Snoopy Approaches Acts

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I willingly surrender my own will to do the will of God, am I not exercising my free will?

If we haven't received Jesus as our Lord and Saviour then we away from God according to Scripture --NOT ME ---so how is one to surrender their own human will to do the will of God --when they are away from God ?--

Sinner do not seek God at all -----
and according to Isaiah 59 --God's face is turned from sinners ---

Psalms 10:4

King James Bible
The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.


From Google
People also ask

How can we do God's will?

trust the Holy Spirit's guidance. ...
trust God for the outcome.
 
Do we have a quote from Jesus about righteous anger? I can't think of one although I think He displayed it a few times.
We will let AI say it

AI Overview

Scripture on righteous anger includes Ephesians 4:26, which states, "Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger," and James 1:19-20, which advises being "slow to anger, for man's anger does not bring about the righteousness that God desires".

Examples of righteous anger in the Bible are Jesus overturning the tables of the money-changers in the temple and God's wrath against the wicked found in Psalm 7:11. The key to righteous anger is a controlled, purposeful anger that serves a godly end, often contrasted with sinful, destructive anger.

Key Scriptures:
  • Ephesians 4:26:
    "Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger". This verse encourages anger but sets boundaries for it, distinguishing it from sinful anger.

  • James 1:19-20:
    "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to anger, for man's anger does not bring about the righteousness that God desires". This highlights the danger of uncontrolled anger and emphasizes discernment.

  • Psalm 7:11:
    "God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day". This verse shows God's own righteous anger directed at the wicked.

  • John 2:13-16:
    Describes Jesus driving out those selling in the temple, an example of righteous anger directed at an ungodly act.
Understanding Righteous Anger:
  • Purposeful and Controlled:
    Righteous anger is not uncontrolled rage but a measured response to injustice or sin, aimed at a godly purpose.

  • Alignment with God's Will:
    It is anger that aligns with God's own righteousness and purpose, often involving a desire for restoration.

  • Self-Examination:
    Before expressing anger, believers are encouraged to examine their motives to ensure their anger is righteous, not selfish or sinful.

  • Distinction from Sinful Anger:
    Sinful anger is often self-serving, destructive, and leads to hurt rather than helping others. Righteous anger, conversely, has qualities that prevent it from being sinful.
Examples in the Bible:

  • Jesus's Temple Action:
    Jesus's act of whipping and overturning tables in the temple is cited as an example of righteous anger directed at the desecration of God's house.
  • God's Displeasure:
    Scripture also records instances of God's anger, such as with Solomon when his heart turned from God, showing that God Himself expresses righteous anger.
 
The incident with Jesus in the temple is the classic example of righteous anger. Interestingly the synoptic gospels and John treat it differently.

The Psalms and other books of the OT tell us about God's anger.

The quotes from Ephesians and James are good ones but they don't tell us anything about what Jesus actually said. That's what I was wondering about.

In my last job before I retired, we taught our clients about managing anger. We always encouraged people to view disappointment and frustration as early warning signals.
 
The Old testament is Full of God's Righteous anger with their unbelief and disobedience of His Chosen Nation -----God's wrath was poured out many times upon His Chosen nation ---

Did God commit Sin during Displaying His wrath ---in the Old Testament -----No ----
 
Yeah @unsafe God even tried a reboot with Noah. Interestingly this "one righteous person" committed sexual sins after the landing of the ark.

Kind of supports the idea that God needed to take more drastic action in the NT, doesn't it?
 
Did God commit Sin during Displaying His wrath ---in the Old Testament -----No ----

If you believe that the Great Flood happened as "recorded", then yes. There would have been innocent newborns drowned; what a totally monstrous god some humans worship.
 
