Earth Day!? What Happened to Worship?
First off, I rarely go do Dan's place. I just can't handle the 'rhetoric' over there-- I'm being polite, and that's all I'll say about that. But as it happens I ventured over there last night and saw two posts that didn't surprise me at all, though with the first I was a tad shocked.
Apparently, Dan's Church (Jeff St.) celebrated its annual 'Earth Day' service. According to Dan, "it was a beautiful day." And that's fine. But here's where it spirals down into.... I have no word to describe it, so I'll just quote Dan's post.
(The only 'somewhat rational' commenter on this post was a gentleman who goes by the moniker of Eleutheros-- He at least got the facts right...)
Now, all this took place on a Sunday, the day set aside to worship God. As this was an annual service, I must assume that Earth Day was the focus of the message.
I guess what had me mildly shocked was that the focus (judging strictly from the tone and content of Dan's post) was not God, His Son, or the need to win the lost to Christ. On a personal note, I don't believe I would feel comfortable at Jeff St. Not because I don't believe I would be welcomed there, but because I know I would always leave service hungry, rather than filled... Thirsty rather than quenched.
Again, his other post on 'The Bible and Economics' is not surprising to me; it's even a valid topic for biblical discussion, but I have a good idea of just where Dan would have gone with this one, had commenters allowed him-- as it is, there is only one commenter at this post.
Having said all that, here's a great article-- part one of perhaps several --by Christian musician Steve Camp called Worship Wars: seven perceptions of what biblical worship is not.
I don't understand what a celebration of Earth Day, in place of Sunday Worship, accomplishes in terms of proper worship. Perhaps Dan will offer a suitable defense for celebrating Earth, rather than God...
Apparently, Dan's Church (Jeff St.) celebrated its annual 'Earth Day' service. According to Dan, "it was a beautiful day." And that's fine. But here's where it spirals down into.... I have no word to describe it, so I'll just quote Dan's post.
"We had two storytellers do an excellent job of telling the Easter Island story. The first story was Easter Island's story as it appeared to have happened (they collapsed under their own over consumption). The second story was a more hopeful What Might Have Been vision."
(The only 'somewhat rational' commenter on this post was a gentleman who goes by the moniker of Eleutheros-- He at least got the facts right...)
Now, all this took place on a Sunday, the day set aside to worship God. As this was an annual service, I must assume that Earth Day was the focus of the message.
I guess what had me mildly shocked was that the focus (judging strictly from the tone and content of Dan's post) was not God, His Son, or the need to win the lost to Christ. On a personal note, I don't believe I would feel comfortable at Jeff St. Not because I don't believe I would be welcomed there, but because I know I would always leave service hungry, rather than filled... Thirsty rather than quenched.
Again, his other post on 'The Bible and Economics' is not surprising to me; it's even a valid topic for biblical discussion, but I have a good idea of just where Dan would have gone with this one, had commenters allowed him-- as it is, there is only one commenter at this post.
Having said all that, here's a great article-- part one of perhaps several --by Christian musician Steve Camp called Worship Wars: seven perceptions of what biblical worship is not.
So then what is biblical worship? In response to Paul's words, Worship is ascribing worth to the One-Triune God, according to how God has ascribed worth to Himself, in response to the standard and veracity of His Word, out of an obedient life. In short, the worship driven life is living daily in the presence of His glory! As my pastor said this past week, "worship is not simply going to a place of worship; but worshipping in the place where God has called us to live everyday." Contrary to what our culture mandates and what sadly has defined the emphasis of worship in many local churches:
1. The Basis of Faith is the Scriptures - not experience;
2. The Object of Faith is the Lord Jesus Christ - not self,
and 3. The Goal of Faith is Holiness - not happiness
I don't understand what a celebration of Earth Day, in place of Sunday Worship, accomplishes in terms of proper worship. Perhaps Dan will offer a suitable defense for celebrating Earth, rather than God...
from the mind of... Eric | 12:14 PM
110 Comments:
Isaiah says:
The earth dries up and withers,
The world languishes and withers;
The heavens languish together with the earth.
The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants; For they have transgressed laws, Violated the statutes, Broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore a curse devours the earth, And its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; Therefore the inhabitants of the earth dwindled,
And few people are left.
~Isaiah 24:4-6
This was one of the biblical passages for our Earth Day service. A harsh warning for those who'd pollute God's good creation and part from God's ways.
Likewise, we offered ourselves that harsh warning, reminding us that this is our Creator's World. A creation that God called "Good."
And so, we offered that warning, with the events of Easter Island being a more modern warning to live with God's bounty of Enough and not with a materialistic chasing after all the Stuff of our culture.
And, in addition to the warning, we celebrated those in our congregation who are leading lives of simplicity, striving to follow in those Ways of God as taught in the Bible, leading by Godly example.
You may or may not feel fed at our church, but I know for a fact that I and at least 100 other folk are challenged and lifted up weekly with the best, most Godly and biblical preaching and teaching I've heard anywhere - bar none.
And I've heard Steve Camp preach (he was very good), Billy Graham, Leonard Ravenhill, Chuck Dobson, Larry Norman, Keith Green... I've heard some great (and even more not-so-great) preaching and teaching. But NONE of it compares to the presence of God felt each week at Jeff St.
Praise the Lord, brother! Stop in sometime, perhaps you'd be surprised by what God can do.
>Praise the Lord, brother! Stop in sometime, perhaps you'd be surprised by what God can do.
Is that an invitation? I wouldn't mind to come. One condition: that your church lets me bring Dennis Jernigan to come lead worship and give his testimony. Some of the congregation might be surprised by what God can do.
And you may or may not be surprised to know that I agree with Steve Camp's article completely and you'll find none of those things listed as "not worship" being called "worship" at Jeff Street.
Instead, you would find (should you visit) SOLID biblical exegesis, deep and prayerfully-considered songs and sermons. Sermons not based upon emotion or traditions of humanity but on the Bible and Godly revelation.
So, Amen, Brother Steve. I used to be a great fan of his back in his days when he was more Keith Green-ish, it's good to hear that he still has some thoughtful words to offer.
It is indeed an open invitation. Jeff Street is a welcoming and affirming congregation. But one doesn't generally go to another's place of worship based upon the condition that they can bring the worship leader. Especially a person that church knows nothing about.
But you're welcome to come, Roger.
>It is indeed an open invitation. Jeff Street is a welcoming and affirming congregation. But one doesn't generally go to another's place of worship based upon the condition that they can bring the worship leader. Especially a person that church knows nothing about.
It's common to allow those gifted in music to lead worship or perform a concert in church. It happens quite often. I'm sure the congregation and staff welcomes the break of routine. I know your church loves music, you blog about it a lot. I love music too. Dennis Jernigan is blessing the church by the use of his gifts to minister to folks. It would be a cool thing. You probably know about Dennis, he's written plenty of songs...
'You are my all in all', 'Who can satisfy my soul', 'We will worship' just to name a few.
If your church doesn't know about Dennis Jernigan, they are missing out. I can have some promo CDs sent to them. They could use it for worship music - sound guys usually are always looking for good music to play during communion or preludes to the service.
Nope. Never heard of him. Went to his blog and read about him but I've never heard of him.
That's not the sort of praise music that we typically would use, by the way. Not our style, thanks just the same.
I'd be glad to stop by sometime with my wife and play for y'all though, if you'd like and I'm in the neighborhood...
>That's not the sort of praise music that we typically would use, by the way. Not our style, thanks just the same.
Even though DJ plays piano, his songs run the gammet of style - from acoustic to guitar driven/heavy percussion anthems. He's recorded songs with Natalie Grant, Twila Paris, Rebecca St. James, Ron Kenoly, First Call - I assume you've heard of most or all of those...
>Went to his blog
Which site did you check out?
"Perhaps Dan will offer a suitable defense for celebrating Earth, rather than God..."
I was going to let all the antagonism directed towards my Christian faith family go - your brothers and sisters in Christ - but I would thought I'd at least point out that one could hardly celebrate God's Creation without also celebrating the Creator.
Conversely, one can hardly be antagonistic towards God's Creation without being antagonistic towards God.
"A harsh warning for those who'd pollute God's good creation and part from God's ways."
Only half right. This particular passage is incomlete, and as such is perfect to use in any way desired, whether as it is meant or not. Your's chose not. It begins by saying the Lord is going to lay waste to the earth and devastate it. From "The earth dries up..." is a description of how it will look and it happens because of what came first, which was "...they have transgressed laws, Violated the statutes, Broken the everlasting covenant." of God. So it has nothing to do with "those who'd pollute God's good creation" specifically.
Is this how it normally goes at Jeff St? Pick any tract and inject one's own desired meaning to further a cause? Surely a better case can be made for good stewardship of God's Creation without bastardizing Scripture in order to do so. But again, is it common practice at Jeff St? It would help explain a lot about one Dan Trabue.
Brother Art, are you suggesting that God's Word endorses pollution? NOT caring for God's Creation?
Knowing you to be a good fella, I'm sure you don't think that. Neither do I. I would suppose that we are in agreement that God would have us be good stewards of God's creation.
The passage is about a people who are ignoring God's good ways. Part of walking in God's good ways is taking care of God's good earth.
Why then, dost thou persecute us? Is it hard for you to kick against the goads?
That's "pricks" Dan. 'Kick against the pricks'... 'To react in vain against discipline or authority.'
Goads... So very unpoetic.
The NASB is a poor choice of translation. But hey! That's what I believe. Other Translations use 'goads' but they are so obscure I assume you used the NASB.
I also like the way you insert "us" for "me"....
Talk about a misuse of scripture!
>Stop in sometime, perhaps you'd be surprised by what God can do.
What's the reason for you attending Jeff St, if I may ask? For example, of all the churches in that area, what drew you to that one?
