Hosea 6:6 and Jesus

[Christian2]

My church is studying one of Brian McLaren's books: "The Great Spiritual Migration."

Both Pastors and all the facilitators of the Bible Study programs loved the book. They loved it so much that more Bible Study sessions were opened, some on Saturday for people who could not attend during the week.

In Chapter 1, McLaren uses Jesus' cleansing of the Temple to say that Jesus did not believe in animal sacrifices.

McLaren said: “It turns out that Jesus wasn’t the first to dare to question the architecture of appeasement.” McLaren mentions Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 and 2 and Psalm 51, verse 17 as proof.

I would appreciate any comments.

Thanks.

[B. W.]

My church is studying one of Brian McLaren's books: "The Great Spiritual Migration."

Both Pastors and all the facilitators of the Bible Study programs loved the book. They loved it so much that more Bible Study sessions were opened, some on Saturday for people who could not attend during the week.

In Chapter 1, McLaren uses Jesus' cleansing of the Temple to say that Jesus did not believe in animal sacrifices.

McLaren said: “It turns out that Jesus wasn’t the first to dare to question the architecture of appeasement.” McLaren mentions Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 and 2 and Psalm 51, verse 17 as proof.

I would appreciate any comments.

Thanks.

First off, God set up the sacrificial system, feast days. law for many reasons such as: Point to their need of a savior (God alone) who they can trust; teach obedience; instruct how to live responsible before God and others is, and the duty of God's people toward God and each other.

Hos 4:1, Hear the word of the LORD, You children of Israel, For the LORD brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land: There is no truth or mercy Or knowledge of God in the land. NKJV

Hos 6:6.For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. NKJV

1Sa 15:22 So Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.

If one had knowledge of God then they would obey from the heart as they would know God. However, the people back then strayed and used the law unlawfully to game God himself.

Isaiah 1:11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 says a mouthful on this. Basically, the people did this to the laws of sacrificial laws: They said to themselves in simplest terms so you can understand: "...we can atone for our own sins by God's own laws so we can continue to sin and do what we want by manipulating God's law in our favor to avoid his wrath and we control the narrative and thus control God to get out gets."

Eccl 5:1, Walk prudently when you go to the house of God; and draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil. NKJV

The other purpose of the law was to reveal sin and the need for the Lord himself to save them from how diabolically twisting it is as it seeks to justify oneself so that they control God by their performance. Romans chapter 7 speaks on this.

As for McLaren, he mixes postmodern thought and Emergent church ideas into his doctrines. Please read more here on who Brian McLaren is and teaches.

I have dealt with their view on the atonement with some of the heavy leaders in this movement in open discussions with them. They are very proud and this pride blinds them from hearing the truth. They teach various forms of Christ Victor atonement, which is in part true but at the total exclusions of substitutionary atonement which the bible also teaches.

Most of the teachers end up taking the Rob Bell road and eventually will teach full blown universalism heresy. Not sure if McLaren has made that leap but his language is drifting that way.

Most of the teachers actually twist scripture. For example, I have been told so many times that one must spiritually discern what they teach as explain by them alone and their allies. They will openly or covertly despise the Apostle Paul's writings in the bible and rework understanding them to their own point of views. The pride they show is amazing! Oh how so blind!

Basically they absolutely despise 'substitutionary atonement' also known as 'penal substitutionary atonement' and are hell bent to destroy it. To put in mildly, they do not understand this doctrine as much as they claim. I have found first hand that they are so wise in their own eyes so much so that they refuse to hear any honest discussion on this subject. Sadly, the modern western scholastic minded western church does not teach it or understand it very well either because they have reduced it into a simplistic formula which gives such people ammo to use against it. Just the way it is. Just saying.

They use the form of reasoning that Christian2 cited:

McLaren said: “It turns out that Jesus wasn’t the first to dare to question the architecture of appeasement.” McLaren mentions Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 and 2 and Psalm 51, verse 17 as proof.

When I hear that phrase,architecture of appeasement, since I have personal debate on open forums with several of the leaders of this movement, makes me weep because I know what is coming. They will next go into a diatribe about ancient pagan religion practices of 'substitutionary atonement' in which one placates pagan gods wrath.

However, that is not exactly right. Ancient and modern Pagan religions actually seek to make their gods serve them by their sacrifices. It is a quid pro quo religion system. They make a deals with gods to give them favor in exchange for this or that deal made in the offering. It was not about atoning for sins but rather making deals to earn gods favor to get what they want, from good crops, to having sex with someone, to get wealth, glory, honor, re-noun, etc...in the exchange.

