The Cross Was For God

Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us, and atone for our sins, for your name’s sake! – Psalm 79:9 ESV

The forgiveness of our trespasses in the atoning work of Christ Jesus, that cleansed us from all our iniquities, was first and foremost not for us but God’s own concern for His holy Name. It was not for our sake, O Christians, that God acted, but for the sake of His holy name, which we have profaned among the nations.  For His name’s sake, God pardon our guilt, for they were great.

It was the will of God to crush Christ Jesus, for  it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away our sins. God  laid on Christ Jesus the iniquity of us all. God put Christ Jesus to grief; when Christ’s soul made an offering for our guilt. God acted to show His righteousness at the present time. He acted so that he might be just and the justifier of us whom He chose in Christ, according to the purpose of His wills, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.

For God’s own sake, for God’s own sake, He so loved the world that He send His Son to live, die and rise again. For how could God’s name be profaned? His glory He will not give to another.

God vindicated the holiness of His great name through us that the world may see before their eyes. Christ Jesus took us out of the world and gathered us from all the nations to bringing us into God’s rest. God will not forsake those who are in Christ, for His great name’s sake. It pleased Him to make us a people for Himself.

At the Cross, God sprinkles clean water onto us that we may be clean from all our sins, and from all counterfeit gods. He makes us sinless.

He removed the heart of stone and gave a new heart of flesh. He put a new spirit, His Spirit within us that causes us to walk in his statutes and careful do His will.

He makes us delight in Himself as He give us the desires of our heart, the full joy in glorifying  and fully enjoying  Him forever.

In Christ Jesus, the Holy, Holy, Holy God calls us his people and He, our God. It is not for our sake that God acted, declares the Lord God, let that be known to you.

O Lamb of God that take away our sins, deal on our behalf for your name’s sake; because your steadfast love is good, deliver us we pray. With us all be the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we us all be the love of God the Father and with us all be the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

Ezekiel 36, loaded with Roman 3:26, Ephesians 1: 3-11, Isaiah 6:3; 48:11, 58:14; 1 Samuel 12:22, John 3:16, Psalm 37:4; 106:8; 109:21, Hebrews 10:4,  2 Corinthians 13:14

Question: Does God’s zeal for His glory challenges you to ponder your position? Give reasons

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “The Cross Was For God

  1. HeHe –

    what you need to keep in mind is that the whole foundation of evolution is a THEORY..

    in fact it is not FACT.

    The reason it is a theory is because they theorize that everything came from something – and they have NO idea where that something came from.

    …would you mind watching this video?

    …It’s a little long, yes…but it it by some of the leading scientists of the day – and they will agree with you….

    but they STATE THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT FIRST THING GOT THERE.

    they say it COULD be aliens…..

    so where did the aliens come from that planted the first molecule??????

  2. Thanks Roy and Hehe for a brilliant input on the issue of evolution. I believe we are moving away from the topic on this post, namely The Cross Was For God.

    I would so much love if we could move this wonderful discussion to “Was Darwin A Theistic Evolutionist”.

    Thank you so much.

  3. I watched most of it Archange. I didn’t see any real sound science of what it is that makes us US.

    The expert in the video, while on the stand and under oath? says, “Evolution is the process of change over time.” But scientifically, that has not been proven. There is no concrete proof one species changes into another. You believing in evolution is ALMOST the same as me believing in a Creator.

    The biology of us and all living things is very interesting, complicated and mind-blowing. DNA, cells, proteins, minerals, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, apparent design, and on and on.

    A new species is defined as one that can’t produce offspring with its original species.

    For instance, there’s a thousand dog breeds, and millions of combinations of breeds. They’re all dogs. But they don’t reproduce with cats, so cats and dogs are different species.

    Sounds simple, right?

    The problem is that science doesn’t have evidence of any transitional body types in the fossil record. That is, from the time of the so-called, Cambrian explosion, (if you believe the 4 billion year old Earth theory) there are very many well-defined body types — cats, for instance — but there are no transitional body types before or after the Cambrian explosion.

