I plan to retire...right after lunch on the day I die! Until then I'm here to serve God, love people and talk about Jesus!
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
What is Christian Apologetics? Defending "THE" Faith - BibleOrTraditions
Here's a great introduction to apologetics. I really like the way Dr. Morey introduces the topic.
What questions about the Christian faith have you heard or had to answer recently?
32 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Mike,
Here is a sampling of what I get:
1. Why do we believe in a God who condones slavery and genocide (then citing various OT passages)? 2. Why do we believe in Unicorns (a reference to an animal named in Job) and Zombies (a reference to Matthew 27:50-54)? 3. How come so many Biblical figures had multiple wives? Isn't that a sin? 4. Why do you Christians condemn the homosexuals but go right on eating your shellfish and wearing your mixed linens?
I could go on all day. If you ever want endless questions and for some reason desire to become frustrated, just go through my comment section of just about any of my videos.
comments here are getting fewer and fewer. I think people are moving to easier sites to use- Facebook and Youtube. Blogger is fading as a vehicle for communication.
Maybe that is what's happening. However, I still show a decent number of visits...so I know someone is watching OR reading but perhaps not led to comment? Who knows.
1. I thought his emphasis on belief as opposed to feeling was refreshing.
2. The jump from a earnest defense of the faith to one which is purely biblical is, of course, not only not supported by scripture but in fact condemned (Matt 28:20, John 20:30, 21:25, 1 Cor 11:2, Phil 4:9, 2 Thess 3:6)
3. Molinism was not condemned by the Roman Church, in fact one adherent to Molinism, Robert Bellarmine, was not only canonized but declared a Doctor of the Church.
4. Of course, his characterization of Natural Law as rejecting the sovereignty of Christ is fallacious. It's an interesting enough debate, why resort to deception?
Honestly, and this is probably a shame, I have little opportunity to defend the faith because I have all I can handle trying to help the faithful to be obedient to the Lord, much less explain every minutiae.
People read the Bible and get a million questions and ignore the only ones that matter. My answer to homosexuality or unicorns will not matter at another person's judgment.
Honestly, and this is probably a shame, I have little opportunity to defend the faith because I have all I can handle trying to help the faithful to be obedient to the Lord, much less explain every minutiae.
Polemics isn't what it used to be for me. I only get into this when I'm antagonized...like seeing on attack on tradition in your blogroll...
My answer to homosexuality or unicorns will not matter at another person's judgment.
Er, the unicorns I could agree with (not being a matter of faith), but God's law regarding sodomy is part of the deposit of faith. Denying it would be somewhat of an obstacle at your individual judgment.
"Er, the unicorns I could agree with (not being a matter of faith), but God's law regarding sodomy is part of the deposit of faith. Denying it would be somewhat of an obstacle at your individual judgment."
Haha...I thought better of those examples after I posted. I'll take back the unicorns. :-) The only way I can biblically classify homosexuality is as sinful behavior, equal to adultery. Homosexuality is not only mentioned in the OT but in the new as well and a proper hermeneutic is crucial in gleaning the principles out of the OT context. It's an understandably touchy subject.
Just to clarify: I did say that it won't matter at another person's judgment, not my own. What I meant was that I can answer every question a person has and they still be as lost as before. They have to answer one of the greatest questions ever posed bu Christ, "Who do you say that I am". I can't do that for them.
Hey Mark - I forgot to ask - what kind of obstacle are we talking about here at my judgment? Do you mean that I would be denied eternal life if I thought homosexuality was not sinful?
I do, of course, believe it to be sinful. I'm just clarifying.
Oh goodness, where to start. Religous fundamentalism at its finest here. this guys entire premise is based upon a presupposition that his particular hermeneutical method of literalism is the ONLY possibility and leads to the ONLY authentic version of the christian faith.
I was in a hurry so i didnt post my name, i dont have a blogger account either. But i must ask, why does a name matter? Why so fixiated upon knowing someones name when what should matter is the content of their remarks? If you are interested in truth, then it shouldnt matter where it comes from.
i checked back so quickly becasue i was going to add that minimalizing personal feelings and personal experience is the quickest way to making christianity irrelevant. the only thing a person knows in this life is what they experience. I can read about china, but unless i go there and experience it, it is just an imagination of the brain whcih is pointless to the human journey as it isnt real.
the only way I can biblically classify homosexuality is as sinful behavior, equal to adultery.
It is true that behavior is different from inclination, but to suggest that only through behavior there is sin denies that we can sin through lust, which is clearly contradicted by the Gospels. (Matt 5:28)
Equal to adultery? I would argue it is worse because it is a perverse act, not merely a sinful/illicit one (as adultery is). From the very beginning God's law has punished sodomy more harshly than adultery, for this reason. (Lev. 18:22, 29, 20:13) The traditional understanding of the context is that sodomy is a violation of nature, an offense against God (as creator of nature), and not merely a fellow man.
