he tells Jonah to go preach that to them, so that accomplishes exactly what? They did not obey Jonah’s words, they were controlled by the Spirit and robotically manifested what they could not do therwise.
In fact, they were marionettes operated by the strings of their Creator for His enjoyment alone. That seems like God is enjoying a game of solataire in which you are either a manipulated puppet or thrown into the fire with no offer of escape. And God alone chooses who He wants to save, which by the way, is a very small and minute part of all He created. What an elitist club.
SJ,
Again you are confusing reconciliation with salvation…
To be reconciled means that the books are cleared… salvation must come by having Life… and the Life is in the Son…
One can be forgiven and yet not come to salvation… that is what the Cross is all about. Yet, without receiving the Living Christ (resurrection) on is still dead.
Christ died once for all… not over and over for us… just once… to have Him have to die for each of us means we do not understand the Cross.
We are saved not by the Cross… but by the Power of the Resurrection that gives us Life.
iggy
Rick, who spit in your Wheaties today? You’re better than that bro. That had little to do with my question too, which was to iggy, not you. Cool your jets there bro.
Iggy, you say I again am confused. Well, you’re right man. You are still saying that a guiltless (reconciled) person can go to hell. In fact, you say:
That’s a pretty unfair position, when you think about it. Of course Grace is offered and the price is paid to God, but to say that there is a difference between forgiveness and salvation is taking Scripture and plain reason to a point which is neither right nor safe.
It’s like saying, “Sorry, sir, there are no crimes held against you, but you’re still gonna have to go to jail”.
Now, I’m more than willing to accept that I might be misconstruing you, and if so, my apologies, but what you said was pretty clear.
SJ,
Again, read that passage I posted.
Jesus states it all depends on believing in Him or rejecting him… but the door to Heaven is wide open to all who receive His Life.
You keep stating reconciliation is the same as salvation and it is not according to the bible. It is having the wages of sin cleared.
Yet, if one chooses to reject Jesus they are judged by what they have done… and that is what they did or did not do with Jesus… all that remains is what is in Christ… as stated in
All that awaits one that rejects what Jesus did and refuses to receive His Life, will receive eternal death… yet now, today is that day of salvation… it is now all men are reconciled and can come to Jesus for salvation without fear of what they have done. Forgiveness is and has been freely given to all.
The whole package is wrapped up in Jesus… reject Jesus and lose all, accept Jesus and receive all He is.
One must be reconciled so that they can be a New Creation… and to be a new Creation must come to Jesus for His Life.
iggy
“Who spit in my Wheaties?”
Michael Phelps!
Rick,
There, that’s better.
I know this has probably been rehashed already on this thread but…
If God didn’t care enough about a poor sinner to offer redemption, why in the world would I care about his condition? Why would I waste money to feed the non-elect when God hates them?
Someone stated above this comment. I don’t think the point is that you waste the money feeding the “non-elect” because we don’t know who that would be. We must continue to preach/share (waste the money if you will) the gospel no matter what because I believe only God knows who will and will not accept His Son as Savior. So we must continue the task of making disciples of all nations because everyone needs the opportunity to make that decision.
And I don’t believe God hates them. He does hate the sin but not the sinner. I don’t understand this comment above. Are you trying to say that a Calvinist believes this way? If you do I don’t agree. I know many who follow the Calvinist doctrine and they are far from this type of attitude and belief.
????????????????
Many of the online Calvinists espouse this view:
And in some circles Piper is considered moderate.
“thou hatest all evildoers.” OK. So what **do** we as non-Calvinists do with such verses?
John,
If you understand that the verse in Psalms is in the OT. And yes, in the context of the Old Covenant, God hated evildoers… Yet we are now under the NT and New Covenant. Jesus took the wrath at the Cross…
Now, as I stated, God will judge people by what they do. If they continue in evil and sinning and reject Jesus, they will be judged for what they do…
And do not do with Jesus.
If you mix the OT Law and the NT Grace, you will not have purity in either… you will have a hybrid that negates both.
The Law was given to show and amplify our transgressions… Grace at the Cross was to show the mercy, kindness, and great compassion of God.
Again, many mix the two and weaken both…
Jesus took away our sins and as I quoted above from 1 John… the sins of the whole world… not “just the elect”… He reconciled it all (cleared the balance) and now all depends on what se do or not do with Jesus.
If we reject Him, we receive the wages of our own works… death… the second death… If we believe in Jesus and come to life through His Life (for He IS the Life) we receive eternal Life.
A proper understanding of Law and Grace give much clarity to understanding both.
BTW, I want to thank you and SJ for a civil and very wonderful conversation.
iggy
Okay, then I have “a nuther” question for you:
In the OT, were people saved by keeping the Law?