    So where did the cat’s body type come from? Or the snake’s? The dog’s? Horse’s? The fossil record doesn’t show the development of something that split off from another species to become a cat — or anything else. And it doesn’t show a change into another body type since the Cambrian explosion.

    Get this once and for all: According to the fossil record, thousands of types of animals suddenly (in geologic terms) appeared on the scene, and there’s no record of where they came from, and there’s no record of them changing into something else from that point forward.

    Evolution’s got a lot of holes in it, doesn’t it?

    If science could prove that one animal evolved into another species, at any time, ever, then the Theory of evolution would be the Fact of evolution.

    It’s still a theory. (And one that lacks thorough support.)

  4. I was a college student, am now a graduate student (studying math), I never actually took a biology class in College, actually never took a class altogether where they discussed evolution…they have to talk about evolution in class as if it’s true (not as much as 2+2=4, but as they would talk about the Solar system) because it IS sound science…it’s not brainwashing anymore than teaching algebra is brainwashing…

  5. For you HeHe, “Why Evolution is False Teaching”

    Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science. There may be inferences we can make about the past based on modern observations, and these may or may not be true, but don’t bother claiming that ideas about history are the same as repeatable observations in the present.

    Some evolutionists have something in their own past that has turned them away from God Maybe it was legalistic parents or abuse by a respected figure. Maybe it was the insistence that we should “avoid science because it contradicts the Bible,” leaving them without answers to historical claims made in the name of science. A hatred of God and Biblical truth developed, leading them to a life dedicated to freeing others from the shackles of Scripture, justifying the wrong use of evolutionary claims.

    However, most evolutionists are evolutionists because they are victims of the wrong teaching of others. Naturalism (i.e., naturalistic evolution) is often desirable, for it seemingly frees them from the authority of a Creator God. Without a God to whom they are accountable, they are free to live as they choose. College students, often surrounded by hedonism are particularly ripe for wrong thinking, and many never recover. Either way, it can lead to ludicrous statements, such as “evolution is as true as 2+2=4.

    Evolutionists often say that evolution simply means “change.” However, in reality it means a certain kind of change. The word is now accepted to mean the change of nonliving chemicals into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humans—what might be called from-goo-to-you-via-the-zoo. We are informed that this change occurred over millions of years, and the dominant mechanism that is supposed to have driven it is natural selection coupled with mutations.

    Furthermore, the word evolution has also been applied to nonliving things. Almost everything is said to have evolved—the solar system, stars, the universe, as well as social and legal systems. Everything is said to be the product of evolution.

    The story of evolution leaves no room for a supernatural Creator. Evolutionary processes are supposed to be purely naturalistic. This means that even the need for a supernatural Creator disappears because it is argued that the natural world can create new and better or more complex creatures by itself. The implication of this is very revealing: evolution means “no God” and if there is no God, then there are no rules—no commandments, no God-given rules which we must obey. We can therefore live our lives as we please, for according to evolutionary philosophy, there is no God to whom we have to give an account. No wonder molecules-to-man evolution is attractive to so many, for it allows them to live as they please. This is called relative morality.

    I’ll address the three major forms of evolution:

    1. Stellar evolution
    2. Chemical evolution
    3. Biological evolution

    Stellar Evolution: The Big Bang

    The big bang is the most prominent naturalistic view of the origin of the universe in the same way that Neo-Darwinian evolution is the naturalistic view of living systems. The difference between what the Bible teaches about the origin of the universe and what the evolutionists teach can be summed up as follows: the Bible teaches that “in the beginning God created” and the evolutionists teach, in essence, that “in the beginning nothing became something and exploded.”

    According to the big bang, our universe is supposed to have suddenly popped into existence and rapidly expanded and given rise to the countless billions of galaxies with their countless billions of stars.

    In support of the idea that nothing can give rise to the universe, cosmologists argue that quantum mechanics predicts that a vacuum can, under some circumstances, give rise to matter. But the problem with this line of reasoning is that a vacuum is not nothing; it is something—it is a vacuum that can be made to appear or disappear, as in the case of the Torricellian vacuum, which is found at the sealed end of a mercury barometer. All logic predicts that if you have nothing, nothing will happen. It is against all known logic and all laws of science to believe that the universe is the product of nothing. This concept is similar to hoping that an empty bank account will suddenly give rise to billions of dollars all on its own.