Appeasing gods anger was used primarily when their country was attacked or a plague hit so things could go back to normal again as part of the deal. Like this mindset suggest: 'spare the city and we will build a temple for you.' Even in this, the people controlled the will of God through offerings and sacrifices.

Likewise, ancient Israel continued to use the sacrificial system God himself set like the pagans did in that same quid pro quo way. They missed what God was saying that the system He himself designed to reveal the knowledge of God on right and wrong, sin, etc, need of salvation from sin that only God can bring. The law exposes secret hidden sins hidden deep within the heart - such is the tip of the knowledge of God.

The Christian doctrine of 'substitutionary atonement' does not teach 'Jesus Sacrifice' in the way some of the teachers and leaders of this postmodern chrsitan doctrine 'do'. This is the part that such teachers like McLearn fail to notice as well as many who teach 'substitutionary' atonement do unknowingly as well thus sadly reducing it into simplistic model. The deepness is not shared much anymore like it once was. This sadly is one of the banes of Rationalism and Scholastism.

If you want to know more on what I mean, then, I will continue if folks reading this are interested.

I say that because I discovered it is a waste of time to discuss with folks whose minds are made up to destroy a central doctrine of the bible and the power of the cross without knowing what they are doing.

Like my signature comments which states an old Polish proverbs:

Not my Circus - Not my Monkeys

Came from such discussion with members and leaders of this postmodern church love movement whose vile statements prove they do not love as much as they claim they do...
-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

There are a few views in this matter.
One was that Jesus was simply abolishing a sacrificial system that had been perverted by greed ( I agree).
Another was that Jesus was abolishing a system that His sacrifice would replace ( I agree).
Another was that the sacrificial system was one of the "wrong statutes" given by "false scribes" as per Jeremiah ( I disagree since it was around from the time of Adam and Eve).

To understand what Jesus did you have to understand the sacrificial system as it was originally done and how badly it got perverted by the time Jesus came around.

Or you can simply read the bible passages and read what Jesus's won words were:


John 2:13-22English Standard Version (ESV)

Jesus Cleanses the Temple
13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

and:

Matthew 21:12-17English Standard Version (ESV)

Jesus Cleanses the Temple
12 And Jesus entered the temple[a] and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”

and:

https://www.gotquestions.org/temple-cleanse.html

[Christian2]

My church is studying one of Brian McLaren's books: "The Great Spiritual Migration."

Both Pastors and all the facilitators of the Bible Study programs loved the book. They loved it so much that more Bible Study sessions were opened, some on Saturday for people who could not attend during the week.

In Chapter 1, McLaren uses Jesus' cleansing of the Temple to say that Jesus did not believe in animal sacrifices.

McLaren said: “It turns out that Jesus wasn’t the first to dare to question the architecture of appeasement.” McLaren mentions Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 and 2 and Psalm 51, verse 17 as proof.

I would appreciate any comments.

Thanks.

First off, God set up the sacrificial system, feast days. law for many reasons such as: Point to their need of a savior (God alone) who they can trust; teach obedience; instruct how to live responsible before God and others is, and the duty of God's people toward God and each other.

Hos 4:1, Hear the word of the LORD, You children of Israel, For the LORD brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land: There is no truth or mercy Or knowledge of God in the land. NKJV

Hos 6:6.For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. NKJV

1Sa 15:22 So Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.

If one had knowledge of God then they would obey from the heart as they would know God. However, the people back then strayed and used the law unlawfully to game God himself.

Isaiah 1:11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 says a mouthful on this. Basically, the people did this to the laws of sacrificial laws: They said to themselves in simplest terms so you can understand: "...we can atone for our own sins by God's own laws so we can continue to sin and do what we want by manipulating God's law in our favor to avoid his wrath and we control the narrative and thus control God to get out gets."

Eccl 5:1, Walk prudently when you go to the house of God; and draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil. NKJV

The other purpose of the law was to reveal sin and the need for the Lord himself to save them from how diabolically twisting it is as it seeks to justify oneself so that they control God by their performance. Romans chapter 7 speaks on this.

As for McLaren, he mixes postmodern thought and Emergent church ideas into his doctrines. Please read more here on who Brian McLaren is and teaches.

I have dealt with their view on the atonement with some of the heavy leaders in this movement in open discussions with them. They are very proud and this pride blinds them from hearing the truth. They teach various forms of Christ Victor atonement, which is in part true but at the total exclusions of substitutionary atonement which the bible also teaches.