Peter compares the gravity of sodomy to the rejection of God by the angels (2 Peter 2:4-6). Jude makes a similar analogy (Jude 5-7) I'm sure you're familiar with Paul's teaching on the subject (Rom. 1:26,27)
It's an understandably touchy subject.
How so? Are we not called to proclaim the truth, always, everywhere? We are obliged in charity to call our brethren to repentance. (1 Cor 5:11)
Hey Mark - I forgot to ask - what kind of obstacle are we talking about here at my judgment? Do you mean that I would be denied eternal life if I thought homosexuality was not sinful?
I try to avoid the subjective (judgment of your soul) and stick with the objective (statements of truth). That said, it is hard to reconcile someone who denies the teaching of Christ with spending eternity with him. Is this the fruit He spoke of? (Matt 7:18) Or is it more along the lines of the person who says, "Lord, Lord", but will not be saved (Matt 7:21)
Our Lord himself said if you are not with him, you are against Him. (Matt 12:30-32). How will He judge those who proclaim to love Him but ignore his teachings? What do you think?
Howdy Anon. Mike asked you (quite kindly I might add) to post your name because people are important and if your comments are important to you, there should be no reason not to post your name. This is not AA or CR and even there people give their first names. Also, it's one of the rules for the sandbox.
Please allow me to comment, Mike, on Anon's comment.
"i checked back so quickly becasue i was going to add that minimalizing personal feelings and personal experience is the quickest way to making christianity irrelevant."
How is that true? At what point did feelings dictate truth? I may feel that it is cloudy when indeed it is sunny. It seems the quickest way to make Christianity irrelevant is to fail to love people.
"the only thing a person knows in this life is what they experience."
This is absolutely not true. I know that China is a country because other people have told me. I have never been there, but I know it exists. My cousin adopted two children from there. I never experienced adoption, but I know it exists. I know that I will die someday, although I have never died.
But there is a difference, is there not, between knowing and believing?
It's not a fixation, but needed to keep dialog honest and kind, and it's one of my rules. Many who wish to hide behind "Anonymous" do so to be able to say unkind things without accountability, so the rules are needed to encourage kindness and honesty. I know you can understand that.
Now, as to truth, I seek truth constantly and seek it in many places and I welcome your thoughts as well, so thanks for sharing your thoughts, but do respect my guidelines for this site, ok? It's a simple request, and a small kindness. thanks.
As to your last thoughts- "the only thing a person knows in this life is what they experience." I disagree. If you think about it further I'm sure you will have to revise your statement. Truth is not based soley on experience. Nor should it be. Who's to say your senses are processing correct information for you to evaluate? If experience is your sole source of truth then you must throw out most of what you now "know".
My knowledge of truth is not based entirely on my experience, and shouldn't be. Let me encourage you to rethink this comment.
I don't think that lust is not a sin. Of course it is. I am not certain that homosexual thoughts are worse than adulterous thoughts, however. Both are sexual sin and destructive to our bodies. I think it's splitting hairs. Both are evil in the eyes of the Lord. As for which one is more desctuctive? Ask the families of dads who cheat on their wives and the parents whose grown homosexual children contracted AIDS which one is worse. I surely don't know.
Our Lord himself said if you are not with him, you are against Him. (Matt 12:30-32). How will He judge those who proclaim to love Him but ignore his teachings? What do you think?"
Let me first say that obedience to Christ is the evidence of our faith in Him (James 4:14-17) and our love for Him (John 14:15). It is not the proclamation of my love for Christ but my faith in his atonement and propitiation which saves me from eternal judgment. He will judge them based on the content of their faith. Those who have faith in Christ are justified by it and have peace with God and are saved from God's wrath by that justification, which comes through faith (Rom 5:1, 9)
Believers will be judged (1 Cor 3:10-15) but not for salvation. I can't say exactly what that will look like. But I know I love the Lord Jesus. And I know I still screw up pretty bad some days. I get angry. I lust. But His grace is sufficient for me. It's enough, because it is from God.
How so? Are we not called to proclaim the truth, always, everywhere? We are obliged in charity to call our brethren to repentance. (1 Cor 5:11)
It is touchy because you would be a fool to walk up to gays and just yell, "Sodomite! God hates you" at them. The second half of that is a lie. God loves them. Chances are they know that God doesn't like sodomy and they probably think God already hates them. Jesus Himself said He came to seek and to save that which is lost (Luke 19:10) and that "it is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).
Of course I think we should proclaim the truth. But having met and ministered to some gay folks, they are broken like every other lost person. As for those who claim to be believers and yet ignore the call to holiness? All I know to do is to tell them the truth in love and pray for them and be a person they can talk to. The Lord will judge them justly.
i will not be bullied into anything, even if it is something as trivial as stating my name. You kids have fun in your "sandbox" as brandon puts it.
i thought you were actually interested in truth and dialogue, but what i see is a couple of bullies controlling things to the way they like it.
i guess this is the new christianity. accept what we say, and respond the way we want you to. otherwise we will minimalize you, bully you, and run you off.
mike please post this so your crony brandon and see it.