Y'all should all be ashamed of yourselves for attacking not only a follower of Jesus, which is the norm around here, but now his entire congregation.
What IS it that makes you feel threatened by Bro. Dan and his lovely congregation?
I was floored to see this post in the first place. Just a broadside, unprovoked as far as I know, against a Baptist-rooted church.
I was not surprised to see Dan handle it with grace and aplomb.
In this thread, y'all have become caricatures of fundamentalists, which is pretty dadgum hard to do.
The fear is palpable.
Fear? The only fear I have is that I fear you are once again mistaken.
My problem with the use of the passage, Dan, is that you said it was a harsh warning against those who would pollute the earth. It isn't. Simple as that. Now we can make big leaps and stretches in our interpretations, but I find that leads to problems. Again, I'm sure your guy could've come up with better to teach his lesson of stewardship. Distorting a passage to make it say what it doesn't say is unnecessary, shows a lack of creativity and is misleading.
And yes, I believe in taking care of God's Creation. When I stop at a convenience store, for example, and I'm offered a bag to carry my purchase, I always accept. When I'm done with the wrappers and cans, I put them in the bag so that when I throw it out the car window, it's all together and not as messy on the road. *snicker*
The post does not attack. It questions. I simply wanted to know how one celebrates Earth Day on a day set aside for worship of God. And I wanted to know how two stories about Easter Island (Rapa Nui... the 'Great' Rapa) had relevance to teachings of the bible.
I then balanced what I found at his place with what I know for myself...
And in comments I lamented his use of the less poetic NASB, and shaky use of Acts 9:5.
As Dan is a frequent visitor here perhaps I should have asked him privately via email, but since I failed to do that much, Dan still should "always be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh [him]...."
"I was not surprised to see Dan handle it with grace and aplomb."
Neither was I.
"I put them in the bag so that when I throw it out the car window, it's all together and not as messy on the road."
You're wrong for that Art. I hope that *snicker* was sarcasm... ;)
For myself, I feel a genuine weight of guilt settle on me each time I even think of tossing something out the window. At the risk of sounding like a Lefty Envirnmentalist, I try to restrict what I DO toss out the window to bio degradable stuff like pistacchio shells, banana peels, apple cores... etc.
1. The Basis of Faith is Grace, which is pointed to by the Scriptures - and cultivated by experience.
2. The Object of Faith is GOD, pointed to consistently by Jesus, who denied even his own goodness.
3. The Goal of Faith is life and that more abundantly, which includes holiness - infused by the Spirit, and answered, to greater and lesser extent, in each believer's life.
"What's the reason for you attending Jeff St, if I may ask? For example, of all the churches in that area, what drew you to that one?"
I'd love to answer this, if Eric doesn't mind...it's in the ballpark of the topic.
I was raised southern Baptist and was taught, thank God, to take the Bible seriously. And I always have strived to do so, by God's grace.
But as I grew, I was disappointed in the lack of the centrality of the Bible in the churches I attended. Oh, they preached from the Bible all right, but they were preaching traditions of men based on snippets of the Bible rather than preaching the meat of the Bible (which so often our traditions have not much to do with).
I have found in Jeff St a church that preaches the Gospel as it appears in the Bible. A church that preaches good news to the poor, liberty for the captive, healing for the sick and the Day of Jubilee/of God's good favor.
I have found a church where God's love is supreme, where God's justice is preached, where we are taught to take seriously "what we do for the least," and where we're reminded daily that we are in the presence of Jesus in the least of these.
I have found a church that teaches personal responsibility and the notion that we are indeed stewards of God's Good Creation, that we are partners with God in process of tending the Earth and that realizes that there are severe consequences of not following sustainable ways.
Nowhere else - nowhere have I been blessed to hear the quality of sermons - to be so challenged and yet so loved at the same time - of real music sung by real people, of a very real church community in the Acts 2 sense of the idea.
That is at least part of the reason why I attend Jeff St. At this point, I would have be very hard pressed to find another such congregation now. I Praise the Lord for my godly family at Jeff St!
And thank you, ER, for your graciousness.
"And I wanted to know how two stories about Easter Island (Rapa Nui... the 'Great' Rapa) had relevance to teachings of the bible."
In case you still don't get it, they have relevance to real life, and the Bible is all about real life.
Again, I'm sure you're not opposed to a church teaching some personal responsibility and care for God's creation? So, if not, I don't see that you'd have any problem with this service.
"And in comments I lamented his use of the less poetic NASB, and shaky use of Acts 9:5."
I'm a big fan of The Message, and I also like the NIV - but the last time I used those, other Christians criticized me for not using the "more reliable" NASB.
Damned if I do and damned if I don't.
And speaking of being damned, Art said:
"My problem with the use of the passage, Dan, is that you said it was a harsh warning against those who would pollute the earth. It isn't."
Again, the passage is speaking of breaking away from following God's ways. And unless you think polluting is acceptable, then that would include polluting.
I was not suggesting that this passage was specifically speaking about polluting as we know it - that sort of pollution didn't even exist back then - but the passage does use that term (or "the earth is defiled," in other translations) and it was fitting, inasmuch as making the air, water and earth toxic is certainly against God's design.
I guess I should expect that some more traditionally-churched folk would jump to conclusions that aren't justified ("they're worshiping the earth instead of God!" "they're mistranslating God's Word!!").
Perhaps I should have gone out of my way to explain myself, knowing that there is a concern out there amongst the Right that some on the Left worship the earth and disrespect the Bible. And if I should have do so - made it clear that this was not the case with us - I apologize.
Here is what I thought was a wonderful blending of concern and respect for Mother Earth with appropriate worshipful reverence for the Lord, from a UCC church I attended in Boulder, Colo., a couple of Sundays ago. EL, you might have seen it, but I guess not since there is hardly any reciprocity between our blogs, to my disappointment. The call-and-response was the framework for a children's program that I had the joy of seeing on my visit:
"Nurtured by Nature"
By Cathy Russell
Leader: In the free flowing river,
People: He was baptized.
Leader: In the wilderness,
People: The angels ministered to him.
Leader: On a high mountain top,
People: He was transfigured.
Leader: By the shore,
People: He fed the multitudes.
Leader: From the mount,
People: He taught of love and forgiveness.
Leader: By the cool mountain stream,
People: His blessings flow on.
Leader: In the quiet of creation,
People: We are with the One, nurtured by nature.
Note: Perhaps calling this post a "broadside," when it only asked tough, probing questions, was a mischaracterizations. Perhaps I picked up the habit from hearing supporters of the president call any tough, probing questions thrown his way "an attack" or "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican" for the past six-plus years. :-)
"Broadside" may be a bit strong, but it wasn't merely asking a brother some questions, there was a direct implication that we were doing something other than worshiping God ("Perhaps Dan will offer a suitable defense for celebrating Earth, rather than God.").
Nonetheless, I'm glad to address these points as it's another chance to give God glory and praise God for the Creation and to remind us all that we are to be responsible stewards. So, it's all good.
"You're wrong for that Art. I hope that *snicker* was sarcasm... ;)"
Of course it was humor. I find humor in the notion that a litterer would, instead of throwing each wrapper or piece of trash out the window, bag everything first before tossing it. In reality, I bag it to keep my car clean (not that it is) and to then throw the whole thing in a trash can upon arrival at a gas station or home. Everyone needs to be cognizant of the impact of their actions upon the earth, be they individuals or corporations. I think we've seen a drastic change in attitudes from each group in the last coupld decades. It is said our emissions of greenhouse gasses has decreased more than most of the Kyoto signers. More can be done. All should try. I don't expect people to lose jobs over it.
ER,
What do you mean by "cultivated by experience"?
Also, please restate your third point regarding the goal of faith. It's a bit muddy.
ER,
Liked the "Nurtured by Nature" piece. I think it's a better Earth Day tie-in than the use of the Isaiah verse. Just my opinion.
As an aside, however, I don't recall any tough "probing" questions by Dems to Bush, only obstruction and doom & gloom. But that's off topic.
I meant by the press.
Dan said>I have found in Jeff St a church that preaches the Gospel as it appears in the Bible. A church that preaches good news to the poor, liberty for the captive, healing for the sick and the Day of Jubilee/of God's good favor. I have found a church where God's love is supreme, where God's justice is preached, where we are taught to take seriously "what we do for the least," and where we're reminded daily that we are in the presence of Jesus in the least of these.
Thanks for answering Dan. I would say we all should have churches that have those things in common - but there is a major difference. For example, the issue that has driven the wedge between us - the affirmation of homosexuality. I believe scripture says it's a sin. Your church believes that monogomous homosexual couples are not sinful. I believe that God can transform that behavior (as He can do with any sinful behavior) as evidenced by the testimonies of Dennis Jernigan and others. I rejoice over that and welcome DJ and his testimony. However, because of your stance - you have no answer for DJ's transformation, no evidence in scripture of his testimony being sinful, and because of your interpretation of scripture, you cannot rejoice over that work of God. So, this is a disagreement in who God is and what He is doing. Remember how Jesus said He was doing God's will and the pharisees said it was the work of the devil? This is not unlike that. I wonder in scripture how Jesus could perform a miracle and the first reaction of the pharisees was to seek to squelch it. I see the change in Dennis Jernigan (from homosexuality to marriage and 9 children!) and wonder how you and your church cannot praise God over it. But from our previous discussions, I've realized that you do not rejoice or acknowledge that as a work of God. That's a big difference and problem.
I say that not antagonistically, but realistically.
"Remember how Jesus said He was doing God's will and the pharisees said it was the work of the devil?"
Which is why I find it surprising all the attacks that seem to be coming our way as a church. I'm worried that you fellas are going to commit some blasphemy and I'd hate to see that.
For anyone who feels they're "cured" of homosexuality and is genuinely happy in their new life, good on them. I'm not saying that's a bad thing if they're truly content. I have my doubts that someone can be "cured" of homosexuality (I know I could never be "cured" of heterosexuality) - Romans 1 speaks pretty clearly on this - but it's not my place to judge their happiness.