Most of the teachers end up taking the Rob Bell road and eventually will teach full blown universalism heresy. Not sure if McLaren has made that leap but his language is drifting that way.

Most of the teachers actually twist scripture. For example, I have been told so many times that one must spiritually discern what they teach as explain by them alone and their allies. They will openly or covertly despise the Apostle Paul's writings in the bible and rework understanding them to their own point of views. The pride they show is amazing! Oh how so blind!

Basically they absolutely despise 'substitutionary atonement' also known as 'penal substitutionary atonement' and are hell bent to destroy it. To put in mildly, they do not understand this doctrine as much as they claim. I have found first hand that they are so wise in their own eyes so much so that they refuse to hear any honest discussion on this subject. Sadly, the modern western scholastic minded western church does not teach it or understand it very well either because they have reduced it into a simplistic formula which gives such people ammo to use against it. Just the way it is. Just saying.

They use the form of reasoning that Christian2 cited:

McLaren said: “It turns out that Jesus wasn’t the first to dare to question the architecture of appeasement.” McLaren mentions Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 and 2 and Psalm 51, verse 17 as proof.

When I hear that phrase,architecture of appeasement, since I have personal debate on open forums with several of the leaders of this movement, makes me weep because I know what is coming. They will next go into a diatribe about ancient pagan religion practices of 'substitutionary atonement' in which one placates pagan gods wrath.

However, that is not exactly right. Ancient and modern Pagan religions actually seek to make their gods serve them by their sacrifices. It is a quid pro quo religion system. They make a deals with gods to give them favor in exchange for this or that deal made in the offering. It was not about atoning for sins but rather making deals to earn gods favor to get what they want, from good crops, to having sex with someone, to get wealth, glory, honor, re-noun, etc...in the exchange.

Appeasing gods anger was used primarily when their country was attacked or a plague hit so things could go back to normal again as part of the deal. Like this mindset suggest: 'spare the city and we will build a temple for you.' Even in this, the people controlled the will of God through offerings and sacrifices.

Likewise, ancient Israel continued to use the sacrificial system God himself set like the pagans did in that same quid pro quo way. They missed what God was saying that the system He himself designed to reveal the knowledge of God on right and wrong, sin, etc, need of salvation from sin that only God can bring. The law exposes secret hidden sins hidden deep within the heart - such is the tip of the knowledge of God.

The Christian doctrine of 'substitutionary atonement' does not teach 'Jesus Sacrifice' in the way some of the teachers and leaders of this postmodern chrsitan doctrine 'do'. This is the part that such teachers like McLearn fail to notice as well as many who teach 'substitutionary' atonement do unknowingly as well thus sadly reducing it into simplistic model. The deepness is not shared much anymore like it once was. This sadly is one of the banes of Rationalism and Scholastism.

If you want to know more on what I mean, then, I will continue if folks reading this are interested.

I say that because I discovered it is a waste of time to discuss with folks whose minds are made up to destroy a central doctrine of the bible and the power of the cross without knowing what they are doing.

Like my signature comments which states an old Polish proverbs:

Not my Circus - Not my Monkeys

Came from such discussion with members and leaders of this postmodern church love movement whose vile statements prove they do not love as much as they claim they do...
-
-
-

I consider myself lucky to have contact with someone who has actually discussed the subject with "heavy leaders in this movement." Was Brian McLaren one of them?

What did you mean when you said:

"The Christian doctrine of 'substitutionary atonement' does not teach 'Jesus Sacrifice' in the way some of the teachers and leaders of this postmodern chrsitan doctrine 'do'. This is the part that such teachers like McLearn fail to notice as well as many who teach 'substitutionary' atonement do unknowingly as well thus sadly reducing it into simplistic model."

Thank you.

PS: What do you know about Jewish "hedge laws"?

[B. W.]

I consider myself lucky to have contact with someone who has actually discussed the subject with "heavy leaders in this movement." Was Brian McLaren one of them?

What did you mean when you said:

"The Christian doctrine of 'substitutionary atonement' does not teach 'Jesus Sacrifice' in the way some of the teachers and leaders of this postmodern chrsitan doctrine 'do'. This is the part that such teachers like McLearn fail to notice as well as many who teach 'substitutionary' atonement do unknowingly as well thus sadly reducing it into simplistic model."

Thank you.

PS: What do you know about Jewish "hedge laws"?

