Another great post Jerry.

I’m of mixed race heritage, so I guess for me, issues relating to race have just become an everyday part of life (not in a negative sense). I thank God I have been exposed to different cultures, communities and races throughout my life. In a way I have taken it for granted.

I have no idea what it feels like to grow up and live in a society where I only see and/or interact with one specific race. It is unfotunate that in many instances people will go through life without interacting with anyone outside of their own racial background.

I believe those lives are the poorer for it.

Godbless

And Martin Luther was a rabid racist. Hitler claimed Luther was the greatest reformer (in Mein Kampf) and here are some of Luther’s words that contributed to the Holocaust:

Over and above that we let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they such the marrow from our bones.

…but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

However, we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering, cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly acts…

He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away.

And many more here.

Is it any wonder that racism is alive in the church when some believers, and entire denominations, idolize men like Luther??

Is it any wonder that racism is alive in the church when some believers, and entire denominations, idolize men like Luther??

That is an idiotic statement. No one idolizes Luther. What about the men who were Baptist pastors in the KKK, Rick? Talk to me about me and quit worrying about history.

Christianity is an incredible force on my reservation. They are the only religious group who has done anything to improve the lives of my people, and who have actually treated me like a human with respect.

Talk to me about my church which is multi-racial in a community with less than 2% people of color. Talk to me about my pastor who you guys regularly bash and place on moderation who honestly does not look at color of skin but loves all people because they are people in need of Jesus.

One thing your post lacks, Jerry, and that is the gospel, which changes an old racist like me and causes me to love all people enough to present them with the Gospel.

And BTW, we are not native American- we are indiginous.

One thing your post lacks, Jerry, and that is the gospel, which changes an old racist like me and causes me to love all people enough to present them with the Gospel.

And yet that’s the same gospel that gave feet to others racism. Hmmmm….

Thurstin,

Rick’s statement is not ‘idiotic.’ There are people in the church who idolize Luther–there’s an entire denomination named after him–just like there are people who idolize Calvin, and Wesley, and Campbell. To fail to recognize this is…

Finally, I object to this statement:

One thing your post lacks, Jerry, and that is the gospel, which changes an old racist like me and causes me to love all people enough to present them with the Gospel.

In all seriousness, that is idiotic.

jerry

My Pastor is known as pastorboy on here. You guys must hate white people because you gave him trouble by using his name.

Chris, don’t pretend you know my ‘dad’. He loves people inside the body, enough to tell them the truth. He is on moderation because you guys hate the truth. I have been lurking and have seen the reasons myself. How dare you say he has pride you do not know him. Pretty judgemental of you. And intolerant.

I am sure you will put me on moderation too.

No, we’ll just ignore you since you are not dealing with the content of the post. This is not about John or you. Why are you even bringing him in to this?

This is meant to be a serious discussion about the ways and means God changes us and undoes us. Why are you already trying to derail that? That’s why John ends up in moderation because, evidently like you, he cannot stay on topic.

Thurstin,

You have seriously missed the point of my post so now I’m through speaking with you. I’m glad you have it all worked out, but some of us need time to grow.

PS–your expression ‘milky white american experience’ is not a little racist in tone. I’m not saying you are a racist, but that this phrase is suggestive of a tendency towards that sin.

It’s time for you to grow up now my friend and get over yourself and be the person you claim to be. No one here particularly cares to listen to your whining.

Oh,

jerry

Thurstin,

I think you have misunderstood the OP. Further, in you anger you are making some very ironic rants – like saying we hate the truth in a comment about our being judgmental.

Neil

The white man was put here to rule, it says so in the Bible!!

(Ghosts of Mississippi)

People do idolize Luther, Calvin, Bell, McArthur, Warren, and many others. I believe it is a fact that is easily proven by modern evidence. BTW – the way you bring up PB when the post is very different is also unsettling.

Would anyone be in favor of starting a denomination and naming it MacArthurites? Or Bellites? Or Warrenites? That is what many have done with Luther and Wesley and others. Even Christian schools like Moody should not be named after a man or woman.

