Our conservative friend, Craig, made some comments about some of my comments at another blog. This is a blog that picks and chooses which of my comments to post and so, I have been left unable to address Craig's questions/comments. So, I've brought them over here.
I do so because Craig holds a misunderstanding of my positions and so, this is my attempt to clarify. These comments were generally on the topic of grace and when ought we be more confronting of Christians with whom we disagree and when we should "live and let live" on disagreements.
Craig said...
This is not the first time I have seen Dan play the "what if someone doesn't know something is a sin" card.
No "card" intended to be played. Just a reasonable question. The question (in my understanding) is "What if we have researched a behavior, we've prayerfully and carefully sought God's will, reading the Bible, taking into consideration others' view points and tradition and being open to the leading of God, and, at the end of that, we have decided that this behavior is NOT sinful?
What, then, if we discover upon "Judgment Day" that this action actually WAS a sin? Are we doomed because we were sincerely mistaken on a sin?"
My position has been that we are saved by God's grace. If, therefore, we are mistaken on a point, then we are STILL saved by God's grace. If we "lose" our salvation by being mistaken about a sin, then it is not grace which saves us, but works.
So it seems to me to be an entirely reasonable question and, further, I believe I come down on the side of Christian orthodoxy. I don't believe you, Craig, come down against grace on this point, do you?
Craig...
Well, one of the scriptures for this morning was from Ecclesiastes 12, where we find this.
"...Fear God and keep His commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man. "
My question is this, why would the prophet (who is presumably speaking for God) command people to do something that (if we accept Dan's premise) is impossible?
We OUGHT to strive to keep God's commandments, as best we understand them. BUT, we won't always perfectly understand everything.
Do you think, Craig, that the Bible teaches we will and do have a "perfect understanding" on each and every action/potential sin? That would seem to be an extraordinary position to hold.
Craig...
How can we "keep His commandments", if there is doubt or ambiguity aver what those commandments are?
As best we can, by God's grace, right?
Craig...
It does seem that God has made His commands pretty clear, and that we are called to obey them. I guess where it gets cloudy is when we interpose our interpretation (think Jewish law) over God's commands. I still don't think God would command us to do obey a command that cannot be discerned as in Dan's example.
We all do. Those things that we think we understand about God, we think are pretty clear. But from one person to the next, in the details, we don't always agree.
Craig...
Dan has argued in the past that simply not knowing whether something is a sin is sufficient for one to not be accountable for the sin. I think most of the rest of us would disagree...
Dan has argued that when, due to our own human shortcomings, we don't always know the "sin nature" of each and every action and we sin unaware, that God's grace covers our lack of perfect understanding.
Is it the case that you think we will have perfect understanding?
Do you not think that God's grace covers our lack of perfect understanding?
Craig quoted me and continued...
"That's my point - we ALL have many many opinions about what is and isn't greedy, what is and isn't sexually appropriate, what is and isn't sin."
This isn't the best example of Dan's contention, but it makes my point. As long as our opinion of what is sin is the controlling factor then one can do what one wishes. Even if one has arrived at that position by study of scripture and prayer. My counter to that would be God defines sin, and God will judge us based on His definition, not ours. So even if we "don't know" that lying is a sin, we still sin when we lie.
1. ? Our opinion of what is sin IS the controlling factor (for us) in what we do. IF we study, pray and contemplate over an action and prayerfully/carefully reach the conclusion that X is a sin, that dictates to us (in our better moments) how we should behave.
If our opinion isn't the controlling factor in how you behave, what is?
2. Before you say, "The Bible," first acknowledge that if you read a passage and reach THE OPINION that it condemns behavior X, you are still talking about your opinion of biblical teaching. Yes, yes, God is who we believers look to in order to try to find God's will, but we ultimately are relying upon our opinions, our thoughts about what is and isn't right.
3. I don't know that that's the best way to put it, "God defines sin." Sin is. It's that which breaks relationships, it's the missing of the mark, it's the rejection of God's way in favor of our way. But perhaps that's just semantics.
4. Yes, yes, of course if we lie without knowing that lying is a sin, it remains a sin. I never said otherwise.
All I have said is that IF we sin in ignorance, then God's grace covers our ignorance.
Do you disagree?
124 comments:
Faith is a gift of God's good grace, it isn't something we do ourselves. Our response to that grace is repentance, which God also works in us. No matter how well intentioned our repentance, total depravity means that even our attempts at repentance are going to fall short. And, of course, total depravity means that even our recognizing sin is going to be imperfect.
The opposite point that apparently some want to argue about is nothing other than works based righteousness disguised in the words (but obviously not the plain meaning) of orthodox Reformed theology. Being concerned about other's heterodoxy is not an excuse to be a busybody.
In other words, Dan, as the recent poll showed, most religious people don't actually know much about their religion, so if I were you, I wouldn't be too concerned about Craig's heterodoxy.
Not to mention, of course that the whole reason to focus on "sins we don't know about" is because some folks are clearly more interested in the sins of others than their own. It's simply a way to get going on the whole finger pointing ...
Or as CS Lewis said, "Those who do not think about their own sins make up for it by thinking incessantly about the sins of others." There is no such thing as "live and let live" for the busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds among us.
Craig, rather than sit around and focus on "sin", my own or others, quite a bit of my time is spent actually considering God's will for me, and how I am to live that out.
I begin with the premise, hardly unique to Wesleyan theology, that my search and the resulting life will never - NEVER - be fully what God wanted for me or from me. Yet, I do so anyway. That's because, and here's that word again, I trust in God's GRACE to make up for those deficiencies, faults, flaws, and downright bungles and sin I commit along the way.
I also do not worry overmuch that those acts of mine that fall short are some impediment to God's acceptance, love, and the future state of my life before the throne of God. Because my hope rests not in any act of mine, but solely and completely in the grace of God, I feel confident that if placed before the throne, should I confess that as my position, I shall receive the wry smile and nod of the head, rather than the back of the hand.
An overwhelming concern with "sins", as Alan notes, seems to me the province of those who really don't get that grace is a real thing. Our response to grace, even rejection of it, is neither here nor there, because all our reactions contain the taint of sin.
If I may jump in, I tend to agree with you fellas in that our primary concern should be with out own sins. Deal with the plank in your own eye and all that.
But I think you're going over a bit too far in this. That parable was not saying never deal with sin in your brother, only that you should deal with your own issues before helping your brother with his. And since we'll never be perfect this side of heaven, so the parable is not telling us to take care of everything before we help out.
Jesus, in fact, gave us a detailed procedure for dealing with, in this case, a Christian brother who sins against us. Even with our own sins, we can still point it out in another.
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Regarding this current discussion about whether prayerfully considering a particular action to be sinful or not, I see 2 firewalls here. If you can find one or two others that agree with you that he sinned against you, that should cause him to reconsider. If it doesn't, then perhaps the larger body of the church, holding that opinion, may do so. If it doesn't, consider him a pagan. I don't see an "I'm OK, you're OK" result here in the case of actual sin, even if your brother and fellow professing Christian doesn't consider it as such.
Now, this works the other way as well, I would think. If I can't find one or two to agree with me, perhaps I need to reconsider my position. And if I can find one or two, but the larger church doesn't agree, I and my compatriots may need to to some soul-searching.
Either way, I don't see pointing out sin as being a member of the "busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds" of the world. Jesus asks us to. The Apostle Paul had no compunction about it with regards to the churches.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
"Hand this man over to Satan"? Pretty strong words. Not exactly "live and let live". Doesn't sound like Paul's going with the thought that, "but hey, that's just my opinion; what do I know?"
Does Grace have a place at the table here? Sounds like there's a time and a place even for Grace. Other times, treat them like a pagan and hand them over to Satan.
Essentially, I'm speaking against the idea that all pointing out of sin is wrong or doesn't show the proper Grace. Our response to the rejection of Grace does matter. How we go about doing that is, indeed, a separate and important question, but I think it's pretty clear that we are to correct those in the body of Christ over some issues?
(Which issues is, again, another big issue. Paul seemed to get very concerned over sexual immorality, which seems to be one of the issues here. Just sayin'.)
By its very nature, Grace is not something we can either reject or accept. We recognize the way it has acted in our lives and respond to it - in joy or anger, in relief or guilt - but I find no Biblical or dogmatic warrant for the idea that if we say to God, in essence, "Thanks, but no thanks," God is gonna shrug and say, "You don't know what you're missing," and turn and walk away.
While foreign to my own more Arminian heritage as a Wesleyan, I actually think the Calvinist notion of irresistible grace is far more sound, doctrinally. God never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever gives up on any of us. Not on you, not on me, not on Chairman Mao, not on Attila the Hun. No one.
Even Cain's mark was a sign of Divine favor. Read Genesis if you don't believe me.
If there's any theological theme that runs through the Bible, it's Grace.
I guess I'm making a distinction between God's grace and the grace given (or not) to a brother whom we see as being in sin. The latter is more of what I'm referring to when I speak of calling folks on their actions. The "live and let live" mentality to some extent is good; I am giving my grace to others. But at some point (and both Paul and Jesus say that there is that point) we must withhold that grace and not "let live", meaning not excuse.
Thanks for the comments, all. A few things...
1. Craig has asked that I have this conversation with him via email and that I remove his comments. I will honor that wish (thus, if you remember seeing some comments from Craig and they're not there, that's why).
2. Doug said...
I think you're going over a bit too far in this. That parable was not saying never deal with sin in your brother, only that you should deal with your own issues before helping your brother with his.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not suggesting we should say nothing about "other people's sins," or that we can't discuss various actions and their potential "sin nature." I would think this should be obvious from my blog, as I do this all the time.
On the Blog that Shall Not Be Mentioned, this came up in a conversation about when it is appropriate to talk with others about "their sin" and when to "shun" or disassociate from them.
My position was that it's okay to talk about actions that you might think be sinful, by all means. If someone is drinking and driving in a school zone, I hope you talk (and a whole lot more) with that person.
But when it comes to disassociating from them, I'd suggest leaving that to those actions that are likely to cause harm. Thus, I would intervene strongly with the abusive husband, with the person with anger issues, the thief, but I would not be so strong in my talks with a person who disagrees with me about a Walmart boycott, or about cursing, or about doing drugs.
My point was that people tend to disassociate from others (including and especially their loved ones) too frivolously. "They cursed." "They wore shorts in church!" "They had a gay wedding!"
Many people are too quick to divide and come to blows over too little. That was my point...
Dan,
Even though the comments are still here, thanks I appreciate it. I look forward to continuing with you.
"I guess I'm making a distinction between God's grace and the grace given (or not) to a brother whom we see as being in sin. The latter is more of what I'm referring to when I speak of calling folks on their actions."
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. If God has covered our sins by His good Grace, who are we to still hold those sins against someone? "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us," as Jesus taught. Note, the Lord's Prayer isn't imprecatory.
"God Himself is the only one to whom man is accountable for his religious sentiments simply, nor has He erected any tribunal on Earth qualified to judge whether the man worships in an acceptable manner or not." Jeremiah Moore.
Not bad for a Baptist. We Presbyterians would simply say, "God alone is Lord of the conscience."
We didn't throw off one Pope to simply bow to another in the form of busybodies, fusspots, tattletales, and scolds.
This has always been the tension in Protestantism: the priesthood of all believers. Protestants have always struggled with the "all" part of that, and shifted back and forth like a pendulum between looking for some Earthly authority to place the God-Housekeeping Seal of approval on someone's actions and freedom of conscience. (Look, for example, at how people today quote Calvin as if he were a Protestant Pope. Calvin said it, I believe it, therefore you're a heretic.) There's a lot of good stuff in Calvin, and Luther, and even Wesley :) . But that doesn't mean we can't do better.
Calvin said it, I believe it, therefore you're a heretic.
Ha! Funny, even though it's too true...
Doug...
Does Grace have a place at the table here? Sounds like there's a time and a place even for Grace.
I'm assuming that this is said ironically tongue in cheek, right? (As in, "If we're talking Christianity, OF COURSE there is a time and place for grace - that's the core of Christianity and salvation and God's reaching out to us..."). If so, it is an always apt reminder, thanks.
Doug...
The "live and let live" mentality to some extent is good; I am giving my grace to others. But at some point (and both Paul and Jesus say that there is that point) we must withhold that grace and not "let live", meaning not excuse.
I tried to touch on this earlier, but I'm not sure how clear I was. My point in the Other Blog was that we Christians too easily divide. We ALL have opinions about what actions are sin and what aren't, and sometimes those opinions differ.
In my own anabaptist background, we have Amish folk who've divided over the contentious issue of "one suspender or two?" - That is, is it being prideful and ostentatious or greedy to use two suspenders when one would do the job? It sounds ridiculous to divide over such matters, but at the time, I'm sure those involved were "contending for the faith," because it was "obvious" to some that two suspenders was being greedy or prideful, both of which are condemned "obviously."
That's sort of what I'm getting at: We tend to divide over matters that we think are "obvious" forgetting that what is obvious to some is not to others. Thus my suggestion that we leave dividing to more serious matters of harm and overtly obvious (there we go again) topics. If someone were to say, "Jesus wants us to hate our enemies," that, to me, would be overtly obvious contradiction of a direct teaching of Jesus and worthy of division. "I don't approve of his clothes," "I don't believe in gay marriage," "I don't like that he's in the military..." these are more subjective issues it seems to me.
Thus, that leaves me at a point where I lean towards grace more (even when I disagree) and there are fewer topics I'd be willing to divide over than some (including myself at a younger age)... Still, that seems to me to be the right place to be.
"Sounds like there's a time and a place even for Grace. "
Sorry to be harsh, but that's just silly. Even if it were true, it wouldn't be up to us to decide the time and place.
I think I can count on the fingers of one hand (and have several fingers left over) the number of people I've talked to who actually really and truly believe in God's Grace.
The rest just fake it.
Alan:
"Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us," as Jesus taught. Note, the Lord's Prayer isn't imprecatory.
I understand that Dan at least has a line over which he'd practice Matthew 18, but I'm not sure you've bought into Jesus' words, at least based on what you've written here.
Forgiving someone for a sin and pointing out a sin are not mutually exclusive actions. Pointing out a sin that crosses that line is, at least to Jesus, part of our responsibility to our fellow Christian. Paul pointed out sin to the Corinthians, in part, to keep the church's reputation as unsullied as possible. They were proud of this, and yet Paul takes them to task.
And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?
Do you not agree that pointing out sin that crosses some line can be helpful in the body of Christ, if done according to Jesus' teaching?
Dan:
[quoting me]Does Grace have a place at the table here? Sounds like there's a time and a place even for Grace. [end quote]
I'm assuming that this is said ironically tongue in cheek, right? (As in, "If we're talking Christianity, OF COURSE there is a time and place for grace - that's the core of Christianity and salvation and God's reaching out to us...").
