How can we get rid of our sinfulness?
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
There are so many times in my faith walk that I have felt this way..times when the dark night of the soul was constant and vivid. I prayed, but the words seemed empty. I hoped, but it seemed it vain. and through it all, the gentle comfort of God sees me through-somehow,some way He is always present..telling me it's ok to doubt.
Perhaps the fault was mine, for leading you to the wrong conclusion. I would not have said you were un-Christian knowing you were not Christian in the first place. However, as much as you dance around the point, you did quite clearly call the lady dense.
I appreciate your point of view my friend. I can only write that I would rather rely on the teachings of the Church, in it slong history, than on my own feelings of what is right and wrong. Too often, as people, we tend to rationalize our actions or behaviours because we do not want to face the truth of their error.
please. my response completes just as well with "as you are saying" or "as you are dense". quite cleary you and others prefer to think the worst of me.
well get in line.
perhaps the fault was mine, for leading you to the wrong conclusion.
Every person is separated from God by their sin and in need of forgiveness. Because God is just as well as loving, we cannot cross this gulf and have a relationship with Him (eternal life) unless the penalty for our sin is paid--eternal death. If God did not judge our sin, He would no longer be just.
Living a good, moral life cannot save a person because good works do not pay the penalty for sin. Just as we can only pay a $50 speeding ticket with $50 (not by baking cookies for the judge or even paying $49), only death can pay the death penalty for sin. Being religious cannot save a person either, because religion does not pay the death penalty.
Fortunately, because of His love for us, God sent Jesus to die in our place to pay the death penalty we deserve for our sin. Jesus chose to do this because He loves us, and was the only one able to do this because He is fully God (He had to be infinite to pay the penalty for more than one person) and He is fully man (He had to be a sinless human to pay the penalty for a sinful human). Jesus is not only sinless, but He is 100% God and 100% man.
On the cross, God judged Jesus for our sin so that we wouldn't have to be. That's why He is the only way to God--only Jesus was willing and able to die for us to pay our death penalty, thus providing forgiveness for our sins. No one other religios leader has done this; no one else could have done this.
So now there are two options. Either a person can pay this penalty themselves--and so not be saved--or Jesus can pay it for them--and be saved. In both ways, God is just because the penalty is paid. The decision is ours to make, and all we need to do is accept God's offer of forgiveness in Jesus. Either we pay the penalty, or we trust Jesus to save us and He pays the penalty.
To summarize, we can receive forgiveness and eternal life only through Jesus because only He has taken away our sin and bridged the gulf between us and God. It took His death to pay the penalty for our sin. If there had been any other way, Jesus would not have died (Gal 2:21). Considering the sacrifice Jesus made, we should not think it is unfair that there is only one way, but we should be glad that there is any way at all. Now we will look at some problems that people have with accepting this exclusive claim.
Just because something is narrow and exclusive does not make it wrong. Life is full of things that are narrow and true. For example, we want the airplane pilot to land on the runway, not the highway; to land right-side up, not upside down. Truth is always exclusive of error. Two plus two equals four is very narrow, but it is still right.
The problem comes if people are insensitive about saying that Jesus is the only way. It is unfortunate that this sometimes happens, but just because the presentation was wrong does not make the message itself wrong. If someone went around killing people in the name of love, we wouldn't conclude that love was wrong, would we?
We must also understand that Christianity is not the only religion that makes exclusive claims. Judaism and Islam, among other religions, also make exclusive claims. All religions cannot be true because they disagree with each other on major issues, such as how to be saved. For example, Christianity says that salvation is a free gift from God. Every other religion says that salvation is not a gift, but that we must earn it. How can salvation be free and earned at the same time? So this leads to the question, "Why should one believe Jesus' claims and not the others?"
We can believe what Jesus said because He gave evidence that validates His claim. Jesus not only claimed to be the only way to God, but He also claimed to be God (John 5:18; 10:30-33). He then rose from the dead, proving that what He said was true. There is more evidence for Christ's resurrection than any event in ancient history. Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed and all of the other religious leaders of the past are still in their tombs. But not Jesus. Who would you believe?
It was an example, Sanc. An example of how some theists try to hold scientists et al to a higher standard than they hold themselves.
grrr
dang priests get me every time.
no problem.
sorry about pulling your leg about the "not christian like" thingie.
Ahhh, you're right! I believe faithfully in evolution, but the difference bwteen you and me is I believe the Genesis tale fits very well into an evolutionary construct. In other words, I believe it is important not how it was done, but that we know who did it-in other words that it was God behind the process. The mechanics of HOW are not as important to me personally as long as I believe who was responsible in the first place.
Well, you see, I don't believe that anyone died for my sins and there isn't anything except my connection to other people that connects me to their gods.
How the heck would anyone be able to say what your god would do or not?
Personally, I can hardly see myself wanting or needing to be near an entity that is just as likely to torture and kill me as look at me, so even if there is only one path to it, it's one too many for me.
Ok, I can accept that people leave it at that. Personally, however, even if I thought such a critter existed, I cannot see myself wanting to associate myself with an entity who is just as likely to torture and kill me as love me and do so at a whim.
When he tells me he does this, yes. I read a study a while ago that medical patients who knew they were being prayed for did not fare as well as patients who were unaware of any such activity. I wish I had jotted down a link to the study, but I didn't. Either way, as humorous as I find Henry's praying for me to be, it would not harm me to be unaware of this activity and I could spend my time gabbing with him about other matters.
roflmao
Oh look, the fruit has ripened and fallen to the ground, therefore the tree must have ripened and fallen to the ground. rofl
That was me that said it wasn't very christian like, not Sanc. Either way, Sanc is human and prone to the same impressions as any other human. So whatever you meant by the comment, 3 people so far have thought it meant something else.
Christ’s divinity is shown over and over again in the New Testament. For example, in John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."
In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).
In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")
In Philippians 2:6, Paul tells us that Christ Jesus "[w]ho, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God."
Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).
This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).
This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).
As the following quotes show, the early Church Fathers also recognized that Jesus Christ is God and were adamant in maintaining this precious truth.
Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.,18:2).
"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).
Aristides
"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).
Tatian the Syrian
"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).
Melito of Sardis
"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).
Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).
Clement of Alexandria
"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).
"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).
Tertullian
"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).
"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).
Hippolytus
"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).
Hippolytus of Rome
"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).
Novatian
"If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).
Arnobius
"‘Well, then,’ some raging, angry, and excited man will say, ‘is that Christ your God?’ ‘God indeed,’ we shall answer, ‘and God of the hidden powers’" (Against the Pagans 1:42 [A.D. 305]).
Lactantius
"He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man" (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).
"We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father" (ibid., 4:28–29).
Council of Nicaea I
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made" (Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).
"But those who say, ‘There was a time when he [the Son] did not exist,’ and ‘Before he was born, he did not exist,’ and ‘Because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes" (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).
Patrick of Ireland
"Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe, and whose coming we expect will soon take place, the judge of the living and the dead, who will render to everyone according to his works" (Confession of St. Patrick 4 [A.D. 452]).
Such are the fruits of ambiguities. It took me a while, but I can see what you meant by your comment now, but that just bolsters the idea that what you said was ambiguous. You were meaning that you were both equally calling church elders dense. But the fact that the adjective "dense" was the last reference in the sentence to which you were referring, leads people to the idea that you were calling MLG dense.
Why is that such a common phrase these days? Why not "care"? What is so wrong with caring?