    However, if we accept that the universe and everything in it came from nothing (and also from nowhere) then we have to follow this to its logical conclusion. This means that not only is all the physical material of the universe the product of nothing, but also other things. For example, we are forced to accept that nothing (which has no mind, no morals, and no conscience) created reason and logic; understanding and comprehension; complex ethical codes and legal systems; a sense of right and wrong; art, music, drama, comedy, literature, and dance; and belief systems that include God. These are just a few of the philosophical implications of the big bang hypothesis.
    Chemical Evolution: The Origin of Life

    It is commonly believed (because it is taught in our schools and colleges) that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisms evolved from nonliving chemicals. Many people believe that life has been created in the laboratory by scientists who study chemical evolution.

    The famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 is often quoted as proof of this. Yet the results of such experiments show nothing of the sort. These experiments, designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certain conditions, certain organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds.

    In fact, what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is, “If I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning.” Their experiments are simply trying to prove the opposite—that an intelligence is required to create life.

    If we look carefully at Miller’s experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller’s experiment was hailed as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago.

    There are a number of objections to such a conclusion.

    1. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.
    2. The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.
    3. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.
    4. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information. This observation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet.

    The problems outlined above show that, far from creating life in the laboratory, the chemical evolutionists have not shown that living systems arose by chance from nonliving chemicals. Furthermore, the vast amount of information contained in the nucleus of a living cell shows that living systems could not have evolved from nonliving chemicals. The only explanation for the existence of living systems is that they must have been created.

    Biological Evolution: Common Descent?

    Comparative anatomy is the name given to the science that deals with the structure of animals. Comparing the anatomy of one kind of animal with another is supposed to prove descent from a common ancestor. This is often put forward as strong evidence for evolution. However, the science of comparative anatomy can just as easily be used as evidence of creation, as we shall see.

    The bones of a horse are different from our bones, but there is such a similarity that if we are familiar with the human skeleton, we could easily identify and name the bones of a horse. We could do the same if we studied the skeleton of a salamander, a crocodile, a bird, or a bat. However, not only are the bones similar, but so also are other anatomical structures, such as muscles, the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the eyes, the lungs, the digestive tract, and so on. This is interpreted by the evolutionists as proof that these various animals are all descended from a common ancestor.

    One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In an illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.

    Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.

    We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption.

    In fact, there is another logical reason why things look alike—creation by an intelligent designer using a common blueprint. This is the reason that Toyota and Ford motor vehicles look so much alike. They are built to a common plan—you only have to look at them to realize this. However, the problem with the living world is that in many cases either explanation (i.e., evolution or creation) appears to be logical and it is often impossible for us to tell which is the more reasonable explanation. This is why it is important for us to understand which worldview we are using to interpret the evidence.

    There is, however, one discovery that appears to make the evolutionary view of descent from a common ancestor look illogical and flawed. This discovery is that structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. If the structures evolved from the same source, you would expect the same genes to make the structures. The fact that these structures are similar (or homologous) is apparent, but the reason is not because of Darwinian evolution. It is more logical and reasonable to believe in a common Creator rather than a common ancestor.

    Many evolutionists readily admit that they have failed to find evidence of the evolution of large structures such as bones and muscles, so instead they argue that they have found homology among the complex organic molecules that are found in living systems. One of these is hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. Although this protein is found in nearly all vertebrates, it is also found in some invertebrates (worms, starfish, clams, and insects) and also in some bacteria. Yet there is no evidence of the evolution of this chemical—in all cases, the same kind of molecule is complete and fully functional. If evolution has occurred, it should be possible to map out how hemoglobin evolved, but this cannot be done. To the creationist, however, hemoglobin crops up complete and fully functional wherever the Creator deems it fitting in His plan.

    Missing Links

    Our English word fossil is from the Latin fossilis, which means “something dug up.” The present-day meaning of the word fossil is a relic or trace of past life preserved in the rocks. This can be a preserved hard part of the plant or animal, such as a stem or a leaf or a shell or a bone or a tooth; it can also be a soft part such as skin or even excrement (called coprolites), or it can be a trace made by the creature when it was alive, such as a footprint. All the fossils that are found in all the sedimentary rocks are regarded together as the fossil record.

    Charles Darwin proposed the gradual evolution of life-forms over a long period of time. If this has happened, you would expect to find this gradual evolution of one kind of life-form into another kind to be recorded in the fossil record. However, this evolutionary account of one kind of life-form changing into another kind is not recorded in the fossils. There are many instances where variations within a kind are found (for example, different varieties of elephant or dinosaur) but there are no examples of in-between kinds. Both evolutionists and creationists agree that the intermediate transitional forms expected on the basis of slow gradual change of one kind of creature into another kind is not found fossilized in the sedimentary rocks. In other words, the transitional forms are missing—hence the term “missing links.”

    Charles Darwin himself realized that his theory was not supported by the fossil record, for he wrote in his Origin of Species:

    “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

    When Charles Darwin penned these words, he attributed this absence of transitional forms to what he called the “extreme imperfection” of the fossil record. Since that time, however, literally millions of fossils have been found, but still the transitional forms are absent. The fossil record does not show the continuous development of one kind of creature into another, but it shows different kinds of creatures that are fully functional with no ancestors or descendants which are different kinds of creatures.

    It cannot be overemphasized that there are many places in the fossil record where it is expected that plenty of intermediate forms should be found—yet they are not there. All the evolutionists ever point to is a handful of highly debatable transitional forms (e.g., horses), whereas they should be able to show us thousands of incontestable examples. This is very noticeable when looking at the fossil record of some of the more peculiar kinds of animals such as the cetacean (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), the sirenia (manatees, dugongs, and sea cows), the pinnipedia (sea lions, seals, and walruses), kangaroos, bats, dragonflies, and spiders. Their supposed evolutionary origins and descent are represented by missing links and speculations rather than factual evidence.

    Even alleged transitional forms in supposed human evolution fall short. In fact, most so-called missing links fall into three categories: extinct ape, living ape, or human. The following chart gives some of the most common scientific names and their classifications.
    Name What is it?*
    Australopithecus afarensis, such as “Lucy” Extinct ape
    Australopithecus africanus Extinct ape
    Australopithecus boisei Extinct ape
    Australopithecus robustus Extinct ape
    Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus (chimpanzee) Living ape
    Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei (gorilla) Living ape
    Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii (orangutan) Living ape
    Ramapithecus Extinct ape (extinct orangutan)
    Homo habilis Junk category mixing some human and some ape fossils
    Homo floresiensis Human (dwarf, pygmy)
    Homo ergaster Human
    Homo erectus, such as “Peking man” and “Java man” Human**
    Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) Human
    Homo heidelbergensis Human
    Homo sapiens (modern & archaic) Human

    * An accurate classification of these kinds of fossils depends on an accurate starting point. Some fossils have been misclassified. The ones labeled as humans (Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus, etc.), indeed show variation, but they are still human. This is also true of the different ape kinds. Variation, not evolution, is what we would expect from the clear teachings of the Bible.
    ** For the most part these two classifications are anatomically human. However, a number of finds that are not human but rather apelike have been included as part of the Homo erectus category, due to evolutionary beliefs. These apelike finds should be reclassified.

    It is obvious that the evolutionists have “faith” in the original existence of the missing transitional forms.

    Evolution of New Kinds?

    Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands and brought back samples of the different finches that lived on the different islands. He observed that they had different shaped beaks, which appeared to suit the type of food that the finches ate. From this observation, Darwin concluded that a pair or flock of finches had flown to these islands at some time in the past and that the different beaks on the finches had evolved via natural selection, depending on what island they lived on and consequently what they fed on. From these types of simple observations and conclusions, Darwin developed not only the idea of the evolution of species but also the idea of chemicals-to-chemist evolution!

    But let us consider exactly what Darwin actually observed—finches living on different islands feeding on different types of food having different beaks. What did he propose? That these finches had descended from a pair or flock of finches. In other words, he proposed that finches begat finches—that is, they reproduced after their own kind. This is exactly what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1.

    It cannot be overemphasized that no one has ever seen one kind of plant or animal changing into another different kind. Darwin did not observe this, even though he proposed that it does happen. There are literally thousands of plant and animal kinds on the earth today, and these verify what the Bible indicates in Genesis 1 about plants and animals reproducing after their own kind.

    Plants and animals reproducing after their own kind is what we observe, and it is what Charles Darwin observed in finches on the Galapagos Islands. For example, we see different varieties of Brassica—kale, cabbage, cauliflower are all varieties of the wild common mustard Brassica oleracea. Furthermore, another perfect example of a kind is the hundreds of different varieties of dogs, including spaniels, terriers, bulldogs, Chihuahuas, Great Danes, German shepherds, Irish wolfhounds, and greyhounds, which are all capable of interbreeding, together with wolves, jackals, dingoes, and coyotes. All are descended from the two representatives of the dog kind that came off Noah’s Ark.

    Conclusion

    We have seen that the Bible does not teach evolution. There is no demonstrable evidence for the big bang, and chemical evolution has failed miserably in spite of evolutionists’ attempts to create living systems in the laboratory. Similarities in the structure found in living systems can be interpreted better as evidence for a common design rather than a common ancestry. In spite of billions of fossils being found, there are no unquestionable fossils that show a transition between any of the major life-forms.

    Natural selection (done in the wild) and artificial selection (as done by breeders) produce enormous varieties within the different kinds of plants and animals. It has proved an impossible feat, however, to change one kind of creature into a different kind of plant or animal. The so-called “kind barrier” has never been crossed. Such evolution has never been observed. This has been pointed out by none other than evolutionary Professor Richard Dawkins, who confidently asserted in an interview that evolution has been observed but then added, “It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”5

    • I think it’d be pretty hard to address all of that, Roy…it’s a lot of stuff…I skimmed through most of it, and I can see common inaccuracies, myths in the Creationist world…like, for instance, that the fossil record is lacking, when it is abundant…like that most biologists who support evolution (which is virtually all of them) don’t believe in God, while many of them are religious…a prominent one, Francis Collins, is a Christian…you seem to have done a lot of research, though as I said before mostly in Creationist literature…would you mind watching this video?…It’s a little long, yes…as I asked Prayson to, if you don’t want to watch the whole thing watch around 39 mns and 51mns I think it was…the main evolutionary biologist speaking in there is Roman Catholic…:

  6. Héhé…don’t have much to say about this one…I’ll just leave you alone with the evolution-stuff from now on, I guess, Prayson…your constant retreats make me feel like a bully, and that isn’t a pleasant for me…I feel guilty as if I’m being mean for telling you the truth…

    • Thanks for concern Hehe. I retreated to ponder Hehe. As I shared with you, I am still finding out truth of Neo- Darwinian evolution and reasons why many Christians hold to this position. I will get back to you 🙂

      • Haha…I’m a very caring person, Prayson…ok, but you didn’t share your thoughts about the video…especially if you still think the theory of evolution can’t make predictions, even in the macro-case…

  7. Awesome post Prayson Daniel, it couldn’t be more perfect.

    Discernment is partly the skill of understanding and applying God’s Word with the purpose of separating truth from error and right from wrong.

    The Hebrew word most commonly translated as discernment is otherwise translated as understanding. Discernment is closely related to understanding and depends upon a right understanding of God and His ways. Because we can only base what we do on what we know, we must first understand who God is and how He wants us to serve and honor Him. Understanding must precede both interpretation and application. This is clear throughout the Bible, but especially in Proverbs were Solomon continually ties knowledge, wisdom and discernment, not as separate disciplines, but as related. And so to be people of discernment we must be people who dedicate ourselves to studying, knowing and understanding God.

