Questioner: Herman
This is a followup question
Subject: lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world
Question:
- i think i was missunderstood...i heard of Universalism...i am not them,,,without FAITH in Jesus you are not rightous..faith(trust) seperates christians from non christians...forgiveness of sins never made anyone righteous,,,just faith...Abrahm believed and he....
John of AllFaith's reply
Hi again Herman,Apparently I did misunderstand your question.
In your first post you wrote: "God dosn't seem to be judging sin today as he did in the old testiment and before Christ resurection,,,why is that???i think it is because our sin is allready been paid for...by grace..."
I'm not clear what you mean by this if not universalism (i.e. that Jesus, by his death, saved everyone on earth). That seemed the be the main point of your previous post. If you would like to ask a specific question perhaps I can better respond.
Practically all Christians believe that Jesus paid the sin debt on the cross and that those who accept it are saved, while those who do not are lost.
There are of course many ways to interpret the Bible and there have always been those who "spiritualize it" and teach various doctrines, the Mind Sciences, certain mystical views and so on come to mind. However in this area, a literal reading of the text seems clear to me.
The heart of the Christian faith is that:
"Wherefore, as BY ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Rom. 5:12)
The Christian understanding of Jesus' atonement is that:
"For if BY ONE MAN's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Rom 5:17)
And again:
"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;" (I Pet. 4:1)
This is generally held to be the heart of the Christian faith. Until this matter of sin is settled:
- "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Isa 64:6).
And yet, as you say, the Book of Hebrews shares a litany of people who were approved of God due to their faith.
Despite this, the role of Jesus, from the Christian perspective is that:
- "...she [Mary] shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."
That this was Jesus' key purpose according to Christian doctrine is almost an unanimous Christian belief.
Paul says:
"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (I Cor 15:15)
If one is still in their sins, nothing else matters:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.(John 3:17).
I mentioned this verse in my last post. If universalism does not apply, then everything is based on one's acceptance of Jesus as one's Savior.
Salvation and righteousness are based on Jesus' sacrifices, not our own acts of righteousness:
8"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph 2)
Judaism and Islam view sin in a very different light. For them, there is no original sin doctrine. People are born pure and make their own decisions. For Christians however:
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Ps 51:5)
This doctrine is an essential teaching of Christianity. The New Testament, as we have it, has this as its central issue, when the text is taken literally. If one takes the New Testament as it is, Jesus' atonement of sin is the central issue. This does not nullify other views of course.
I hope I have better understood your point and that my thoughts will in some way be helpful,
-
~John of AllFaith
Follow-up:
then what exactually did John the baptist mean???John of AllFaith replies:
Hi Herman,While I fully acknowledge it is not the traditional Christian view, I believe universalism is A valid Christian understanding (i.e. one of many). This is why I agreed with what I thought you were saying at first.
I believe the Bible can rightly be understood on several different levels according to one's degree of spiritual maturity and knowledge. Such understandings in no way nullify the traditional "old rugged cross" views, they merely seek deeper meaning.
IF universalism is true, again, this is the teaching that says Jesus did exactly what John 3:16 and 17 says he did, he removed the curse of Adam (i.e. "original sin") from the entire world, then this "lamb of God" did indeed take away the sins of the whole world, as John the Baptist says.
According to the more traditional views, Jesus took away only some of the sins from the world (of those of people who chose to become Christians). This is a weakness with traditional Christian doctrine.
IF universalism is correct, then Christians (unlike Jews who are freed from sin by strictly obeying the 613 Mitzvoth or laws as defined by Maimonides) become righteous or sanctified by faith in and submission to God, apart from the law. Such Christians are not "saved" by these actions (because there is no original sin to be "saved" from), rather they are "sanctified," they are submitted to God's will as willing servants.
When the Kingdom of God on earth is finally established, those who are thus sanctified will hold positions of authority etc. while others will be regular "citizens" of the kingdom. Think of like this, in my country, the US, we are all "equal" citizens, but most of us have never met the president or other high ranking officials, let alone developed personal relationships with them. Sanctified Believers are those who know the King personally. The more fully one submits to God, the deeper the realtionship.
The coming of the Kingdom of God was a main feature of John's preaching of course. Based on the Tanack (the so-called "Old Testament"), the Jews expect(ed) the establishment of the earthly kingdom to be THE sign that the Messiah has arrived. Because Jesus did not set up the kingdom, the Jews, by and large, rejected his messianic bid.
From the traditional Christian view, as long as the curse of original sin holds there can be no Kingdom. According to Judaism, there is no original sin, BUT sin is still an important consideration that must be dealt with.
We can discuss this greater detail if you are interested, but the doctrine of universalism explains much. As with all doctrines of course, there are valid points that may be understood to contradict this doctrine as well.
One can also interpret the New Testament from a more Jewish perspective. This approach can be fascinating, as well as problematic for Christians who try and understand it. With this approach, one must consider topics such as, If Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, why doesn't Christianity teach the basic Jewish doctrines, but from a Christian perspective? How do Jews understand the passages Christians present as references to Jesus? Shouldn't Christianity be Judaism plus Jesus? Why are these two religions world's apart on many essential doctrines? There are a great many questions to be considered.
Many, perhaps most, Christians believe there is but one correct way to understand the Bible... their way. Their teachings however are very different from those believed in previous generations by equally devout Christians. From this we know their position (that the truth never changes and that the truth is as they present it) is not historically accurate. These things have always been debated.
I can tell you, this is what the Baptist believe, this is what the Catholics believe etc., however you seem to be looking beyond this.
The textual and doctrinal importance of the doctrine of original sin, as well as the existence of sin itself, must to be dealt with if one wishes to have a New Testament based understanding. The other choice, as I've said, is to forgo a literal reading of the text and view the Bible as codes etc. There is ample evidence for such methods of Bible study. Taken literally however, sin must be understood.
I'm hoping to offer you food for thought here, rather than tell you "this is the truth." It seems to me that you are on a personal quest for truth. Along the way you will hear all sorts of feedback, but you must decide what you will believe. I'm honored to share my thoughts with you as you continue Reaching for the One.
In terms of religion, very little is set in stone. ;-)
Peace,
-
~John of AllFaith
You are visitor number...
Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!
Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!
 |
Or visit other AllFaith.com web sites |
| | |
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |