Liberty University & Jerry Falwell...

Makes one wonder if one can be a true altruist.

 

I hope you understand this because I have no idea what you just said!

The bottom line for me is this: If you want to believe man is basically an evil, despicable, piece of scum, that's your right.

My theology views man as a creation of God; therefore, because God is good, man is good. However, many choose to deviate from that intrinsic goodness and engage in evil.

This issue has always been a point of controversy. Mani and his followers and Daniel Parker and his followers tried to formulate acceptable positions on the issue and the debate continues.

 

There is an element of self-interest in all altruism.
Jack

 

Isn't Satan a creation of God, too?

 

Unwittingly, you just made my point. The Scriptures indicate that the creature known as Satan did not always have that name. It was given to him because of his taking a course of opposition and resistance to God.

Gos is the only Creator, and His activity is perfect and with no injustice or unrighteousness (Deut. 32:4).

I have said this all along. God creates good, people choose to deviate and engage in evil. Satan was created good; he deviated.

 

Actually, I agree with you in part. People do like to do meaningful things and help each other etc... I guess where that could break down is the core reasoning for why they do what they do. So in a strictly social and secular reasoning what you say fits. What about the heart level in Biblical thought? Is one giving to be seen and get applause? Are they doing good to promote self worth? Are they willing to do the same for their enemies? Is their motivation honor to God? Would they still do the same again if they were scorned?(outside of family.. we tend to be more willing to take a hit in our families)

Also, I see a glaring shortcomming between our righteousness and God's. Doesn't it say our righteousness is as filthy rags somewhere in Jeremiah?

But yes, we do like to do good things per se. In this I could never disagree. I guess perspective is key. Clearly when we stand before God even the wicked will be judged by their works, so too will the Christian before the Bema seat of Christ, though with different ultimate outcomes! I have no doubt that there are many good moral people in the world. Yet as I look at my own heart, even though I love God and seek to do good, I do find some measure of wrestling as explained by Paul in Romans seven. And this as a Spirit filled and sealed child. I tend to be brutally honest when I grow introspective. It keeps me more humble because I realize what a wretch I am without the hand of God.

BTW thank you for sharing your views!

Blessings to ya!!

 

You're welcome and you present some interesting viewpoints. There is so much about God and His purpose, plans, intentions, etc., that we simply do not know. This is one reason I have appreciated the Restoration Movement (Disciples, chruches of Christ, independent Christian churches, etc.).

It's a simple Christianity stressing "No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible; where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent."

The faith boils down, I think, to beleiving in God as Father and Creator and in His Son, Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as well as the Bible as sufficient for faith and practice.

It is hard to pin many down theologically. I have studied theology for 20 years and many scholars break it down thusly:

Historical Theology

1. Ancient
2. Medieval
3. Reformation
4. Modern

Dogmatic Theology

1. Calvinistic
2. Arminian
3. Covenant
4. Dispensational
5. Catholic

Contemporary Theology

1. Liberal
2. Neo-Orthodox
3. Radical
4. Historicist
5. Socialist
6. Catholic
7. Conservative

In studying all of these I cannot accept any fully. I can accept and appreciate points of view from all three categories but none 100%.

From the Historical I like the Anabaptists. From the Dogmatic I like the Arminian and from the Contemporary I like the Neo-Liberal (Fosdick only) and the Neo-Orthodox (Kierkegaard only).

Barton Warren Stone, William Ellery Channing, and Elias Hicks are the three theologians I read, study, and agree with the most.

Nice "talking" to you.

 

Hi. By the way, the restoration movement is also my heritage and I have many, many Jewish friends, friends with whom my only major disagreement about G-d is over the exact role of the big JC...

Perhaps it might be interesting to take a different tact on this thread, one that won't make me very popular with some of you. While I don't agree with Jerry Falwell's conclusion of linking all the sin in America as the cause of 9/11, he's drawn some interesting parallels with OT covenants. That is, JF or whomever originally said it suggesting that G-d is administering is his justice through terrorists to punish those who are disobedient to his covenant.

A matchbook summary of the OT might say that because of love for all mankind G-d wished to reveal himself to man through a chosen people via a series of covenants, culminating with the Messiah for those that adhere to Christianity. These covenants contained both curses and blessings. In particular, as Abrahamic convenant as operationalized by Mosaic Law specifically told the Israelites not to sacrifice their children to Molech under penalty of death:

Le 18:21 (NASB) '"You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD."'

Le 20:2 (NASB) "You shall also say to the sons of Israel: `Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.'"

Le 20:3 (NASB) "`I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.'"

Le 20:4-5 (NASB) `If the people of the land, however, should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his offspring to Molech, so as not to put him to death, then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut off from among their people both him and all those who play the harlot after him, by playing the harlot after Molech.'

My personal view is that abortion is murder and that it does offend G-d. However, I don't know specifically that justice is being administered through terrorists, so I can't endorse that view.

Thanks for letting me offer my opinion.

Best wishes,

Dave

 

Hi. By the way, the restoration movement is also my heritage and I have many, many Jewish friends, friends with whom my only major disagreement about G-d is over the exact role of the big JC...

Perhaps it might be interesting to take a different tact on this thread, one that won't make me very popular with some of you. While I don't agree with Jerry Falwell's conclusion of linking all the sin in America as the cause of 9/11, he's drawn some interesting parallels with OT covenants. That is, JF or whomever originally said it suggesting that G-d is administering is his justice through terrorists to punish those who are disobedient to his covenant.

A matchbook summary of the OT might say that because of love for all mankind G-d wished to reveal himself to man through a chosen people via a series of covenants, culminating with the Messiah for those that adhere to Christianity. These covenants contained both curses and blessings. In particular, as Abrahamic convenant as operationalized by Mosaic Law specifically told the Israelites not to sacrifice their children to Molech under penalty of death:

Le 18:21 (NASB) '"You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD."'

Le 20:2 (NASB) "You shall also say to the sons of Israel: `Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.'"

Le 20:3 (NASB) "`I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.'"

Le 20:4-5 (NASB) `If the people of the land, however, should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his offspring to Molech, so as not to put him to death, then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut off from among their people both him and all those who play the harlot after him, by playing the harlot after Molech.'

My personal view is that abortion is murder and that it does offend G-d. However, I don't know specifically that justice is being administered through terrorists, so I can't endorse that view.

Thanks for letting me offer my opinion.

Best wishes,

Dave

 

Hi Dave,

Best wishes to you to. The violence of the OT and the love in the NT have been cause for concern, debate, and discussion for thousands of year.

One school of thought is that the Israelites didn't fully understand God. So, when they committed acts of violence they stated God instructed them to do so. Thus, God sent Jesus to reveal the true nature of God--a just, loving, non-violent, merciful, compassionate God.

 

Jimmy, with all due respect, this must be the same God that motivated the Spanish Inquisitors to torture and burn to death "heretics" and Jews because of all that mercy and compassion that Christians had revealed to them?

 

Gee, Carl, you only posted half my quote. I answer your post in the first half of my statement.

Just because someone (Israelites, Crusaders, Spanish Inquisitors, etc.) says God motivated/instructed/directed them to an action doesn't mean He did anymore than anti-abortionists were told by God to murder doctors who perform such or those who kill gays were told by God to do so.

 

Hi. Just a passing observation... it seems illogical to attribute the evil acts of men to the will of God. The reason why men are allowed to do evil is that they have been given a choice (Gen 1-3) of whom to serve, a choice for which they will be held accountable.

Dave

 

So, when they committed acts of violence they stated God instructed them to do so.
===

I have difficulty with that school of thought.

Not only did the ancient Jews do violence, they also said God does violence. .Jeremiah 29:17 states that God Himself will send the sword, famine , and pestilence. But the verse in your sig , Jimmy, speaks of God's gracious plan. But how to accept the veracity of one verse in Jeremiah but not the other might be hard for me. If I think that perhaps Jeremiah put words in God's mouth re the sword etc, why should I not think that he also put words in God's mouth re the plan? If there is no sword in God's hand can there be a plan?

Similarily, Matthew has meek (11:29) Jesus , who would save people (1:21) saying that He will punish (7:23 ;13:42; 22:13; 23:33; 25:40-46 ) people. But if I doubt the latter, can I trust the former?

I too like the tenet, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak." But this school seems to be saying, "Where the Scriptures speak, we may NOT speak."

 

Bill,

Sooner or later you are going to have to realize not everyone views Scripture from your perspective. We have have more than 2,000 Christian denominations in America.

Doctrinal differences and Scriptural interpretations abound among all of them. Whether the Scriptures are to be taken literally, metaphysically, allegorically, parabolically, etc., separates them all.

I always knew your last name was Right but I never knew until now that your first name was Always!

 

Of course, Jimmy, not all Christians view Scripture from your perspective, either. I'm not entering into this thread's dispute because it is way off the topic of this thread. However, I'm constrained at this point to point out that confessional Reformation Christians (whether Lutheran or Protestant) do believe in original sin and in salvation by the perfect atoning work of Jesus Christ, rather than by character or inner light or "the living of these days."

You are certainly entitled to your views. But they are nowhere near being universally held. Enjoy the discussion.

I hope your wife continues to mend.

 

Nice Unitarian, Quaker, and Fosdick references. Thanks for expressing concern about my wife. She is doing somewhat better.

I appreciate your willingness to be tolerant of differing viewpoints regarding Scripture.

I have to share this with you. When I lived in Richmond I worked at a children's home. It was an ALC (then) home. The director was an ALC mininster and he was away more liberal than I was then or now, ha!

 

==


Jimmy

This IMO is a foolish response. I well know many disagree with me. That is not at all the point.

I never say that I have to be right. I ever say here are my reasons for my opinion. To argue against another's opinion requires a response to his reasons, not a description of his attitude!

You attack once again your perception of my attitude instead dealing with my reasoning!

I don't understand your reaction at all! I didn't say here that I had to be right on this . I don't understand why you do not respond to my logic but instead dismiss it by a reference to your understanding of my attitude.

I'm just NOT allowed to disagree with you at all on anything or else I am being proud---is that right?

So here , if you will look above, you will see all that ALL I did was offer my opinion to you and support it with one, of several, reasons:



*****How can we say Jeremiah is right, in the same chapter, about God having a plan, as your sig implies that Jeremiah is, and yet is wrong about God causing a sword etc?*****



I NEVER said you must be wrong and I MUST be right! All I did was expect you to respond to my argument. Instead you say my position is wrong because other positions exist and I am prideful. SIGH!!

That there are different denominations is no counter at all to what I said: Methodists are not proven wrong just because Presbyterians exist and Republicans are not proven wrong just because Democrats exist and Catholics are not proven wrong just because Protestants exist and evolutionists are not proven wrong just because creationists exist and my opinion JIMMY, is not proven wrong because YOU disagree with it.

Rather reasoning should be examined in every case to support a position. The existence of multiple beliefs does not prove that one is correct or is incorrect and whether one is prideful or humble does not mean his belief on a topic is right or is wrong!!

So, instead of replying , once again, as you have done before, to what I say with references to my character, I suggest that you respond instead to my reason.

 

Gee, Bill, didn't you see the "wink" icon as the end of my post? I was not attacking your character. I think you have fine character and have proven so in your numerous posts.

The sword reference, Bill, can be taken literally, as you do or taken figuratively meaning division between the Godly and un-godly.

You believe, I think, in the infallibility of Scripture; I believe it was inspired but is not infallible. I also believe in progressive revelation.

 

I'm not entering into this thread's dispute because it is way off the topic of this thread.

==



If the God of the Bible is only loving and non-violent, as Jimmy here seems to have said, sorry if I'm wrong in interpreting you Jimmy, then the person referenced in Carl's original post ,who said the God of the Bible punished America, must be incorrect. If God does not punish, then Falwell MUST be wrong!

Therefore any issue involving God as rather vengeful , not just forgiving, or violent, not just peaceful, or wrathful, not just loving, is very relevant to that first post.

So, if from the very chapter Jimmy solicits the quote in his sig about a peaceful God we find God , as I'm now trying to show, to be also punishing by driving the Israelites into captivity (v14), sending sword, famine, and pestilence (v17), persecuting with the sword (v18), delivering some to be slain (v21), and bringing destruction even on the children of Shemiah because of what Shemiah did (v32), and when it there in the chapter is further stated repeatedly that all of this divinely caused violence is done because God Himself is offended, then this is certainly very relevant to this issue of whether or not God would ever punish America and so it is, therefore, directly concerning Carl's initial post!

And, to insist that v11 shows God's true nature to us , but all the rest in the same chapter which is historically entwined, does not, is IMO very inconsistent.

The rest of Jeremiah 29 is also the Bible speaking, not just v11! How can any "Speak where the Bible speaks," when so much of the Bible is ignored?