PB does not seem to exhibit racism as such, but his problem is with sinners in general. Different but same (Miyagi).

Jerry,

One of the problems I have with the whole diversity thing is the tendency to make experiences like yours (which i very much like mine) seem inherently racist.

To be sure, if more people had more multicultural experience growing up, I think those experiences would benefit all – greatly.

I cannot speak to you particular class – just commenting on the “movement” as a whole.

Racism comes from the most disgusting sin of all – pride.

From the OP:

The Lord is teaching me something and interestingly enough I didn’t even know I needed to learn it. I’m not sure at this point it is necessarily about race as much as it is about noticing people–people I might otherwise overlook or ignore–and being available when the Lord moves people into the path of my daily walk, doing things that might otherwise make me uncomfortable, speaking with people who might otherwise make me nervous.

I know the post has the word ‘race’ in the title, but race isn’t the entire point even if it is a big point.

Rick,

Re #2: I have no problem with tea-parties and people being outraged at their governments behavior… but I agree, promoting something as political and secular as a tea-party on a show called Cross Talk is mixing the Gospel with nationalism.

I have too much to do to worry about tea parties and the government. Nor, for that matter, do I think the cross has anything to do with tea parties.

As I said above, quoting a preacher, God is not pre-occupied with America.

No Christian blog should promote them.

This is part of the problem of using “Christian” as an adjective… but when it comes to a show called “Cross Talk” promoting a political position that is abiblical – I agree.

I have a link to this post on my Facebook page, and I got this response from a friend of mine:

Jerry, Like you I am very interested in the diversity of man. Not just color/race, but also income level, job level, attitude level and most of all those with out Jesus Christ a their personal Lord and Savior.

As a white mom raising 4 black boys, have had dealings with the KKK, our children are special in that they have came with many special needs… Read More, more diversity. We have had struggles being offered the love we needed to heal from our congregations, more diversity.

The greatest commandment in Matt 19 is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. The second is like this in that you love your neighbor as yourself.
Who is our neighbor? Good question! Our neighbor is anyone we come in contact with, or associate with or anyone God has placed in our lives. We are all neighbors and it is our responsibility to share Christ and His love with all.

Diversity is a very important part of our growing in Christ, for we need to be able to love ALL to truly love and serve Christ.

This is spoken from the point of view of someone who understands. I appreciate these thoughts very much.

Thurstin,

Talk to me about me

Yes… Thurstin… if more people and especially pastors… even yours would do this with people they would not say some of the things that are said about others…

Yet, with history, am I to forget that black people were slaves? Am I to forget the horrific genocide attempt of the Native American? I can talk to you all day… and learn from you, yet we need to also know history and talk about it. Many do idolize Luther. I have stated his quotes and been attacked by revisionists who insist I must take his “quotes” in context of history, yet deny me that when I speak of Jesus or even someone like Brian McLaren… meanwhile that same person… like a certain pastor(boy) spreads rumors, lies about others… even people like me… whom he seems to hate without taking the time to even get to really know what I or others believe. It is easier to ignore history if you do not know it… it is easier to hate someone if you do not know them. Both are wrong.

iggy

For the record – I hate white people.

oh, Rick…

it’s the crucible of an electoral system that freely elects people they hate in the name of God…

it’s such a burden…

“Having your cake and eating it too.”

Definition: God sovereignly elects who He desires and you get to castigate His choice while still claiming to trust in God’s sovereignty.

Tomorrow’s lesson: Irony and hypocrisy – cousins in crime.

LOL, let’s try this again: (Someone feel free to delete comment 40! )

For the record – I hate white people.

I grew up in a town where whites were the minority and I experienced discrimination and racism several times. Whites have been the big mean bossy people to be racist towards everyone else in the past, but in my generation it is much different. I was taught to love and be respectful to all races, and to let it slide when I was discriminated against. They call it reverse-racism, but I call it just plain old racism. There is still a problem, but no one wants to address it because us white people of generation y feel we deserve it after all the horrible centuries of slavery and resulting problems.

I wonder, if I had told the people of my town that I was actually part American Indian, would they have been nicer to me?

