Add this to the larger story
line of human sin and divine judgment.
Not exact matches
He denied he was a universalist, but it was a difficult
line for him to hold because he had such a strong view
of Christ's death for our
sins that he could not find a way to understand how it could not cover all
humans.
They had inculcated a deep sense
of sin and a conscious need
of personal salvation; they had overpassed national and racial
lines and had made religious faith a matter
of individual conviction; they had emphasized faith in immortality and the need
of assurance concerning it; they had bound their devotees together in mystical societies
of brethren fired with propagandist zeal; and they had accentuated the interior nature
of religious experience in terms
of an, indwelling Presence, through whom
human life could be «deicized.»
If we evolved from the lower primates, then when we reached the stage
of reflection and conscious choice (when the image
of God entered into that
line of primates), we made the decision to «
sin» — to dominate and to kill in order to serve our own ends, rather than to follow the call
of that «image
of God» which had entered into the
human creature.
In their book Pentecostalism and the Future
of the Churches, Richard Shaull, emeritus professor
of ecumenics at Princeton Theological Seminary, and his colleague Waldo Cesar, a Brazilian sociologist, argue that Pentecostalism may represent a new paradigm
of salvation in which the problem
of human sin and the solution
of repentance and forgiveness have been reconfigured along more hopeful, even joyful
lines.
God judges the
sin and
human being judges the violation
of human rights and a clear
line should be between the two.