No, Mclaren was not one of the ones. Steve McVey, Don Keathley were two, both are from the hyper Grace Movement which is or has by now drifted to the Emergent Church model. They teach some to the same things now. Steve had Heart several years ago so the discussion ended beck then. I came to the conclusion that some cannot be reach as they cannot hear what you are saying. For the emergent church folks the leaders there were like Mclaren and several I contacted have grown real big ministries and book sales like Rob Bell.

Bell was not big when I contacted him, years and years ago. He had not quite drifted as far into some weird doctrines like he has now. He was doing the Pneuma videos back then and some of these were not bad. He used to respond himself to online questions way back then but I do not think he does this anymore. There are others in the movement I contacted as well. I stay way from such folks now. They assume they know your heart and can get very hostile and passive aggressive for no reason.

On the Back cover of Mclaren's book 'Spiritual Migration'in the red cover edition it states its purpose is explore 3 steps for Reshaping the practice of faith which are:

+Spiritual focusing less on a system of beliefs and more on a way of life rooted in love

+Theologically, rejecting the image of God as a violent supreme being and embracing instead a renewing Spirit at work in our world

+Missionally identifying less with organized religion and more with an organized religion of Jesus followers dedicated to healing the planet, building peace, and working for the common good of all

Back to topic:

All these sound okay at first glance but his premises is built on how cults start and work. Moderator Paul came out of the JW's and he can chime in as well as I think he will see it too.

First is a teaching that comes along that the church is so flawed some new form of doctrine only taught by the objectors has come to save the day. In the Post Modern - Emergent Church world - a new religion to heal the planet, build peace, and work on common good. Heal the planet... enough said.

They desire a Love centrist gospel without guidance. The gospel is about producing love within the church, that is for sure and the church needs more of it - yes - I agree. But what are the standards of Belief we are to shed?

As with all cults, they want to use the bible to proof text their belief system but be able to disregard verses that disagree with their beliefs. Thus with this movement and hyper grace they actually make a shift and actually tell you the bible is not inerrant but has errors due to fear injecting individuals who want to control by fear. Basically they keep the Love parts of the bible, toss out most of Paul's Peter, James, and Jude's words except for verses like Eph 2:8-9...

They justify that one must disregard some parts as I mentioned as not being inspired by God but rather by men who added in the idea that God loves to torture people. So they justify cherry picking bible verses and use these as proof text to support their set of Beliefs over all others.

It is strange - a logical contradiction is more like it that they want spiritually focus less on a system of beliefs at the same time setting up their own system of beliefs on their humancentric notions of what love is, looks like, and ways are. Is not that a set of beliefs?

What beliefs do they reject? answer - whatever is against their narrative. Which is their view involves 'substitutionary atonement' as meaning a violent God beat up Jesus on the cross for the mere pleasure of it to save humanity.

That is absurd and the crux of the comments I received from some of these people on that topic involve that.

Maybe I am deaf or something but I have not heard that God ever was a violent supreme being. I been around for a time now and traveled to many churches from Baptist to Pentecostal, Evangelical, Holiness, etc... never heard anyone teach that about God. Yet, these folks, that is all they talk about. it is like they are arguing with St Augustine and John Calvin both who have passed away centuries ago.

They will drift as Rob Bell has, to reject the doctrine of Hell because a love God would never do that as that is not loving. Explaining Romans 1:18-32 does not help showing that God does give folks over to what they want - debased mind as his form of wrath.

Let's back up a bit. I am going to fast.

Let's define what God's wrath is and what his Judgment is...

God's wrath involves actually involves God giving what a person what is they desire most: Give them over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, gives them over to their own degrading passions, gives them their over to a depraved mind. See Romans 1:18,24,25,26,27,28 what does it say about this?

In this way, he still tries to reach them but foreknowing they will never return to him his wrath builds and builds up for a day of judgment that is justified and needed. Judgment is simply stated as God's hand of grace mercy is lifted off a person because a person is hell bent to reject God.

When God's Judgement falls it is is hand of protection, favor, grace, mercy truth etc, is lifted off turning the person over to whom and what they are really like on the inside. Then they are cast away. Why, to protect those who he loves from being corrupted. Look over the bible again in God's dealing with Israel and you will see this same pattern of wrath,give them over to depravity, warnings to return, then judgment is issued by hand of God's favor, etc.. released off the nation for a time. Then a return back to God for some and the rebellious punished.

That is a principle that these folks do not understand and paint God as a sadist in order to destroy 'substitutionary atonement' as a great evil.

