Back to the judgement of condemnation due our sinful natures and persons since Adam, should we refuse grace: without Jesus in our lives, we are doomed to God's judgement of hell fire, not so?

"You will surely die," were they not to believe him.

That that eventuality is a punishment of fire in the end is thanks to the diversion and delay for it of grace: only those who refuse grace land up there, in this world, having been deprived of it by grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. In the next world - new earth - sin shall not arise a second time.

you dont think that we are "trained" to read it one way when it could be read another?

keep in mind that we are trained to read the account of sodom and gomorrah as if they had been destroyed for practicing homosexuality and in doing so completely miss the other verses that deny that conclusion. which in turn makes us lose the lesson intended. i mean, after all, if sodom and gomorrah were destroyed for practicing homosexuality what do all of us who arent that have to worry about, right?

aside from no "judgment to condemnation" in thoses verses i dont see any hellfire here, do you?

Teresa,
without Christ's intervention, there would have been no life, no hope, for anyone. Adam's sin brought DEATH to the whole human race. THE END
BUT GOD....
Thank God -- in His great mercy He made a way, opened a door, let in a glorious ray of hope in Christ! A way out of the miry darkness into His eternal day.

Anyway, let us commence with our Bible study.
Please open your Bibles to Colossians 2 we will be referring to it throughout this study. You might want to keep a bookmark in Ezekiel 37 as well.


What was nailed to the cross?
Let's read it in Colossians 2:13-15

"When you were dead in your sins"

What were we?
Dead in our sins! What does that mean? That means we were enslaved in our sins, we couldn't rise out of those sins. We were dead in sins—
We needed deliverance! Right?

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature"

Oh, it's getting worse, not only were we dead in sin and needed deliverance from sin, but our very natures were against any hope of deliverance from this slavery of sin.
So, we were dead in our sins and in the uncircumcision of our sinful nature,

BUT GOD MADE YOU ALIVE WITH CHRIST."

Wow! The story of Ezekiel's dry bones all over again.
Remember that chapter in Ezekiel 37?

We were nothing but a bunch of dry bones— DEAD in sins with no hope, living dead, with nothing to look forward to but total death.
But God — how wonderful those words (they appear many times in Paul's writings,-- Conditions are totally hopeless "BUT GOD" changes the whole picture-- In Ezekiel those dry bones came to life when the Spirit of God came upon them. And here we read that God makes us alive with Christ!

How does He do that? How does He give us life and deliver us from death?

Paul's next words in Colossians 2 tells us!

"He forgave us all our sins"

How did He deliver us from death and bring us to life?

"He forgave us all our sins."

Wonderful is the promise of forgiveness!

But how was He able to forgive us our sins?
Let's read the next sentence: and I'm going to go to the Greek to be sure of my words here--

"He forgave us all our sins; having canceled the written record with it's legal demands which stood against us."

Was that a little different from your Bible? Probably, depending on which version you have.
Let's study this deeper, for we want to KNOW what this verse is saying!

"He forgave us all our sins having canceled, blotted out or "exaleipho" which means "smeared out", the written record, or the "cheirographon", which means written record.

Now how did God forgive us our sins according to all this? By "smearing, or blotting" a written record? What is that written record?

Recent studies of historical writings show that "Cheirographon" was used to show a "certificate of indebtedness". So we could read the verse to say: he canceled the written record of our debts.

Now it makes more sense...especially when we consider Jesus parable of the ungrateful man. You remember the story of the king who was going through his accounts and found one man who owed him a huge sum of money. The man was summoned to appear before the king and ordered to pay up. Of course he couldn't— he was dead, dead in debts! No hope at all to be free from those debts. BUT THE king absorbed the loss himself and forgave him all his debts by canceling the written record of those debts which stood against him!