    God’s Word refers to two aspects of God’s revelation: revelation of Himself through the person of Jesus Christ and revelation of Himself through speech, and in particular, the words that were recorded in the Bible. Though in days past God revealed Himself through words of prophesy and other forms of personal address, today we know Him through the Bible which God has given to point us to the Word of God as it exists in the person of Jesus.

    God’s Word is Truth. In John 17:17, as part of His High Priestly Prayer, Jesus affirmed to His Father, “your word is truth.” God’s Word is the very source of infallible truth. God’s word is our measure; it is our source. Hebrews 14:13 says that “everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.” Conversely, then, those who are mature are those who are skilled in the word of righteousness. The word of righteousness, those doctrines that are fundamental to the Christian faith are synonymous with the word of God.

    We can only worship and glorify God on the basis of what we know of Him. In order to be discerning, we must know and understand what is true about God. To do this we turn to God’s Word. And so, to be discerning, we must first be students of the Bible. We must study it, we must read about it, and we must try our best to live it.

    2 Corinthians 4:1-6
    “Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.”

    Peace

  8. Lauditus, It wasn’t that God was not able to save Himself, but that Jesus chose not to. If you look at the temptation of Jesus, this is brought up. If He were to jump from the pinnacle of the temple, He could of had legions of angels bear him up so that he wouldn’t strike His foot on a stone.

    Robert, the answer to your question is the holiness and justice of God. For wrongdoing, there must be punishment for there to be justice. God being both just and holy could not simply disregard the wrong. With God being holy and perfect, He cannot allow imperfection. Since the punishment for wrong against an infinite God is infinitely great, He knew that finite man would never be able to adequately pay it. Therefore, desiring a relationship with finite man, infinite God paid the infinite price with the infinite worth of His own sacrifice. It is foolishness to the world, but the wisdom of God to those who have accepted this gift.
    Would it be preferred that God had asked us to pay this price in order to reach Him? It sounds strange, but many people I have spoken with would prefer themselves paying the price (cannot be done since it is too great) than a free gift. Crazy how independent we are that we don’t even want to lean on our Creator.

  9. Try as we may, this seems to be a circle that can’t be squared. Why was necessary for God to offer a human sacrifice to himself? Or if it was for us, it wasn’t necessary, we probably would have accepted something a bit less gruesome.

    All for blaspheming God’s name? Seems a bit much

    • Hi Robert!

      Along with what Jeremy said,
      the truth is, that nothing is for free.
      And like with a game there is only one way to win.
      and to be married you have to do certain things to keep the relationship from falling apart.

      How can we have a relationship with God if we are doing all the things that break the relationship?
      So the only way how we could have a relationship with God is to live a life that is a certain way.
      A way that keeps the relationship.

      A relationship is two ways – right?
      Like it takes two to tango –

      God all through out history keeps doing his side – but people keep “divorcing” him.
      It says in the Bible that God knows we cannot be perfect enough to keep the relationship.

      So He sent Jesus to come and live a HUMAN life with a PERFECT relationship with the Father. ALL THE WAY!
      So then death seals the account of a persons life right?
      So Jesus WHOLE LIFE was PERFECT!

      So Jesus now says – ok – if you believe that I lived the perfect life I will substitute my life for your life.

      I will give you my perfect record and take your faulty record.

      Since Jesus is infinite – He can give infinitely to those who take his life.

      Then when our flesh dies – our spirit – who carries the perfect record given by Jesus – can live in relationship with God forever.
      And God is making a new heaven and a new earth and will give us new bodies.

      Now – here on earth we can begin to start that relationship with the Father – so that when we stand before Him we embrace Him rather than saying “Who are you?!?” That is why we pray and get to know his truth and faithfulness with other believers and through God’s Word.

      Anyway – I know that I could be more clear – and it is just one facet of what Jesus did – i’m just writing a quick response between classes.

      ask anymore questions if you think i can be helpful!
      Blessings!

  10. How can a god wasn’t able to save himself …..how can save and help us !
    that’s really amazing! I’ve kept saying that!
    That’s strange,isn’t it?!

Comments are closed.