Read Matthew chapters 26 and 27. Personalize it. Judas betrayed - how have we? Jesus was put on trial - who have we?

Jesus was mocked - who have we? Jesus was lied about and plotted against - who have we? Jesus was abused, beaten, scorned, laughed at, who have we?

Jesus was made to carry a heavy burden he could not carry - who have we? Jesus placed before people to preform - who have we? Jesus' belongings were stolen what have we stolen?

Jesus was crucified - who have we?

The cross exposes what is really in our hearts. It points it all out. None of us are innocent. We put Jesus on the Cross.

Sin was vicariously put on Jesus as the law states, by the hands and confession of the Priest and people offering the sacrifice. We did that.

Herein is God's love. Jesus paid the full wrath and and judgment of God for our putting him on the cross in the first place. As evidenced by how we treat family, friends, strangers, self, and yes God.

Friend, that is a love way beyond mortal comprehension. God coming as a man, Jesus the Word in the flesh, second person of the Godhead, to willingly let himself bear our sins that we put on him and then pay our death penalty for putting him on the cross in the first place is amazing. In doing all this he also was our substitute - taking full fury of God's full judgment hanging between God and man - paying our sin debt in full - is way above and beyond what any of us deserve.

It is the kind of love that strikes you, cuts you to the heart, to change you forever from being God's enemy to become his friend.

Re-read this again and again...

Isa 53:1 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
Isa 53:2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

Isa 53:3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Isa 53:4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.

Isa 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

(How)

Isa 53:7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.
Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
Isa 53:9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

(By the law how was sin imputed to the sacrifice by whom)

Isa 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
Isa 53:11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.

Isa 53:12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. All verses from the NASB

[B. W.]

I Forgot to mention that these is one place I ran into God the Happy torturer and delighter in inflicting of wrath. So, not to malign the Roman Catholic Church, but the truth is that they have in the past taught that God loves to see folks suffer to purify them and throws lightening bolts and smites people for the mere pleasure. There maybe some cults that do that as well.

Maybe folks can point out if they have come across this teaching in their churches. The world's view is like the old RC view - God loves to see folks suffer...for the mere pleasure of them earning heaven...
-
-
-

[JButler]

I Forgot to mention that these is one place I ran into God the Happy torturer and delighter in inflicting of wrath. So, not to malign the Roman Catholic Church, but the truth is that they have in the past taught that God loves to see folks suffer to purify them and throws lightening bolts and smites people for the mere pleasure. There maybe some cults that do that as well.

Maybe folks can point out if they have come across this teaching in their churches. The world's view is like the old RC view - God loves to see folks suffer...for the mere pleasure of them earning heaven...
-

Sounds exactly like continous message I grew with via Dutch Reformed, the hardline only true church. God was ready and waiting to smack you with a sledgehammer for indiscretion. They were especially fond of Psalms where God was angry and destroying people. Love was not in the vocabulary, but then again love was not in John Calvin's, their hero and beacon.

[Christian2]

I Forgot to mention that these is one place I ran into God the Happy torturer and delighter in inflicting of wrath. So, not to malign the Roman Catholic Church, but the truth is that they have in the past taught that God loves to see folks suffer to purify them and throws lightening bolts and smites people for the mere pleasure. There maybe some cults that do that as well.

Maybe folks can point out if they have come across this teaching in their churches. The world's view is like the old RC view - God loves to see folks suffer...for the mere pleasure of them earning heaven...
-
-
-

Ezekiel 33:11Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

11 Tell them: As I live”—the declaration of the Lord God—“I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked person should turn from his way and live. Repent, repent of your evil ways! Why will you die, house of Israel?

Why did God condone such terrible violence in the Old Testament?

https://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testam ... lence.html

Jesus called the God of the OT Father.

The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. Read the book of Revelation.

Jesus said if we don't repent we will all perish.

[Christian2]

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand." (John 10:27-28)

Luke 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well!

Thessalonians 2:10 and with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved.

I am having a discussion with some Christians in my Bible study class who say that Perish/perishing could mean:

" disconnectedness from God while we are alive here on earth and how sad and lonely that can be."

or,

"If my heart is empty and dead… Then I need God to live fully in my heart and I have a new heart"

What do you guys think "perish/perishing" means in context?

Thanks.