I believe George Washington moved to Canada in his later years.

I am a mild flesh color that browns in the Florida sun.

I am a new creature in Notre Dame. Nevada will experience our wrath this Saturday, but our greatest cup will spill out on Purdue this year.

You who use the term Indian, or native American, or American Indian- that is racist.

Yet you can use the term “milky-white” and not be racist- OK, I get it…

I dont know why you need to keep harping on my dad.

You are the one who brought him up.

My experience is not milky white, it’s Milky Way.

I am prejudiced against people who do not meet my intellectual requirements, and to tell you the truth, I’m ashamed of the volume of my prejudice.

I am indiginous.

Hmmm, it’s ok to call you indigenous – but “native” is racist.

There are at least two problem with this: 1) indigenous means native and 2) I am milky-white and also native/indigenous.

indigenous: originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native

* Etymology: Late Latin indigenus, from Latin indigena, noun, native, from Old Latin indu, endo in, within + Latin gignere to beget

1 : having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment
2 : innate, inborn
synonyms see native

Thurstin,

BTW – I am still bothered by your accusation that we hate the truth.

Please list for me a truth you say we hate and, speaking only for myself, I will confirm or deny whether I hate said truth.

I am German/Irish. Some refer to it as Ayrian super race.

We all have Adam as our original father, so we’re all related. Even though racism still exists in the church, it has gotten better. People like Chad and my friend have adopted black children. Great.

nc,

That’s great, I don’t really care what they call themselves, the point is I’m baffled as to what Thurstin thinks the difference is between “Indigenous” and “Native American.”

I’m also baffled as to how he took my original comment and made it all about him when it wasn’t.

So much for sharing my heritage…I didn’t mean to offend ANYONE here with the term “American Indian.” Trust me, I’ve heard waaaaaaay more derogatory terms than “Indian,” which I personally don’t find offensive, but then I’m too far removed to have been a part of a reservation/community.

Seriously, people, is this really that big of a deal? I’m sorry I mentioned it.

I sorta love this topic, and it’s close to my heart, and I’m really encouraged by the honest discussion that seems to be happening here. So…

One of the problems I have with the whole diversity thing is the tendency to make experiences like yours (which i very much like mine) seem inherently racist.

I think it’s because they sort of ARE inherently racist. Now, bear in mind, I had a pretty white bread upbringing myself, so I’m speaking from a similar background. Maybe “racist” isn’t the right term…but I do believe that we’re all raised with a certain kind of racism. I don’t believe it’s all actively malevolent, mind you. It’s more that many of us simply aren’t presented with the impetus to notice the different experiences of those around us very often. I don’t have overtly racist parents, but there are subtle things that get implanted in many of us that, though we are very well meaning, we might not notice as racism. Have you ever noticed that, in mostly white neighborhoods, most references to neighbors who are of a different race ALWAYS include that person’s race? It’s kinda funny (not haha funny) if you pay attention. “Oh, we have the NICEST NEW NEIGHBORS! Well, they’re a BLACK family, and that doesn’t bother us at ALL! All I care about is if you keep your yard nice and maintain your house! In fact, I think I like our BLACK NEIGHBORS more than I like Tom and Christy across the street, they’re rude!” Many of you might have heard conversations like this, and it just didn’t occur to you how insidiously racist it was.

The truth of the matter is that those who protest the most about how Not Racist they are tend to be the ones with the most subtle racism. Honestly, in American society, I think we’re all racist, to one degree or another. The answer is to take responsibility for it (the first step to pretty much any problem-solving), and decide what to do about it.

You who use the term Indian, or native American, or American Indian- that is racist.

Um. Actually, 87% of people covered under the terms “American Indian” or “Native American” prefer one of those two terms. (50% and 37%, respectively.) So…we have Native American blood in our lineage, so I try to stay up on these things. http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gen/96arc/ivatuck.pdf

And of course, many also like to be referred to by their specific tribe, obviously.

Anyway, there’s obviously another deeper argument going on here, so whatever.

Maybe we shouldn’t cry “racist” everytime someone says something we like.