In this I'm speaking of the grace give from one brother to another, the 'live and let live' grace. Jesus said to withhold that grace under certain circumstances in Matthew 18. "Treat him like a pagan or a tax collector" is most certainly not "live and let live".
But I see you do have a line, and I appreciate that. Would you consider general sexual immorality to be across that line, as Paul certainly thought? If a man was married to his stepmother, as in the Corinthian example, would you react as Paul did?
"Do you not agree that pointing out sin that crosses some line can be helpful in the body of Christ, if done according to Jesus' teaching?"
Most of the time? The way that it is almost always done? No, I don't. Not at all.
Unfortunately most people, it seems, can't tell the difference between sin and adiaphora. Even if we get 2 or 3 people together. So? As the Confession states, "All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err."
"If done according to Jesus' teaching" is a lovely, if naive fairy tale. Unfortunately here in the real world where we live and such unicorns don't exist, it doesn't actually work that way. The best you can do is get 2-3 people to agree that wearing red on the sabbath is a bad thing, and then go find someone to throw out for violating that "clear teaching in Scripture." Kindling and matches are optional these days.
In the times when the action is egregious enough to require interference, I'd call a cop, not an elder, because there's probably a law against it.
Maybe you feel plank-free enough to go around pointing out other people's sins. Perhaps you have been given the gift of discernment. But in my experience discernment may be one of the very rarest of spiritual gifts.
So, no, I couldn't care less if someone dances, or plays cards, or wears red on Sunday, or doesn't go to church, or says "trespasses" instead of "debts", or refuses to read anything but the KJV, or believes that the world was created 6000 years ago, or whatever. Not my problem, as long as they leave me alone. People have utterly forgotten Ann Lander's best advice: MYOB.
Alan:
"If done according to Jesus' teaching" is a lovely, if naive fairy tale. Unfortunately here in the real world where we live and such unicorns don't exist, it doesn't actually work that way.
So don't bother trying to implement Jesus' teaching, because the real world doesn't work that way.
Interesting take.
Yes, Doug, I'm sure that's a sin too.
See how this works? Point out the sin or you're ... A SINNER!
Well done sir, well done! Nice bit o' logic you got going on there, done up in a tidy bow. How lucky for you.
(And never once question whether you the one who is right or wrong. And please, if at all possible, please forget the ... you know ... actual context of the Matthew 18 passage to begin with.)
BTW, far be it for me to suggest that if someone is truly sinning, then perhaps kicking them OUT of church is not the best idea for correcting their behavior.
Just a thought.
"I'm sorry, kiddo, you're not learning math, so we're going to kick you out of math class."
Brilliant!
BTW, Doug, while you're up on that high horse of yours, perhaps you can trouble yourself to remember that this is also one of Jesus' teachings:
"Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times."
Jesus seems to have a rather "interesting take" on your views, eh?
See how this works? Point out the sin or you're ... A SINNER!
I never said that. I don't believe that.
BTW, far be it for me to suggest that if someone is truly sinning, then perhaps kicking them OUT of church is not the best idea for correcting their behavior.
In some cases, for unrepentant folks who cross a certain line, Jesus and Paul say precisely this.
And you've forgotten that I've already said, "Forgiving someone for a sin and pointing out a sin are not mutually exclusive actions."
This is the point in discussions with you that I have to bow out.
"I never said that. I don't believe that."
That's good to see.
But I still don't think you've made any argument at all regarding the topic of this post, which was about someone either 1) not recognizing that a sin is sin, or 2) disagreeing about whether or not a particular act is a sin.
And since (if we actually bother to care about the context of the verses in question) Jesus is talking specifically only about when a brother "sins against you", I think it is pretty hard to make the argument that the KJV-Only folks, or the Young Earthers, or people who wear red on Sunday are sinning against me.
So, I'll continue to mind my own business, and expect that others do the same. They won't, of course, but one can always keep hoping.
Doug, the confusion comes from the equivocal nature of the word "sin". You are referring to specific acts which can be understood as "sin". I think Alan is, and I know I am, using the word to refer to that state in which all creation exists - fallen, sinful, always in need of grace.
Sad to say, Paul did indeed insist that churches needed to regulate the private behavior of members, including expulsion. This is one of those minor, administrative matters with which I happen to take umbrage. Precisely because it runs counter to Jesus' insistence that forgiveness be extended seventy times seven times - essentially always - I think it safe to say that Paul was a tad less forgiving than his Lord.
As a general rule, considering the reality of human beings, tossing folks out the door fast enough the door doesn't smack them in the ass whenever they committed a sin and refused to acknowledge it or even continued to do it would mean a whole lot of empty seats. As a practical matter, then, it is just unworkable.
Geoff:
You are referring to specific acts which can be understood as "sin". I think Alan is, and I know I am, using the word to refer to that state in which all creation exists - fallen, sinful, always in need of grace.
It's the former usage that Jesus is referring to, however, in Matthew 18, and that's how I've been using it in this discussion. I thought this was about pointing out specific sins, not pointing out that we all sin. The latter is a given.
As a general rule, considering the reality of human beings, tossing folks out the door fast enough the door doesn't smack them in the ass whenever they committed a sin and refused to acknowledge it or even continued to do it would mean a whole lot of empty seats.
Then how do you take the Matthew 18 passage? I find it interesting that folks are tossing out pretty specific words of Jesus when they find it "unworkable".
You, too, are making pointing out sin and forgiving for that sin mutually exclusive. They aren't. But Paul's words to remove the unrepentant brother in a sexually immoral relationship not even seen among the pagans of the time seems to me to be in line with Matthew 18. It's sin, it's blatant, and there is no remorse on the part of the person. Jesus said treat him as a pagan or tax collector. Paul's implementing that.
"I think Alan is, and I know I am, using the word to refer to that state in which all creation exists - fallen, sinful, always in need of grace."
I was referring to both in different comments.
When I was talking about specific instances of sin I was talking about the topic of the post which was, I thought, about specific instances of sin that either 1) we disagree with others about whether they are sin or not, or 2) acts that we might believe are sin if we knew they were prohibited, but we aren't aware of that. And in either case, the Matthew 18 verses still only apply specifically to instances when someone has sinned against me, not some random "sin" that doesn't affect me or anyone else.
So, when I refer to things like Young Earthers, KJV-only folks, wearing red on the Sabbath, etc., and Doug responds, "So don't bother trying to implement Jesus' teaching, because the real world doesn't work that way." My response would be "Yes, do not bother trying to implement Jesus' teaching on such issues", because he wasn't talking about those things anyway.
Same goes for most of the big arguments the Church has had over the centuries that have resulted in various splits: to dip or to sip, wine or juice, dunking or sprinkling, adult or infant baptism, open or closed table, women ministers or not, etc., etc., etc.
Jesus said, "Be one." He never said "Agree."
"I find it interesting that folks are tossing out pretty specific words of Jesus when they find it "unworkable".
People do all sorts of odd things with Scripture, for instance tossing out the words "sins against you".
Know anyone who's doing that, Doug? ;)
How would I read Matthew 18? Beginning, as I said before, with Jesus saying that forgiveness must happen 70 times seven times - in other words, each and every time.
Did you miss that before or not?
Why, oh why are you so concerned with the way other people live their lives anyway?
Geoffrey, Alan, perhaps you all are overstating the point? Is there no behavior you think would be worth "shunning" - or asking someone to leave your community?
Doug is saying that we ARE to forgive, but there are times when we ought to consider parting ways, even if we forgive them. I don't know about you, but this is a point on which I sadly agree.
If someone is making death threats, it's time to ask them to leave. If someone is abusive, it's time to ask them to leave.
There IS a line that can reasonably be drawn, I'm willing to bet you all agree.
Doug (and Craig, if you're reading), I think the problem that Alan and Geoffrey and I are having is, as Alan has summed it up: When they sin AGAINST ME, in THOSE times, we can rightly "confront," or talk over an action with another. BUT, the problem is that too many Christians don't stop there.
If someone is in a marriage they disapprove of, these Christians think it is okay to intervene (even though there is no "sin against you" involved. If someone thinks you're reading the "wrong" version of the Bible, if you're wearing the "wrong" clothes to church, if you're using the wrong words, etc, etc. We have become a church of busybodies, excommunicating and dividing over, 1. Stuff that is not a "sin against you" and 2. stuff that is not causing harm.
That is the point I/we are trying to make. We would do well to end "busybody" Christianity.
Offer opinions about whether cursing is acceptable or not? Sure. Offer opinions about divorce and marriage? Sure. Offer opinions about what clothes you can wear or not to church? Sure, if you want.
But do so 1. In love and 2. in grace, allowing that WE are not the final arbiters of right and wrong.
That would be at least one of the points I'm trying to make here.
Doug, may I ask: in the situation where you believe an intervention/discipline is needed, what parameters would you have?
ANY sin that you think someone is not sufficiently repenting of? If a brother thinks it's okay to smoke and you don't, is discipline required? If a sister thinks an above the knee length skirt is fine and you disagree, is discipline required?
Where do you draw the line?
As I have stated, I believe I DO draw a line, but it is pretty far back and it is mostly related to actual harm being caused or threatened.
On issues like smoking, cursing, dress length, we don't have a definitive word from God and thus, I believe Christians of good will can disagree. You?
On issues of marriage (gay or straight or second marriages or third...), on issues of how we spend our money (is shopping at Walmart sinful? is investing?), while I may have opinions on these topics, I believe Christians of good will can disagree. You?
Where do you draw the line on what "sins" require discipline and/or separation and on what basis?
Shunning? Are you serious, Dan? What does forgiving seventy times seven times mean to you?
The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is God's prodigal love for all creation. All of us. God never, ever, ever, ever gives up on any of us. Ever.
The Wesleyan tradition has something known as "Class Meetings", in which small groups hold one another accountable in and to the faith. Not just calling them out for their various failings, but upholding them in their struggles, and celebrating their joys. In many ways these more than any mass attempt at "accountability" seems to me to reflect the kind of thing St. Paul was driving at (the Matthew 18 passage, it seems to me, is a much later addition to the narrative, considering the abundant use of the word "church").
Alan:
People do all sorts of odd things with Scripture, for instance tossing out the words "sins against you".
For the most part, that's what I've been talking about. You have been the one bringing up KJV, clothes-in-church issues that are not a sin against me; I haven't.
I have also noted that Paul did call the Corinthians on the carpet for sexual immorality in the church, but that's still an internal church issue. True, it wasn't a sin against Paul, but I think this is still valid. Part of a pastor's job is to call out sin within the body, is it not? To correct and guide?
Geoff:
How would I read Matthew 18? Beginning, as I said before, with Jesus saying that forgiveness must happen 70 times seven times - in other words, each and every time.
And then what?
No, really, after you forgive, do you leave your brother in Christ to fend for himself in his error, or do you give him some guiding words?
I feel for the lost tourist who asks you for directions.
Is there no discipleship within your church? That's what is next, after forgiveness. Christianity is a relationship, both with God and your fellow man. If you silently forgive someone and leave it at that, you eschew any relational ties within the church, where your strongest relationships ought to be! Discipleship is not just a formal setup of mentor/"mentee"; it should be going on all the time.
Get together with that brother and give him some loving words. Get things right between you and don't give resentment any foothold whatsoever. And get things right between the two of you and God. Openness and honesty keep the relationship going and healthy, not silence and foundering.
You asked, "Why, oh why are you so concerned with the way other people live their lives anyway?" I would ask, with respect to your brothers in Christ, why aren't you? Are you that detached from your fellow Christian that you aren't willing to share what you have learned with someone who apparently hasn't.
Forgiveness is step 1. Discipleship is step 2. Discipline, if necessary, is a last resort, but one that Jesus gave us a pattern for. Don't pick and choose His teachings.
Shunning? Are you serious, Dan? What does forgiving seventy times seven times mean to you?
The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is God's prodigal love for all creation. All of us. God never, ever, ever, ever gives up on any of us. Ever.
So, again Geoff, what of the fella who is beating his wife? What of the fella who is threatening to bring a shotgun to church?
Forgive them? Of course. Invite them to stay in our home or church? Really?
I think there is a time for separation, not because of a lack of forgiveness, but for reasons of safety, if nothing else. It does the violent man who is outraged at the behavior of our church no good to encourage him to keep coming where he is tempted to kill someone, right?
What do you think in these specific cases? Should the Christian wife stay with the abusive husband? That sounds more "conservative" Christianity talk than progressive or rational, and I'm sure you aren't encouraging that, are you?
Dan:
Thanks for your understanding. I do think that Matthew 18 covers how the church deals with sin in the church, and specifically one Christian to another. But let me ask you this; is fighting against oppression considered being a busybody? I mean, they may not be oppressing you. Are you the final arbiter of right and wrong?
No, I daresay you're more than willing to be a "busybody" in this particular cause, and very rightly so. Therefore, it seems that there are cases where we are to be salt and light in the world by calling a sin a sin outside the church as well. I think Craig may have been called all these names without considering that, in some cases, this calling out is warranted.
So as you ask, "Where do you draw the line on what 'sins' require discipline and/or separation and on what basis?" For starters, I agree that some things are a matter of opinion (as you mention; dress length, smoking, etc.). Also, the separation is really the last step in the process, so if guiding and discipleship leaves someone fully aware of their actions and yet still unrepentant, then the church may need to take action. I wouldn't want to take that last step unless absolutely every other option had been exhausted, I'll say that much.
But what offenses? I guess I'd start with sins at least mentioned in the Bible, so what version of the Bible you read clearly can't qualify. But a thief or a slanderer or an adulterer or a swindler that does this to people in the church and will not repent of it may need to be removed from the fellowship until such time as repentance is seen.
Would you agree?
If so, I'd also note that this list of sins in 1 Corinthians includes "homosexual offenders". I know where you stand with this, but I don't see that as an opinion thing.
Now, back to those outside the church. Should we speak out against slander in political ads? Should we speak out against those who steal from or swindle the poor? I have a feeling you'd agree that we should. You've done it on this blog. Are you one of the "busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds" that Alan decries? Are you incessantly thinking about the sins of others when you call out the oppressors?
I think not. So all this talk about busybodies is so much talk, especially if you limit your list of "grievances" to what we all here consider trivia. Start considering what you do call out as wrong, and all of a sudden we get a paraphrase of the old saying, "I'm concerned, you're meddling, he's a busybody."
And consider that list from 1 Corinthians when you speak out against all but one of them, and then call the guy speaking against them all a "busybody".
is fighting against oppression considered being a busybody?
I don't think so. As I have suggested, drawing the line at actions that cause actual harm is a more reasonable place rather than just what is "obviously" a contradiction of 1 Corinthians.
I mean, to YOU, "homosexual offenders" would "obviously" include those who are committed in holy matrimony who happen to be gay. Whereas to me, well, there's a list of problems with that conclusion, beginning with "homosexual offenders" is not an accurate translation of the Greek word being used.
"Greed" is listed as one of those sins, but whereas to some "greed" would "obviously" include investing but not to others.
For these sorts of reasons, and the reality that we are fallible human beings who don't know perfectly well each and every permutation of greed or sexual immorality, I'm suggesting it should be limited to more of what causes actual harm (after loving intervention and whatnot, of course).
So, here is that list of sins that Paul gives in 1 Cor 5...
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Sexually immoral? But what is this? Living in holy matrimony in a committed loving relationship (gay or straight), is that sexually immoral? Obviously not, says I. Perhaps you disagree?
But if you disagree and call a married gay couple "sexually immoral," then are you not slandering them, at least from my point of view? Well, then I should disassociate from you...
And on it goes, dividing and splitting and denouncing on and on until we end up, well, with the church in the state it is in today, schism-ing and dividing itself to death. I think we have gone WAY too far with this and the dozens of various sects and segments of the anabaptists is as good a place as any to point to for evidence.
As Paul tells the Galatians...
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Or, as Paul told Timothy...
Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen...
Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses...
I vote for not doing the "destroying one another" thing, thus, I lean towards grace and loving (even if strong) Christian disagreement (if necessary) as the rule, not dividing and kicking out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan asked, "Geoffrey, Alan, perhaps you all are overstating the point? Is there no behavior you think would be worth "shunning" - or asking someone to leave your community?"
Allow me to quote, "Shunning? Are you serious, Dan? What does forgiving seventy times seven times mean to you?"
Dan wrote, "When they sin AGAINST ME, in THOSE times, we can rightly "confront," or talk over an action with another. BUT, the problem is that too many Christians don't stop there."
That would be an accurate summary of what I've been talking about, which was, I thought, the topic of the post. Apparently now we're talking about murder and abuse, which was not the topic of the original post, so don't let Doug give *you* grief for *me* having called people busybodies, when I was referring to adiaphora. He's just intentionally being obtuse in order to feel self-righteous.
Doug wrote, "Are you the final arbiter of right and wrong?"
Not to be too snarky, but that's a rather amusing question in the context of this conversation. My answer would be no, of course. I think I can guess what your answer might be.
(continued)
Doug asked, "Are you that detached from your fellow Christian that you aren't willing to share what you have learned with someone who apparently hasn't."
No, I'm that polite that I don't stick my nose in other people's business without their having expressed a desire for me to do so. Manners make the man, Doug. It has nothing to do with being "detached" it has to do with acting like an adult and expecting others prefer to be treated like adults.
Doug wrote, "You have been the one bringing up KJV, clothes-in-church issues that are not a sin against me; I haven't. "
Sorry, I was simply reading the original post and staying on topic. Please forgive me for staying on topic.
Doug wrote, "Therefore, it seems that there are cases where we are to be salt and light in the world by calling a sin a sin outside the church as well."
My response would be to quote Dan, "When they sin AGAINST ME, in THOSE times, we can rightly "confront," or talk over an action with another. BUT, the problem is that too many Christians don't stop there." And most of the times people want to call a sin a sin outside the church are exactly those places where Christians generally don't stop.
Dan asked, "It does the violent man who is outraged at the behavior of our church no good to encourage him to keep coming where he is tempted to kill someone, right?"
As an Elder in the church, I'd still take him communion in jail. So no, I still wouldn't "shun" him.
"Sexually immoral? But what is this? Living in holy matrimony in a committed loving relationship (gay or straight), is that sexually immoral? Obviously not, says I. Perhaps you disagree?"
Wait, I thought we were talking about murder and abuse.
At least that's what Doug has been chastising me about.
So are we talking about activities that we do not believe are sin that others may call sin, or are we talking about murder and abuse and other actions that everyone calls sin?
A little clarity might be in order before Doug goes off on me again for daring to stick to the topic. If there's a topic.
Sorry for the multiple posts...just catching up. Are multiple posts a sin? lol
"On issues like smoking, cursing, dress length, we don't have a definitive word from God and thus, I believe Christians of good will can disagree. You? ... On issues of marriage (gay or straight or second marriages or third...), on issues of how we spend our money (is shopping at Walmart sinful? is investing?), while I may have opinions on these topics, I believe Christians of good will can disagree. You?"
Um...again....what the hell are we talking about exactly?
Because clearly Doug thinks that I think that anyone who chastises a murder is a busybody simply even though I have explained numerous times that I was referring to those such examples and the others I provided because ... *gasp* ... that was the topic of the original frakin' post.
Some clarification, please?
Perhaps it would be easier to talk about "Sin" with a capital S when we're referring to real sins, and sin with a small s when we're referring to the crap that the fundies all think are sins, but no other intelligent Christian does, such as thinking that the Earth might be more than 6000 years old.
Or we can keep posting silly comments talking past each other with folks intentionally misunderstanding the point because they want to talk about a different topic.
Alan (and Geoffrey) let me ask two rather specific questions and, if you don't mind, answer what you'd do in those instances:
1. A Christian wife married to a Christian husband who is beating her: Should she stay with him?
2. The fellow who attends a church where he has made threats to people: Would you remove him/get a restraining order or take some action that would have the result of him being removed from the church?
I suspect that you agree with me that, while we may forgive these folk, we do not serve anyone's benefit by allowing them to remain 1. in the house or 2. in the congregation.
I bring those up just because I'm making the point that there ARE (I think rather extreme, but not unheard of) instances where I would ask someone to leave the church (failing all other interventions, education and outreach). These, as I have said, are related mostly to someone who is potentially (or actually) harming another.
For the most part, I think we three agree that Christians have overdone the "ban," the shunning, the excommunication, etc, making it about a whole host of quite often unbiblical "sins." I'm just saying that there are instances where I think it appropriate, it's just that these are rather extreme circumstances.
What say ye?
Dan, you asked honest questions. Unlike Doug who seems either to not understand or pretend to not understand to be snarky. I've made my point with him, but he rather enjoys, I think, being judgmental.
What about the wife-beater? Forgiveness, it seems to me, includes lovingly offering help. All the same, I do not believe we should turn the person away as unworthy.
The same for someone so twisted by rage and hate he would bring a gun to church intent on murder. Open the door and invite him in.
What is missing in all these explorations of examples and conditions is the reality that the call of God is more radical than we can imagine. Our lives - OUR LIVES - are asked for. Not our hearts. Not our souls. Our lives - all that we have and are. This isn't a game we're playing here.
My belief includes the belief that even if, for some reason all Christians in all places were summarily executed, all Bibles burned, all trace of there ever having been something called "Christianity" were erased from the collective consciousness of the human race, the grace of God would still exist, God's will would still be done.
I should add that I think this includes extending forgiveness, say, to child-molesting clergy. This does not mean opening the Sunday School classroom to them. Safely behind bars where they belong, I see no reason to deny them a place at the table. Last time I checked, there weren't footnotes in the Bible that listed exceptions to early-21st century bourgeois notions of right and wrong. That's a game we can play back and forth.
The subject is grace, the description of which is boundless. We either live that or we put barriers on it, and then it isn't grace but some kind of acceptability do to human standards.
To clarify, Geoffrey, I'm not suggesting treating people as "unworthy" or denying them grace or forgiveness. I am talking about asking people to leave when they pose a danger.
Regardless, it appears we do disagree on that point. That's a surprise to me, but disagreement happens. And we can disagree in house with respect and grace.
That was the point of this post.
Alan, you asked for some clarification but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking me to clarify. If you'd want to clarify the clarification request, I'd be glad to clarify.
I had offered some various points of ways people may have opinions on behaviors (and whether or not they may be sinful) from the relatively minor to the dangerously severe. I was saying we can disagree in Christian unity on most points up to the dangerous/harmful ones.
I don't believe a wife has an obligation to stay with an abusive husband out of Christian unity. I don't believe that if a person is threatening church people with violence the church has an obligation to let them remain in the service. I don't believe (even though it's not physically harmful or threatening) that if the Westboro/Phelps folk were attending my church and regularly interrupting the service with "prayers" of condemnation towards gay folk that we are obliged to let them remain in the service.
I DO draw a line, it's just not a petty line over different hunches about different behaviors, but one that has to do with safety and well-being of all in attendance.
Have I answered your question?
Dan asked, "Alan, you asked for some clarification but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking me to clarify. If you'd want to clarify the clarification request, I'd be glad to clarify."
What are we talking about?
Here's what you wrote in the original blog post:
"What if we have researched a behavior, we've prayerfully and carefully sought God's will, reading the Bible, taking into consideration others' view points and tradition and being open to the leading of God, and, at the end of that, we have decided that this behavior is NOT sinful? "
To me, the "behavior" described above must be some sort of adiaphora, or at least, minor behavior that doesn't hurt anyone, etc. In other words, wearing red on the sabbath, women ministers, believing in a 6000 day creation, etc.
I don't see how you could have possibly meant that someone would have researched *murder* and prayerfully and carefully sought God's will, reading the Bible, taking into consideration others' view points and tradition and being open to the leading of God, and, at the end of that, we have decided that *murder* is NOT sinful.
So I thought we were talking about sins of the former type (adiaphora, wearing red on the sabbath, women ministers, dancing, etc.), not sins like abuse, murder, etc.
But now you keep bringing up abuse, murder, etc.
So which would you like to talk about? Once you guys settle on a topic, maybe this conversation can make more sense. At this point, everyone is simply talking past each other.
I'm not sure how to make this any clearer.
"1. A Christian wife married to a Christian husband who is beating her: Should she stay with him?"
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is about whether we should call out sin in other people's lives when they're wearing red on the sabbath. Non sequitur.
"2. The fellow who attends a church where he has made threats to people: Would you remove him/get a restraining order or take some action that would have the result of him being removed from the church?"
Already answered. But abuse wasn't what I was referring to in the previous 40 comments. So, once you all decide what it is you're talking about, then I can comment more specifically. :)
Geoff:
Dan, you asked honest questions. Unlike Doug who seems either to not understand or pretend to not understand to be snarky. I've made my point with him, but he rather enjoys, I think, being judgmental.
Geoff, my intent was not to be snarky. I may have asked the same question multiple times, only because you didn't seem to answer it, or, worse, dismiss this teaching of Jesus. For that I'm called "snarky". Dan asks you the same question, noting he's just as surprised as I am about all your responses thus far, and he's "honest". I don't understand your answer, and neither does Dan, perhaps for different reasons, but the double standard is rather stark.
However, while it appears that Dan will chalk this up to a simple disagreement, I find it a bit more disturbing. To me, it sounds like you're saying this; I will follow "teaching A" of Jesus to the absolute best of my ability, but I will categorically, under any circumstances, not follow "teaching B" of Jesus. It's as though that latter teaching is not useful or helpful for us, even though it came directly from the mouth of the Son of God, and that you feel free to pick and choose which words of Jesus you will consider worth applying. At least to my ears.
I believe all of Jesus teachings, executed in their proper contexts and with the proper motivations, are useful to us individually and within the body of Christ. We may differ on when and where exactly to apply Matthew 18, but it sounds like you dismiss it outright and completely. As is Dan, I'm surprised, but I won't press it further.
Dan:
But if you disagree and call a married gay couple "sexually immoral," then are you not slandering them, at least from my point of view? Well, then I should disassociate from you...
And on it goes, dividing and splitting and denouncing on and on until we end up, well, with the church in the state it is in today, schism-ing and dividing itself to death. I think we have gone WAY too far with this and the dozens of various sects and segments of the anabaptists is as good a place as any to point to for evidence.
As you have noted, we're fallible human beings, and as such I see it as part of our fallen humanity that these sorts of irreconcilable differences will crop up, whether trivial or substantial. But then, what is trivial to one (who opines that it's a shame that such things are dividing us to death) is substantial to another (who opines that such an issue causes harm, whether physical or moral).
As it is right now, you and I are already, to some extent, disassociated; we clearly don't attend at the same denomination and have some clear theological differences. This is not to say we couldn't visit each other's home church. But if Fred Phelps were to attend Jeff Street and become a member, and then go on his anti-gay rampages, you yourself note that Matthew 18 may come into play, even being something of an exception to your "safety and well-being" determiner. If he was on TV shouting, "I belong to Jeff Street, and gays are going to hell!", the issue becomes him being a representative of your church yet practicing something diametrically opposed to what your people stand for, and being entirely unrepentant about it. Should he convince others, with the apparent backing of your church bolstering his message, that all gays are going to hell, I would think that you'd want to protect the church's reputation, which is what I believe was Paul's motivation in correcting the Corinthians.
(Although, I may need a clarification from you; would him being on TV and passing himself off as a representative of your church be enough, or would what he did have to be specifically during a service, as was your example?)
I don't want to "destroy one another" any more than you, and we both agree that there's some discernment involved regarding a line, prior to which it can be a simple disagreement, and beyond which measures may be taken. That was really the reason I jumped in to this conversation. It just seemed like the whole idea was being dismissed, and I see that, as for you, it's not, and I'm cool with that.
Dan,
Sincere question, without "snark" or attack. You asked, "What, then, if we discover upon 'Judgment Day' that this action actually WAS a sin? Are we doomed because we were sincerely mistaken on a sin?" You mentioned something similar elsewhere. I'm confused. Is the basis of not being doomed that we recognize every sin and, what, repent from it or something? You're arguing here that "sins in ignorance" are covered by grace and I'm not even asking about that. You seem concerned that if we commit sins about which we don't ... I don't know ... do something (assuming they are not in ignorance), we're in danger of damnation. And from these questions you wrote it appears that you think we need to "do something" (my phrase, not yours) about each and every sin or we're (potentially) doomed.
So I'm just asking. What is the "something" that needs to be done over each and every known (we'll just assume that ignorance is indeed an excuse) sin? What is the basis on which we avoid "doomed"?
Again, asking out of curiosity, not attack.
Anonymous asked...
Is the basis of not being doomed that we recognize every sin and, what, repent from it or something?
It is my position (and the traditional orthodox Christian position) that we are saved by grace. So, no, I don't think that we must perfectly recognize every sin and avoid it. That is my point. Those who SEEM to say that those who sin in error might lose their salvation SEEM to be pushing a doctrine other than salvation by grace.
What is the "something" that needs to be done over each and every known (we'll just assume that ignorance is indeed an excuse) sin? What is the basis on which we avoid "doomed"?
Trust in Jesus, in God's grace, that is the SOMETHING that we do to inherit the kingdom of God and avoid "doom." I was just suggesting that others SEEM to be speaking of some ADDITIONAL hoop(s) we need to jump through for salvation.
Does that answer your questions?
Actually, no, it doesn't answer my question. You seemed concerned that, if it were true that we are culpable for sins committed in innocence, that we would be in danger of being doomed on Judgment Day. If salvation is a function of grace procured through faith in Christ, then what would it matter if we suddenly discovered on Judgment Day that something we were doing that we thought was not sin was, indeed, actually sin ... and that humans are culpable for sins in ignorance? If sin is forgiven on the basis of faith and grace, why would it matter if ignorance was no excuse? Wouldn't sins of ignorance be covered, too? And, therefore, wouldn't that whole objection go away?
I'm sorry, I guess I'm not understanding.
You ask...
If salvation is a function of grace procured through faith in Christ, then what would it matter if we suddenly discovered on Judgment Day that something we were doing that we thought was not sin was, indeed, actually sin ... and that humans are culpable for sins in ignorance? If sin is forgiven on the basis of faith and grace, why would it matter if ignorance was no excuse? Wouldn't sins of ignorance be covered, too?
I believe that sin is forgiven on the basis of faith and grace, thus it makes no sense to me to say "ignorance is no excuse." IF ignorance is no excuse and we ARE held accountable for sins of ignorance and doomed because of them, then it seems we're not saved by grace, but rather, that our salvation depends at least partially on perfectly understanding the sin nature of all potential actions.
This SEEMS to be what some people are suggesting, but it's certainly not what I believe.
So, to answer your question "If salvation is a function of grace procured through faith in Christ, then what would it matter if we suddenly discovered on Judgment Day that something we were doing that we thought was not sin was, indeed, actually sin...?" my answer is, "It doesn't matter, because we ARE saved by grace, not by a perfect understanding of all potential actions (which sounds perfectly ludicrous to me).
Dan,
This issue of whether we are sinning if we believe the behavior is not sinful is intriguing to me. I've thought on it (considered it, you might say) quite a bit since I first noticed you mention it.
Obviously the question is a two-parter:
Is a sinful behavior a sin if we don't know it is sinful or believe that it isn't sinful (not necessarily the same thing)? I believe the answer is absolutely "Yes". God determines and mandates these things and forbidden behaviors are always forbidden. It's merely a matter of whether or not we're forgiven. So while I don't think you mean the question to be understood this way, I do think this must be kept in mind.
Still, there is the matter of not knowing a behavior is sinful, or believing that it isn't. The former is a matter of never having been made aware (for whatever reason), while the latter indicates there was some consideration of the behavior and a decision was reached on its legality.
I don't think I'm sticking my neck out too far to point to the latter as the real matter that provoked the question in the first place. I believe that every time this question has come up, it has come up due to a discussion on a particular behavior that need not be mentioned now. It really doesn't matter at present.
As you have claimed to come to a decision on a behavior based upon study, prayer and whatever else, we can both agree that only one of us can be right and the other wrong and it can be either one of us, though we each feel pretty good about our positions. God will let us know and then your question comes up. On the surface, I could see how one might suspect that God would not hold the behavior against one who sincerely believes his position was allowable by Him. It might indeed be that Grace will cover it.
But what if the person feels sincerely about more than just one behavior? What then? You feel that your study and prayer and whatever lead you to a sincere belief and as you know well, I think you need to keep studying and praying. I feel it is crystal clear that you are wrong and ten lifetimes of study and prayer and whatever couldn't possibly provide a legitimate justification for your belief. You feel otherwise.
But...
...in prior discussions, other behaviors have been brought up to see if you would feel the same way. And though you still feel the same about Grace, you don't necessarily believe that any normal person would actually believe that the hypothetical alternatives were permissible if they really studied as you claim to have done. (If I've misstated your position at any point, just hang on.)
But assume for a moment that the person is every bit as sincere as you are about the behavior not mentioned. Let us assume that he agrees with you about that, but has not only one other behavior, but a dozen to add to it for which he is as sincere in his belief of their status as you are about that one. Would Grace still cover this guy? Let's take it to the extreme and for some reason we cannot comprehend, this other guy engages in every forbidden behavior God has warned us against and sincerely believes that he is still covered by Grace. This can sound silly and I can think of two or three compadres of yours who would love to give me crap about it, but think about it. I'm sure you've met at least one person who feels that all he has to do is accept Christ as his Savior and he will be saved, but has never acted the least bit like a Christian as far as you could ever tell (or at least a very poor example of one). Such a person now believes he can't possibly sin no matter what sin he commits. How sincere he is is debatable, but assume he is quite so.
At what point is such people, whether they are speaking of one behavior or many, worshiping a god that does not exist? We already know that people have used the Bible improperly to justify actions that WE believe are clearly forbidden. WE believe they were less than sincere. WE can't know for sure, but we feel pretty confident about it because WE believe the Bible clearly forbids the behavior. WE can't conceive that anyone could truly be sincere about such a behavior.
On the whole, I think the question is a waste of time. One can fool one's own self about how sincere one claims to be. I think the person who was never made aware of the sinfulness of the behavior indeed is covered by God's Grace. I believe one who knows the behavior is wrong but sometimes succumbs to the temptation of the behavior, but is sorry afterward is covered by God's Grace. For one who claims to have studied hard and still comes up wrong and is told so by many others, I wouldn't be quick to assume.
THIS is an area where I can easily agree to disagree because there is no way short of death and judgment that we can know for sure. But as I find the arguments put forth regarding one particular behavior to be about the weakest arguments for any action or policy I've ever heard, I worry about the ramifications of not being 100% sure. You questioned your original position. Don't stop questioning your current one.
Marshall...
...in prior discussions, other behaviors have been brought up to see if you would feel the same way. And though you still feel the same about Grace, you don't necessarily believe that any normal person would actually believe that the hypothetical alternatives were permissible if they really studied as you claim to have done.
I'm not quite clear what you're speaking of here, Marshall. I've brought up or seen brought up many behaviors in these sorts of conversations. For instance...
What if someone truly believes that it's okay for Christians to kill their enemies in war time, will they be held accountable for this if they're mistaken?
What if someone truly believes that smoking marijuana will bring them closer to God and they discover later that it's a "sin," will they be held accountable?
What is someone truly believes that... There are many possible areas where Christians can and do disagree in sincerity.
So what exactly is your point? I'm not following.
It is my position
1. That we are covered by grace, even in our ignorant sins.
2. That we all doubtlessly have MANY areas where we are sincerely mistaken.
3. About SOME "obvious" topics, no one is really confused. That is, no one can read the Bible or be a rational human being and believe it is good to shed innocent blood, that hating people is good, that Jesus wants us to hate our neighbors.
4. Beyond these "obvious" points, we fallible human beings are able to be mistaken and I'm sure it happens all the time to all of us.
It's a matter of on how many points can we be "sincerely" wrong before we're not really worshiping the same God anymore? Even in your examples of what's "obvious", you can't say that someone is insincere to believe something counter to it if they claim they're sincere. And assuming that they are being sincere, what then? If they believe, despite how foolish we find they're argument, that they are justified in hating their neighbor, as well as any number of other "obviously" false understandings, then what? Where does it end? How far can that angle be taken and still be covered under your understanding of Grace?
Dan, two comments/questions.
1. Could you speak to the question of ignorance vs. stubbornness. It can seem at times like some will hide behind ignorance when, in fact, they don't want to change behavior they know is sinful.
2. Could you speak to MA's point that at some point one begins to in fact worship a different god?
1. I'm sure it happens. Perhaps some people, for instance, realize that we can't REALLY love our enemies while killing them and their children, but fear or stubbornness keeps them from changing their position. It's the way they were raised. People they admire were in the military, it's what they know, what they're comfortable with. I have no doubt that it happens.
And I used the military example because I think it's an obvious one, but I am sure there are counter examples for so-called liberal-ish Christians. I just can't think of any.
The gay marriage example, for example: COULD I be wrong about it? Sure, I reckon. I doubt it, since the core behavior I'm pulling for in that case is fidelity, love, commitment - all grace-Full, Godly values. But if I were wrong, I can't see how it would involve stubbornness. I only changed my position stubbornly to accept it, since my cultural upbringing had so poisoned me to the idea of gay marriage.
But I hold the position now that fidelity, love, commitment are all good things for gay or straight folk out of a commitment to following God, I can't see how stubbornness would be at the root of that, except perhaps a stubborn determination to strive to follow God, but then, that's a good stubbornness, yes?
2. 2. Could you speak to MA's point that at some point one begins to in fact worship a different god?
Sure. When one is directly contradicting direct and clear teachings of Jesus, the Christ, the one whom Christians are following, then if you hold to many innocently held "wrong" positions, then perhaps you aren't following Christ at all.
On issues of gay marriage, masturbation, smoking marijuana, "right" taxation, drinking alcohol, pollution, capitalism, communism, etc, etc... ie, the topics that tend to divide us, Jesus is entirely silent. I think you and I can be mistaken on all of these points and be worshiping the same God.
The more closely you come to rejecting Jesus' specific teachings, though, the more likely you aren't following Jesus. That seems like a reasonable position to hold, would you agree?
Jesus made it clear that we are to love our enemies, our neighbors, that we are to care for the least of these, that we ought to beware the trappings of wealth and power, for instance. Outright reject these values and I think you're rejecting Jesus' direct teachings.
Having different opinions about how to live into these values, that's okay, but rejecting them - "No! We ought to HATE our enemies, do evil to those who'd harm us!" "No, we ought NOT be our brothers' keepers!" - that's deeply problematic.
I'd say that it is clear that the majority of things that divide us are more in the speculative, debatable category - HOW do we best love our enemies, our neighbors? HOW do we best tend the least of these? HOW do we avoid shedding innocent blood? HOW do we avoid hypocrisy?
What do you think?
Dan,
I think I mostly agree with your responses.
I would suggest that if someone is twisting scripture to support their "ignorance" then it goes beyond ignorance into intransegence. I'm not sure your GM example actualy works her for a couple of reasons.
1. The love, commitment, fidelity, ascpects aren't where people have issues with GM. These are good things for all relationships. The concern with GM is the biblical teachings of the gay part or the deal. I know that there are explainations that "deal with" what scripture teaches, and we don't need to re hash them here.
2. It ccan be argued (I don't believe it is convincing, but..) that the Bible is equivocal/accepting of homosexual behavior. It can also be argues (IMO more convincingly) that there are instances where God can/has approved of/sanctioned killing. Again, no need to rehash old arguments I've heard your opinions.
So while you might not be stubbornly clinging to misinterpretations, my point remains. Some of what gets passed off as ignorance is really someone who is willingly "ignorant" so they won't have to confront their own sinfulness.
I would suggest that a number of Christian guys struggle with this kind of thing in relation to porn.
Dan,
I think you are saying that there is a point where ones "ignorance" becomes "ignorance" of God or essentially following a different God.
While I pretty much agree the line you draw, I'm sure that there are differences.
What it seems we do agree on is that at some point grace does not cover ignorance.
One caveat, I would suggest that there is a process of sanctification druing which God will provide us with guidence to recognize where we are involved in ongiong sinful behaviors and how to deal with those behaviors. In other words the "ignorance" excuse should become less appropriate as we grow spiritually.
We can only hope that God will so guide us. But I maintain that He hasn't guided Dan, and some other regulars here, on certain topics and their own words support my case. For example, love, commitment, fidelity? These are not teachings of any Bible I've ever read except for love of fellow man. Love, commitment and fidelity is never mentioned (that is, in so many words) in any other marital relationship except the traditional one. All else is a result of the most incredible stretching of meanings fallen man has ever offered to justify the unjustifiable.
So that is my position as most here well know. The point is this: Dan feels differently and sincerely feels his position is correct. We are at impasse and one of us is right and one of us is wrong.
But it goes beyond that here. It is a matter of what it means to our salvation if we are wrong. Are we covered?
But Dan says,
"When one is directly contradicting direct and clear teachings of Jesus, the Christ, the one whom Christians are following, then if you hold to many innocently held "wrong" positions, then perhaps you aren't following Christ at all."
But He did speak against this when he said "Thou shalt not lie with a man..." At least if one believe Jesus is God He did. (If we part on that, then we are clearly not worshiping the same God.) But Dan has worked his way around this clear teaching and feels sincerely about it. Certainly we've seen that some have justified all sorts of things that are equally obvious to me as being counter to the clear teachings of Christ/God. To many of them, if not most, Dan would agree they've strayed, but they insist they are as sincere about their beliefs as Dan does his.
To think of this in another way, Dan, you must keep in mind the things you sincerely hold as true and consider such people as being just as sincere. It doesn't matter what you think about the sin they support or not. It only matters that you accept that they are just as sincere. Are you going to say that they are also covered by Grace, no matter how abhorrent the sin?
To use one of your wild examples, what if they believed it was alright to rape and butcher little babies? It's an insanely goofy thing to expect that anyone could, but your argument is based on what the individual believes, not what we believe, and you use this angle to defend your beliefs.
And I guess there isn't much difference between sincerely believing a sinful behavior is OK, or never knowing if a sinful behavior is forbidden. Your argument seems reasonable when it is only one sin (not to me considering the points on which we differ), but I'm wondering not only about one sin, but numerous sins. Is Grace such that it covers all this for he who believes in the risen Christ?
But He did speak against this when he said "Thou shalt not lie with a man..." At least if one believe Jesus is God He did.
Jesus did not say this. This is a line from the OT. You know, a line from the OT like, "IF a child is disrespectful, kill it." Or a line that tells you how to "correctly" sell your daughter into slavery.
This is NOT a teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God. Rather, you are taking a line from the OT, applying modernist interpretations upon it, and claiming that your modernist interpretation is God's will.
I'm saying, when it comes to various interpretations of various OT teachings, we may indeed wrongly understand bits and pieces of what they may mean. We may indeed wrongly think that, for instance, the OT says, "men shall not lie with men," or "don't wear polyester," that this means something specific today and we can be sincerely wrong on that (as I think you are in YOUR interpretation of two passages in the OT) and still not "lose" our salvation.
Our salvation does not depend upon our perfectly understanding God's will on ideas that aren't spoken of in the Bible. Our salvation is by grace, not perfect wisdom or we'd all be lost. That is my point.
"This is NOT a teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God."
Dan, this kind of thing concerns me. Historically Christian position is the Jesus IS God. He is one part of the Trinity. So to divorce Jesus from the what God said in the OT is to seperate Jesus from His place as one person of the Godhead.
Maybe you are suggesting that Jesus was confused when he said "I and the Father are one" or "He who has seen me has seen the Father". Jesus was clearly speaking as one carrying the authority of God, beacuse he IS God.
I hear those on the left make this distinction and have always been baffeled by it.
IF, on the other hand, your assertion is the the OT writers were simply putting words in Gods mouth and therefore should be ignored that's a whole other assertion. However, you still haven't demonstrated how you pick and choose (I know you think you have) why you accept one sentence or paragraph from a passage but not others.
Anyway some clarification on my first point would be welcome.
The point, Craig, is that there are MANY teachings in the OT that none of us accept as being what we ought to be doing. None of us confuse the command FROM GOD and FROM JESUS AS PART OF THE TRINITY to kill disrespectful children to be anything that we, as Christians, ought to be taking part in.
Am I right? That is a DIRECT COMMAND from God (and from Jesus, by way of your extension) and yet, we would be WRONG to implement that teaching in our lives.
The point is that all these OT teachings have to be sorted out - are they universal teachings? What are they talking about? Were they something specific to that time and place?
We have to do this to a degree with Jesus' gospel teachings, too, of course, but they tend to be more direct and clear than some of the OT teachings, seems to me.
My point is that some conflate THEIR UNDERSTANDING of teachings from thousands of years ago to a people and culture long dead to equate with God's teaching, on a par with Jesus, "Love your enemies," and I'm suggesting that I don't share Marshall's confidence in HIS INTERPRETATION of "men should not lay with men," as being somehow equivalent to God saying, "gay folk can't marry each other."
I'm not rejecting God's teaching. I'm doubting Marshall's (or yours or my) INTERPRETATION of a given passage.
There is a whopping huge difference, right?
While your response is reasurring, my problem is that you said.
"This is NOT a teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God."
But if (as most who claim to be Christians would agree),Jesus is 100% God then a command from God in the OT is a command from Jesus.
Further you say "...(and from Jesus, by way of your extension)"
Are you seriously suggesting that the concept of Jesus being God is something that I made up?
Finally, the problem is that I see legitimate commands from God that are specific to a certain people, time and place. Given the fact that not all of Gods commands are commands for everyone, I can determine that since I don't live in the Israeli theocracy, then there are certain commands that might not apply the same way they did then, or that don't apply at all at this point in history.
You on the other hand seem to be saying that if a command doesn't make sense to you, then it must not be from God. Yet you have shown no foundation for this assumption.
Finally, I've addressed your misuse of the "kill your children" command previously. In your simplification of the text (I presume to make a point) you are trying to give the impression that God (or some delusional Jew) just randomly says "kill your childred". If you actually look at the entirety of the text you will fins that God's actual "command" is somewhat more nuanced.
Anyway, I fail to see how anyone can seperate the OT Jesus from the NT Jesus without significantly altering the character of one or the other (I realize that they are the same person, but I'm not trying to make a differentiation where none exists).
" to equate with God's teaching, on a par with Jesus, "
It would seem that you are of the opinion that God's teachings are somehow not on a par with Jesus.
Are you suggesting that God's teachings are less than Jesus? More?
Are you suggesting that Jesus is somehow not God? Or that Jesus is a new and improved version of God?
Again, I'm not sure exactly how you divide the two, maybe you can help me out.
Look more closely at what I've written:
I'm not rejecting God's teaching. I'm doubting Marshall's (or yours or my) INTERPRETATION of a given passage.
I'm not saying God's teachings in the OT are "less than" Jesus' NT teachings. I LOVE the OT teachings. They are challenging and powerful.
I'm saying that too many folk are conflating THEIR HUNCH about OT teachings with God's Word.
I don't doubt that the OT teaches God commanding "men shall not lie with men" or "kill disrespectful children." I'm doubting that these mean, respectively, that gay marriage is wrong or that we ought to kill disrespectful children.
I'm not rejecting God's commands. I'm casting doubt on fallible human's genius at rightly interpreting God's commands.
You on the other hand seem to be saying that if a command doesn't make sense to you, then it must not be from God.
Then you are hearing me wrongly. I am NOT saying if it doesn't make sense to me, it can't be of God. I'm saying if I don't think Marshall's interpretation represents good biblical exegesis or rational thinking, then I doubt that Marshall is rightly understanding God.
This is all about disagreeing with other fallible human beings' interpretations, not rejecting God's will or Jesus' divinity.
Clearer?
"I'm not rejecting God's commands. I'm casting doubt on fallible human's genius at rightly interpreting God's commands."
ROFL. Dan, you must have written this at least a 100 million times here and elsewhere.
Ever consider they don't get it because they don't want to?
I suspect you're being had.
Like I said early on in this discussion, I think I can count on the fingers of one hand (and have several fingers left over) the number of people I've talked to who actually really and truly believe in God's Grace.
The rest just fake it.
It's not a matter of understanding God's grace, Alan, dear boy. It's a matter of supporting the premise Dan put forth. But I will say that I understand grace enough to know that it isn't a "get out of jail free" card entitling the bearer to willfully engage in any restricted behavior they choose. It covers honest believers who backslide, those who, like Paul, do those things they hate to do but do anyway due to their fallen, imperfect natures and are remorseful. As to "not knowing something is a sin", I only discuss it here to see how far Dan is willing to take the premise. I don't for a minute buy the line that anyone here "doesn't know" the behavior in question is sinful.
Dan,
First of all, you continue to compare apples and oranges. You want to compare a command against one behavior to a command to punish another behavior. If you would compare behaviors to behaviors and punishments to punishments, we wouldn't be having this problem. Same-sex relations and children being disrespectful are behaviors. They both carried the same punishment of death. Since Christ was the perfect sacrifice, and since HIS blood atones for all of our bad behaviors, there is no one on THIS side of the issue suggesting anything as goofy as believing we should still kill bratty kids. Neither, I might add, do we suggest the same for the bad decision to engage in same-sex relations. But both behaviors are still sinful. You like to fall back on "don't do as the Canaanites did". But how did the Canaanite kids show disrespect so the kids of Israel were able to get away with it. How should kids show disrespect today so that they don't anger the Lord?
But that's all beside the point here. So is interpretations and who holds which one. The point YOU were making revolves around sincerity of whatever belief is held. I'm trying to avoid what seems likely, that you are only concerned that YOU sincerely hold beliefs that I KNOW conflict with the plainly revealed Word of God. But again, you have to imagine that someone who believes something you're confident is wrong is sincere when they say they believe it's OK. As sincere as YOU claim to be about YOUR beliefs. It doesn't matter that YOU think Jesus is clear about something, anymore than you give a flying rat's butt what I think about YOUR beliefs. I KNOW you're wrong and clearly so. You KNOW the other guy is wrong and clearly so. Apples to apples here, Dan.
So, if the other guy believes all sorts of heinous practices are OK by HIS prayerful study and love of Scripture, thereby "not knowing" that he is sinning when he gets drunk every day, has sex with anyone at all every day, steals every day, lies every day, rapes puppies every day, whatever. And, he visits you every day just to kick you in the crotch as hard as he can. Somehow, with the thinnest of explanations (as I feel is the case with you), he believes he is walking in the faith as devoutly as anyone can. Grace still workin' for him?
I know the Bobsey Twins will think this line of questioning is insane or idiotic or stupid or all of the above and more. But if the angle works for you guys, why not that guy? Because YOU think he's "obviously" wrong? He's sincere, Dan. As sincere as you are. In fact, he has no doubt and would never show false humility of saying "Sure. I could be wrong. But God's grace will cover me." He's totally convicted in his faith. By your logic, grace would have to cover this guy and his totally unChristian life, marked by willfully engaging in every behavior forbidden by God and preaching and teaching it as well, will not be held against him. Where does what YOU believe about sins you don't know are sins part company with what THAT guy believes? Or does it?
Alan...
I suspect you're being had.
Like I said early on in this discussion, I think I can count on the fingers of one hand (and have several fingers left over) the number of people I've talked to who actually really and truly believe in God's Grace.
I doubt seriously that these people are wasting their time pretending not to understand me, Alan. I'm sure there questions are serious.
But if I'm being had, what of it? Ought I not have the grace to simply answer their questions and let it go at that? Rather than guessing as to what reasons or ulterior motives they might have for asking questions I've already answered multiple times?
And, being as this is a public forum, there are doubtless other folk out there who might have these same questions and what's the harm in repeating my clarification of points I've already clarified?
I see no great harm in doing so, and some possible good.
Marshall...
The point YOU were making revolves around sincerity of whatever belief is held.
Yes, this is the point, Marshall. I contend that one can be sincerely mistaken on secondary behavioral actions/"sins" and thus, sin in error. Before I go on, you DO agree on this point, right?
As to limits of that possibility of being mistaken sincerely, I guess there are limits. God IS a God of love and those who say otherwise are contradicting basic Christian tenets. We ARE to live lives of grace and love and those who say otherwise are contradicting essential Christian doctrine.
But behaviors like smoking, marriage, masturbation, cussing... is it possible to be mistaken on how to do these or whether you should do these? Easily, I would say.
Now, as to more ridiculous behaviors like the ones you mentioned - could someone be sincerely mistaken and think it's a good Christian thing to rape, murder, steal? Well, I know of no one in the real world who would suggest such a thing, do you?
Is it not the case that our differences are over behaviors that aren't as clearly "wrong" as those?
In the end, I believe we ought to fall back to grace. Which is not to say that we ought to ignore those who engage in behaviors that we might think are not healthy/dangerous, just that we ought to presume grace for them as God shows grace to us.
"I'm sure there questions are serious. "
You have *got* to be kidding, Dan. Seriously? You honestly believe that they can't understand such a simple statement, even when you've repeated it a 100 million times? Wow.
"I see no great harm in doing so, and some possible good."
What good, Dan? Seriously. What good does explaining the same very simple and patently obvious ideas 100 million times do? I've asked you this question before, but I haven't really gotten an answer. While you are happy to engage with these morons, I never get a realistic answer on what this sort of ridiculous repetition of disputation and division does to further the Kingdom of God. How is this constant petty bickering a good illustration to others about how Christians behave? Can you point to concrete examples of the good this has done? How many people have these silly repetitious arguments led to Christ, Dan?
And how is it good to enable people who everyone else can see clearly have some serious personal issues about needing constant attention from strangers? Charity is great, but giving a free beer to an alcoholic isn't.
And in the meantime, Dan, do you think it is actually healthy AND a good Christian witness to discuss issues with people who make comparisons between gay marriage and raping puppies? Who call people homos for fun? Who think that people who get bullied for being gay deserve it?
You ask what harm could it do? At what point, Dan, do you think that engaging with such people is not just an insult to any rational person on the planet, but is actively encouraging their hate, and giving them an opportunity to spew it even more?
Or are your concerns only for the morons like them, who you will never convince?
So for all those folks out there who may just be lurking... Is this really what you want them to see? A Christian who takes that sort of hate seriously enough to, not only engage with that hate, but do so over and over and over.
Some kid comes here and he sees you actually talking to Fred Phelps and his friends here instead of simply condemning their hate.
Some witness that is.
What could be the harm? I'm surprised it isn't obvious, Dan.
BTW, Dan, you're arguing about whether someone knows something is sin or not, and MA doesn't even believe such a condition is possible:
"I don't for a minute buy the line that anyone here "doesn't know" the behavior in question is sinful."
So, sure...go ahead and demonstrate the "good" this conversation can do. Show me how repeated arguments when you do not even agree on the basic fundamental premise of the argument can build up the Kingdom of God.
We're at comment 73 so far (out of the hundreds and hundreds of other comments on this same topic on hundreds of other posts), so there should be plenty of evidence, right?
I'm always willing to talk to you and hear you out Dan, since you seem like a pretty reasonable person. But I just don't get this at all.
Dan,
Thanks for the clarification.
Well. Alan has lots of nice things to say, including wondering how this conversation might bring someone to Christ. I would wager, that if they skip all of his comments, they'll see two (or more) people exchanging words in a calm manner without calling each other names. This is not to say I don't do that now and then, as I don't feel that being Christian means being overly rigid. But, Alan's showing lots of hatred and bigotry against someone with whom he vehemently disagrees. THAT'S got to give some seekers pause.
Now, the fact is that I don't feel the hundreds, if not thousands of posts over the years has lead to a true explanation for the many holes in Dan's theology and ideology. If there is any example I could offer to prove that I most certainly do indeed consider the opinions of my opponents, this has to be it. Of course anyone not merely interested in demonizing those with opposing opinions would see this immediately in all my posted comments with people like Dan and others on the left.
So I will correct a few of Alan's blatant lies (if they weren't just generalizations of all conservative Christians) and then leave him to wallow in his own drool:
"What good does explaining the same very simple and patently obvious ideas 100 million times do?"
I see them for the very simple-minded and patently obvious twisting of Scripture until it fits your desires. This doesn't so much make the above quote a lie, but it is dishonest.
"And how is it good to enable people who everyone else can see clearly have some serious personal issues about needing constant attention from strangers?"
Few are stranger than YOU, Alan. But the lie here is that I have serious issues about needing constant attention from strangers. Tell me (not really---I don't care), do you visit Dan and Geoffrey regularly, live next door to either of them, get together on the holidays? I've been conversing with Dan for several years. We aren't exactly strangers totally. And unless you're that tight with Dan and every other person with whom you exchange comments on the blogs, you're as guilty as needing attention from strangers as you think I am.
"...people who make comparisons between gay marriage and raping puppies?"
Actually, as I stated when I referred to raping puppies, I borrowed that technique from Dan himself, who has used it on numerous occasions. It IS silly isn't it? That's what I've always said when HE did it. But the point is that the behavior doesn't matter to the premise he is defending. And the only comparison I would seek to make is that both behaviors are sinful. Again, you're horror isn't really a lie, but dishonest and deceptive in its aim. Rick Santorum got the same kind of flack. It was a cheap ploy then as well.
"Who call people homos for fun?"
I don't. I use the term for convenience. I'm thinking of going with just "mo" to make things even simpler. It's a contraction of a cumbersome word to denote a certain group of people to whom I may be referring. It's the same when I use "Pallies" instead of always typing out "Palestinians". I don't lose any sleep over people being offended over such insignificant things. (Talk about bed-wetter!) And you just don't seem happy enough for the word "gay" to be appropriate.
"Who think that people who get bullied for being gay deserve it?"
Must be speaking of someone else. I don't believe ANYONE should be bullied. In fact, even Alan shouldn't be bullied despite what a complete ass he tries to be.
"At what point, Dan, do you think that engaging with such people is not just an insult to any rational person on the planet, but is actively encouraging their hate, and giving them an opportunity to spew it even more?"
This is the most common and most egregious lie and is typical from lefties. YOU, Alan, are an ass and I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone. You say far more hateful things to or about me than I ever say about you or lefties. Go ahead and try to find something I've said that is hateful, and I'll show how you are hatefully trying to frame it that way.
"morons"
Must mean someone else. I'm clearly no moron. I'm just someone who doesn't buy your cheap justifications about certain behaviors God so clearly condemns. You hate that the world hasn't totally accepted those rationalizations. I get that.
"Some kid comes here and he sees you actually talking to Fred Phelps and his friends here instead of simply condemning their hate."
Not Fred Phelps. Not a friend of his. Not a hater like Fred Phelps, his friends or little Alan. Like Alan, Phelps has distorted Scripture and I oppose those distortions just as strongly. Dan's distorted it, too, but I'm not talking about those distortions. I'm talking about his premise regarding the extent to which we are covered by Grace.
Dan,
"I contend that one can be sincerely mistaken on secondary behavioral actions/"sins" and thus, sin in error. Before I go on, you DO agree on this point, right?"
First, I don't believe I recall you stating it in quite this way or ever drawing the line between primary and secondary "sins". Is there a third, fourth and fifth level? You assume a strict definition of what is one and what is the other and people will differ on that as well. So the "level" of sinfulness is irrelevant. You have to forget that you think my interpretation is crap and only consider how you sincerely believe what you believe, and then project THAT onto someone who believes what YOU can't conceive anyone believing. You have to forget that I think your understanding of Scripture is contrived and must look upon the understanding of the hypothetical person as having twisted anything to arrive at his conclusions, but is as sincere about it as you are about your beliefs. That was your premise. That if someone sins in error by virtue of his sincere belief that what he does he does in good faith then he is covered by God's Grace for those errors. How many errors can he sincerely believe are not, how horrible can they be yet not by his understanding and still be covered by Grace?
"Well, I know of no one in the real world who would suggest such a thing, do you?"
Doesn't matter whether you know anyone like this or not. And our ranking of the severity of a sin is not always objective, so I leave that to God. The point is that if you take one behavior and sincerely believe it is permissible when it isn't, and believe that your sincere belief will be covered by Grace, why not two or three behaviors? Why not a dozen? Why not a hundred? The dude sincerely loves Jesus and wants to spend eternity with Him. He's just sincerely mistaken about one hundred sinful behaviors in which he engages routinely.
(Anytime anyone wants to demonstrate why this line of questioning is "moronic", grab a spine and have at it.)
"Is it not the case that our differences are over behaviors that aren't as clearly "wrong" as those?"
No. It is not. That is, it begins with a specific behavior and then you throw is whatever ambiguous behaviors you can find to try to make your point, but none have a clearly stated prohibition as the specific behavior. I have no problem showing how the others cannot be justified, but the sinfulness of the behavior that started the whole years long debate is crystal clear.
But that doesn't matter here. Stay on point. You concede you could be wrong, but you are covered by Grace. I'm saying my hypothetical guy feels the same way about all the horrible things he does that he has also sincerely found a way to justify.
It seems that because you don't like the behaviors, you can't allow him the same Grace. You can't buy his explanations for why he believes as he does. You KNOW he is in breech of God's Will.
The follow up question then is: Do you continue to attempt to minister to such a person in hopes he will see the light? Or, like
Alan, do you just call him a moron and tell lies about him? Or simply, as Scripture suggests, do you shun him, cast him out from amongst you, not yoking yourself to this unbeliever (the other side of the coin, for if he is so wrong, does he believe in the Real God?)?
All this is the logical extreme of you position. I'm just wondering how far YOU'D take it. It seems Grace works for YOUR shortcomings well enough.
Marshall...
First, I don't believe I recall you stating it in quite this way or ever drawing the line between primary and secondary "sins". Is there a third, fourth and fifth level?
I'm speaking here of the difference between an "obvious" command/teaching from Christ ("Love your enemies," "For it is by grace that we are saved," "Do unto the least of these...") that is central to Christian teaching (and do you disagree that any of those are central to Christian teaching?) and topics not discussed in the Bible (gay marriage, modern taxation, capitalism, communism).
Do you disagree that there is a world of difference between the two sorts of teachings? That is, between the direct teachings of Christ and human hunches and interpretations/extrapolations of topics not discussed in the Bible?
And so, I repeat my question to you, seeking an answer:
"I contend that one can be sincerely mistaken on secondary behavioral actions/"sins" and thus, sin in error. Before I go on, you DO agree on this point, right?"
DO YOU AGREE that we can sin in error on topics not covered in the Bible and on topics not core to the Christian faith?
Marshall...
The point is that if you take one behavior and sincerely believe it is permissible when it isn't, and believe that your sincere belief will be covered by Grace, why not two or three behaviors? Why not a dozen? Why not a hundred?
1. Let me be clear: YES, I believe that if one sincerely sins in ignorance, that it is covered by God's grace.
2. DO YOU?
3. Further, I believe that if one sins in ignorance once or a million times, it remains covered by God's grace.
4. DO YOU?
Dan,
"(and do you disagree that any of those are central to Christian teaching?)"
I only disagree on your understanding of them and how you prioritize them in Christian teaching.
"Do you disagree that there is a world of difference between the two sorts of teachings?"
I agree that some things are more direct and other things not so much, but that's about the extent of our agreement there. That is, that there exist some of each, but we certainly disagree on what those are how they are best understood. But none of this matters. It's irrelevant to the premise YOU set up.
"DO YOU AGREE that we can sin in error on topics not covered in the Bible and on topics not core to the Christian faith?"
Yes, but we clearly don't agree with what is covered nor how it relates to core understandings of the Christian faith. But let me leave it at this: I am willing to agree to the premise that one can be mistaken on ANYTHING in Scripture and be sincere in the mistake. What's happening here is that you insist on deciding what is or isn't clear. What's more, you insist that I'm wrong about the very same subject. This is why I am not willing to narrow the premise to either interpretation of what is or isn't clearly acceptable behavior. I'm merely trying to stick with the notion of sincerity being the key to whether one can get away with living a sinful life. Sincerity is the hook upon which you've been hanging your interpretive hat all these years. So my question regarding this premise is just how far from Christian teaching can one be and still be covered by Grace...can still be Christian...can still be reasonably believed to be worshiping God and a false alternative? You don't seem to want to answer this question without inserting your interpretations or your notion of what should be obvious to all. This wouldn't be such a problem if you wouldn't then balk at what I consider to be obvious to all regarding what I see as your clear rejection of Biblical teaching. So when you ask:
"1. Let me be clear: YES, I believe that if one sincerely sins in ignorance, that it is covered by God's grace.
2. DO YOU?
3. Further, I believe that if one sins in ignorance once or a million times, it remains covered by God's grace.
4. DO YOU?"
...I can only answer:
2. Probably.
4. Not necessarily.
Your responses suggest that there is no limit to just how unChristian and really, how anti-God one can live and act as long as one is sincere in one's pronouncement of faith in Jesus and sincere in the belief that one is living according to His Will. I'm not sure I'm willing to jump on board that train if that's the case. I don't think that despite God's love that He has much concern with anyone so opposite what He would prefer.
For my part, I won't say that I am so bold in my confidence about what I believe and do rely on my faith in Christ to be my Pass. But I don't think I'm as far off on any individual point as I see you being on so many. What's more, I certainly give far more slack and concern for those that think differently than some people around here, feeling that they are indeed wrong, but hoping that they will turn to the truth while there's time. I feel it's up to God ultimately to do what He chooses. What I certainly don't do is take solace in arguments that one can't know everything to excuse bad behavior or assume that anyone concerned with my salvation is a busybody.
Marshall...
...I can only answer:
2. Probably.
4. Not necessarily.
Verifying, at least for Marshall, Alan's point that most people don't really believe as much in grace as we'd like to think.
Look at it this way, Marshall, IF someone has repented of their sins (the ones they are aware of) and acknowledged their need for God's salvation through grace, making Jesus the Lord of their lives, how many errors in judgment does it take to nullify that grace?
I say, along with St Paul, that neither death, nor life, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in ALL creation [including our own ignorance and lack of perfection), will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
How many mistakes do YOU think it takes to separate you from God? Let's suppose that Marshall is wrong in ten areas of his life, do you think Marshall is in danger of losing his salvation? Twenty?
I say it is by GRACE that we are saved, not by our perfect knowledge or complete understanding.
What number do you put on God's grace?
Alan...
So, sure...go ahead and demonstrate the "good" this conversation can do. Show me how repeated arguments when you do not even agree on the basic fundamental premise of the argument can build up the Kingdom of God.
Alan, in theory, there is more than just Marshall, Craig, you and I taking part in this conversation. There may be those reading and seeing how someone like Marshall and someone like I conduct ourselves, as well as what our arguments are. If Fred Phelps hisself were here making his ridiculous arguments, I may well engage in conversation with him and strive to be polite as I do so.
I also might likely rebuke his ugliness and hatefulness, just as I have rebuked Marshall's ugliness when he's engaged in it. Just as I have rebuked your name-calling. There's no need and no great benefit to calling someone "moron." Yes, Marshall has made some silly, dumb-sounding comments. If you want, call the comments stupid sounding or moronic, but I see no great benefit or good cause for name-calling. Even someone like Marshall.
I hesitate to come down too hard on this because, along with Mark Twain, I understand that there are times and circumstances when profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer. Some of Marshall and, to an even greater degree, Fred Phelps behavior is damnable and ugly as hell, quite literally. I understand the disgust with such behavior.
But the thing is, I was once Craig, I was once Marshall, on the gay marriage issue, along with many others. And I had people who, while not coddling me or ignoring my ugly behavior, deeply loved for me and stood by me, understanding that, despite my ugly behavior, that I really didn't mean any harm.
They showed grace in my ignorance and for that, I am grateful. Grace and love eventually won out.
So please, Alan, Geoffrey, no name-calling. Deal with their comments harshly, if called for, but don't resort to personal attacks. As a favor to me.
Or just don't comment if you can't do so without name-calling, give a pass on that post if you must, and please come back for others, because I value your wisdom and humor.
It seems that you couldn't possibly be wrong about Grace, though. Is that true? If so, how does that work exactly? That is, how can it be that if you can concede that you might be wrong about somethings, Grace isn't, or can't be, one of the things about which you might be wrong?
It doesn't matter, really. You've answered the question in saying that no matter if every behavior in which my hypothetical guy engages is sinful but he sincerely believes otherwise, then he is fully covered by Grace.
But to assume absolute perfection in your understanding of Grace, or a superior understanding, or that I don't believe in Grace as much as you think I do because my understanding isn't as yours...it seems ungracious.
The fact is that I haven't thought in such terms because I don't think I can be accused of having a position on a behavior that would qualify for such "get out of jail free" card. I can easily defend my beliefs without the efforts used to justify them as you do yours, particularly on one in particular, which, BTW, still fail.
I'm willing to ask, so I hope you're willing to say: which behaviors of mine would you call "damnable and ugly"? Are there any as bad as calling a clearly sinful behavior permissible? The thing is, Dan, there was never a time that justifies a statement as preposterous as "I was once Marshall", because even when you opposed homosexual marriage, you were wrong in the manner you opposed it. If this were not so, you could not now say that there was anything ugly about your opposition, for there is nothing so about mine. If you were "once Marshall", you could never have "become Dan", as it were, because you would never have bought into all the goofy and twisted arguments you use to justify your wacky misconceptions. The gaping holes in those arguments would never have allowed it. You all pretend those holes don't exist and instead of facing that fact and in lieu of substance that might fill them, you all call me names or label my defense of the truth "ugly behavior".
Still wondering, Marshall...
Look at it this way, Marshall, IF someone has repented of their sins (the ones they are aware of) and acknowledged their need for God's salvation through grace, making Jesus the Lord of their lives, how many errors in judgment does it take to nullify that grace?
As to your first question: COULD I be mistaken about grace? I'm a fallible human being, as are you. I am quite confident in my ability to be mistaken about anything.
It COULD be that God created fallible human beings and then demanded perfect understanding from them in order to be saved. God COULD set up a system in which NO ONE could be saved because WE ALL will be mistaken on some points, likely on many points.
Or God might save us by a limited grace, as you seem to be suggesting, as long as we don't make TOO MANY mistakes in ignorance, in which case we're toast. It seems entirely whimsical, random and contrary to sound biblical exegesis and logic, but I suppose it could be. This seems to be your position, right?
I doubt that for a number of reasons, including logic and biblical evidence, but I suppose I could be wrong.
How about you? What number of "mistaken sins" can one have in their lives and suddenly go from saved to unsaved?
Dan,
May I ask something from a slightly different direction?
Why would a God who loves us allow those who he considers His children, allow anyone to live a life of sin through ignorance?
Free will?
Are you suggesting that God is going to mystically let "real" Christians know the sin status of their every action?
I see nothing in the world to suggest this happens.
Do you believe you rightly understand the sin status of your every action?
Dan, you didn't answer my question. You gave no evidence that anything like these conversations could ever be useful. I'm still willing to hear some evidence if you've got it.
"But the thing is, I was once Craig, I was once Marshall,... "
No you weren't because ...
"despite my ugly behavior, that I really didn't mean any harm."
And that's the difference between you and the Amerikkkan Descenters. They do mean harm, and you enable and/or encourage it, yet take no responsibility for doing so.
So my question stands, what use is it? How many people have these conversations brought to Christ. Demonstrate how this sort of constant badgering builds up the Kingdom.
As for name-calling, Dan. I'm not sure how beating around the bush helps much. If I don't call MA a moron, do you think he will actually believe I no longer think he is a moron? You'd prefer lies and disingenuousness? The truth may not be pretty, but that doesn't make it any less true.
And some might say that their hateful behavior displayed here -- which you not only enable but countenance -- is considerably worse than a little "name-calling."
"If Fred Phelps hisself were here making his ridiculous arguments, I may well engage in conversation with him and strive to be polite as I do so."
So I see nothing that indicates you believe you have any responsibility to all those others you think might be reading and would see you taking such hate seriously enough to engage with it. Is that correct?
Is there any opinion so beyond the pale for you that the only responsible way to respond is to ignore it?
Non-violence doesn't mean being a door-mat for Christ, Dan. Christ's examples of non-violent opposition are assertive and require taking a real stand for justice. Do you disagree?
BTW, Dan, if you think this sort of discussion is so useful, and are willing to spend hundreds of comments wasting time trying to convince the un-convinceable, care to spend a few hundred more explaining just how useful they are?
Seems only fair. :)
Been following this conversation with interest. I just wanted to point out these verses from Matthew:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Prophesying, casting out demons and performing miracles; sounds like pretty sincere believers to me. I don't know fully what standard God holds, but it seems sincerity isn't entirely enough.
Without context one can make anything mean anything.
In fact, in context, most of that whole chapter including these verses is precisely about sincerity.
Out of context, that verse alone simply argues for works-based salvation only, which I'm wagering most folks would not agree that's what Jesus was actually saying.
Evidently context matters.
Dan,
To answer your question(s).
I believe that after the point of salvation we should change. Scripture talks about going from death to life, and repentnce. If we truely go from death to life shouldn't our lives look different? To repent meant to turn away from one (sinful) behavior and towards behaviour that glorifies God. Most would call this process sanctification With a few exceptions most would agree that this is a process that continues throughout the life of a believer but is only fully realized after death. So, while I don't think that God will adress each individual action, I do believe that God does guide and shape us as we mature in our faith.
While one might think that a new believer would be "ignorant" that some of his behaviours were problematic, one would also expect that after a period of time he would become more aware of areas where issues exist. I find it hard to believe that a God who loves us would allow someone to continue in sinful behaviour due to "ignorance". Which leads back to my question. Why would God let someone just wallow along in some sinful behaviour? Does not God want us to have life to the fullest? Is God incapable of helping us to deal with sin in our lives? Jesus told people to go and sin no more, was he confused? Did he mean "just the ones you know about"?
