|
PLC_Thoughts
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Scottie
Gender: Male
Interests: Jesus Christ, My Lord and Savior....
A moderate level of theology -- but especially learning more about the God Who is vaster than I can ever hope to comprehend....
And random other things.
Expertise: The above
Message: message me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
8/8/2006
|
|
| In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
Should we accept this principle? What are the implications of 'liberty'? What is essential?
In order to answer each of these questions as completely and conclusively as possible, it is necessary to begin with the last and end with the first.
What is essential?
Essentials refer to those beliefs which are essential to a true, proper understanding of God -- those aspects of faith which differentiate not only between believers and unbelievers but also distinguish between the holders of the true faith and heretics. "Essentials" include the triunity of God, the deity and humanity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, and so forth.
What is essential? The early church fathers debated this for centuries (and churches today still do). Following are the Apostles' Creed (named so because it dates back to the first or second century) and the Nicene Creed (formulated by the gathered church leaders at one of the Councils of Nicea early in the history of the Church).
The Apostles' Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.
Some have interpreted "hell" in this instance to mean Hades, the Greek "place of the dead". Literally, "He truly physically died". However, according to Calvin, this refers to His spiritual torment on the cross as He paid for our sins.
Literally, the universal Church -- the Body of which Christ is Head.
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
What are the implications of "liberty"?
"Nonessentials"
Thus, if the "essentials" are those things which are necessary to believe in order to properly understand God, His nature, our state in relation to Him, and salvation, "nonessentials" must be all those things we believe that do not affect our ability to understand God. For example, the question of predestination versus freewill is not essential -- it affects our view of God and of salvation, but not so extensively as to preclude our ability to worship Him as God or to preclude salvation. Eschatology is a vast subject for discussion and debate, but it also is a "nonessential".
How much "liberty"?
Even if we disagree on questions like courtship or amillenialism, our beliefs must still align with Scripture. Thus, we may believe from our study of the Bible that dating is the proper way to seek a mate, but we cannot coherently argue that premarital sexual intimacy is permissible. We may say that the tribulation is past or that it is yet to come, be we can't reasonably state that Jesus is never going to return. We are free to disagree on many things, but never against the Bible.
Should we accept this principle?
I believe that this statement is an excellent, precise way of summing up our ultimate goal in all theological study and of reminding us where our limits lie.
In essentials, unity. Never surrender incontrovertible truth for heresy or false doctrine. "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do no confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist." (II John 7, ESV)
In nonessentials, liberty. We may discuss, debate, and otherwise argue for our own understanding of Scripture, but as long as we are unified on the essentials and are within the boundaries of God's Word, we are free to disagree.
In all things, charity. Whatever our agreements or disagreements, even when we face heretics and antichrists, we are required to love one another. We are required to be "prepared to make a defense . . . yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience." (I Peter 3:15-16, ESV)
Let us then, renewed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, go out into this broken world unified in faith, free from monotony, with love for each other in Christ and for the world for Christ. Let us go in faith and with God's blessing, and may He be glorified in and through all that we do. | | |
| Are there some parts of scripture that are best applied through a cultural standard, rather than a religious one? (This would include men with long hair, women wearing pants, homosexuality, etc..)
There may be ("women should be kept quiet in the church", etc.). To discern whether a principle advocated in the Bible is based on culture or command, we need to look at three things:
1) Superiority to law
If a principle is advocated by an appeal even above the law of Moses, there can be no question about culture. From near the beginning of Genesis the man is given authority over the woman. Murder was pronounced a capital crime since the end of the Flood -- long before Moses came on the scene. Paul argues that nature itself teaches us that it is a disgrace for men to have long hair: it has nothing to do with culture, it's something built in to the framework of the world.
2) Time and culture span
If a principle is advocated across the entire spans of the Old and New Testaments, bridging thousands of years and multiple cultures, it is safe to assume that this mandate is intended for all people, everywhere, forever. Such is the condemnation of homosexuality.