Check “yes” or “no”.
I have to go for a while, so no rush iggy, but despite my agreeing that we must repent and believe, of course, much of what you say sounds like we are saved much by our own effort. You do give credit to the Grace of the Cross and resurrection being that which we can place our hope upon through Christ. You do well there. But it sounds like OT people were either saved by the keeping of the Law, or were simply out of luck. Upon contemplation (and the emergent kind), I would imagine in point of fact you probably wouldn’t project that idea, but that is an easy inference from your statements nonetheless.
So go with my question for now, and I’ll most likely rip your answer apart later.
(Sheesh, I sound like the Dread Pirate Roberts.)
“Good night Wesley. Sleep well. Most likely kill you in the morning.”
aaaaaaah!!!!
should be: (and NOT the emergent kind)
Forgive me Ken, et al.
Yeah. Correct answer Iggy! The emnity between God and man is now gone. Post-Calvary, God’s wrath is now directed at the sin and not the sinner.
No they were saved by faith as Hebrews taught… as I already stated, the Law was given to add to and reveal our transgressions.
It was a mirror to see what we really our. We were already condemned… one must have had to keep the Law perfectly to be saved, and as Paul states, “no one is righteous not one”…
iggy
SJ,
BTW, if you disagree with my answer it looks like I am the one that will be doing the ripping… along with the author of Hebrews, Paul and James…
As the author of Hebrews states and as I pointed out… the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins… Only Jesus does… so only by faith in Christ (or in the coming Messiah for the OT people) are people saved.
iggy
iggy,
That “ripping” statement was in jest.
Anyway, of course. No one has been saved by works which they have done, but by faith. It appears we agree there.
I think where we differ (insert: where I am right and you are probably wrong:)) is how faith is awakened in a human soul.
So the question then becomes: are Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, et al, literal when they tell us we, before saving faith, were dead spiritually? Or, would you argue that it was more figurative and that man still, though referred to as “dead”, has enough life, inherent goodness, freewill or what have you to obtain saving faith?
Leaving all other thoughts and theologies out for a moment; literal, or figurative?
Figuratively literal?
Physical death is defined as the body without the soul.
Spiritual death is defined as the human spirit without the Holy Spirit, i.e, separated from the Life of Christ. It does not mean that man is a spiritual corpse in that he is unable to respond to God in any way. Adam and Eve still responded to God eventhough they were spiritually dead. For some reason John 16:8 is always left out of the equasion:
The Holy Spirit is active is the lives of the un-regenerate in that capacity. He is active in the lives of the un-regenerate in the “call” actively wooing the un-regenerate. Further, the Gospel (as empowered by the above mention work of the Holy Spirit) is the power unto salvation:
The Holy Spirit + the Gospel is a self contained spiritual life source that primes the pump so to speak. He enables the spiritually dead to respond to God prior to regeneration, to answer “Yes or No” to the Gospel offer.
The corpse analogy is the Calvinist’s weakest argument. It totally negates the numerous scriptures about choosing (how can a dead man choose?) hardening and spiritual deception (how can a dead heart be hardened. How can a dead heart be deceived. It is dead and hard anyway. Why go to the trouble to deceive something that is already dead and on its way to hell? Again, the weakest of analogies.
Dead men do not have a knowledge of God. Dead men do not love. Dead men do not show compassion. Dead men do not ask questions. Dead men cannot reproduce.
The unregenerate are dead in their sins, spritually, but they can look into the heavens and see the handiwork of a Creator (Rom. 1). And Paul said that when they KNEW these things, the refused to glorify God and BECAME vain and darkened in their hearts.
That doesn’t seem like a dead man.
SJ,
We are spiritually dead. In the garden, Adam was still a living being… but dead spiritually to God. In
We became like God knowing both good and evil… we lost our innocence and died to our relationship with God. Yet God did not want man to eat of the tree of Life and be forever separated. So God cast us from the Garden and kept us from forever being separated. Without the Tree of Life we not only died spiritually but then died physically.
Adam never stopped being a living being as he was created to be as he still lived on after the fall, yet the separation at that point was of relationship. We in our fallen state now know good and evil. We can choose between the two and even as fallen do good, yet we cannot sustain “goodness”. Good only comes from God and he can only sustain it.
I do not agree as the Calvinist asserts we are dead completely. I see all people as “spiritual” yet, this is not of God as we choose our own way and not his.
We dead to God spiritually, though we are still spiritual creatures. In the spiritual sense we are separated in relationship with God until we come to faith in Christ and receive His Spirit to live in us.