If Mr. Jernigan says he's content, good for him.
I'd expect the same courtesy from him and y'all towards my gay brothers and sisters who are content in their holy lives before God. In fact, it'd be great if you'd praise God over that, as well - again, I'd hate for y'all to be guilty of blasphemy.
Dan said:>I'd expect the same courtesy from him and y'all towards my gay brothers and sisters who are content in their holy lives before God. In fact, it'd be great if you'd praise God over that, as well - again, I'd hate for y'all to be guilty of blasphemy.
We have a difference that is mutually exclusive Dan. Some power is transforming these people, just like some power was behind the miracles of Jesus. The pharisees had a skewed view (and incorrect too - which cannot be overlooked) because they reasoned that 'it just couldn't be God' before it happened. Therefore, they had determined what was right and Godly (and holy as you mentioned) before hand. I'm not imposing upon anyone (I hope I'm not coming across that way). I'm saying that logically there are two extremely different views here - two different powers at work - two different Gods. God cannot be healing people from homosexuality and leaving others to be 'content in their holy lives'. It just logically doesn't add up.
Dan said:>I'd expect the same courtesy from him and y'all towards my gay brothers and sisters who are content in their holy lives before God
But Dan, DJ has been changed! Why would he then want to go back to the way he was? Why would he be indifferent towards others in a lifestyle he now understands as sinful?
It's interesting that you seem to take a hands off approach to such a dynamic and 'theology breaking' testimony. You and churches that holds to these doctrines are going to have to address this sooner or later because these testimonies are proof that your theology is wrong. The enemy wants to keep them underwraps because a light shining on this will help us all see more clearly. He'll whisper in your ear saying 'Aww, don't think too deeply about that Dan, I'm sure it's just a feeling, no more - your view of God's word is still logical and right'. That's how he works. He gets us to accept something that on its face is illogical and dangerous - in short: a lie. I'm not pointing fingers, calling you weak-minded, or any of that stuff. We're all flesh and capable of falling victim to deception. I'm not infallible, and you aren't either. Having said that, test what I'm saying and take my words in good faith that I'm not trying to do anything other than communicate truth.
"But Dan, DJ has been changed! Why would he then want to go back to the way he was? Why would he be indifferent towards others in a lifestyle he now understands as sinful?"
I, too, have been changed. I've left behind the violent ways that are native to this sinful man and am trying by God's grace to embrace the peace-making taught by my Lord.
Nonetheless, I will not damn my brothers and sisters who disagree with this teaching. I'll work to educate them. I'll live by example. But it's up to you to follow in Jesus' steps or not.
>Nonetheless, I will not damn my brothers and sisters who disagree with this teaching. I'll work to educate them. I'll live by example. But it's up to you to follow in Jesus' steps or not.
Here's the difference Dan, me and you hold the same beliefs regarding violence. We disagree on politics. We may also disagree on whether some wars are just but I think you'll be hard pressed to find a congregation that loves violence.
In regards to the homosexuality issue, you're calling it not a sin by definition and I am calling it a sin by definition.
Any speaker will be welcome to talk about peace making in any church. Will any speaker be welcome to talk about their deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle in any church?
I'm not sure of that. Is DJ welcome to come give his testimony at your church?
"I'm saying that logically there are two extremely different views here [YES!]) - two different powers at work [No!] - two different Gods [No, No!]."
This is an amazing statement for someone whose spiritual heritage includes this fundamental plank:
We see through a glass darkly.
For one to celebrate "deliverance" from homosexuality is no more or less to be lauded than one who celebrates deliverance from any other thing, whether an addiction to hetero sex, or a tendency toward dishonesty, than any other reliease from sin.
I'd say that the homosexual who celebrates deliverance from the lie of living as a heterosexual is something to be as celebrated as a heterosexual who has been delivered from the previous lie of living as a homosexual.
This is, indeed, one -- but only one -- of the of the deep chasms between different sects (and we ALL adhere to sects)of Christianity.
But to claim different Gods lead the two is dangerous and, is in fact, very close to blasphemy.
None of us is right. No, not one.
To claim such authority is to play God.
"Romans 1 speaks pretty clearly" ...on homosexuality as sin. VERY clearly in fact. And this, as Roger has illustrated is a huge sticking point between us: our faiths-- one accepting of homosexuality in monogomous relationships as 'holy', and the other as sinful, period. One equates calling 'committed homosexual partnerships' sinful as the real sin, while the other calls acceptance of homosexual partnerships within the church membership as sinful. These are two dichotomous faiths: one is right, the other is woefully wrong. Both cannot be right. Therefore one of us is wrong.
As far as you and I go, Dan, this is my greatest concern for you, personally; your congregation secondarily. To paraphrase myself... It is madness to look at a man and woman, seeing how uniquely made for each other they are, to then inexplicably conclude that homosexuality is a natural outflowing of God's perfect will in the lives of those who practice what is biologically inconvenient... God doesn't make mistakes. Biology can and often does, but this is the fault of men and women who abuse themselves through drugs, poor diet, and their resultant weakened immune system, or the result of early childhood trauma... but it is not the plan of God, for anyones life, to live a lifestyle that God calls an abomination. That's pretty clear cut with no hint of ambiguity.
Now, you've stated that you cannot be cured of heterosexuality. But this is a bogus argument in that there's nothing to be cured of... it is God's perfect will that men and women be heterosexual. Homosexuality then is an aberration. Procreation is the ultimate intent sex, and sex is only sanctioned as "holy" within the confines of marriage. And homosexuals cannot procreate with each other via sexual intercourse, which, I shouldn't have to point out, requires a penis inserted into a vagina to put sperm within shooting distance of ova.
Two men in a committed loving homosexual relationship (or 2 women for that matter) are still performing 'that which is unseemly' and 'forsaking the natural use of their bodies'... they are still working that which is an abomination in God's eyes.
I know you interpret Romans 1 differently. I know that you view the appalling lack of verses denouncing homosexuality 'by name' as proof that homosexuality isn't all that high a priority on God's list, but these are nothing more than rationalizations based on the idea that God is loving, and would never condemn anyone for being what they were "born" to be. You don't want to condemn anyone for a lifestyle you believe they have no ability to change, and that at least is commendable.
But homosexuality-- men lying with men as with a woman, or women changing the natural use of their bodies... to go after strange flesh --is still an abomination according to Leviticus, Romans, and Jude. And unless these committed loving homosexual relationships are celibate they are still under the wrath of God.
Were we able to come to an agreement on this, you and I would have little to argue about. But I know you won't accept what I've written.
If your church wants to celebrate Earth Day, fine with me. Personally, I'd rather not celebrate a fallen creation. Instead I'd much rather prefer celebrating God, Jesus, and His promise to RESTORE His creation to its unfallen state. I don't want to live my best life now, I want to live my best life in eternity. Sure, let me live as best I can in this life, but God please don't let this life be the best I'm gonna get!
I'm not interested in condemning homosexuals either. Nothing I say or do will condemn or hurt them any more than their own lifestyle is not only hurting them now but will hurt them for all eternity in hell.
Jesus said He didn't come to the world to condemn the world but rather to save the world through Him. But He also said, 'he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' And since, according to Jesus, not one jot or tittle will depart from the Law until ALL is fulfilled (at which point there will be no need for the Law), if Leviticus says homosexuality is a sin (an 'abomination') then anyone coming to Christ to put their faith and trust in Him must believe what he said about the Law.
But let's look at Paul, the greatest of the Apostles in that he started the outreach to other nations (Gentiles). He built more churches in his ministry than any other single man that I'm aware of, and yet Jesus radically changed him... changed his dead carnal spirit... that stood in witness to the stoning of Steven, and himself persecuted the Christians before that fateful trip to Damascus. THERE is a prime example of a life utterly changed-- a complete one-eighty! To go from a murderer to one of the greatest evangelists ever!? How is that any easier for God than to change the hearts of homosexuals; to call them out of their sinful lives and give them something new-- like new desires?
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: OLD THINGS ARE PASSED WAY; BEHOLD, ALL THINGS ARE BECOME NEW."
One of us is right. The other of us is not.
"To claim such authority is to play God"
No. To claim such is to OBEY God...
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (because God is our judge)
If I am to obey God, I MUST QUESTION (judge) EVERYTHING that flesh touches, even the desires that spring up from my heart and mind, to see if they ARE of God. I must, however, be careful of HOW I judge, because it'll be measured back to me. Jesus made judgments left and right, and yet He remained Holy and Pure... unstained by sin. If I am to be like him, to follow him, I too must make judgments left and right, but I must also be extremely cautious if I'm to remain holy and pure in the process, which means I must be walking with Him while I make these judgments. For unless He is with me I will most certainly fail.
"I'd expect the same courtesy from him and y'all towards my gay brothers and sisters who are content in their holy lives before God. In fact, it'd be great if you'd praise God over that, as well -"
I'd much prefer praising God that these fallen friends have time to repent of their wickedness and then do so, that the whole of Jeff St. dismiss the heresy that enables these who struggle.
"I'd say that the homosexual who celebrates deliverance from the lie of living as a heterosexual..."
This then is the struggle: to be liberated from the lie that says we're to find "OUR" truth, as opposed to understanding God's. Is an alcoholic living a lie by remaining sober? Is a chronic gambler living a lie by avoiding casinos? Is the lazy living a lie by being productive and pulling his weight? Is the gluttonous living a lie by not stuffing his face 24/7? Is the prideful living a lie by practicing humility? Are the sinful living a lie by adhering to the Word of God?
For no reason, at 1:41AM, an old joke pops into me 'ead. Stop me if you've heard it before.
A dyslexic agnostic with insomnia:
He's up all night wondering if there really is a Dog.
"Personally, I'd rather not celebrate a fallen creation. Instead I'd much rather prefer celebrating God, Jesus, and His promise to RESTORE His creation to its unfallen state."
And whatsoever would cause you to think that this ISN'T what we did? This was the point. This was the point of the telling of the story of Rapa Nui and of what MIGHT have been.
Rapa Nui as what Might have been IS the story of God's promise to restore Creation to an unfallen state.
The difference being that we expect to do our part in following God's Ways to bring God's kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.
Again, except that I don't think there's a difference at all. You, too, think we ought to be following in those steps - not contributing to the fall of the earth but instead to the building of the kingdom, right?
So I say again, you should have no problem with what we did on Earth Day UNLESS you prefer to make up a strawman version of what we did and the God we worshiped.
Paul was more of a solider for the Jewish establishment, stamping out a revolution, than he was a murderer. Now, there's aprofound thought for Memorial Day weekend.
The dichotomy you see, EL, is false. I deny that anyone can truly, honestly be so cocksure about anything in the Bible unless he takes it at face value, sans any critical historical-sociocultural interpretation. Oh, wait. Never mind. :-)
Reread Galations again and come back and tell us what Paul thought of the law and Christians' obligations under it. Or have you turned Pentecostal holiness, too? Smiling here.
If I die before a gay Christian friend does, I will welcome him into heaven when he arrives. He dies first, I expect him to welcome me when I arrive.
At that point, all of us will be whole.
And now I'm off to my crazy lefty church. They're handin' out tare seeds this morning.
KIDDING. Hoo hoo.
I had no idea how much fun being a Liberated Christian could be!
At my church this morning the preacher preached from "Mien Kampf".
Next week, he's preaching from a "Bat Man" comic book.
Ha! Good one, Anon.
This morning at my crazy lefy church, the preached preached straight out of Acts 2, it being Pentecost Sunday. Imagine that.
Dan said:>I have my doubts that someone can be "cured" of homosexuality
Dan (and anyone else that holds that position),
In terms of observation and logic alone - why do you doubt DJ's lifestyle change? (He has 9 kids!)
Do you believe it's possible for people to be deceived spiritually on the homosexuality position?
How is God glorified by homosexual sex? (Where in scripture do we find that God gets glory from us using our bodies in ways they weren't created for?)
Our sermon today was also from Acts 2, being Pentecost sunday.
If homosexuality were about nothing but sex acts, Roger, your question would make a little sense. But neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is just about the plumbing.
Here's one hint at repentance from living a life of sexual license: stop chasing tail and remain chaste until you're in a committed relationship. That applies to either sexual orientation.
Oh, and I wouldn't doubt such a lifestyle change -- because that's apparently what it was: a lifestyle change. It says nothing of his underlying personality, nature or sexual orientation.
Homosexuality has been observed in over 700 animal species. Including whales, flamingos, wolves, field mice, and myriad other mammals. It's as natural as albinoism or left-handedness.
Just this last week there was a news report of a female shark in a tank with other females sharks, that had a baby. Apparently the mother self-fertilized the egg. Procreation is wide and varied in nature, eh.
If you have to have a bible verse look at the story of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" 1 Samuel 18:1
Ben,
You're not the first to suggest that 1 Samuel 18:1 implied homo love between David and Jonathan, but it's only projecting what homo supporters would like it to mean. That's pretty much the story for all the supporters' interpretations, giving new meaning to the phrase "big stretch".
There are far more animal species than 700. Observing deviant behavior from a small percentage of each does not define "natural" as "natural" is what is meant to be by observing the majority. "Deviant" is a better description for that which deviates from the natural function, or "abnormal" can be used, as it is not normal behavior.
Atop that, we are not animals. Or at least we aren't when it suits some. At other times we are. I prefer to believe we never are and as such we are to transcend animal behavior in favor of that which is Holy and pleasing to God. In terms of sexuality, that means only the union of one man and one woman in marriage. Gen 2:24.
OK. I'm strapped in a ready for the spin.
Animals!? Rather than rehash old material I'll simply provide a link to a previous post wherein I rebutted this silly argument.
As for Jonathan and David... PUH-leeze! There is nothing remorely homosexual about the love David and Jonathan felt for each other. You've used this argument before and it's just as ignorant now as it was last time you brought it up. For an extensive look into this illegitimate question of "Were David and Jonathan Homosexual Lovers?" Click here.
Your assertion that they were is utterly ridiculous, and of the worst bit of scholarship I've encountered. Not you, BenT, but the fools who dreamed up this idiocy.
ER said:>Oh, and I wouldn't doubt such a lifestyle change -- because that's apparently what it was: a lifestyle change. It says nothing of his underlying personality, nature or sexual orientation.
Sorry, I should have clarified. A 'lifestyle change' as I used it refers to that very transformation or nature change that you speak of.
>If homosexuality were about nothing but sex acts, Roger, your question would make a little sense. But neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is just about the plumbing.
It is relavent if God is the creator and made the plumbing! So, does God make us a certain way externally and then put a nature in us that goes against the very biological way we were made? A God that does that is cruel and can't be trusted! I reject that belief. That's why I asked the question regarding our bodies and how the way we use them can give God the glory:
--->How is God glorified by homosexual sex? (Where in scripture do we find that God gets glory from us using our bodies in ways they weren't created for?)
Why does God get the glory? Because He is the source, the creator, the one who designed us...inside AND OUT. God creates with intent and purpose - not arbitrarily.
So we have here people who say that natural animal actions are contrary to the desires of the creator. Animals have sex. Majoritativly male to female, but in a significant number of mammals animals have sex with others of the same gender. To say that homosexual sex is against nature or the creation is to deny the primacy of reality itself.
Do left-handed people have a sinful nature? What about people who can't roll their tongue, or twiddle their ears? Each of these are deviations from the norm of human society and have no bearing on a person's moral status.
To justify an animus against homosexuals with verses from the bible is even less justifiable. In the 18th century plantation owners used verses of the bible to justify slave ownership. In the 19th century bigots used bible verses to justify miscigenation laws. In the 20th century different verses justified misogyny. Today we know that those views were people using the bible to sanctify their personal prejudices.
For me, I care not one whit what the bible says. I was raised southern baptist, but am now proud to be agnostic. I will not have my morality dictated to me by men of 1500 years ago.
"I was raised southern baptist, but am now proud to be agnostic."
Dude, you threw the baby (Jesus) out with the bath water. Rejecting fundamentalism is one thing, and I'm with you there. But to reject the Christian faith out of hand because of the failures and false assumptions of its modern practitioners suggests strongly that you hadn't any faith in the first place. Where's the source of pride in changing labels then? No offense intended.
Sigh. The three worst things to happen to institutional Christianity:
1. Constantine's supposed conversion.
2. Michealangelo's Big Scary God.
3. The advent of the printing press, before which these fierce and wasteful arguments over the infallability and inerrancy of the Scriptures did not happen. It's a relatively new distraction.
The universe is huge. That was the fact that convinced me of the falsity of christianity. There is no way that the ideas or morality espoused by christianity is compatible with a universe containing BILLIONS of stars.
When I look at my cat I can barely wrap my head around his thoughts motivations, choices and reasoning ability. When I think of the flea on the cat's back I have no conception of all of what that reality might be like. How does a flea perceive the universe? It can leap huge distances, but can it sense those distances before a leap? Does it understand it's movement? How does reality appear to the flea where there are so many things I could do or my cat might do could affect it? Then I imagine the bacteria living on the flea's shell. Think about it. What is that reality like. A lifespan measured in hours maybe. What culture exists between different types of bacteria. Is there really even thought there? From my perspective I see only instinctive reactions to different stimuli. I see no thought as I would recognize it. Humans in the larger universe are the bacteria on a flea or even less.
A being that can set BILLIONS of stars moving. Something that setup a process where elements form and sort themselves into semi-stable systems. Humanity has not the capacity to understand the creator. To insist otherwise is hubris.
But some do, they say a book written by men 2000 years ago has all the wisdom humanity needs to relate to the universe's creator. Even when that book says something different than the creation itself, they espouse the supremacy of the book. I am proud to no longer be held captive by such ideas.
BenT--
Are you sure you're agnostic? You appear, from my perspective based on your most recent comment, to be tettering over the edge of atheism. To clarify: your argument, to me, has the appearance of an atheistic view rather than agnostic. Would care to elaborate or clarify your position?
ER--
You too. Would you care to elaborate on your "3 Worst Things"? Why those three items specifically?
I believe there is a creator, starter, beginner of the universe. That definitely places me outside of the atheistic camp. My contention is that humanity has a tiny place in the order of the universe. I also believe that humanity doesn't have a broad enough grasp of reality to understand the creator.
Maybe in a billion years if humanity has colonized enough of the universe to actually change something, I'll need to revise my view of humanity's importance. Until then though ...
Bent: May I suugest a new book by a man fundamentalists surely loath, and most traditional Christians fear: "Jesus for the Non-Religious," by John Shelby Spong. Great book.
Part of the problem, as I have come to see it, is the notion of the Bible being any sort of revelation of God to man becomes more absurd as science, and even theology, progresses. When the Scriptures are seen as sacred because of their place in Jewish and Christian history, and not because of their supposed origins ("God-breathed"), and rather than revelastion, seen as records of humankind's attempt so "see," comprehend and understand God, *that*s when one begins to be able to take the Bible seriously but not literally.
Seriously: Buy the book. Get Spong's "Sins of Scriptures," too. I mean this literlaly. :-)
EL, "You too" what?
1. Constantine conversion transformed Christianity from "The Way" -- a kind of relationship with God based on Jesus's teachings -- an institution that humnankind can't help but fight over and defend, and others attack. The faith of our earliest fathers, and mothers, was a way of seeing and living. After Constantine, and the church councils, it devolved into a list of beliefs one must believr to be a member of the club.
2. Big Scary God. Michaelangelo forever implanted a false image of God in the minds of humankind: White, angry, bearded, tossing lightning bolts, the whole nine yards. Why a "false" image? Because any image of God is a false image. And it is terribly unfotunate for the world in general that this Big Scary God image got set loose. God is Big. But not scary. God is love.
3. Printing press. I'm being extreme here. But: The Bible is a lens to seeing the truth. And, since you can't sling a cat without hitting a Bible nowadays, every person who can read thinks he is an armchair theologian when we actually do is spend a lot of time arguing over who believes in the lens! And who believes specifics attributes of the lens! We stare at it instead of looking through it. Well, I don't much anymore. But you do, I think.
Spong!? I'd never recommend him, but if it's a critical non-religious look at God and Jesus Bent was seeking I'd suggest Lee Stobel's books:
The Case for a Creator
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
Naturally, he has his detractors just as Spong does.
As to your points:
The Council of Nicene was a necessary convention only because, as Jude stated: there were "certain men are crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation; ungodly men, turning the grace of our God in lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ". It was necessary to set down-- 'codify' if you will --exactly what was and was not genuine Christianity.
"God is Big but not Scary"
...and yet Ezekiel 25:17 says,
"And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them." Hebrews 10:31 says, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." and Revelation 18:8 says, "Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her."
Naturally, you gravitate toward "God is love" and He is... Great Love! "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life." And while it is also true that "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." Yet the following is equally true... "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." Those are JESUS' words to Nicodemus. God is Love, desiring EVERYONE come to Him through His son Jesus ("I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" John 14:6), but for everyone who refuses that free gift of LOVE, judgment WILL eventually follow. And it is that eventuality that motivates me to spread the Gospel... Especially to BenT.
So... if a Theologian sits down in an armchair is he/she not to be taken seriously? You dragged out "God is Love" and the very fact that you were able to do so is due largely to the invention of the Printing Press. Many people of the day saw the Printing Press as an instrument of evil, the invention of Satan. I'm more than a little surprised that you chose this tack. Especially since you so craftily built an argument against "the Lens" of the Bible while standing up 1 John 4:8 as a primary witness in your second point. I guess use of "the Lens" is fine so long as it shows us what we WANT to see.
You could've made a better case for all three points.
Well, I *could* have made a better case, sure. But blogging is conversation mostly, not research and writing, at least in comment threads.
You illustrate my point well, by the way.
The NT actually captures the early formation of institutional Christianity, which was, and is, something different than what Jesus seems to have been about. Jesus exemplified love. The church, even the early, but not original, church reflected in the NT? Not necessarrily so much.
The OT captures the formation of Israel and the stories and interpretations of a people struggling to survive in a hostile world. They NEEDED an angry tribal God to do battle with the other tribal gods, so that's how they perceived their God.
Also, because the concept of "God is love" is in the Bible does not mean I lean only on the Bible as the source of the concept. There is experience, my own and that of millions -- and the example of Jesus, which recalled literally in the NT or not, shines through despite the confusion among the firswt followers evident in the Bible itself and which shines through today despite all.
You accuse me of using the lens only to support what I want to see, I suppose, because that use of the Bible is so familiar to you. I came up under topical preaching, too. But nowadays I honestly try to use the lens to see The Truth, without so much concern for the lens itself. The lens works; who cares who the manufacturer was, or whether the various elements of it could get out of the metrology lab today?
BTW, Spong's new book is not a critical nonreligious look at Jesus. Far from it. It's a Christian look at finding a way to see through and around the erroneous "facts" of the Christian story without tossing out the Truth of God and the mysterious relationship with God that is possible through Christ. As such, I heartily recommend it to BenT. What you're recommending may be fine, but it is something different.
Well done Eric. However, I'm sure it's a typo, but it's Strobel, not Stobel. Of course the titles will get them there.
Spong is a heretic of the highest order. I recall an interview with Dennis Prager wherein Spong decried the demonstrations of God's destructive power in the OT as "not very God-like". Prager artfully resonded, "No, it might not be very Spong-like, but it is God-like." The point was clear. Many prefer to ignore the anger and vengence of God. They would rather believe He is not a wrathful God. This is a dangerous perspective, because in order to be just, He will have to do unto the wicked that which is considered by many to be "mean". He is perfectly labeled our "Father" in heaven, because a loving father must sometimes punish an unruly child. The punishing doesn't make him less loving, it's a demonstration of love (we're not talking abuse here).
ER,
You find Mike's painting to be scary? He looks rather grandfatherly to me. I don't think that many people have that image (scary) as you might think, IMHO.
Might depend on whether one had a scary grandfather!
All my grandparents were gone before I was born, actually. I do think that angry image of God is the one most people have of Him, tho.
"...that's how they perceived their God."
No... That's how He revealed Himself to them. As Holy, Righteous, Just, and requiring the same of His chosen people.
To say 'that's how they perceived their God' is to toss out the plagues of Egypt, the pillar of fire by night, and the pillar of smoke by day, the daily delivery of Manna, and quail, for forty years no less! You have to throw out the parting of the Sea, the smiting of the rock, the mouths of lions being locked shut, three Hebrew children surviving untouched by the smoke and flame of a fiery furnace.
To say it's merely how they 'Perceived' their God is to insinuate that God was not speaking to them, that He did not reveal Himself or His character to them.
If the Israelites merely 'perceived' a God they needed, who's to say they didn't merely attribute to 'natural phenomena' all the miracles they wrote down for posterity's benefit, namely Us?
If God is just a perception of personal or corporate need, why bother worshiping Him? If we create him via the artifice of perception then He isn't real, which means we worship an idol... no more powerful than the figment created by the followers of Baal who couldn't rouse their 'perceived' god to even light a little fire!!!
Oh, it should go without saying that I don't see a need for the concept of "heresy." I mean, one is either a Christian or not. My definition of "Christian" is broader than yours, I'm sure: One who, infused with the Holy Spirit, trusts in God and tries to follow Jesus. Which, note is more traditional than Spong. Of course, it'd be dang hard to be less traditional than Spong!
Ben,
The first thing you need to remember is that after the Fall of Man, the world fell as well. Illness, deformity, savagery, none of these existed before the Fall. Abnormalities came into being and in the animal world, all of the above exists as well. As to homosexuality in animals, you insist it's a significant number, but I believe the opposite and that there is the same single digit percentages at work as in humankind (that would be low single digits). But of course, Christ didn't come to bring salvation to the animals, and God didn't give His Law to them either. It is OUR behavior with which He concerned Himself. It is equally "natural" for a guy to want to get jiggy with any skirt he sees, whether he's married or not, whether he's related or not, whether she's over 18 or not. Should this "natural" compulsion be permitted or controlled? God set down rules of behavior that, like Himself, remain unchanged from OT to NT to today. It has nothing to do with technology, our understanding of biology or sexuality or any of that. And please, don't bring up the ritualistic laws meant only and clearly for the Hebrew nations. They don't apply.
And the problem you have with what was written down thousands of years ago, what does that matter? This notion that the writers were just dudes making stuff up or jottin' down notes without any direction from God is mere human hope for license to engage in whatever behavior desired.
Finally, it is Biblical teaching that we cannot know the Mind of God. But the Bible does give us what He had in mind for us as far as behavior. Few go farther than that in their preaching. No one here does.
One has to let go of those stories as being literally, factually true. Yes. One does not, however, have to throw them out as useless.
Dude, I mean a lot when I say I reject fundamentalism and a literal reading of Scripture.
Uh oh. I can barely see ya on the horizon. And you can barely see me. :-)
Whoa! We're all debating at once! How confusing! But, company is due any moment. I'll leave with this:
ER may see no need for the word "heresy" but it exists if one strays too far from Biblical teaching. It's a perfect description of Spong who throws out entire concepts in which he doesn't care to believe. It's done by those who prefer to re-create God in their own image, as does many of the "non-fundies" who inhabit liberal denominations. It's just too sticky to align their behaviors with teachings that condemn the manifestations of their desires. Let's pretend we've been inspired by the Spirit to do was we wish. Hey, God is love after all and there's no way He'll condemn me because I don't hit people or steal. That's a pretty self-serving way to honor the Lord. Offense intended...to the concept.
ER these last few posts perfectly illustrate the problem. Christianity is based on extracting morals from a book. My beliefs aren't. There's no angel or demons on my shoulder influencing me. If I'm snide, or angry, it's me. If I am king, or happy it's me too. It is a position of personal responsibility.
I don't get to coat my personal prejudices with a coat of scripture. So even though I sure ER and El mean well with their book recommendations, I am full with my own spiritual life.
Marshall. The rate of human homosexuality is rising. In the 1970's the numbers may have been in the single digits, but today I read an article where the number is pegged in the high teens. Some biologists even link the number to population density.
You're going to have to find some other way to convince me of the deviance of homosexuality. A story from a book of myths won't do it.
Well, BenT, I really do mean well. Peace. :-)
Tickles me when I get accused of looking for an easy way! Lordy! The easiest thing I ever did in my faith life was accept what was told me without question!
There is nothing easy about keeping the Christian faith in the 21st century, especially for one, such as myself, brought up to literalize the Bible unquestioningly. Thinkin' are hard, brethren and cistern!
Sigh. The limits of this form of communication are real.
"The Bible" is a name for a collection of writings regarded as sacred by Christians. I, myself, regard the writings as sacred.
I do not regard "The Bible" as an "it" to be taken or left en toto.
In the NT, the letters of Paul, the ones virtually all scholars agree actually came from Paul, are of the highest order of authenticity. Paul wrote them to the recipients, not to me. Bu they are valuable for Paul's take on his own Jesus experience, as well as his arguments with other apostles, and his ministering to early Christian communities struggling to define what it meant to be "Christian."