3) Direct command from God
The Decalogue, or Ten Commandments (literally, ten words) given by God on Mt. Horeb, encompass the entire law of God (whether explicitly -- bear not false witness, commit not adultery, kill not, etc. -- or implicitly -- slander and cheating fall under bearing false witness, lust and divorce under committing adultery, hatred and suicide under killing, etc.). In Deuteronomy 5:22, Moses expressly states, "These words [the Ten Commandments] the Lord spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkenss, with a loud voice; and He added no more."
The rest of the laws in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deutoronomy are: A) orders for building the Tabernacle, B) ceremonial instructions particular to the Israelites to reinforce their separation from any other nation, C) detailed descriptions of appropriate sacrifice, and D) detailed instructions on the appropriate legal application of the Ten Commandments. These are not meant to necessarily apply to Christians today:
A) We are the temple of the Holy Spirit; therefore, we do not need to build Him a house.
B) Not only did Israel completely miss the point of their distinctive ceremonies and intermingle pagan culture with their ceremonies, we are not Israel. We are called to be IN the world, but not OF the world. We are different, but not isolated.
C) Jesus Christ was the Ultimate Sacrifice. The blood of bulls and rams is not effective for salvation -- neither now NOR EVEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Sacrifice was required as a looking forward, a foreshadowing, of the promised Great Sacrifice -- a demonstration of faith in the Promised One long before His advent.
D) God's instructions on how to apply the Ten Commandments in legal cases is profound. While they are not mandatory now, they nevertheless bear study. Imprisonment was never instituted by God. Restitution, corporal punishment, and (in extreme cases such as adultery and murder) death were the only punishments -- and served not only to punish the offender and warn the public (more sharply than sitting around in confinement, planning the next crime), they also disciplined the offender: repaying stolen goods fourfold created peace between the thief and the victim; physical punishment means far more to a human than does incarceration; death sends a wicked person directly to God's judgement while indefinitely guarding the rest of the universe from him.
Note: My previous topics are still open if anyone wants to continue discussing them. | | |
| Unconditional election: Has God predestined beforehand who will or will not be saved, without man's ability to change that decision?
Logically speaking, if God is both omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful), then He cannot but "predestine".
Let us assume arguendo that man has the free choice to accept or reject God's offer of salvation. Now, God in His omniscience knew from the beginning of time what choice this man would make. And, in His omnipotence, He has the power to change this choice (whether He does so or not). Therefore, if He interferes, He is actively predetermining the man's choice -- but if He does not interfere, He assents to the choice of the man and ergo passively predetermines it. If He has the power to change the choice, and has the choice to use or not to use that power, then it is ultimately His choice -- whatever the outcome.
However, things get even more involved than this simple case. Man has no opportunity to make the choice, even were he given the power to make it. Man in his original fallen condition is unable to understand, much less accept, God's free gift of salvation. (See John 1:10-12.) That would be a morally righteous act, of which no sinner is inherently capable (Romans 3:10-12). Without the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we are eternally incapable of accepting God's offer (Cf. Ephesians 2:1-9). "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9, ESV)
Some will assent that God must draw us to a point at which we can comprehend His offer -- but then leaves us at that point to make our own decision. Aside from the fact that the idea of our own decision-making capability is impossible, as explained above, this argument is completely meaningless. Who does God draw to that point? If you say "only certain people", you have affirmed the doctrine of election. If you say, as many do, that He draws all people equally, leaving them at an equal footing from which to make their eternal decision, I would have to pose the question: Why do some accept and others reject? Are those who accept smarter (thus placing our faith in salvation by knowledge)? Are those who reject "more evil" (thus affirming a "salvation by works" viewpoint)?
If all men are at an absolutely equal crossroads, only one of three things can happen: 1) All men choose the same route. Obviously this is not true in this case. 2) Men choose different routes based on their knowledge, experience, etc. Is our salvation then limited by knowledge? 3) Men take different routes because they are directed to do so (consciously or unconsciously). This, of course, means election.
The idea of the free will of man actually came into play in the fourth or fifth century A.D. It was, and is today, a heresy that takes absolute sovereignty out of the hands of our infinite God and places it into the hands of Almighty Man. It is the false doctrine of salvation by works, the heresy of the sovereignty of man. It is a ridiculous absurdity that we cry out to God to save us from worldy distress, and yet think Him powerless to save us from sin. We must believe in order to be saved. God may be sovereign over all other aspects of our lives, but this most crucial area, the one in which we are least capable to save ourselves, must be our reign alone.