THis is the beginning of regeneration as the “mystic union” Spurgeon talked about unites our spirit with God’s.
If as Rick pointed out, we are dead… then a dead man cannot respond to the calling of God as the dead know nothing… (Ecclesiastes 9)
We are spiritual enough to respond to or reject the calling of the Holy Spirit.
iggy
John,
With all due respect. Could we leave old Calvin out for a moment? I asked a simple question. Don’t answer with assumptions.
As an aside, there are two things I notice here quite often.
1) More than once, it is pointed out that ODM sites have such predictable comment threads (something like: ODM writes post–someone comments and agrees–someone else comments and disagrees–that someone is called the devil) Or something like that. This is pointed out and exagerated for humorous or satirical purposes, or even for plain mockery at times. Okay, I shouldn’t be easily offended right?
BUT, 2) Quite often, comment threads here are just as predictable, if not more so. Example:
1. Author writes post on Ingrid Schlueter’s attitude.
2. Rick Frueh chimes in with either a funny side comment or a generally tactful aye or nay with the OP.
3. Phil or Joe M. hop in with a comment asking “what is wrong with these people?!”
4. Someone sneaks in inappropriate langauge and calls it liberating.
5. Rick calls them on it and at least 10-15 comment profanity debate ensues.
6. Chris P. drops a hand grenade.
7. iggy, Phil, John Hughes, and Chris Lyons jump on Chris P. (not the hand grenade) like white on rice.
8. pastorboy, comes by and dro—iggy, Phil, Chris L. and co. jump on him like white on rice.
9. I pick up pastorboy’s hand grenade and drop it for him–sometimes.
10. There is considerable debate over what pastorboy, iggy, John, Phil, Chris L. and co. have said back and forth. Some of it worthwhile–most not.
11. iggy says Calvinists are mean and their arguments refutable.
12. I ask a simple question of whether or not “dead” means “Dead”.
13. Joe C. comes and calms everyone down.
14. Someone comes in late and concurs that Calvinist’s are stupid.
15. I show up again, and we start back over at step 9.
Again, this is exaggerated, but it should be thought provoking.
Anyway, iggs, thanks for keeping things civil. I hope you come to the light one of these days.
Not true at all. I often state many of my friends are Calvinists.
I state that there are mean Calvinist who seem to not understand their own “Doctrines of Grace” and have exchanged those for traditions of men…
I know many Calvinists who would agree the people I call mean are… simply mean… they also seem to all be of the Calvinist persuasion, though some are in denial of that… such as Ken Silva… who denies it, but seems to express his theology in those terms.
I acknowledge you are exaggerating, but at least represent my view correctly… LOL!
iggy
I hope the same for you…
I tend to be civil if the other person is not being a jerk…
iggy
iggy,
I was writing my diatribe while you were writing. Sorry.
You said:
Okay, that is what I was looking for, so to speak. Where we differ is here:
I believe that we are, as unregenerate, completely dead spiritually. That is, there is no good thing in my bones or soul that can be pleasing to God. As Paul wrote:
Emphasis mine of course.
So we were dead. Just like the bones in the valley with Ezekiel (Chap. 37), just as lost as anyone who ever lived(Eph. 2:3). This presents a problem for me as an unbeliever. I must believe, but I can’t. Notice I did not say, “I must believe, and I want to, but can’t”. For I do believe that even the sincere desire to believe is, at least the beginnings of, the work of the Holy Spirit. And believing in full most certainly is His workmanship.
So you say, that the Gospel empowered by the Holy Spirit grants the unregenerate ability to say yes or no. I say he has always said no by his nature, and seldom had more than a passing thought of real repentance, and that the Gospel empowered by the Holy Spirit makes him alive according to the omnipotent God.
I’ll continue, but I imagine you’ve responded to my last one by now, and i don’t want to go on and on.
cont.
I have to go, but know that i am mid-thought.
Sorry, be patient.
later.
SJ,
You need to read that passage closer.
Yet, the wages of sin is death. I bet unless Jesus returns you will die one day. We are dead “in trespasses and sins” not “dead” as you are asserting.
We are still living… take a breath… yep you can still breath… you still move about… you are alive.
The wages of sin is death… and in that sense as I stated above we are dead… just as we are condemned with out JEsus… we pass from this life to eternal death without Jesus or eternal life with Jesus. Wages are not prepaid… but paid after the work is done. You are stating we are paid before the work is done
Again, re-read those passages without Calvin and you will see it as it says and not as you place Calvinist meaning into it.
iggy
(insert facetious tone)
iggy, I am reading those passages without him. (He is DEAD after all)
I’m getting good at this.
Good, then you will see it as I said.
LOL!
iggy