FW: Is everybody saved?

From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 10:51:38 EDT

  • Next message: Sondra Brasile: "Re: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don"

    Agreed. And one could argue that if we are living in love, then we don't
    need to know the rest. God judges, we don't - end of story.

    I doubt that many of us here are capable of leaving the matter there.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    Behalf Of Don Winterstein
      Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 6:07 AM
      To: ASA; Dick Fischer
      Subject: Re: Is everybody saved?

      It's a mistake to assume that the law of love and compassion is the easy,
    watered-down way. As Jesus pointed out in his Sermon on the Mount, the law
    of love is much more restrictive than any set of rules and regulations,
    partly because it specifies that the motives are every bit as important as
    the acts. It also specifies that the big picture is more important than the
    details: Love is not love if it does not take temporal and eternal
    consequences into account. Love is not love without commitment and

      So the law of love is rigid indeed, but the things it's rigid about are
    sometimes different from the things specified in the written rules and
    regulations. Christians living under love have freedom to set priorities
    different from those living under the laws.


      Dick Fischer wrote in part:

        Debbie Mann wrote:

        It's one thing to say that some of the Bible may be allegorical or
    explained in terms of false scientific premises. It's something else
    entirely to say that no matter when it was written or who wrote it we can
    take the pretty parts and leave the rest alone. Some of it begs for
    interpretation. Other parts don't. I believe it was Jenkins who said, when
    you can - take it literally.

        Where does it start Debbie? When apologists think they have to explain
    away parts of the Old Testament because they aren't dedicated enough to
    figure it out or even listen to someone who has, that establishes a pattern
    which can carry right into the New Testament.

        Add that to our innate feelings of compassion for all people everywhere,
    and you have a watered-down gospel - acceptable to any shade of faith and
    all categories of unrepentant sinners.

        I argue hard for a literal Genesis illuminated by historical evidence
    not because it is important in and of itself, but because that too can
    establish a pattern of taking the entirety of Scripture at full face value.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 10:49:43 EDT