The other NT books have various levels of authenticity. Hebrews, for example, as a work of almost total interpretation, is a wonderful example of early interpretation!
The Gospels themselves, seen as early works of interpretation of who Jesus was and how His first followers struggled to fit the experience of meeting and following him into their Jewishness -- wonderful. But they are not historical accounts, were not meant to be historical accounts, and to insist that they are historical accounts is its own form of idolatry, IMHO.
The Revelation? As I've said before, I agree with Martin Luther, who wished it left out of the Canon, until he got so many other problems he quit talking about that.
One cannot find a consensus on what it means to be saved, even in the NT itself!
Paul: belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
Gospel of John: belief that Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus: performing good works, or
by life of poverty and following his example.
Elsewhere: baptism "for the remission of sins."
The OT books are useful, too, as the inherited sacred texts of the Mother religion (OK! Father religion) of the Christian faith. To insist that they are ALL literal accounts of actual events is just impossible without a concomitant superstition that says God, when he wasn't smiting women and children, flooding the world and tossing lightning bolts at people, personally ghost-wrote and copyedited the text.
The very idea that Christianity can be boiled down to a list of beliefs is just, well, so unlike the Jesus seen in the NT. And It's Jesus I follow, as he points to God, not even himself.
Christian -- although in exasperation I've said I prefer the term "Jesusian."
Not a Churchian -- although I love the Church and I go to church.
Not a Biblian -- although I read the Bible and I love the Bible and the Bible points to The Truth and in it can be found precepts for living life more abundantly (spiritual sense: keep the prosperity-preaching yahoos, please).
Not a fundamentalist, which really is a relatively recent expression of the Church.
Not quite a universalist -- but I sure lean that way these days.
Christian. Saved.
Now, here's the question:
Could EL, Marshall, Dan, Mark, Dad, myself and other professing Christians who hang out here worship together, work together to do good in the name of Christ and set aside our doctrinal and other differences to advance the Kingdom?
In other words, do we want people to agree with us or walk with us?
I choose walking.
I just saw this, from Marshall:
-----
ER,
What do you mean by "cultivated by experience"?
Also, please restate your third point regarding the goal of faith. It's a bit muddy.
-----
By "cultivated by experience," I mean that our experience of Grace is renewed each time we fail to live up to God's best intention, and our faith life grows, as a result of a strengthening relationship. Not that we should deliberately continue in sin, so to speak, so that Grace may abound, so to speak.
Re, the goal of faith being life and it more abundantly. Eternal life in communion with God begins now, for lack of a better term, since if God created time, it's hard to pick a word that makes sense. To reduce the totality of what it means to be a Christian to biding one's present while waiting for a future heaven is a very limited view of what it means to be a Christian, and, in fact, potentially leads to a host of harmful behavior, such as disregard for the planet, since it's all gonna burn anyway; the acceptance of poverty as a result of a misinterpretation of the fact that the poor, we will have with us always (which is an admonishment to never quit giving of one's self and one's resources [including one's vote, in my view], not instructions to not try to alleviate it); and the misplaced smugness and faux happiness attending to the idea that "I've got my ticket (to heaven) punched," so then advancing in the faith, in Grace, or in knowledge and meditation, is gratuitous (advanced by the idea, "God [meaning the Bible] said it, I believe, that settles it," among others.
"But they are not historical accounts, were not meant to be historical accounts, and to insist that they are"... yada, yada
And yet you claim to follow the teachings of Jesus that, according to you, as contained in the Gospels, are documents that are neither historical (and therefore can't be relied upon to be accurate since it's impossible for you to believe that God ghostwrote and copyedited the texts), nor meant to be historical. How do you then account for knowing and understanding HOW Jesus intended us to follow Him?
We can't rely on the historicity or accuracy of the Gospels yet we are to follow His teachings? Where else but the Gospels will we find the teachings of Jesus... in His own, and therefore reliable, words?
See, you can't wrap your brain around the concept of the Scriptures not being literally factual, but still being actually true.
The teachings of Jesus can be found in the earliest interpretations of Him and his words -- in the Gospels, which are themselves apologetic in nature, and in the epistles, which are pastoral in nature.
That's how.
And I didn't say I couldn't believe that God ghost-wrote and copyedited the Bible. I said I don't believe it. Which is not to say I don't regard the Scriptures as sacred (I do), or inspired (I do), and as the first available written documents of the faith they are of the highest order of possible inspiration, being closer in time to Jesus. But that is not the same as saying I believe they are directly revelatory; I believe the attempts of the writers to understand and communicate their encounter with Jesus reveal a great deal, as they reflect the thinking of some of the first, but nopt the very first, Christians. That whole 15-20 years between the Crucifiction and the first Pauline letter really leaves a lot of wiggle room.
You know, we regard interpretation of the Constution in the samw way, I'm sure.
Words, at best, are poor replicas of ideas. So total reliance on words, with no regard for how they came about, the context in which they were written, and the actual demystified goals of the authors, makes for bad law as well as bad theology, I think.
ER,
Regarding your last post of 3:44PM.
Christian theologians, apologists, scholars and historians have indeed considered the writings of the Bible within their context, with regard to the times in which they were written, etc, etc. They have determined where metaphor and allegory have been used and have made the distinctions between them and literal meanings. These things have been worked over heavily and have been found to have far more substance and validity than you're willing to allow them.
I also think that Jesus' message was that no one come to the Father but through Him, that is, Jesus, among other things. I've also learned that quite a few theologians and historians place the earliest Paulian Epistle as close as within two years of the Crucifiction.
But what's the real debate here? It's not what part of the Bible is literal and what part isn't. It's how the Bible is used or dismissed in order to justify beliefs regarding things like war, homosexuality, abortion, taxation, how we support the needy and things of that nature. When placed against the context of such things, and I'll add stewardship of the earth to the list, it's easier to determine without asking, who places more value on the Bible as a source of knowledge of God and His Will for us. It is in this manner that your comment regarding the Constitution is true. The same people who think the Constitution is a "living" document feels that theology also evolves according to changing attitudes. Some have left the Church for the same reasons. "It just doesn't relate to me anymore."
The problem is people not relating to Scripture. When "God is still speaking" means that He has changed the rules, it's a sure sign that such believers no longer wish to burden themselve with God's Will in today's world. No, it's far simpler to suggest some imagined evolution on God's part and to accuse "fundies" of superstition, than to mold one's life according to the teachings of Scripture. Barring a visitation from the Lord, ala a Damascus road experience (a real one, not a metaphorical one), "revelations" need to be validated according to Scripture.
And yes, your's is indeed the "easier" way to practice Christianity. It's very convenient for disregarding that which is burdensome and unhip in today's world.
Thanks Marshall, I couldn't agree more.
I'd like look back at something from the original post, and ER's revision...
The basis of our faith is the Scriptures, for without the Scriptures, there would be no foundation-- no basis --upon which Grace (the basis ER believes faith is built upon) could abound. Grace is the Gift of God given to sinful men because they put their faith in the finished work of Christ Jesus, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God... Scripture. The interesting thing here is, no one can believe on Jesus unless God has first given faith to do so... "for by grace are [we] saved THROUGH FAITH; and that not of [our]selves: it is the gift of God..." Faith has primacy over Grace in that Faith must come BEFORE Grace can be given.
The object of our faith is Jesus Christ, for it is in Him that we have salvation, "...for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Jesus is the entire focus of the New Testament. Jesus is one of the primary focuses of the Old Testament. Everything in the Old was a shadow of what was to come-- the Old Testament looked forward to the cross whereas the epistles look back to the cross. Every verse of Scripture that foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah-- and a tremendous amount of the scripture in the Old Testament points to Jesus --was Hebrews 11:1 personified, for every picture of Jesus in the Old Testament WAS "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"... Jesus is the object of our faith! Throughout the New Testament you will find phrases like "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ", "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Jesus died for our sins, and Acts 20:28 declares that God purchased the church "with His [God's] own blood". Without Christ's blood, without His death, without his resurrection we would have no faith.
Lastly, the Goal of our faith is not abundant life as ER suggests. That is merely one of many benefits of belonging to Christ and being in His will... we shall have life and have it more abundantly. Jesus said, "I am come that they [believers] might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." His purpose was to die for the sins of all mankind, and the only people who will have life are those who, as he said we must, take up our cross and follow him. Christ was holy... we are to be holy. "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:15-16. The goal of the faith that God imparts to us is not to live a more abundant life, although that is the end result. The goal is holiness, for without that there can BE no abundancy. And holiness requires personal sacrifice... take up your cross and follow him... if any man love father mother brother sister more than me he is not fit for the kingdom of heaven... Sacrifice!
"And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."
--Mark 10:29-30
No great abundancy is promised in this life... but only in the next.
Well, I, and many, many others, disagree with both of you.
Marshall, I never said God evolves; I say that humankind's perception of God evolves. And, either God is still speaking or He's dead. He's not dead.
And re: "And yes, your's is indeed the 'easier' way to practice Christianity."
In a word, bulls--it. I've not disregarded a thing because it's burdensome or unhip, but because it requires not faith, but suspension of critical thinking and rational thought to continue to believe some things, and I'm done with that. Being faithful is one thing; persisting in ignorance and calling it being faithful is another.
EL, where you see OT Scriptures foreshadowing a Messiah, I agree with you; where you see NT Scriptures confirming the Messiah in Jesus, I see the earliest followers of Jesus using their own Scriptures (the OT) to explain the Godness they experienced in Jesus. I accept their interpretation as my own faith heritage. It's like blood atonement, which is a fine way to describe the transaction of the Cross but means nothing unless one is a Jew or accepts blood sacrifice as one's faith heritage, which I do.
But God no longer requires blood, his thirst for it having been slaked at the Cross -- oh, wait: God doesn't change. And He is mute. Never mind.
"The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants; For they have transgressed laws, Violated the statutes, Broken the everlasting covenant."
"This was one of the biblical passages for our Earth Day service. A harsh warning for those who'd pollute God's good creation and part from God's ways."
Funny how you can dismiss the clear warning here that God gives concerning pollution of morality.
Your church has symptoms of great sickness, Dan.
BTW, Marshall, re: how the Bible is used:
I pro,ise you that the use and abuse of temple prostitutes in pseudoreligious rites, which is probaboy what Romans 1 is talking about, would be cause for something akin to "shunning" in my church. Likewise anyone who openly picked up dates on street corners, gay or straight. Or went to bathhouses or sex clubs. Pretty sure that would be cause for alarm and shunning.
And, specifically, here is the Bible-based statement of opennes from my church -- and EL, please leave this link, to save me from typing it all in. It is perfectly germane to the homosexuality subtopic of this wonderfully wide-ranging thread:
http://www.mayflowerucc.org/who/covenant.html
I'll check your link later as I must leave for work. But for now, two quick things.
1. I agree God is still speaking. But God is saying what He's always said. He has not adjusted His message to fit our modern world. WE'VE altered it. That is, liberal Christians.
2. Why concern one's self with notion of what a verse "probably" means? We can play games with such things all day or simply go with what the words themselves mean. I've never seen anything that confirms what the homo-supporters believe about Scriture regarding homosexuality. There's certainly nothing in the passages to suggest those beliefs. It's projection by the supporters and nothing more. Disregard it.
BenT:>You're going to have to find some other way to convince me of the deviance of homosexuality. A story from a book of myths won't do it.
Is it deviant to practice 'cutting' (like many youth do these days)? How is that a proper use of our bodies? Or maybe someone slowly killing themselves with Meth is deviant. Isn't that person cutting their life span short by putting chemicals in their body that it wasn't designed for and can't handle? Along those same lines, homosexuality is deviant because it deviates from a correctly designed use of the human body toward something that may 'feel' good at the time, but does nothing good spiritually, emotionally, or physically.
BenT said:>Maybe in a billion years if humanity has colonized enough of the universe to actually change something, I'll need to revise my view of humanity's importance. Until then though ...
If there wasn't a thing such as death, I'd take you up on that offer. I agree with you in one sense - we'll never change anything. The only change occurs when God is working through us - He does the changing. Everything man does apart from God is selfish and powerless. Yet, God has a higher view of us than we do of ourselves. He came and died for us while we couldn't care less and were content to live/die on our own. Like scripture says, God's kindness leads us to repentance. I will not convince you. A great theological argument won't convince you. But realizing that you deserve death and hell (as do I) and yet God offers us eternal life without having to work for it or earn is the most mind boggling fact ever! When that message goes from our heads to our hearts, everything changes. The over-arching message of the Bible is wrapped up in one verse:
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Look at what we deserve. Look at what God gives!
ER,
I checked out your link. How sweet. What a crock. How is it your church chose that particular sinful behavior to overlook? Why not adultery or fornication? Don't you think Kurt and Goldie are committed to each other? Are they cool for you guys? (Actually, they've pretty much proven their committment and if they exchanged any kind of vow between each other, they are bound by their vow as any other married couple.) It's all well and good to say to a sinner, "Yes, come in, you are welcome here." But to simply let them in and never address their sinfulness, as if they are not committing sin by their behavior, which is implied by their insistence to label themselves as homosexuals, is a travesty and your church has a part in their sin. What about burglars? Are they required to give up their ways when they seek the Lord in your church? How about hit-men? Would they have to repent or not? What keeps us from being baptized? Nothing. What keeps us from salvation? Assuming we are not sinners and have nothing to repent of. Your church engages in heresy, plainly and simply, if they insist on enabling these poor souls with nonsense about Scripture not condemning homosexual behavior. You kid yourselves, mislead these people, and worst of all, give the children of your congregation a horribly perverted interpretation by which to live and believe. That may be the worst sin of all. "Woe unto him that leads these little ones to sin." Isn't that how it goes? May God forgive you and your congregation and may He grant you all the epiphany you so desparately need.
Roger,
I hate to step on your act here, but I must comment on some of what you said. You seem to imply that only acceptance of Christ is required, but I believe acceptance without repentance is insufficient. Faith without acts...? I don't believe that God promotes one's repentance, as mentioned in an earlier post, but that repentance comes first, or rather, right after acceptance of Christ as Savior. Acceptance, repentance, then God's Grace is poured out. We have to make the move. The acceptance and repentance is the choice we make, which is contrary to the choices we were making beforehand. God's waiting for us. He's revealed Himself in Scripture and everyone knows He's out there. We need to make the move and come to Him.
And so, Roger, you are likely hell-bound and probably your whole congregation, too. You got that part wrong, according to Marshall, therefore, your Christianity is in doubt.
That's how it works, right? Just trying to help out following the ground rules for this particular site...
Peace out.
The only ground rule here, Dan, aside from those previously discussed, is everyone must be prepared to defend their argument. Marshall and I know where Roger stands. If Marshall disagrees with Roger on the minor point of "which comes first, Faith or Repentance", it still doesn't rise to the level of importance as "Can Christians welcome Homosexuals into the church without any expectation that they should repent from the sin of homosexuality?"
However much you disagree that the Bible does in deed expressly speak against homosexuality doesn't mean your belief carries any weight. Your defense of Homosexuality (especially within monogomous loving relationships) is extrabiblical and not the remotest bit scholarly. On top of this you've showed no legitimate basis for welcoming the abomination of homosexuality within your midst. Yes, homosexuals are welcome in the Church, "just as they are, without one plea..." but repentance must at some point follow, which requires the forsaking of their homosexuality. By all means, welcome homosexuals to your church, but do not welcome homosexuality.
I believe that's what's called:
"Loving the sinner, hating the sin"
Marshall Art,
sorry if I didn't communicate my thoughts very well. Communicating via this medium is very tedious as we all know. Certainly repentance is necessary. Like Jesus said, 'unless we repent, we'll perish'. It's also interesting to note that the first public statement He made in ministry was 'to repent.' It's possible to have a head knowledge of the Gospel and not be saved - for it's the repentance that shows that we accept it and obey.
Dan said:>And so, Roger, you are likely hell-bound and probably your whole congregation, too. You got that part wrong, according to Marshall, therefore, your Christianity is in doubt.
Dan, spiritual deception is what it is. It's not a matter to take lightly. Especially if we're in the position of teaching doctrine (on the internet or otherwise) to 'little ones' as Jesus called them. We all know what He says are the implications of causing them to stumble. The homosexuality position you promote isn't the only stumbling block the church today is teaching and we're not picking on you as each of us is capable of being deceived and teaching error. It's just that we should repent of sin as soon as we're aware. Friends that will be honest with each other are of great benefit. Faithful are the wounds of a friend.
Check out this commentary I read a while back on what is really at stake here:
In his book Ask Me Anything, Dr. J. Budziszewski provides a rejoinder. While gays equate “love” with “acceptance,” Budziszewski offers another view: “Love is a commitment of the will to the true good of the other person. . . . [A] perfect Lover [that is, God] would want the perfect good of the beloved. . . . He would loathe and detest whatever destroyed the beloved’s good — no matter how much the beloved desired it.” And what destroys us — all of us — is sin. If we refuse to let go of it, writes Budziszewski, we say to the perfect Lover, “I bind myself to my destruction! Accept me — and my destruction with me!”
Sometimes what we need to hear is not as pleasant as what we want to hear. But we can’t deny that we’d rather have somebody be truthful with us (no matter how much pain results from it) than to have somebody not be truthful with us and let us go down a path that leads to much more painful and lasting consequences. A friend is someone that sees a danger down the road and warns us - so that we can change direction while there is still time.
A huge and joyous Amen to you, Roger for your clarification and your response to Dan. Therein lies the bottom line. Not only from a spiritual perspective, but also from a physical one, the sexual behavior of homosexuals with each other are considered to be perfect for the spread of disease as well as physical damage. How anyone could wish to enable such behavior is beyond me and shows far less true love for one's fellow man than they imagine.
Hmm.
"How is it your church chose that particular sinful behavior to overlook?"
Once again, I talk about the state of being homosexual, and people hear "homosexual acts" or behavior.
The point is: Many of assert that the state of being homosexual is NOT A SIN -- there, said it out loud -- NO MORE OR LESS THAN THE STATE OF SIN WE ALL ARE IN, SAVED OR LOST.
I'm in good company being called a heretic, by the way, so bring it on.
Es todo.
We get that, ER. The point is, would your church preach against the behavior because of their "noble" postition of open and affirming welcome? This is where the rubber meets the road. Given that these people are open about their homosexuality, insofar as you seem to be aware of it, do they claim to remain celebate or are they seeking a woman to marry or are they engaged in a homosexual relationship? I'm sure your church would welcome any sinner who wishes to come to the Lord, but would they act the same way towards one involved in bestiality if he continually brought his sheep to the church picnic? There's a big difference between acknowledging one's homosexuality and one's belief that it isn't sinful to engage in homosexual behavior. There's a big difference between a church that opens it's doors to all sinners seeking the Lord and a church that disregards their continuing in their sin. Before you go on about not judging or probing the personal life of another, if one comes to your church and makes it known what their beliefs are about their particular sin, it wouldn't be judging or probing to preach against the sin. You can't pretend you're bringing someone to God if you're afraid to address their particular sin.
Now I understand your church doesn't agree that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that is where the heresy comes in. This is not judgement. None is necessary as it is already revealed as sinful behavior. Your church is teaching something contrary to Scripture and THAT makes them heretical, at least on that issue. None of us, Eric, Roger, Mark or myself, have put forth any comments that are contrary to Scripture and claimed it to be within God's Will or plan or anything like that. We have not been heretical in our presentation of our beliefs regarding Scripture. There's nothing in Scripture that suggests God is cool with any form of homosexual behavior. Where do you see heresy in anything we've said? Keep in mind that you don't regard the Bible as we do.