As to your answer of free will, it doesn't answer the question as asked. I asked "Why God would allow someone to continue in sin through ignorance?". The question is more abobut the nature of God than our will. Obvioulsy, I use my free will to lie even though I know it is a sin, but that is a choice not ignorance. If Bob doesn't know adultery is a sin, then do you think that grace allows him to sleep with whomever he wants? The problem is you've just led us back to "ignorance" v. "intrangesence". How can you possibly know what Bob knows about adultery? If you tell him "Hey Bob, adultery is a sin" then can he still claim "ignorance"?
So, I ask again. Do you believe in a God who is content for you to go through life in some stagnant state of "ignorance"? Or do you believe in a God who wants his children to be more like Him?
"Do you believe in a God who is content for you to go through life in some stagnant state of "ignorance"? Or do you believe in a God who wants his children to be more like Him?"
A patently false dichotomy which ignores even the simplest fundamentals of Christian theology.
"And that's the difference between you and the Amerikkkan Descenters. They do mean harm..."
"They do mean harm."
This statement indicates a few possibilities. Alan is a liar, or a slanderer or some combination of both. He could not prove this statement if his life depended upon it. It also shows his own level of hatred for those who do not share his perspective, for one must hate to so willingly say something so untrue. In the meantime, I've shown no hatred whatsoever, unless Alan is now going to charge me over every snarky remark, thus showing hypocrisy in doing so. What a sad and pathetic child.
I'm not concerned that such a person may consider me a moron. I'm not even concerned that he lacks the ability to prove it or can show how I've demonstrated it even to him. It shows the lengths to which a person will go when his personal desires are his true god, which seems to be the case with Alan. Must defend those desires and the ability to indulge them and damn anyone or anything that might interfere. How sad.
Alan...
And that's the difference between you and the Amerikkkan Descenters. They do mean harm, and you enable and/or encourage it, yet take no responsibility for doing so.
Then here I will have to disagree with you, Brother Alan. I do not believe they intentionally want to do harm (maybe Mark, but probably not even him). They are trying to defend (what they think is) the faith and just have hateful, ugly, horrifyingly misguided ways of doing so.
And my believing that they are not intentionally being harmful does not mean that I am coddling them or being a doormat, any more than my standing for peacemaking means I am coddling the Saddams or Pinochets of the world or am being a doormat for them.
I don't see how speaking with "the other side" respectfully - even while strongly condemning their hateful, harmful behaviors - is in any way enabling their behavior.
I will keep your points in mind, though, and in prayer. Thanks for the concern.
Craig...
I believe that after the point of salvation we should change.
Me, too. I just don't think we magically start getting everything right. I mean, you and I are Christians and we disagree on several behaviors. Obviously, one of us is sincerely mistaken, EVEN THOUGH, we are sincerely striving to understand God's iwll.
It happens.
I find it hard to believe that a God who loves us would allow someone to continue in sinful behaviour due to "ignorance".
And yet, it happens. I am certain there are areas in my life that, despite my sincerity, I could be wrong about.
Do you think you have no areas which you could be mistaken about? Really?
Which leads back to my question. Why would God let someone just wallow along in some sinful behaviour?
Free will and our own human fallibility. God doesn't will that we make mistakes, but we do, don't we?
Does not God want us to have life to the fullest?
Yes, I think God wants that exactly.
Is God incapable of helping us to deal with sin in our lives?
God is not incapable of anything. But that doesn't mean God will magically make us BE perfect and magically give us perfect understanding.
Do you think that this is the case? That "sanctification" means we no longer make mistakes in our understanding? If so, can you give me an example of people you think have this super-perfection?
Jesus told people to go and sin no more, was he confused?
No. Jesus very clearly would like us to go and sin no more. AND YET, we do. You do. I do. And sometimes, we do so in ignorance.
Did he mean "just the ones you know about"?
I think he meant all of them. AND YET, there are some actions that we take where we lack full and perfect knowledge, don't you think?
What if you are mistaken on your position on war and Christians? Is that not possible? What if you are mistaken on your position on marriage? Is that not possible? What if you are mistaken on your position on a hundred different actions? Shopping at Wal-mart? Investing? Mission trips to Haiti?
Brother, you nor I have attained perfect knowledge. We aren't little gods. At least, I see no evidence of it in the real world.
Dan,
My point is not that there may be some obscure behavior that might slip by. My point is that if we continue to engage in a sinful behavior over a long period of time the chance that it is based in ignorance declines. Why would you think I meant some magical instant change (although it seems to happen to some), when I clearly said it is a process. Why would you assume I suggested we become little Gods when I said nothing of the sort.
Sanctification is the process by which we continually move closer to God. That means putting aside sinful behaviors and adopting more Christlike behaviors. I someone claimed to be a Christian, yet continued to live as if they were not, would you not suspect that something was wrong? Further, if you believed that someone you knew was sinning in ignorance, would you not try to help them? Ultimately, I'm not talking about "making mistakes" we all do that. I'm talking about someone who consistently demonstrates a pattern of sin. It's one thing to go on a business trip and have a one night stand. Theoretically one could do this and claim "ignorance". However when someone makes the same "mistake" every time they are away from their spouse, can it really be called a "mistake" or "ignorance".
I know that there are some followers of Wesley that believe that we can achieve "holiness" while on earth, but the fact that I specifically said that we don't should have given you a clue that I don't agree.
Where you lose me on this is that it seems like you see grace as some kind of "get out of jail free card" and that as long as one can credibly claim "ignorance" then they are "covered".
Here is where we are different (IMO) we both believe that there is a line between right and wrong. We also both believe that one should not cross that line. My response to this situation is to try to stay as far from the line as possible because that decreases my chance of crossing the line. It seems as though your response (I've known others like this as well) is, it's OK to stay as close as possible because if you "accidentally" slip across you're "covered".
You could be right, I'd rather not take the chance.
"I do not believe they intentionally want to do harm (maybe Mark, but probably not even him). They are trying to defend (what they think is) the faith and just have hateful, ugly, horrifyingly misguided ways of doing so."
So you think kids go out and kill themselves for the fun and sport? Or do you think it is at least partially because they live in a culture steeped in the opinions of people who believe that Christian marriage is the same as raping puppies, and that gays who are bullied deserve it?
And you provide a soapbox for that. Again, I ask, where is your concern for those folks?
From an objective standpoint, if someone came here, here's what they'd see: Christians arguing about whether or not marriage is the same as raping puppies.
You don't think that's harmful? You think that builds up the Kingdom of God?
Again, I ask "How?" Again I ask, "Show me the evidence." Why are you so reluctant to engage with my questions, Dan?
Craig wrote, "Where you lose me on this is that it seems like you see grace as some kind of "get out of jail free card" and that as long as one can credibly claim "ignorance" then they are "covered". "
Again, Craig does not even know the fundamental ideas of the religion he claims.
Grace IS a get out of jail card.... But it wasn't free. He doesn't, as I've said now, and this is just more evidence, understand Grace.
He also thinks there's a difference between "good" acts and "bad" acts (whether sinning intentionally or sinning in ignorance.)
Yet the basic, fundamental, simple Reformed doctrine of total depravity never enters his head because he actually seems to think his good actions are actually good. He should also be repenting of the "good" he does. Because in God's eyes, they're still tainted by sin.
Tell us Craig, how often do you repent of the good you do that is still tainted by sin? Perhaps spending a little more time concerned about your own repentance would be beneficial.
This whole conversation is ridiculous. It's about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Known vs. unknown sins, ignorance vs. knowledge of sin.
And what does it matter? The elect are elect and God isn't about to revoke that because Craig disagrees with the decision.
Seriously, has anyone here considered going back to Sunday School? The state of Christian Education in our churches has always been a serious disappointment to me.
Yay, I got the 100th comment.
100 Comments closer to "love" and "understanding"!!
Um. Yeah. Right.
"The state of Christian Education in our churches has always been a serious disappointment to me."
The irony here is incredible.
I don't see why you waste your time, Alan, if the whole exercise is a bore to you. Seems to me that Dan invites clarifying questions regarding his opinions. You seem to want to categorize them as attacks, when in fact the only real attacking is coming from you and Dan in pointing to the ugliness and/or hatefulness of our opinions or the way we state them. Talk about a yapper!
Y'all are going way faster than I can keep up.
Alan...
So you think kids go out and kill themselves for the fun and sport?
No. I think they do so at least partly because of the behaviors of people like Marshall and Mark. This is why I have stood opposed to their sort of demonizations.
And yet, I will refuse to engage in the demonization of the Marks and Marshalls of the world in an effort to oppose their demonizations. I'm sorry if you don't find that reasonable, but I'm opposing that sort of behavior in the most responsible and Christian way I know how.
Very astute line about the state of Christian education, Alan, made all the more sad/funny by Marshall's follow up comment.
Alan...
You don't think that's harmful? You think that builds up the Kingdom of God?
I think that engaging in twisting the words and making unprovable and perhaps false presumptions about what the Others think is harmful and fails to build up the kingdom of God and community of humanity. I am opposed to this sort of behavior whether it's coming from the Marshalls of the world (as it so often does) or from someone on my "side."
Alan...
Again, I ask "How?" Again I ask, "Show me the evidence." Why are you so reluctant to engage with my questions, Dan?
Again: The evidence is that it worked with me. Folk reached out in patient love to me. I am the evidence that folk like Marshall can change.
And regardless, the point for me is not whether or not it's "successful," but whether or not it's faithful.
Beyond that, Alan, if you would like to discuss people, I'd suggest you'd be better off writing them, personally. If you want to discuss ideas, I love to hear what you have to say.
Craig...
Where you lose me on this is that it seems like you see grace as some kind of "get out of jail free card" and that as long as one can credibly claim "ignorance" then they are "covered".
What is the alternative, Craig? That if we sin in error, we're doomed? Yes! IF Craig is wrong about war and Christians, then he has been seriously wrong for many years, despite his efforts to follow God. Isn't that right?
I'm not treating grace lightly. I'm treating it seriously.
If we can "lose" our salvation simply by being wrong about sins EVEN WHEN we're striving prayerfully to follow God's will, then all of us are lost, right?
Craig...
Ultimately, I'm not talking about "making mistakes" we all do that. I'm talking about someone who consistently demonstrates a pattern of sin.
Tell me this, Craig: IF you are holding to a wrong, sinful position on marriage, or IF you are mistaken on your positions on Christians and war and the anabaptists are correct, does that mean that you have "consistently demonstrated a pattern of sin?"
Where you say:
My response to this situation is to try to stay as far from the line as possible because that decreases my chance of crossing the line.
Does that mean you will cease to condemn marriage between gay folk, on the chance that you will cross a line into sin? Does that mean you will cease to be an apologist for warring Christians, for fear that you might cross the line?
Dan,
I'll try to do a better job of explaining.
In a sense grace is a get out of jail free card, but Paul said something like "do we continue to sin so grace can abound". So while I would say that grace is a free gift, if our response to grace is to continue in sin, then what does that say about how I have received the gift. As far as "losing" our salvation, please remember I'm the token Calvinist. You are the one who has argued that salvation can be lost, not I. I would question the sincerity of someone who claims to be a believer, yet continues to live like an unbeliever. It should be safe to say that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian actually is. So, no I have never suggested that anyone can "lose" their salvation.
I still think you are misunderstanding me, I do not have an issue with someone who is truly unaware that their behavior is sinful. My point is that I believe that there just aren't that many instances where there is true and total "ignorance".
Interesting question, I'll answer this way. There is ample Biblical support for both my position on marriage as well as my position on the place of war. Further, there are a significant number of believers both currently and historically who have reached similar conclusions to mine. So if I'm wrong about either of those two issues I am open to correction from God (most likely through fellow believers), and stand ready to be convicted of my sin and repent. It's happened before, I'm sure it will happen again, it's called growth. There have been/are a number of areas in my personal life where I struggle with sin, some of them for quite some time, some still. (Just like Paul) Where I see a difference is that I am well aware of the areas where I sin, and am not afraid to face them and ask for forgiveness. I also continue to strive (through the power of God) toward eliminating those things.
Yes, if God convicted me of some sort sin in those areas, I would have demonstrated a pattern of sin, and I would repent.
I've heard enough Christians say some version of "If Jesus himself told me that homosexual behavior was a sin I'd tell him that I want no part of Christianity", to believe that there is a similar openness from that side of things.
As to your last, I'm not sure what your point is. I'll say this, in the absence of any better definition of marriage than the one Jesus gives "‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh", I'll stick with Jesus. You are the one who keeps insisting that Jesus (or the Bible)never mentions "gay marriage". You also seem to be saying that those things where Jesus doesn't speak are sort of gray areas. So, if it's OK with you I'll go with marriage as Jesus addressed it.
If you can come up with something definitive (beyond your opinion or the Anabaptists, who disagree with you on gay marriage BTW), I'll listen to it and check it out.
Apparently, Dan. The graciousness you demand is a totally one-way street. You continue to accuse me of "ugly, hateful" behavior without cause. Now you're going so far as to accuse me of being someone who compels confused kids to kill themselves. (You and little Alan are so into legitimizing bad behavior that you can't even deal with the fact that these kids have emotional problems and no training in dealing with stress. THAT'S what kills these kids, not debates over what is or isn't sinful. If that were the case, there'd be many, many more deaths. Kids kill themselves because they don't know how to deal with what ails them, and nobody cared enough to notice the build up of despair.)
Perhaps you might show some graciousness and merely state that you have often used the "raping puppies" angle on more than one occasion. You are, as I said, the source from which I borrowed that ploy. Then, perhaps you can encourage Alan to show where I compared it to homosexual marriage. I don't believe I have and I know how you feel about slander and bearing false witness.
What I think is far more compelling, though, is that you continue to use this angle regarding "sinning in ignorance" or "sinning in error", as if the sins you defend as permissible are indeed hard to pin down. They never have been until modern man decided to look for loopholes. You ask if we believe we might be wrong about it. For my part, the answer is, "absolutely not---what a foolish question considering how plainly revealed is God's Will on the subject".
More to the point, however, is that to reiterate, you were never anything that remotely resembles me. Your former understanding was every bit as skewed as your current understanding. This is the part I find most troubling. I have never claimed perfection and wouldn't dream of doing so. (I wouldn't even dare say I'm closer to it than Alan no matter how obvious that might seem.) That we both claim to seek His Will (and that we agree on True Grit) is among the very few areas where there is any similarity between us. I don't see your claim as all that sincere considering the wackiness of your views, but that's besides the point.
But I know I am not wrong on any of the areas on which we've butted heads over the years because I don't think there's a whole lot of mystery to unravel. I do not stand firmly behind that which I haven't complete certainty. Having complete certainty about a particular issue (or even many) is not a sign of arrogance or any other negative connotation (such as hateful or ugly) that you might want to attach to it. I'm certain God exists, that Christ is Lord, that murder is wrong. I'm certain no sin is too heinous for God to forgive. I'm certain He loves us and that I don't want to be on His bad side.
But if I had as many holes to plug as you do in the arguments you use to defend your positions, I'd definitely think twice.
Craig...