In the same why, Colossians tells us that God "Delivered us by Forgiving us all our sins, having canceled the written record, with it's regulations, (ordinances).... What are those regulations? The Greek word is "dogma" referring to legal decree or requirement. Well what legal demand would a person be under who owed a several million dollar debt? Would not the legal demand be that he repay his debt, complete with the regulations that if the person could not repay the debt that he'd be sent to prison and his family could be sold as slaves etc..

What regulations or legal decree is held against sinners?

The Bible tells us the wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
The law is "the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, (2 Cor. 3:7)
Yes, "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Romans 7: It cannot be changed, it can not be lowered to excuse sin.




That is the legal decree— you sin— you will die! That is the wage for sin. But even before the cross there was the hope of deliverance. They could bring a lamb, symbolizing the promised Messiah, to die in their place. But now, the Lamb of God took upon Himself the legal penalty or regulation held against the sinner, so that the decree requiring the sinner's death is lifted from those whose sins are forgiven.

How was it possible for God to forgive us our sins, canceling the record with it's legal decree against us? The verse continues,

"He took it away by nailing it to the cross."

So what was nailed to the cross? What was it that was against us, what was it that opposed us, what was it that stood in the way of life for us?

In this study we have seen that it was the recordAnd no, this does not change our concept of an investigative judgment. Remember the parable of the ungrateful man. The king forgave him all his debts by canceling the record that was against him, but what happened when the forgiven man met someone who owed him a few dollars? What happened when he showed that his nature was still totally unchanged by the grace of the king? Was there an investigation? What happened to the canceled debt?

God canceling the record of our sins is not designed to do away with human accountability on the day of judgment, but to provide the reassurance of the totality of God's forgiveness when we come to HIM with a sincere heart.

Having experienced the sweet evidence of forgiveness from all our sins, our hearts should be melted and broken, ready to surrender to God heart and soul. Sin appears in it's awful enslaving reality and we rejoice to be freed from it in order that we can serve God in righteousness.

of our sins which demanded our death. It is Christ's blood that blots, or "smears" out the record of sin.

aside from no "judgment to condemnation" in thoses verses i dont see any hellfire here, do you?[/quote]

No indeed, as it's highlighting the gospel options for us all, in the one who reversed Adam's fate for us. Should we insist on Adam's fate for, thus rejecting Jesus' grace, won't that land us excluded from his Lamb's Book of Life, so the judgement of Rev 20 of condemnation and fire and death is ours? Your texts here are for today, Rev 20 is where the bad option from these texts will be in the that day, right?

Today we have the opportunities God gives us to choose and stay on Jesus' salvation experience. It's very difficult to drop Jesus' Lordship, so the eventual punishment of the wicked is not in our dreams of future options for us, is it: we're follow Jesus day by day to learn more of him for our daily lives. He's happy with that: we are too, aren't we?

What would you call it, if not a priviledge? You agree that it was within God's rights to do this, don't you?

By the way, I agree with your sentiment that "you have no idea what God is like and how he judges the earth!!" ("you" having a different identity, of course)

The way that God judges is by revealing the truth. He doesn't do something arbitrary to inflict pain or suffering upon those who disagree with Him. Jesus pointed out this in saying that "I judge no one" and in saying "but the words I have spoken, they will judge you, etc."

This is not saying there won't be a judgment, but is explaining the principles that are involved in the judgment.



"God punishes sin because he is more powerful than sin." This is accurately explaining what you think? That God punishes sin because He is more powerful than sin?

You then say immediately following that there has been a Great Controversy, which leads me to believe this sentence is connected to the one preceding it, which begs the question if you think that God wins the Great Controversy by His power.

The next sentence you talk about the power of love, so if your point is that God wins the Great Controversy because love is more powerful than sin, I wholeheartedly agree with that. I agree that this is a day of judgment and holiness and justice, but I believe this is carried out in the manner that Jesus spoke of, and also described here:



This is the "power of love." The glory of God is His character, and God is love. This power is what destroys the wicked, the power of character, the power of love, as you put it, which is administered not as an arbitrary act of power, but as a revelation of His character. This is brought out clearly here as well:



Jesus Christ is the revealer of the character of God, which manifests to men their sin. Apart from the grace of God, which the wicked have rejected, this revelation is something which cannot be born. Notice the same thing which slays the wicked, the revelation of God's character, gives life to the righteous.