I don't think that lust is not a sin. Of course it is. I am not certain that homosexual thoughts are worse than adulterous thoughts, however. Both are sexual sin and destructive to our bodies. I think it's splitting hairs. Both are evil in the eyes of the Lord.
This gets to the root of our theological differences, where I believe some sins are more grave than others (1 John 5:16-17), and you do not. In this case adultery is a natural act but outside the context in which God intended it, or what I would call a 'illegal' use of the reproductive ability, whereas sodomy would be a unnatural act, a total perversion of the reproductive facility. I would agree with the theologians who say it is essentially no different than bestiality. That may seem offensive to you, but if you accept the metaphysical premise, you'll see the difference.
As for which one is more desctuctive? Ask the families of dads who cheat on their wives and the parents whose grown homosexual children contracted AIDS which one is worse. I surely don't know.
Well, it's impossible to measure the full effect of sin, and I'm not referring to that (at least not exclusively). I'm staying in the context of your question re: the individual judgment.
It is not the proclamation of my love for Christ but my faith in his atonement and propitiation which saves me from eternal judgment.
Splitting hairs: I would say you are not 'saved' from eternal judgment, but rather, you hope to find mercy in your eternal judgment, if you believe that your ultimate end is eternal, and that it will require mercy in order to one day enjoy the beatific vision.
He will judge them based on the content of their faith. Those who have faith in Christ are justified by it and have peace with God and are saved from God's wrath by that justification, which comes through faith
I think we've touched on this one before. "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" (James 2:24)
Of course I think we should proclaim the truth. But having met and ministered to some gay folks, they are broken like every other lost person.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. However, if I have one too many glasses of wine tonight, I may be guilty of gluttony, intemperance, or drunkenness (hmmm, perhaps all three). Is this no different than if I raped someone? Or killed someone? Or engaged in sodomy? I believe there is a difference (Luke 12:47-48), not that I'm less of sinner-this is only an example, of course-but that some sins separate us from God such that eternal life is lost forever (as Paul warns in 2 Cor 1:24), and can only be regained through repentance & confession (James 5:14-16, 1 John 1:8-9).
I really enjoy the dialog with you, Mark, even given our differences.
This gets to the root of our theological differences, where I believe some sins are more grave than others (1 John 5:16-17), and you do not.
It sure seems that some sins are more grave than others, even a sin "leading unto death" as you cited in 1 John. I don't know what that is (sin leading unto death) but apparently there is a gradient. I tend to lump sin into a category of "that which is contrary to God" and therefore separates us from Him. So on that side, sin is sin. But I would certainly say that a child molester was committing a more grievous offense against God than a car thief. So, I really do believe that some sins are worse than others; that seems clear.
My eating too much cake or speeding is not as horrible as murdering my neighbor, but both are sin. I tend to shy away from graduations of sin because we then use those differences to rationalize and judge other people. Sure I cheated on my taxes, but Bob cheated on his wife so, he's worse than I am.
If the wine is really good wine, does that count? :-)
I'm trying, but I don't understand you. I'm not Mike's crony. I am his friend. He (and others) have had people say very cruel things and hide behind the veil of anonymity. He's just trying to keep people from being attacked, something which you feel we have done to you.
If I might ask: How have you been minimalized? If I made you feel small, I apologize. That was not my intention, but if that was my impact, I am indeed sorry.
I don't know why you are so angry at Mike and I. If you know anyone who knows us, please ask them if they think we are bullies. I confess that is the first time I have been called a bully in my entire life.
Mark and I have been (mostly) disagreeing the entire comment line and he's not booted off. Of course, he did have the kindness to post his name. If you don't desire to post your name, you have been given the freedom to refrain. But please don't punish Mike for his attempt to encourage kindness and honesty.
I enjoy the dialogue as well. Please call me on your next visit to Antigua. One final comment tonight for me:
It sure seems that some sins are more grave than others, even a sin "leading unto death" as you cited in 1 John. I don't know what that is (sin leading unto death) but apparently there is a gradient.
I can give you some lists, if you like...
I tend to lump sin into a category of "that which is contrary to God" and therefore separates us from Him. So on that side, sin is sin. But I would certainly say that a child molester was committing a more grievous offense against God than a car thief. So, I really do believe that some sins are worse than others; that seems clear.
Why struggle with what is obvious? Some things are better than others, some things are worse than others. If I give my lunch to a hungry person, that's a good thing, but if I give my life for the faith, I hope that's even better. (I'm actually hoping for that opportunity, so I can skip purgatory and go straight to collect my $200, oops, I mean, salvation).
If I lie to my wife about why I was late for dinner, that may be sinful, but surely it is not as sinful as if I had an affair. (If you doubt me, ask your own wife.)
My eating too much cake or speeding is not as horrible as murdering my neighbor, but both are sin. I tend to shy away from graduations of sin because we then use those differences to rationalize and judge other people. Sure I cheated on my taxes, but Bob cheated on his wife so, he's worse than I am.
That's relativism, i.e., Bob, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm speaking objectively, that some sins are worse than others, some offend God and require penance and repentance to atone for that sin (all sin has consequence, just as it did in the Garden), but other sin is so great that our soul dies to God, and we have, by our action-not His-closed the door on sanctifying grace. We are like a branch that, dying from disease, has been cut off from the tree and can only be grafted back through a miracle (sanctifying grace).
The scriptures are so very clear on this possibility, that we cannot ignore it or simply say that we weren't saved to begin with. You know, and I know, that as men we can love God and our wives and yet still break His commandments in adultery. It doesn't mean we don't love our wives, it doesn't mean we don't love God, it doesn't mean we weren't sincere to begin with. It just means that at that moment we chose ourselves over God.
As the passages I cited earlier make clear, we can throw away our eternal life, just as Adam and Eve did by their rejection of God. Our redemption didn't remove that possibility.
If the wine is really good wine, does that count? :-)
What I would give to have been at Cana where after a few DAYS of drinking Our Lord felt moved to turn water into wine. What must that have been like?
Mark - next time we'll be in Antigua, we'll let you know. Oh, and if you run into any kind of trouble or have a Guatemalan legal/property/general question, I know a retired missionary there in Antigua who will be a great help.
I hope you have a great day brother. Unless, I guess, you sin bad enough, then we're not brothers anymore. :-) Sorry for the joke - bad taste I know.
To Brandon and Mark, in your evaluation of sin, you both appear to be looking at it from your position with God in eternity. Christ at the cross dealt with with sin as a cause for eternal death. Sin however still effects our here and now. It causes hurt and seperation in relationships, it effects how we see God, the effects are seen in our mortal bodies. James is talking of how people see and judge a Christian, not how God will judge a Christian. Sin in a Christians life effects how the lost see the Christ we represent. Sin in the non believer's life effects the quality of life he experence here and now. His eternal destination is about his rejection of the free gift of grace. Mark is correct in the fact that some sin causes more effect in the here and now. Brandon is correct in that in a Christian the sin issue is totally settled in the Blood of Christ. Mike McMaster , not the previous Anonymous
To Brandon and Mark, in your evaluation of sin, you both appear to be looking at it from your position with God in eternity.
This is because the context of the discussion is in relation to an individual's judgment 'day'. We largely excluded the temporal consequence of sin.
Christ at the cross dealt with with sin as a cause for eternal death.
Yes, I would agree with this, but the primary effect of Christ's death was the opening of heaven, which had been closed to man since the Fall. (Romans 5:19) While eternal life may once again an possibility for us, we must "work out our salvation in fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12) with the "hope" that we may be saved. (1 Cor 3:12-15)
Brandon is correct in that in a Christian the sin issue is totally settled in the Blood of Christ.
I'm not sure what you mean 'totally settled'. By our sin we, like Adam, choose self over God, as Paul says in 1 Tim 5:15. Through our works we may deny him, possibly to our damnation. (Rev 3:15)
Mark, I see we have a different understanding of how sin was delt with on the cross. My understanding is that Christ's death paid the price of all sin, both of the saved and the lost persons. Aceptance of that forgiveness and faith that God will preform all that He has promised, provides His aceptance of us into His presents. I clearly see That how a person works though the sin issue of his life can effect how he understands his relationship with God. It is very human to want to prove to ourselves (and others) that we are acceptable to our God. I am just not good enough to ever be presentable before our perfect God apart from Christ's covering. Right or wrong I have chosen to live at becoming more like Christ in how I live and let Him work on my sin issues. I think the bible talks of this as considering myself dead to sin, but alive to Christ. Either way of aproaching the sin issue will make for morally better Christians My way just gives me more of the joy of his life. Mike McM
Mark, I see we have a different understanding of how sin was delt with on the cross. My understanding is that Christ's death paid the price of all sin, both of the saved and the lost persons.
I may have been imprecise. I believe all mankind was redeemed by Christ's passion and crucifixion.
Aceptance of that forgiveness and faith that God will preform all that He has promised, provides His aceptance of us into His presents.
Let's not forget that Christ's answer to the rich young man (Luke 18:18-23), to the question, 'what must I do to be saved?', was: 'keep my commandments'. He did not say that we could merely have a revelatory moment, or make an altar call, or simply accept the concept of the hypostatic union and the redemptive value of the death of the Messiah. We still must repent and be baptized (1 Pet 3:21) and adhere to the laws God has given us, lest we be cast aside (Matt. 25:31-46).
In short, we were redeemed by the Cross, but this is merely the first step in our walk to eternal life.
From Mike McM To Mark We are not in total dissagreement. We have only chosen different ways to live out our redemption into the perfection that Christ has promised us. Your approach has a christian working on cleaning up his life to come into that promised perfection. My approach to the same, is working on becomeing alway more like my Master. In truth I beleive we each do a little of both, we only differ on how we explain the change the Christ has worked in us.
32 comments:
Mike,
Here is a sampling of what I get:
1. Why do we believe in a God who condones slavery and genocide (then citing various OT passages)?
2. Why do we believe in Unicorns (a reference to an animal named in Job) and Zombies (a reference to Matthew 27:50-54)?
3. How come so many Biblical figures had multiple wives? Isn't that a sin?
4. Why do you Christians condemn the homosexuals but go right on eating your shellfish and wearing your mixed linens?
I could go on all day. If you ever want endless questions and for some reason desire to become frustrated, just go through my comment section of just about any of my videos.
I should say "my comment section on YouTube". My comment section on my blog is often rather empty :(
Jim,
comments here are getting fewer and fewer. I think people are moving to easier sites to use- Facebook and Youtube. Blogger is fading as a vehicle for communication.
Maybe that is what's happening. However, I still show a decent number of visits...so I know someone is watching OR reading but perhaps not led to comment? Who knows.
1. I thought his emphasis on belief as opposed to feeling was refreshing.
2. The jump from a earnest defense of the faith to one which is purely biblical is, of course, not only not supported by scripture but in fact condemned (Matt 28:20, John 20:30, 21:25, 1 Cor 11:2, Phil 4:9, 2 Thess 3:6)
3. Molinism was not condemned by the Roman Church, in fact one adherent to Molinism, Robert Bellarmine, was not only canonized but declared a Doctor of the Church.
4. Of course, his characterization of Natural Law as rejecting the sovereignty of Christ is fallacious. It's an interesting enough debate, why resort to deception?
Honestly, and this is probably a shame, I have little opportunity to defend the faith because I have all I can handle trying to help the faithful to be obedient to the Lord, much less explain every minutiae.
People read the Bible and get a million questions and ignore the only ones that matter. My answer to homosexuality or unicorns will not matter at another person's judgment.
Brandon & Jenny,
Honestly, and this is probably a shame, I have little opportunity to defend the faith because I have all I can handle trying to help the faithful to be obedient to the Lord, much less explain every minutiae.
Polemics isn't what it used to be for me. I only get into this when I'm antagonized...like seeing on attack on tradition in your blogroll...
My answer to homosexuality or unicorns will not matter at another person's judgment.
Er, the unicorns I could agree with (not being a matter of faith), but God's law regarding sodomy is part of the deposit of faith. Denying it would be somewhat of an obstacle at your individual judgment.
"Er, the unicorns I could agree with (not being a matter of faith), but God's law regarding sodomy is part of the deposit of faith. Denying it would be somewhat of an obstacle at your individual judgment."
Haha...I thought better of those examples after I posted. I'll take back the unicorns. :-) The only way I can biblically classify homosexuality is as sinful behavior, equal to adultery. Homosexuality is not only mentioned in the OT but in the new as well and a proper hermeneutic is crucial in gleaning the principles out of the OT context. It's an understandably touchy subject.
Just to clarify: I did say that it won't matter at another person's judgment, not my own. What I meant was that I can answer every question a person has and they still be as lost as before. They have to answer one of the greatest questions ever posed bu Christ, "Who do you say that I am". I can't do that for them.
Hey Mark - I forgot to ask - what kind of obstacle are we talking about here at my judgment? Do you mean that I would be denied eternal life if I thought homosexuality was not sinful?
I do, of course, believe it to be sinful. I'm just clarifying.
Oh goodness, where to start. Religous fundamentalism at its finest here. this guys entire premise is based upon a presupposition that his particular hermeneutical method of literalism is the ONLY possibility and leads to the ONLY authentic version of the christian faith.
Anonymous,
Your comments and views are welcome, but not as anonymous. Please use your name. Thanks, Mike
I was in a hurry so i didnt post my name, i dont have a blogger account either. But i must ask, why does a name matter? Why so fixiated upon knowing someones name when what should matter is the content of their remarks? If you are interested in truth, then it shouldnt matter where it comes from.
i checked back so quickly becasue i was going to add that minimalizing personal feelings and personal experience is the quickest way to making christianity irrelevant. the only thing a person knows in this life is what they experience. I can read about china, but unless i go there and experience it, it is just an imagination of the brain whcih is pointless to the human journey as it isnt real.
the only way I can biblically classify homosexuality is as sinful behavior, equal to adultery.
It is true that behavior is different from inclination, but to suggest that only through behavior there is sin denies that we can sin through lust, which is clearly contradicted by the Gospels. (Matt 5:28)
Equal to adultery? I would argue it is worse because it is a perverse act, not merely a sinful/illicit one (as adultery is). From the very beginning God's law has punished sodomy more harshly than adultery, for this reason. (Lev. 18:22, 29, 20:13) The traditional understanding of the context is that sodomy is a violation of nature, an offense against God (as creator of nature), and not merely a fellow man.
Peter compares the gravity of sodomy to the rejection of God by the angels (2 Peter 2:4-6). Jude makes a similar analogy (Jude 5-7)
I'm sure you're familiar with Paul's teaching on the subject (Rom. 1:26,27)
It's an understandably touchy subject.
How so? Are we not called to proclaim the truth, always, everywhere? We are obliged in charity to call our brethren to repentance. (1 Cor 5:11)
Hey Mark - I forgot to ask - what kind of obstacle are we talking about here at my judgment? Do you mean that I would be denied eternal life if I thought homosexuality was not sinful?
I try to avoid the subjective (judgment of your soul) and stick with the objective (statements of truth). That said, it is hard to reconcile someone who denies the teaching of Christ with spending eternity with him. Is this the fruit He spoke of? (Matt 7:18) Or is it more along the lines of the person who says, "Lord, Lord", but will not be saved (Matt 7:21)
Our Lord himself said if you are not with him, you are against Him. (Matt 12:30-32). How will He judge those who proclaim to love Him but ignore his teachings? What do you think?
Howdy Anon. Mike asked you (quite kindly I might add) to post your name because people are important and if your comments are important to you, there should be no reason not to post your name. This is not AA or CR and even there people give their first names. Also, it's one of the rules for the sandbox.
Please allow me to comment, Mike, on Anon's comment.
"i checked back so quickly becasue i was going to add that minimalizing personal feelings and personal experience is the quickest way to making christianity irrelevant."
How is that true? At what point did feelings dictate truth? I may feel that it is cloudy when indeed it is sunny. It seems the quickest way to make Christianity irrelevant is to fail to love people.
"the only thing a person knows in this life is what they experience."
This is absolutely not true. I know that China is a country because other people have told me. I have never been there, but I know it exists. My cousin adopted two children from there. I never experienced adoption, but I know it exists. I know that I will die someday, although I have never died.
But there is a difference, is there not, between knowing and believing?
It's not a fixation, but needed to keep dialog honest and kind, and it's one of my rules. Many who wish to hide behind "Anonymous" do so to be able to say unkind things without accountability, so the rules are needed to encourage kindness and honesty. I know you can understand that.
Now, as to truth, I seek truth constantly and seek it in many places and I welcome your thoughts as well, so thanks for sharing your thoughts, but do respect my guidelines for this site, ok? It's a simple request, and a small kindness. thanks.
As to your last thoughts- "the only thing a person knows in this life is what they experience." I disagree. If you think about it further I'm sure you will have to revise your statement. Truth is not based soley on experience. Nor should it be. Who's to say your senses are processing correct information for you to evaluate? If experience is your sole source of truth then you must throw out most of what you now "know".
My knowledge of truth is not based entirely on my experience, and shouldn't be. Let me encourage you to rethink this comment.
Brandon, you beat me to it. Thanks for your comments.
Hey again Mark,
For the record, you're a better than I am. :-)
I don't think that lust is not a sin. Of course it is. I am not certain that homosexual thoughts are worse than adulterous thoughts, however. Both are sexual sin and destructive to our bodies. I think it's splitting hairs. Both are evil in the eyes of the Lord. As for which one is more desctuctive? Ask the families of dads who cheat on their wives and the parents whose grown homosexual children contracted AIDS which one is worse. I surely don't know.
Our Lord himself said if you are not with him, you are against Him. (Matt 12:30-32). How will He judge those who proclaim to love Him but ignore his teachings? What do you think?"
Let me first say that obedience to Christ is the evidence of our faith in Him (James 4:14-17) and our love for Him (John 14:15). It is not the proclamation of my love for Christ but my faith in his atonement and propitiation which saves me from eternal judgment. He will judge them based on the content of their faith. Those who have faith in Christ are justified by it and have peace with God and are saved from God's wrath by that justification, which comes through faith (Rom 5:1, 9)
Believers will be judged (1 Cor 3:10-15) but not for salvation. I can't say exactly what that will look like. But I know I love the Lord Jesus. And I know I still screw up pretty bad some days. I get angry. I lust. But His grace is sufficient for me. It's enough, because it is from God.
How so? Are we not called to proclaim the truth, always, everywhere? We are obliged in charity to call our brethren to repentance. (1 Cor 5:11)
It is touchy because you would be a fool to walk up to gays and just yell, "Sodomite! God hates you" at them. The second half of that is a lie. God loves them. Chances are they know that God doesn't like sodomy and they probably think God already hates them. Jesus Himself said He came to seek and to save that which is lost (Luke 19:10) and that "it is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).
Of course I think we should proclaim the truth. But having met and ministered to some gay folks, they are broken like every other lost person. As for those who claim to be believers and yet ignore the call to holiness? All I know to do is to tell them the truth in love and pray for them and be a person they can talk to. The Lord will judge them justly.
Mike,
your comment was better. :-)
Good grief. Mark, I meant to say you're a better DEBATER than I am. I didn't' sleep enough last night.
i will not be bullied into anything, even if it is something as trivial as stating my name. You kids have fun in your "sandbox" as brandon puts it.
i thought you were actually interested in truth and dialogue, but what i see is a couple of bullies controlling things to the way they like it.
i guess this is the new christianity. accept what we say, and respond the way we want you to. otherwise we will minimalize you, bully you, and run you off.
mike please post this so your crony brandon and see it.
thanks
I don't think that lust is not a sin. Of course it is. I am not certain that homosexual thoughts are worse than adulterous thoughts, however. Both are sexual sin and destructive to our bodies. I think it's splitting hairs. Both are evil in the eyes of the Lord.
