“Never does a man hear the gospel but he either rises or falls under that hearing. There is never a proclamation of Jesus Christ (and this is the spiritual coming forth of Christ himself) which leaves men precisely where they were; the gospel is sure to have some effect upon those who hear it.”
—C.H. Spurgeon
Thanks for the article... I have one question about it and I can't find my 4-in-1 Bible right now, but I know you have several versions.
The words "those who hate me" as spoken by God... The article writer translates that to mean those who are sinful in their own right, but is this what those words mean? The Bible often uses "love" and "hate" to blanket a whole variety of positive and negative emotion.
One could potentially say that anyone who has chosen not to be a Christian "hates" God from some of the biblical uses. Do you think this is the case here? If so, then the sins of the father are really irrelevant, since the sin of not wanting to be a God-follower is enough to get eternity-without-parole already. In fact, this seems to apply to any sins of the child... To be honest, the article smacks of sophistry because of this... The writer is trying to reconcile a clear contradiction, but is unconvincing. If the sins of the child are worthy of judgement anyway, then why bring the father into it at all, in any situation?
To re-word the writer's message: The children were damned, but they had it coming anyway. So which is it? Were they damned for the father's sins or for their own? If they were really being punished for their own sins, what is the father's role, and why even bring it up?
Since the father IS brought into it, he must play more of a role than the writer wants to admit. This suggests there must be more weight given to the passages mentioning the father, which to me suggests more inequity from God...
Pax, ~Ed~
ps: My Blogger ID is once again not woking grrrrrr... I won't get email followup on this thread...
1 comment:
Thanks for the article... I have one question about it and I can't find my 4-in-1 Bible right now, but I know you have several versions.
The words "those who hate me" as spoken by God... The article writer translates that to mean those who are sinful in their own right, but is this what those words mean? The Bible often uses "love" and "hate" to blanket a whole variety of positive and negative emotion.
One could potentially say that anyone who has chosen not to be a Christian "hates" God from some of the biblical uses. Do you think this is the case here? If so, then the sins of the father are really irrelevant, since the sin of not wanting to be a God-follower is enough to get eternity-without-parole already. In fact, this seems to apply to any sins of the child... To be honest, the article smacks of sophistry because of this... The writer is trying to reconcile a clear contradiction, but is unconvincing. If the sins of the child are worthy of judgement anyway, then why bring the father into it at all, in any situation?
To re-word the writer's message: The children were damned, but they had it coming anyway. So which is it? Were they damned for the father's sins or for their own? If they were really being punished for their own sins, what is the father's role, and why even bring it up?
Since the father IS brought into it, he must play more of a role than the writer wants to admit. This suggests there must be more weight given to the passages mentioning the father, which to me suggests more inequity from God...
Pax,
~Ed~
ps: My Blogger ID is once again not woking grrrrrr... I won't get email followup on this thread...
Post a Comment