Here's what Jesus said:



Jesus doesn't even come close to talking about the things you're talking about. There's nothing even remotely like that in the context.



Rosangela's point wasn't valid, which I explained. You keep referring to the meaning as the SDA church officially teaches this, but you're incorrect in your assertion. What the SDA church officially teaches is Fundamental Belief #9, and that's the only thing that's official. You're simply calling something official doesn't make it so. The church calling it official does. If you can produce something from the church which says a teaching is official other than what I've quoted, please do so, but please stop simply asserting things with no evidence. There's no point in that. Quote something, and we can discuss that.

I've been asking over and over again for you to quote things. I don't understand why you think this isn't necessary. What's the point in your simply asserting things without presenting any evidence?



Is it your position that one could take any sentence from any page of the book, and assert, "This is the official position of the church?" I doubt very much the official church position would agree with you. I feel certain the official church position would be exactly what I've been saying, which is that the official position of the church is that which has been included in the Fundamental Beliefs. If you have some other idea, please quote something from the church to establish it. Please don't just assert something with nothing to back it up.

In particular, you claim the entire FB book is official. I looked over the official SDA web site, I couldn't find anything suggesting this. http://www.adventist.org/

If you can produce something suggesting this, I'd like to see it.

Regarding my beliefs on the atonement, as I've asserted repeatedly, there are many fully credentialed ministers who share them. If what you are suggesting were true, that these ideas are contrary to the official position of the church, why are they allowed to openly teach them from the pulpit?

I can only conclude that you didn't say what you meant. You said, "Rom 4:25 says his death and his resurrection serve two different functions in the gospel, and at least the second wouldn't be fulfilled by his actions had he died as a newborn baby." Clearly had Christ died as a newborn baby, He could have been resurrected as a newborn baby, and this would have served the second function, as you've identified it.

Regarding that Christ's time hadn't come, etc. I agree fully, but I would say that the issue wasn't building His "character merits" as you call it, but that the revelation of the Father wasn't complete (recalling from the SOP that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was the "revelation of God" - ST 1/20/90)

Dedication, we have a long thread on Col. 2:14 I thought you might be interested in seeing, so I bumped it for you.

aside from no "judgment to condemnation" in thoses verses i dont see any hellfire here, do you?[/quote]

No indeed, as it's highlighting the gospel options for us all, in the one who reversed Adam's fate for us. Should we insist on Adam's fate for, thus rejecting Jesus' grace, won't that land us excluded from his Lamb's Book of Life, so the judgement of Rev 20 of condemnation and fire and death is ours? Your texts here are for today, Rev 20 is where the bad option from these texts will be in the that day, right?

Today we have the opportunities God gives us to choose and stay on Jesus' salvation experience. It's very difficult to drop Jesus' Lordship, so the eventual punishment of the wicked is not in our dreams of future options for us, is it: we're follow Jesus day by day to learn more of him for our daily lives. He's happy with that: we are too, aren't we? [/quote]

but the question was where is there judgment to condemnation in those verses, and as far as i can see there is none. the kjv added "judgment to". it isnt in the original, so we are just making up a phrase, seems to me.

"you shall surely die."
if you drink poison you shall surely die.
if you jump in front of a speeding train you shall surely die.
more examples could be given.
so how do we turn "you shall surely die" into, "i will kill you" unless we have been trained to read that into the phrase?
then we have this little nugget:

this paragraph raises several questions and should probably be studied with other bible verses much more diligently, i would think, than some theory people come up with.

in the sanctuary who killed the sacrificial victim? the person who had sinned or God?