This gets to the root of our theological differences, where I believe some sins are more grave than others (1 John 5:16-17), and you do not. In this case adultery is a natural act but outside the context in which God intended it, or what I would call a 'illegal' use of the reproductive ability, whereas sodomy would be a unnatural act, a total perversion of the reproductive facility. I would agree with the theologians who say it is essentially no different than bestiality. That may seem offensive to you, but if you accept the metaphysical premise, you'll see the difference.
As for which one is more desctuctive? Ask the families of dads who cheat on their wives and the parents whose grown homosexual children contracted AIDS which one is worse. I surely don't know.
Well, it's impossible to measure the full effect of sin, and I'm not referring to that (at least not exclusively). I'm staying in the context of your question re: the individual judgment.
It is not the proclamation of my love for Christ but my faith in his atonement and propitiation which saves me from eternal judgment.
Splitting hairs: I would say you are not 'saved' from eternal judgment, but rather, you hope to find mercy in your eternal judgment, if you believe that your ultimate end is eternal, and that it will require mercy in order to one day enjoy the beatific vision.
He will judge them based on the content of their faith. Those who have faith in Christ are justified by it and have peace with God and are saved from God's wrath by that justification, which comes through faith
I think we've touched on this one before. "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" (James 2:24)
Of course I think we should proclaim the truth. But having met and ministered to some gay folks, they are broken like every other lost person.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. However, if I have one too many glasses of wine tonight, I may be guilty of gluttony, intemperance, or drunkenness (hmmm, perhaps all three). Is this no different than if I raped someone? Or killed someone? Or engaged in sodomy? I believe there is a difference (Luke 12:47-48), not that I'm less of sinner-this is only an example, of course-but that some sins separate us from God such that eternal life is lost forever (as Paul warns in 2 Cor 1:24), and can only be regained through repentance & confession (James 5:14-16, 1 John 1:8-9).
I really enjoy the dialog with you, Mark, even given our differences.
This gets to the root of our theological differences, where I believe some sins are more grave than others (1 John 5:16-17), and you do not.
It sure seems that some sins are more grave than others, even a sin "leading unto death" as you cited in 1 John. I don't know what that is (sin leading unto death) but apparently there is a gradient. I tend to lump sin into a category of "that which is contrary to God" and therefore separates us from Him. So on that side, sin is sin. But I would certainly say that a child molester was committing a more grievous offense against God than a car thief. So, I really do believe that some sins are worse than others; that seems clear.
My eating too much cake or speeding is not as horrible as murdering my neighbor, but both are sin. I tend to shy away from graduations of sin because we then use those differences to rationalize and judge other people. Sure I cheated on my taxes, but Bob cheated on his wife so, he's worse than I am.
If the wine is really good wine, does that count? :-)
Dear Anonymous,
I'm trying, but I don't understand you. I'm not Mike's crony. I am his friend. He (and others) have had people say very cruel things and hide behind the veil of anonymity. He's just trying to keep people from being attacked, something which you feel we have done to you.
If I might ask: How have you been minimalized? If I made you feel small, I apologize. That was not my intention, but if that was my impact, I am indeed sorry.
I don't know why you are so angry at Mike and I. If you know anyone who knows us, please ask them if they think we are bullies. I confess that is the first time I have been called a bully in my entire life.
Mark and I have been (mostly) disagreeing the entire comment line and he's not booted off. Of course, he did have the kindness to post his name. If you don't desire to post your name, you have been given the freedom to refrain. But please don't punish Mike for his attempt to encourage kindness and honesty.
Brandon,
I enjoy the dialogue as well. Please call me on your next visit to Antigua. One final comment tonight for me:
It sure seems that some sins are more grave than others, even a sin "leading unto death" as you cited in 1 John. I don't know what that is (sin leading unto death) but apparently there is a gradient.
I can give you some lists, if you like...
I tend to lump sin into a category of "that which is contrary to God" and therefore separates us from Him. So on that side, sin is sin. But I would certainly say that a child molester was committing a more grievous offense against God than a car thief. So, I really do believe that some sins are worse than others; that seems clear.
Why struggle with what is obvious? Some things are better than others, some things are worse than others. If I give my lunch to a hungry person, that's a good thing, but if I give my life for the faith, I hope that's even better. (I'm actually hoping for that opportunity, so I can skip purgatory and go straight to collect my $200, oops, I mean, salvation).
If I lie to my wife about why I was late for dinner, that may be sinful, but surely it is not as sinful as if I had an affair. (If you doubt me, ask your own wife.)
My eating too much cake or speeding is not as horrible as murdering my neighbor, but both are sin. I tend to shy away from graduations of sin because we then use those differences to rationalize and judge other people. Sure I cheated on my taxes, but Bob cheated on his wife so, he's worse than I am.