[Kurieuo]

Here's a good video on sacrifice, and why God didn't desire meaningless sacrifice and what such was to represent. The sacrifice was really only meaningful, so far as the person's heart was in it, they understood the gravity of their sin, and placed faith in such institutions to make them right with God.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_OlRWGLdnw

As for Christ, He was the final REAL sacrifice, which any previous ones apart of the priestly laws were a mere shadow -- such pointed forward to one true Sacrificial Lamb (Christ) who would take away sins. Without Christ, all those sacrifices made beforehand would be meaningless, for they're actually unable to remove sin in/of themselves. Hebrews 10 deals with this.

I don't know what they (McLaren) teaches, but this is an area where details do matter. I'm not sure "appeasement" is the best term, given the connotations it has. BUT, if they're trying to develop a contrary theology that says Jesus saw sacrifice and atonement as not right, then I see such would even rip out Jesus' own meaning and purpose in life which is the archetype of such.

[Christian2]

Here's a good video on sacrifice, and why God didn't desire meaningless sacrifice and what such was to represent. The sacrifice was really only meaningful, so far as the person's heart was in it, they understood the gravity of their sin, and placed faith in such institutions to make them right with God.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_OlRWGLdnw

As for Christ, He was the final REAL sacrifice, which any previous ones apart of the priestly laws were a mere shadow -- such pointed forward to one true Sacrificial Lamb (Christ) who would take away sins. Without Christ, all those sacrifices made beforehand would be meaningless, for they're actually unable to remove sin in/of themselves. Hebrews 10 deals with this.

I don't know what they (McLaren) teaches, but this is an area where details do matter. I'm not sure "appeasement" is the best term, given the connotations it has. BUT, if they're trying to develop a contrary theology that says Jesus saw sacrifice and atonement as not right, then I see such would even rip out Jesus' own meaning and purpose in life which is the archetype of such.

Good points, thank you.

[B. W.]

Here's a good video on sacrifice, and why God didn't desire meaningless sacrifice and what such was to represent. The sacrifice was really only meaningful, so far as the person's heart was in it, they understood the gravity of their sin, and placed faith in such institutions to make them right with God.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_OlRWGLdnw

As for Christ, He was the final REAL sacrifice, which any previous ones apart of the priestly laws were a mere shadow -- such pointed forward to one true Sacrificial Lamb (Christ) who would take away sins. Without Christ, all those sacrifices made beforehand would be meaningless, for they're actually unable to remove sin in/of themselves. Hebrews 10 deals with this.

I don't know what they (McLaren) teaches, but this is an area where details do matter. I'm not sure "appeasement" is the best term, given the connotations it has. BUT, if they're trying to develop a contrary theology that says Jesus saw sacrifice and atonement as not right, then I see such would even rip out Jesus' own meaning and purpose in life which is the archetype of such.

I say that the Emergent Church - and Grace Point doctrines slowly and subtly drift away from atonement to an appeasement concept in order to promote various forms of Christ Victor model. Rob Bell drifted into full blown universalism and some strange doctrines. When I was in contact with him years ago, he was not at that point, but looking back I now see that he was drifting there.

They distort Christ Victor doctrine in so many differing ways and soon down play the bible by casting doubt into it and teach that it was corrupted by mindless fear mongering frighten you to death Christians seeking control. They use this to drift into the realm of new Mysticism of coming into living union with LOVE and GRACE gelling with - to be oned with him.

There are facts and yet facts without truth are often used to support untruth, human pride, false doctrines, etc.

A person can list facts and thus twist facts to support a lie. These folks do that with teachings on God's love and grace. In one breath, they hate Paul's letters as hateful etc, yet they love to quote, Eph 2:8,9 and the dreaded book of Romans 1:4 ...as truth - well makes no real sense.

Fir example: Carry Underwood recently said this in an interview regarding her faith : ''My brand of Christianity ... It’s not about setting rules, or [saying], ‘Everyone has to be like me.’ No. We’re all different. That’s what makes us special. We have to love each other and get on with each other. It’s not up to me to judge anybody...”

See: Country Singer Carrie Underwood Cites Her Christian Faith in Gay Marriage Endorsement

Well, what can I say, he words sum it all up very well where the Emergent Church and Grace Point doctrines drift into too.

Jesus said this in John 7:24, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." NKJV

Emergent Church and Grace Point doctrines drift and tell people this type of judgment Jesus wants us to do is heretical...

No wonder the modern western Church is so mixed and entwined with the world and its system.
-
-
-

[Christian2]

BW, have you read McLaren's books: "A New Kind of Christianity" and "A New Kind of Christian?"

Thanks.