Everytime someone says something we DON’T like. Yay for making absolutely no sense! :p

Break the Terror,

I think I understand you and agree to a point… as I said, the more we can experience other cultures the better.

That said, I do not think that not being “…presented with the impetus to notice the different experiences of those around us very often” is at all racist… in any sense of the word.

Not as it is defined above.

If the neighborhood is black they would identify the only white family as such. No racism. I believe that most American evangelicals have their black racism in check, but they exhibit prejudice when it comes to Arabs, muslims, and sometimes Mexicans.

Their hatred for gays is repulsive as well.

Here again, I don’t see this as being at all racist either, not as defined above.
If a neighborhood is majority white, then referencing people as being a different race is simply that – pointing out that they are not in the majority

Is not the need to point out that that the neighbor is “other” a form of racism in and of itself?

I think the whole point is that racism has become such a loaded term that people assume that the label “racist” applies only to overt displays of hatred, while ignoring the much more subtle forms that persist.

And believe me, I’m not casting aspersions hereThat said, I do not think that not being “…presented with the impetus to notice the different experiences of those around us very often” is at all racist… in any sense of the word.. My point is that we’re ALL guilty of it, and not just with race, but with any form of “other” that’s outside our comfort zone.

I agree…but the circumstances that lead to people being raised with so little contact with parts of the human existence that are different from their own are often the results of systemic racism.

I have a friend with whom I have extremely frank conversations about race/racism. I’m white, she’s black. We were laughing one day when I was getting to know her, because she told me where she went to high school, and I made the observation that I wasn’t at all surprised that she had gone to a mostly white, affluent suburban school. At first she was like “what you mean, you can tell?!” and then she laughed and said “yeah, it’s probably pretty obvious.” But it led to a conversation about how racism so often overlaps with differences in socioeconomic status, so that many white kids are exposed to certain black people who are like them in many other ways — they live in the same upper-middle class neighborhoods, etc. — but yet because their exposure is still so limited, they simultaneously hold on to certain other beliefs about black people as a whole. In other words, THEIR friends are the exception, and they will swear up and down that their racist, when the truth is that they like black people just fine, as long as they’re not too black about it.

Rick,

I’m not gonna go too far with this because it is an entirely different subject, but you have brought this up a couple of times now:

Their hatred for gays is repulsive as well.

Now, I hope no one will be silly enough to read into my statement anything that is untrue, so here goes:

Is it fair to compare the blight of racism that has prevailed in our country, and in this world, to what some might call ‘homophobia’? Is the Civil Rights movement for African-American and other minority peoples the same fight as, say, the push for legalized same-sex marriages?

I have a difficult time seeing the plight of African-Americans in the same light as the so-called plight of the homosexual.

Now I am not disparaging anyone so please don’t go there. Maybe I just need to do some more reading in my book for Diversity class. Still, at this point, I don’t see these being the same problems.

jerry

PS–I hope my question makes sense. That is, I’m not making so many assertions as I am asking so many questions. I’ll sit back and read now.

Is not the need to point out that that the neighbor is “other” a form of racism in and of itself?

As Rick illustrated by reversing the players – I do not think it racist.

Oops, meant to include the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle

And Neil, I think both my example and Rick’s example are subtle, reverse racism. As I said before, I think we all have it, to whatever extent.

Jerry – I believe that ethnic racism is both different and yet similar to gay hatred. I realize that there is no question of sin in someone’s race, so in that there is a difference. However my point was to see hatred in any form as the same as it pertains to any “group”.

A man hates his neighbor because of a distinct disagreement. That is one kind of hatred. But when a person hates a group of people, it has some similarities regardless of the group. But to be sure, no single group has been persecuted as have the blacks in America.

I see differences and similarities with hatred for races and hatred for gays. But in the end, it is all hatred and in direct violation to the gospel.

“I hate hatred”.

I believe that ethnic racism is both different and yet similar to gay hatred…

I agree. If hatred is what we mean. If violence is what we are talking about.

On the other hand, I don’t see the resistance against redefining certain words to fit an agenda hatred.