That's relativism, i.e., Bob, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm speaking objectively, that some sins are worse than others, some offend God and require penance and repentance to atone for that sin (all sin has consequence, just as it did in the Garden), but other sin is so great that our soul dies to God, and we have, by our action-not His-closed the door on sanctifying grace. We are like a branch that, dying from disease, has been cut off from the tree and can only be grafted back through a miracle (sanctifying grace).
The scriptures are so very clear on this possibility, that we cannot ignore it or simply say that we weren't saved to begin with. You know, and I know, that as men we can love God and our wives and yet still break His commandments in adultery. It doesn't mean we don't love our wives, it doesn't mean we don't love God, it doesn't mean we weren't sincere to begin with. It just means that at that moment we chose ourselves over God.
As the passages I cited earlier make clear, we can throw away our eternal life, just as Adam and Eve did by their rejection of God. Our redemption didn't remove that possibility.
If the wine is really good wine, does that count? :-)
What I would give to have been at Cana where after a few DAYS of drinking Our Lord felt moved to turn water into wine. What must that have been like?
Mark - next time we'll be in Antigua, we'll let you know. Oh, and if you run into any kind of trouble or have a Guatemalan legal/property/general question, I know a retired missionary there in Antigua who will be a great help.
I hope you have a great day brother. Unless, I guess, you sin bad enough, then we're not brothers anymore. :-) Sorry for the joke - bad taste I know.
Mike: comments here are getting fewer and fewer.
Funny you should say that on this particular thread.
To Brandon and Mark, in your evaluation of sin, you both appear to be looking at it from your position with God in eternity. Christ at the cross dealt with with sin as a cause for eternal death. Sin however still effects our here and now. It causes hurt and seperation in relationships, it effects how we see God, the effects are seen in our mortal bodies. James is talking of how people see and judge a Christian, not how God will judge a Christian. Sin in a Christians life effects how the lost see the Christ we represent. Sin in the non believer's life effects the quality of life he experence here and now. His eternal destination is about his rejection of the free gift of grace. Mark is correct in the fact that some sin causes more effect in the here and now. Brandon is correct in that in a Christian the sin issue is totally settled in the Blood of Christ. Mike McMaster , not the previous Anonymous
Mike:
To Brandon and Mark, in your evaluation of sin, you both appear to be looking at it from your position with God in eternity.
This is because the context of the discussion is in relation to an individual's judgment 'day'. We largely excluded the temporal consequence of sin.
Christ at the cross dealt with with sin as a cause for eternal death.
Yes, I would agree with this, but the primary effect of Christ's death was the opening of heaven, which had been closed to man since the Fall. (Romans 5:19) While eternal life may once again an possibility for us, we must "work out our salvation in fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12) with the "hope" that we may be saved. (1 Cor 3:12-15)
Brandon is correct in that in a Christian the sin issue is totally settled in the Blood of Christ.
I'm not sure what you mean 'totally settled'. By our sin we, like Adam, choose self over God, as Paul says in 1 Tim 5:15. Through our works we may deny him, possibly to our damnation. (Rev 3:15)
Mark, I see we have a different understanding of how sin was delt with on the cross. My understanding is that Christ's death paid the price of all sin, both of the saved and the lost persons. Aceptance of that forgiveness and faith that God will preform all that He has promised, provides His aceptance of us into His presents. I clearly see That how a person works though the sin issue of his life can effect how he understands his relationship with God. It is very human to want to prove to ourselves (and others) that we are acceptable to our God. I am just not good enough to ever be presentable before our perfect God apart from Christ's covering. Right or wrong I have chosen to live at becoming more like Christ in how I live and let Him work on my sin issues. I think the bible talks of this as considering myself dead to sin, but alive to Christ. Either way of aproaching the sin issue will make for morally better Christians My way just gives me more of the joy of his life. Mike McM
Mark, I see we have a different understanding of how sin was delt with on the cross. My understanding is that Christ's death paid the price of all sin, both of the saved and the lost persons.
I may have been imprecise. I believe all mankind was redeemed by Christ's passion and crucifixion.
Aceptance of that forgiveness and faith that God will preform all that He has promised, provides His aceptance of us into His presents.
Let's not forget that Christ's answer to the rich young man (Luke 18:18-23), to the question, 'what must I do to be saved?', was: 'keep my commandments'. He did not say that we could merely have a revelatory moment, or make an altar call, or simply accept the concept of the hypostatic union and the redemptive value of the death of the Messiah. We still must repent and be baptized (1 Pet 3:21) and adhere to the laws God has given us, lest we be cast aside (Matt. 25:31-46).
In short, we were redeemed by the Cross, but this is merely the first step in our walk to eternal life.
From Mike McM
To Mark
We are not in total dissagreement. We have only chosen different ways to live out our redemption into the perfection that Christ has promised us. Your approach has a christian working on cleaning up his life to come into that promised perfection. My approach to the same, is working on becomeing alway more like my Master. In truth I beleive we each do a little of both, we only differ on how we explain the change the Christ has worked in us.
Post a Comment