"Es todo" means "the end." As in, I'm done.
But, I've linked this post and several others related to it with a new intro over at my own place. If you want to continue this rodeo, y'all come.
(But, I never said anyone was guilty of heresy, so I don't understand your defense of yourself and others. In fact, I think I said I don't think I believe in heresy: one is either a Christian or not. And, you're right: I don't regard the Bible as you do do; but even if I did, it is not at all clear that the New Testament mentions of man-man sexual behavior are referring to what you lump together into the phrase "homosexual acts," they appear to me to be referring to acts of sexual violence and unbridled lust between men, especially in Romans 1. Oh, and nice try bringing in bestiality. A better question, especially for one who insists that homosexualty is just a lifetsyle choice, would be "If a fat slob joined your church and by all appearances continued to overeat, would you not be sinning to accept him and not reproach him for his gluttony, which would be heresy, gluttony being a sin?" You're at war with homosexuals, to their detriment, and claim to be able to gauge another person's repentance, in arrogance. I defend homosexual Christians them in the name of Grace and Christ and plead ignroance as to another person's repentance. Grace is not heresy. I refuse to turn to another on the The Way and knock them off the path because I don't approve of the way they walk. How pharisaical.)
ES TODO.
"One cannot find a consensus on what it means to be saved, even in the NT itself!
Paul: belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
Gospel of John: belief that Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus: performing good works, or
by life of poverty and following his example.
Elsewhere: baptism "for the remission of sins."
You say you are a Christian and that you are saved. How do you know you're saved when the Bible that you sort of believe in - that you do not believe is infallible, and do not believe is to be taken literally, is supposedly so ambiguous on the subject?
"Certainty" of salvation is a fairly recent development in the history of Christianity.
Faith, the substance of things hoped for, is not certainty.
Jesus says, "Follow me." He doesn't actually say where we're going.
Oh, and the static notion of "saved," in the past tense, is an extremely limited concept of one's relationship with God. I mean, really, isn't it?
I was saved. I am saved. I am being saved. I will be saved. All are crude attempts to say the unexpressable.
""Certainty" of salvation is a fairly recent development in the history of Christianity."
Nonsense. "These things have I written unto you ... that ye may know that ye have eternal life..." - is 2000 years ago recent?
Faith, the substance of things hoped for, is not certainty.
Faith is not certainty. But salvation can be. And our faith is not without evidence.
Jesus says, "Follow me." He doesn't actually say where we're going.
Again. Nonsense. "...I go unto my Father." "...because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;" and "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
Oh, and the static notion of "saved," in the past tense, is an extremely limited concept of one's relationship with God. I mean, really, isn't it?
I was saved. I am saved. I am being saved. I will be saved. All are crude attempts to say the unexpressable.
Being saved is a one time for all time occurrence. "...whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."
Being saved is not all there is to a relationship with God, but it is the beginning. And without it, there is no relationship.
You know, without context -- who wrote them, to whom, for what purpose -- those verses mean only what you want them to. As I said at my own place yesterday, tossing around Bible verses without context, as if they speak for themselves in every circumstance, for all time -- as if the words were written to me, in 2007 (as I know most fundamentalists actually do believe) -- remins me of the wand duels and hocu-pocus in the Harry Potter books and movies: Juveniles trying to use power they think they're in control of, but which they barely comprehend, to harm others and to defend themselves.
Wow! One more comment and ya hit a hunnerd with this'n, EL. Even after I highjacked it and took over to my own place!
Here's 100:
ER,
You're now going to have to explain how a verse used DOESN'T apply. It seems you're eager to leave things unclear, indeed to make things unclear, as if to enable more possibilities for yourself or those you love. And I am sincerely curious about this question.
I deeply appreciate Ms. Green's ability to cut to the chase. She can say better in just a few lines what takes me umpteen paragraphs.
While the term 'Heresy' as defined over at ER's place-- an erudite redneck --is a term I don't like to employ, despite having done so, ER's claims are very....... heretical. On top of which, they make very little exegetical sense.
And per Marshall's comment, it's become clear (on top of Ms. Green's input and every other comment made on Scripture here and elsewhere) that ER and Dan and I all read from different Bibles....
Speaking of which, and to my point:
Look at John 3:16 in both the NIV and the KJ> Can anyone tell me what is in the KJ that is missing in the NIV? And why is it important?
Well, there's a comma left out of the NIV. But I don't see how that changes the meaning.
There are quote marks left out of some of what Paul wrote -- because the Greeks didn't have quote marks -- which could completely change the meaning of some of his writings. Some scholars say.
I'm ignoring Marshall's testy "challenge" as just goofy. I'll just go back to ignoring it when commenters take verses out of context and plop 'em down like just quoting them solves everything.
Re, heretical. Probably. As heretical as abolitionists' interpretation was to Southerners. Y'all, they didn't just pretend slavery was OK. They literally believed that the Bible held slavery out as a positive GOOD -- for the church, for society, for the slaves themselves. Oh, and for business.
One can make such an argument, taking verses literally -- easily! One would be immoral and wrong to do so.
You know, without context -- who wrote them, to whom, for what purpose -- those verses mean only what you want them to.
Ok, ER. I'll bite.
The Book of 1 John:
WHO: written by John
TO WHOM: to the same seven churches that he wrote to in the book of Revelation (so the majority of these individuals would be saved)
FOR WHAT PURPOSE: (in John's own words)
"that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ"
"that your joy may be full"
"that ye sin not"
"that ye may know that ye have eternal life."
"concerning them that seduce you"
So, in context, I repeat...eternal security is not a new concept. It is Biblical.
"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
Very good. Thank you. I won't quibble with you over who "John" was. But I never said the promise of eternal security was new. I said that the demand for personal certainty -- based on an agreed-upon set of beliefs -- about it was new.
What is faith? And what did James mean when he admonished the readers of his letter to "work out" their salvation with fear and trembling?
Did he mean to be cocksure about it, pridefully, and to insist that everyone see everything his way? Or did he mean to trust God as they doubted, to rely on God as they struggled, to live day to day in God's Grace, not to base eternity on "a decision" or a point in time?
Gracious! I give ya'll a simple assignment and the best I get is a 'comma' and some 'quotations'?
Do I have to spell it out?
Yes, Eric, you do... [Sigh...]
John 3:16 from the NIV:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16 from the KJ:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
NIV: One and only...
KJ: Only begotten...
Huge difference! Why? I'm glad you asked.
Jesus, according to prophecy and corroborating New Testament scriptures, was born of a virgin. No human sperm entered Mary's womb in His conception. Instead, the Holy Spirit caused Mary to conceive, and "...therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35. Jesus is the only Man ever born in this fashion... He is quite literally 'the only begotten' Son of God.
John 1:12 says, "But as many as received him [Jesus], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his [Jesus'] name"
Everyone who is saved is a son of God... by adoption... and in the Will. We will recieve our inheritance, as sons of the Most High... joint heirs in Christ.
If the NIV is correct Jesus is the 'One and Only' Son of God, and John 1:12 is rendered contradictory, and therefore false. But if the KJ is correct, Jesus is the only 'Begotten' Son of God, but not the ONLY son of God.
This is why translation is so important. One is reliable, the others are not.
I used to have in my saved documents, an article focussing on the various versions of the Bible and exlanations for most of them regarding the differences in interpretation. Basically, some seek to capture the spirit of the words, others the exact translations, and still others some kind of combination. And of course there are those in today's language and also feminist or gender neutral versions which are mostly unworthy of consideration. Two or three or two with a study Bible seem to be the way to go, but I have only one. I borrow others at times.
ER,
My challenge is only as goofy as your comments that provoked it. You're duckin' plain and simple. The query is valid considering you dismiss the use of verses on grounds of context, who wrote it and for whom on which day of the week, or whatever reasons you use, but never say why any of that invalidates the use of the verse. I've responded to the typical explanations which I've found lacking in credibility or basis, but you just say stuff. Not cricket.
I never said that, MA. I said that without first considering the authro, to recipients, the context and the times, no verse can be understood. That is way different from dismissing the use of verses.
Can you people read words. Or is really diabolical? I can't write a word around here with9ut it getting twisted.
Since I don't y'all are evil, I have to go with the reading comprehension thing. Like, get some.
EL, by the way, that was a beautiful display of acrobatics to prove a point. Forgive a little snark. But honestly, if I thought my relationship with God through Christ depending on such gymnastics to PROVE this or that doctrinal point, I'd probably just quit. And join a who-done-it supper club or something. But it hinges on nothing of the sort -- and so I hang in there!
ER,
Considering your two-finger typing sometimes leaves the reading bewildered, clarification is the point I'm going for. So let me be more clear about MY comment. It's not that you're dismissing the verses used, it's that you're dismissing MY use of the verse, and that you don't make clear why our understanding of the context, the author, who he was writing to, etc, invalidates said use or our understanding of the verse. (I THINK that clarifies it.) So mine was a request that you illustrate for me where you think I'm going wrong with my interpretation or use of a verse. This will at least help me understand where YOU'RE coming from a bit better. I hope.
Check out the guy who linked to this post! At least someone has enjoyed the discussion here.
Well, the sad thing is he's right.
BTW, how come when I linked here it didn't show up like the Worm guy's did?
And, to the Worm guy:
You are seeing Christians working out what it means to be a Christian. This is it. The Peace that Passes Understanding that Jesus promised has nothing to do with peace as the world understands it; and the love that the faith talks about has nothing to do with getting along all the time. I hope my brothers here agree -- but if they don't, eh, the God we worship is bigger than any of us. So we squabble. So what.
The Worm is LOOKING AT Christ at work among his followers. Jump in and engage God through Christ. Or stay outside and mock.
Or get thee behind us.
Post a Comment
<< Home