Thank God that this is not so, else none would be saved! | | |
| What is the difference between a hypocrite and a flawed person who is trying to live up to his or her ideals?
Hypocrisy
The practise of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; insincerity.
[ME ipocrisie < OFr. < Llat. hypocrisis < Gk. hupokrisis, pretense < hupokrinesthai, to pretend : hupo-, from under + krinesthai, to explain.]
From the American Heritage Dictionary, ©1982 Houghton Mifflin Company
A hypocrite, from this definition, is a person who professes to believe or hold to virtues which in reality he does not truly affirm. A hypocrite is, essentially, an intentional liar.
However, many people truly do believe what they profess to believe — truly aspire to those ideals which they vocally advocate. The mere fact that they are not always able to attain their goals does not belie their desires. Rather, the remorse they feel and show for "missing the mark" and the new determination it inevitably inspires further demonstrates the veracity of their profession.
To give an example:
Two people, whom we'll call Terry and Sam, both profess to believe that slapping people in the face is unacceptable. Yet a closer examination of their lives shows that both slap people quite often when infuriated.
However, the truth is that Terry does not truly believe that slapping people is wrong — Terry merely claims that because it is more socially acceptable. Contrariwise, Sam really does believe that slapping people is wrong. When, in a burst of anger, there is a lapse into such violent behavior, Sam is soon ashamed and seeks forgiveness. Terry may also seek forgiveness, but in truth is never actually ashamed.
Thus, Terry is a blatant hypocrite (and may be a very persuading one at that). But Sam is a fallen human striving toward truth despite constant stumbling. Hypocrisy cannot always be discerned by onlookers — a lie believed by a million people is still a lie. It is a matter of the heart.
Can only Christians be hypocrites?
Given the above definition, the answer would seem to be "no". ANYONE professing to believe or value that which they do not truly believe or value is a hypocrite. A person who claims that thoughtless murder is man's highest calling but secretly opines that life is too valuable to be wantonly destroyed is a hypocrite. A person who claims that all the windows in a house should either face north or west, so that the colder rooms can warm up more easily and the warmer rooms stay cooler, but secretly knows (or thinks he knows) that the placement of windows is irrelevant to the temperature of a room, is also a hypocrite.
According to the dictionary's definition — and the etymology of the word — hypocrisy is not solely related to religion; even less so to only Christian religion. Anyone who holds a belief contrary to that which he affirms is a hypocrite. A hypocrite is, in essence, a pretender. | | |
| Do we still need to forgive someone if they have not apoligized for whatever it was they did?
The Bible tells us to forgive one another "as God in Christ forgave [us]." (Ephesians 4:32) How did God forgive us in Christ?
1) He forgave us for everything we have ever done or will ever do. His perfect, infinite sacrifice, was sufficient (Hebrews 10:14). Therefore, we should place no limit on how far we go in forgiving others (cf. Matthew 18:21-22).
2) God forgave us while we were still "dead in our trespasses" (Ephesians 2:4-5). While we were incapable of asking forgiveness, He died to redeem us (Romans 5:7-8). From the cross, Jesus asked forgiveness for the enemies that placed Him there (Luke 23:34) — even as they taunted Him (Luke 23:35).
If God forgives, why do we as humans need to forgive as well?
We are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27, I Corinthians 11:7) and are expected to emulate and reflect His attributes in all that we do (I Peter 1:15, Romans 8:29, II Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 3:10). God forgives; we must also forgive.
Corollary question:
If all sin is committed against God, why must we bear the burden of forgiveness? Is sin committed solely against God? Or against man as well as or instead of against God?
All sin is an affront to God (Galatians 3:10). God's forgiveness must be sought no matter what the crime (James 2:10). However, sins are committed against other people as well (Luke 15:18). Therefore, we ought seek their forgiveness. And we are commanded to forgive those who have wronged us (Ephesians 4:32), regardless of the provocation or repetition (Matthew 18:21-22). If we are not willing to forgive finite injustices against us, why should we expect God to forgive our infinite crimes against Him? (Cf. Matthew 6:12) | | |
|