If you believe that the Great Flood happened as "recorded", then yes. There would have been innocent newborns drowned; what a totally monstrous god some humans worship.
That is your Human intellect thinking and you are entitled to it -----so I am not surprised that with your human thinking and human understanding that God committed Sin ------

The Truth is
God is Holy and cannot commit Sin there BetteTheRed ---

But Spiritually God did not commit Sin when He Flooded the earth ----human created their own destiny by their disobedience and wickedness and sinful actions against God's will for them ---

And that is the same today -----we by our own willful actions ---disobedience and refusal to obey God end up in eternal torment -----which is the 2nd death ------

We humans LIKE to BLAME God --cause we don't like blaming ourselves ---for our own sinful --wicked lives we lead ----

We like to Play the Blame Game -----and if there were any Babies or Children in the Flood they went straight back to God -----as God has an age of Accountability set before He Imputes Sin on people -----So all children are innocent -----and are heaven bound when they pass on ---it is only after God starts imputing Sin on us humans that we are judged ---wicked and sinners -----

My view is --
You really should do some research on God's stuff before you pass Judgment on Him --- :unsure:


AI

God did not commit a sin by flooding the Earth, as God is considered to be without sin and acted out of justice to punish the widespread wickedness and evil that had developed. The flood was a response to humanity's pervasive sinfulness, an act of judgment to cleanse the Earth and preserve a righteous remnant, with Noah and his family.

The theological reasons for the flood:
  • Punishment for sin:
    The primary reason given in the Bible for the flood was the extreme wickedness of humanity, where "every inclination of the hearts of the human race was evil". God's holiness and justice required the punishment of such pervasive evil.

  • Restoration of creation:
    The flood was also seen as a way for God to restore the goodness of His creation, which had been corrupted by human sin.

  • Preservation of a remnant:
    By sparing Noah and his family, God ensured the continuation of humanity and a chance to start anew, establishing a new covenant with them.

  • A new beginning:
    Noah was elevated as a sort of "new Adam," tasked with being fruitful and multiplying, to spread God's goodness again.
Why this wasn't a sin for God:
  • Inherent nature of God:
    The concept of sin is associated with human falling short of God's perfect standard. As God is considered perfect and holy, He is incapable of sinning.

  • Justice vs. mercy:
    While the flood involved mass destruction, it is viewed as an act of justice, not capricious cruelty. God's mercy is seen in the preservation of Noah's family and His promise never to repeat such a flood.

  • Sorrow, not repentance:
    The Bible uses words that can be translated as "grieved" or "sorrowful" to describe God's reaction to humanity's sin, indicating emotional involvement rather than a need to change His mind or acknowledge a mistake, as noted in Bible Study Tools.
 
Here's a question for you, then. If any other god were to flood the entire earth (assuming this happened, which it most decidedly did not), I assume that you would judge this other god's actions as evil.

See, if you follow your logic, YOUR god gets a pass because It is YOUR god.
 
Here's a question for you, then. If any other god were to flood the entire earth (assuming this happened, which it most decidedly did not), I assume that you would judge this other god's actions as evil.

See, if you follow your logic, YOUR god gets a pass because It is YOUR god.
There is no other gods ---in my Bible ----

You can have as many god's as you like ---

-but for me there is but----- ONE GOD ----and that God is the God of Abraham --Issac and Jacob ----

Ephesians 4:5-6

5 [There is] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of [us] all, Who is above all [Sovereign over all], pervading all and [living] in [us] all.

You must have a different Bible than I do -----so good luck with all your god's :angel:
 
Acts 15: 22-35

The church chooses four men to deliver the letter to Antioch. Along with Barnabas and Paul, they pick Judas (Barsabbas) and Silas.

The letter greets the Gentile brothers and sisters. It acknowledges that they have been confused by some individuals speaking for themselves.

No greater burden will be placed on them than a few necessary rules. They are to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols, blood and that which has been strangled. Sexual immorality must also be avoided.

The delegation goes to Antioch and gathers the entire group together. They read the letter out loud and the people rejoice at its encouragement. Judas and Silas, prophets themselves, encourage the group with a long speech.

Judas and Silas spend some time there and then return to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas remain in Antioch. Along with many others, they teach and proclaim the word of the Lord.
 
Of all the things it could have insisted upon, the early church picks sexual morality and the proper consumption of meat.

Why not the Ten Commandments?

Why not loving God and loving one's neighbor as oneself?
 
Of all the things it could have insisted upon, the early church picks sexual morality and the proper consumption of meat.

Why not the Ten Commandments?

Why not loving God and loving one's neighbor as oneself?
I doubt the Ten were ever an issue. It's the 600-odd (unsafe used the exact number upthread) laws that were the concern. After all, fidelity to those laws is kind of the definition of Judaism at this time whereas the Ten are more big picture items that don't define things at a nit-picky level so are arguably not a "yoke" the way the laws are.