I do not have an issue with someone who is truly unaware that their behavior is sinful. My point is that I believe that there just aren't that many instances where there is true and total "ignorance".
And so, if you are truly unaware that your position on marriage or war is sinful and it turns out that you were, then you will have "consistently demonstrated a pattern of sin," is that what you're saying?
And you will have held those positions in true and total ignorance?
I believe this to be truly possible. Both you and I are soundly convinced that we're right on these issues, that our position is the most Godly and reasonable and neither of us is holding our position out of anything but striving to follow God and, whichever one of us turns out to be wrong, we'll have been wrong in ignorance, right?
Dan wrote, "And yet, I will refuse to engage in the demonization of the Marks and Marshalls of the world in an effort to oppose their demonizations. I'm sorry if you don't find that reasonable, but I'm opposing that sort of behavior in the most responsible and Christian way I know how."
And you think that's the only alternative, demonization? Did I say that? Did I imply it? No, and no. (By the way, is it demonization to call a murderer a murderer? So why is it demonization to call a hater a hater?)
You think there is an equivalence between justice and hate, between knowledge and foolishness? Because there is no Christian defense of such notions, Dan. We are, in fact, called to make such judgements. You seem to be suggesting that good and bad all deserve to be heard. Is that what you're saying?
My question, which you have still not addressed in 3 responses back to me was and continues to be: why give the haters a soap box? They've got their own blogs. Why enable their arguments? They can preach their hate all over the place without you countenancing and enabling their behavior.
Ignoring the morons is not demonizing. Calling the hate, hate and moving on without arguing with it is not demonizing.
Yet, apparently you respect their opinions enough to engage with them. What sort of "faithfulness" does that exemplify? And to whom? What is the greater good that can be accomplished? Trying to convince people who will -- based on years of evidence now -- never, ever be convinced? Or is the greater good showing a Christian witness for justice, love, and reason?
I'm discussing ideas here, not people, Dan. I'm discussing disgusting, hateful, foolish ideas and the fact that you support, encourage, enable and give voice to that very same hate and foolishness. I just cannot, for the life of me, see anyway that's defensible from a Christian perspective, and you have not, as yet, addressed that question.
Once again words mean nothing to these folks, Dan
Craig writes, "You are the one who has argued that salvation can be lost, not I. "
Yet just prior he wrote, "You could be right, I'd rather not take the chance."
Chance of what? Losing salvation. Cross the "line" and you lose your salvation.
The only person here Craig who has actually been accurately describing Grace, Unconditional Election and Total Depravity is me, not Craig. His unorthodox ideas do not make you a Calvinist, token or otherwise. Once again we see that people can talk a good game about election, but clearly do not understand it.
His ideas are clearly not from Calvin or any other Reformer.
Pelagius was not a Reformer.
BTW, Dan, I'd point out that I'm not the only one to make the point that I'm making. I'd point to Michael Westmoreland-White's particularly cogent comments on this post:
http://paynehollow.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-have-normal-conversation.html
Also I wonder if you've read:
http://secure.agoramedia.com/spong/34674.asp
It is demonizing to accuse another of hatred without so much as an example of that hatred. The irony with Alan's weepy protestations is that he uses the exact same argument I use. It is not hatred to call a behavior sinful when one believes it to be so. Indeed, to point it out is about as far a hateful act as one can be. I defend my position with sound Biblical reasoning, but as it conflicts with Alan's (and Dan's) preferred position on the issue, he refers to it as hatred and ignorance and moronic.
I certainly get that Alan will never be convinced of his wrongheadedness on the issue. That's plain to see. He is too much given over to it at this point that he may be beyond redemption. (As as Paul speaks of God giving sinners over to their lustful desires, it suggests that Grace has limitations.)
But I have yet to hear an argument in favor of this particular behavior that has no solid objection, no gaping hole fully filled, no explanation that is not based on the most stretched and twisted understanding in order to provide justification and permission to proceed. And after all that, the fall back position seems to be "we just can't know for sure" or "sins of ignorance" or "sinning in error" or "the other guy is a hateful, ignorant moron, but I'm not demonizing when I say so".
I can't speak for Dan's reasons for maintaining the dialogue, but they seem to be the same as mine for the most part. In my case, I'm hoping to hear that one argument that cannot be challenged. I don't believe it exists, but I am willing to stay engaged until such appears because should that unlikely event occur, I profit in my improved understanding. If it doesn't, I profit by helping the blinded in removing their blinders should they choose to do so.
"...we'll have been wrong in ignorance, right?"
I can't speak for you (as much as I might think I can), but for me the answer is no.
I have spent enough time researching both sides of this particular issue to say while I could be mistaken, it wouldn't be from ignorance. Believe me I've been wrong before, I'll probably be wrong again, but I'll accept the fact that I've made bad choices.
For me to claim ignorance seems like a cop out on several levels.
So, for me the answer is no.
Craig...
I have spent enough time researching both sides of this particular issue to say while I could be mistaken, it wouldn't be from ignorance.
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your position. IF it turns out that you were wrong about marriage and warring Christians, on what basis will you have been wrong? Will it be the case that you KNEW that you were holding the wrong position and held it in defiance of God and humanity?
On what basis will you have been wrong IF it turns out you are wrong, if not ignorance? (and let me clarify: Where I'm using "ignorance" here, I might better say, "poor understanding." You have researched marriage and war and you've formed your position based upon various inputs and you've formed (what I consider to be) wrong conclusions.
If you didn't form it TRYING to be right and yet - for reasons of your own human fallibility - you reached wrong conclusions. You didn't INTEND to wrongly reach your conclusions, you did so innocently.
Perhaps that is the better explanation than "ignorance." So, if you didn't form your conclusions for the above reason, on what basis did you form it?
Dan,
That is closer to what I was intending. If one studies and determines that the evidence supports one position over another then that decision is not a result of ignorance. There are several possibilities, but I would argue that ignorance is not one of them. I would think that to have reached a conclusion in ignorance implies a lack of effort put into research and study.
So, having said that, now we're back full circle. You can hold a position based on sincere effort and study etc, and still be sincerely wrong.
Alan...
I'm discussing ideas here, not people, Dan. I'm discussing disgusting, hateful, foolish ideas and the fact that you support, encourage, enable and give voice to that very same hate and foolishness.
Calling a hateful idea or hateful speech "hateful," THAT is discussing ideas. Calling a "moron" a "moron" is name-calling.
Seems to me. If he's truly a moron (ie, if he is truly stupid), then calling him that is hardly kind or Christian. I don't think these folk are morons (despite saying moronic things, sometimes). I just think they are blinded by ideology.
Just as I was.
Alan...
I just cannot, for the life of me, see anyway that's defensible from a Christian perspective, and you have not, as yet, addressed that question.
I'm sorry you can't see any benefit in my striving to speak with civility, even towards those whose ideas I condemn as hateful. I'm sorry you don't see my argument (that I was once like them and was reached by rational logic and kindness, not name-calling) as addressing your question. I think it does.
Alan...
Yet just prior he wrote, "You could be right, I'd rather not take the chance."
Chance of what? Losing salvation. Cross the "line" and you lose your salvation.
I took it to mean the chance of crossing the line and disappointing his savior, since he doesn't believe in losing salvation.
Yes, so that returns me to my earlier question:
Tell me this, Craig: IF you are holding to a wrong, sinful position on marriage, or IF you are mistaken on your positions on Christians and war and the anabaptists are correct, does that mean that you have "consistently demonstrated a pattern of sin?"
Your earlier answer to this...
Yes, if God convicted me of some sort sin in those areas, I would have demonstrated a pattern of sin, and I would repent.
But I'm asking, WHAT IF you did not recognize God's conviction? After all, if you're mistaken about your position on war or marriage, you are presumably mistaken without recognizing God's conviction of your sin on that point.
So, what if you are sincerely wrong and don't correctly perceive God's conviction on that point? Are you suggesting that never happens? I'd suggest real world experience disagrees with that conclusion.
After all, I'm presuming you feel no conviction of error on those two fronts. Nor do I. Clearly, it would appear that one of us is wrong and not recognizing any conviction on the point. So obviously, it DOES happen.
What then?
Dan,
If I am mistaken about those two things, in other words If I have reached a wrong conclusion about those two issues, I'm not sure that reaching a "wrong" conclusion qualifies as sin.
A couple of thoughts though. If (as you have argued many times) the Bible does not address certain issues, then is it possible to reach a "right" conclusion.
I would suggest that there is room within Orthodox Christianity for folks who hold with the Just War theory AND Anabaptist pacifists. I'm not going to make that a litmus test for Orthodoxy, and wouldn't divide over it. I wouldn't suggest that someone who disagrees with me is holding a position that is sinful or hateful. For me that one is a non issue, potentially interesting for "in house debate" but certainly not worthy of division.
As to marriage, both the OT and NT (including Jesus) only refer to marriage in terms of male-female. So, it seems that to reach any other conclusion regarding marriage would be on the basis of some extra Biblical (not that extra Biblical is always wrong) interpretation or conclusion. Now I could be wrong in basing my conclusion on what is actually said, but I'd need to see something compelling or get some kind of word from God, I'm open to it, but I'm skeptical. You know that whole test peoples teachings against scripture thing that Paul talks about.
The problem is that IMO marriage isn't the issue.
"But I'm asking, WHAT IF you did not recognize God's conviction?"
I would not necessarily agree that if I am mistaken in my conclusion that it follows that I am mistaken in recognizing God's conviction.
That is a possibility, of course, but as I have been convicted by God in the past I'd hope that I could be convicted in the present as well.
Another possibility is that I (or you) am so invested in my position that I am actively ignoring God's conviction.
A third possibility is that I (or you) am going through a process of maturing and that I am not quite there yet in terms on being convicted, but that I (or you) would be ready at some point in the future.
A fourth possibility is that there is some sort of continuum and that both positions are within the bounds of orthodoxy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again there are tons of folks who are sincerely wrong about all kinds of stuff.
As far as what happens, I see a couple of options.
Accommodation in areas where both conclusions fall within the pale of Orthodoxy.
Persuasion, where one or the other don't.
It seems that we should be able to do both, no.
Of course it's also possible that Calvin was right, it's all about unconditional election and out of our hands anyway.
So, Dan, there is no idea that is so beyond the pale that you will not give it respect by addressing it?
Dan,
You said: "I just think they are blinded by ideology."
This is also a false statement and as dishonest and inference as the "hateful opinions" meme. My position is based entirely on theology before I even get to wondering what other facets of human understanding enter into the picture.
My first exposure to the concept of homosexuality was being called a homosexual sometime around the fifth grade. I had never hear the term before and wondered why it was funny to the guy who called me that. Another student explained the term and I was struck by the obvious contradictory nature of the concept. Why would anyone want to...? But frankly, I never really cared what people do in private. As I was in a Catholic school at the time, I learned the basic stance and later dove more deeply into the issue later in life. I STILL don't care what people do in private aside from my concern for their souls and health. But it's their business. However, the sinfulness of the behavior is without question and I defy you to explain what makes it hateful to say so.
As to name calling, I couldn't care less what anyone calls me. I just prefer an explanation. It's only an emotional release. No worries on this end.
But, to call an opinion hateful or moronic without an explanation is every bit the same. The implication is clear by the words used and it isn't clear how one can separate the two. Must not one be hateful to hold a hateful opinion? If a person is not hateful, how can his opinion on a behavior possibly be hateful? It might reasonably be considered "hurtful", but as we know, what is good for us can be hurtful, so still the term "hate" attached to good intentions is deceptive and itself hateful if used simply because hurt is part of the equation.
BTW, Dan, I find your attitude interesting considering *you* were the one who asked this question of Geoffrey and me earlier:
"Is there no behavior you think would be worth 'shunning' - or asking someone to leave your community?"
and you wrote: "but there are times when we ought to consider parting ways, even if we forgive them. I don't know about you, but this is a point on which I sadly agree."
and again: "There IS a line that can reasonably be drawn, I'm willing to bet you all agree."
So, shunning someone from communion with the body of Christ in church is OK to you, but not deigning to answering every ignorant, hateful comment on a blog from a bunch of bigoted complete strangers is not?
Odd. I would have figured it should be the other way around.
I wouldn't kick the AmeriKKKan Descenters out of church, but that doesn't mean there's any reason for me to show their stupid ideas any respect either.
Apparently you disagree on both counts?
I ignored this thread for quite a while, and look what happened. . .
Like Alan, I thought the initial point was discussing matters that any reasonable approach to the faith would consider, in Alan's word, adiaphora. Even St. Paul thought it wasn't any big deal if Christians ate food consecrated to idols; at the same time, he said that if doing so caused issues, it would be better to refrain.
In other words, it isn't about sin. It's about being polite.
I would lift up the example of the Amish community who reached out to the young man who entered one of their schools a few years ago and murdered several of their youth. This community visited this young man in prison, extended him forgiveness, and did not - for all that shunning is part of their heritage - turn this young man away.
When all else fails, this is the answer to the further questions Dan posed. We allow the legal system to do its job of holding people accountable for whatever crimes they have committed. All the while, we as the Body of Christ must reach out to them in love and forgiveness.
I guess that's where I stand. If somehow, Doug, that isn't following all the teachings of Jesus, please point in the Bible where Jesus turned anyone away for any reason, and I'll admit that you are right.
For the most part, however, I think when we raise incidental matters - matters of sexual orientation or culturally contingent matters such as what color to wear or whether or not a woman's head should be covered in church - we confuse the issue far too much.
"I ignored this thread for quite a while, and look what happened. . ."
Yes. If only you were here to keep it all running smoothly.
The question isn't adiaphora, but whether a behavior qualifies as such and if not, what then? Dan, and apparently he's not the only one, likes to conflate disparate behaviors in order to minimize or legitimize a particular behavior. Nothing that his detractors have ever questioned rank in the same manner as what color to wear or whether or not a woman should cover her head in church. Rather, a specific behavior that is prohibited in any manifestation is insisted to be morally benign in a particular manifestation without Scriptural evidence to support that manifestation. From there, it is then put forth that such a manifestation is worthy of and indeed has God's blessing. As that particular manifestation is not directly addressed in Scripture, it is then considered to be adiaphora and as ambiguous and uncertain a point as infant baptism versus adult baptism or baptism at all.
From there, we move on to whether or not someone who insists on engaging in behavior most consider still prohibited should be shunned, not because they engage once, but because they insist on engaging willfully as if the commission of the behavior results in no guilt, no foul, no sin.
Dan wonders if one is certain that the specific manifestation is not sin, is one held to account for continually committing that sin.
We wonder, or at least I wonder, if it's possible to be truly convicted in that certainty in the face of constant reminder and solid arguments that support the behavior as sinful.
I have no doubt that one can sin in error or ignorance and not be in rebellion. I don't believe anyone with whom I've debated on this issue on the blogosphere is doing either. And I'm called a hater and a bigot (as well as a few other things) for caring enough to continue saying so.
Post a Comment