And the dietary rule they kept is more specific than "proper consumption of meat", it is avoiding meat used in pagan sacrifices. Which is quite sensible to me given the first two commandments.

As for the sexual morality element, not sure why they zeroed in on that other than it tends to be a focus in almost cultish faith even today.
 
Well, the Ten Commandments are included in the 613 laws. We really don't know what they were finding onerous other than the circumcision requirement.

The meat rules also include slaughtering the animal correctly in order for the blood to drain from the carcass. Not strangling the animal to death is also important.

Good point about the sexual morality demanded @Mendalla
 
I suspect the point is still the sacrifice element, with the blood and strangulation being related to how sacrifices were being practiced.
 
So the whole Church agrees to send Paul --Barnabas --Judas and Silas to Antioch ---to deliver a written message to the Church there where the Dispute took place ----

Judas and Silas are given the task of presenting the letter by mouth to the Church

The message is---- just Quoting part -----verse 29 AMP

29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols,

and from [consuming] blood,

and from [eating the meat of] things that have been strangled,

and from sexual impurity.


The Message says --they don't want to burden them with to much but they would do well to adhere to theses things -----so there were 4 things - That they were asked to observe -

I say ---I wonder how the Gentiles were feeling at their coming to read this letter ----would they be wondering if they were really saved as they had not done what the Judaizers wanted? which was to accept their customs ---so they may have had some anxiety until the latter was read ----

So they arrive at Antioch and deliver the message to the 2 groups ---

And --it seems that all was excepted well as they rejoiced greatly at the encouragement and comfort it brought ----as the Gentiles probably realized they were saved by the Faith of Christ and this was just a compromise to bring unity and fellowship to the Church ----

Judas and Silas did well there in Antioch encouraging and strengthening the Believers ----

Judas returned to Jerusalem --Silas stayed with Paul and Barnabas ---- and continued preaching the Good News -----

I say -----The Jewish leadership here showed good judgment and leadership by coming up with a solution to keep unity and peace with the Gentiles being added into the Salvation package which was likely to cause conflict with the Jewish Nation who had to be circumcised and follow 613 laws and have blood sacrifices to be right with God and told to stay away from the Gentiles who were deemed corrupt ----

When the Gentiles were exempt from all of it ---as they were made right with God by and through Faith -----

A hard pill to swallow I would say for the Jewish Nation ----but here we see the 2 groups coming together --- :angel: ---

All Life is in the Blood ---
so consuming blood was a no -no ----for the Jewish Nation ----
and the strangled animal would still have the Blood in the meat ---so they would be eating the lifeblood of the animal --which was prohibited by God ----

The sexual impurity was added --if you do your research you will see that the Gentile Nation was committing impure sexual acts ---so this being put in the agreement was actually for the Gentiles to adhere to ----as the Jewish Nation was well aware that this did not please God ---and the New Converts needed to refrain from such things ----

1 Thessalonians 4:3-7---this is Paul here

3 For this is the will of God, that you be sanctified [separated and set apart from sin]: that you abstain and back away from sexual immorality;

4 that each of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor [being available for God’s purpose and separated from things profane],

5 not [to be used] in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God and are ignorant of His will;
 
Does the letter to the Gentile Christians represent a compromise, do we think?
My view
I think it does -----I think it was a strategic compromise on the part of the Leaders to try and keep unity in the Church ---and it didn't interfere with the truth of the Gospel --which was that circumcision and adherence to the law was in no way necessary for Salvation ----
 
Seconded. It's pretty clearly a compromise that both found acceptable within the then-current beliefs and practices. Good negotiating job there, really.
 
Acts 15: 36-41
Paul suggests to Barnabas that they visit the brothers in every town where they have proclaimed the word. Barnabas wants to take John Mark with them but Paul is against this idea.

They have a sharp disagreement and part company.

Barnabas and Mark sail away to Cypress. Paul takes Silas and travels to Syria and Cilicia. The churches they visit are strengthened.
 
Today we see disagreement within the ministry team and then reconfiguration.

Still happens today, doesn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top