…then again, if growing up in a white neighborhood (and village for that matter) makes me racist… I suppose not having gay friends makes me…

I think you’re misreading me. I didn’t say that growing up in a white neighborhood automatically makes you a racist. I said that I think we’re all racist, some in overt ways, some in more subtle ways. It’s just part of American society, as it is right now. And I said that, because of racism, we are still segregated, in many ways, which leads to many people not having real contact with people who are different from them for long periods of their lives, which can lead to misconceptions and misunderstandings. I was in no way saying that you or anyone else is a cross-burning racist, and I wasn’t excluding myself from what I was saying.

I think we all have little stains left behind from a more overtly racist time, and rather than view that as an accusation and becoming defensive, we should use it as an opportunity for self-examination, to discern those times when we have knee-jerk reactions to people who are different from us.

That’s all.

I suppose not having gay friends makes me…

Incomplete.

And it’s not like America is more guilty of this than other societies/cultures – it’s a human condition… not an American condition.

Oh, absolutely.

I understand your point, and maybe I was being too sarcastic. I just think saying we’re all racist belittles true racism (cf. comment 80).

I see what you’re saying there, but honestly, I think that working to eradicate the lesser, subtler forms contributes to the eradication of the violent, overt kind.

Here’s why: Those who are violent and overtly hateful toward people who are different from them don’t tend to exist in a vacuum — they’re propped up by something, and things like racism aren’t simply black and white issues, so to speak. They tend to exist more on a continuum. So, if reasonable people examine themselves to find the inner biases lurking inside and work to counteract them, then those who are truly hateful/violent find themselves standing more and more alone, unable to refer to a chorus of people who they imagine think just like them.

Still waiting for a list, from Thurstin, of the truths ‘we” hate.

TRUTHS I HATE

* When other people are right and I am wrong

Don’t cha just hate that!!

Words have consequences. When believers, for example, who are against abortion speak about doctors as murderers and facists, without temporing their words with love and grace, theyoften elicit actions that the speaker of those words would say he or she never intended.

Read Ingrid’s hateful words directed toward gays and the gay community at large. Those words at the very least foment hatred (self righteousness) toward an entire group without any redemption, compassion, or love. It is a colossal mistake to mesh the revelation of the Old Testament God with the New Testament Christ. Hebrews tells us that although it is the same God, He has chosen to reveal Himself through Jesus Christ today.

You cannot quote a verse from Proverbs that speaks of killing the sinner and apply it to the church without being a false teacher. It is, in fact, cultish. Christians often practice selective doctrine that uses verses against others while ignoring verses that apply to themselves.

Getting back to the race issue, I wonder if, in stories like this, race plays any issue. Here’s a fellow in Arizona, a preacher from a Baptist ‘church’ who openly admits that he prays for Obama’s death. Check it out here.

A Phoenix-area pastor has started to draw protesters to his congregation after he delivered a sermon titled, “Why I Hate Barack Obama,” and told his parishioners that he prays for President Obama’s death.

Pastor Steven Anderson stood by his sermon in an interview with MyFOXPhoenix, which reports that the pastor continues to encourage his parishioners to join him in praying for the president’s death.

“I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and I hope it happens today,” he told MyFOXPhoenix on Sunday. He called his message “spiritual warfare” and said he does not condone killing.

Sounds like this guy is straight out of the school of Laodicea. Sounds like he has done his research. Sounds like someone who ought not to preach the gospel. What a loser.

I wonder if race played a part in this grisly story about a black, female pastor who was brutally murdered.

The bloodied corpse of 61-year-old Carol Daniels appeared to have been left in the form of a cross with both arms outstretched at her sides. Her head was nearly decapitated by the force of deep stabs to her neck and throat, according to forensic pathologist Dr. William Manion, who reviewed her autopsy report.

Daniels’ clothing had been removed, possibly to hide evidence or as a kind of trophy from the grisly scene, sources told the paper. She was found last Sunday inside the Christ Holy Sanctified Church, a beaten-up old building on a rundown block of Anadarko, Ark.

What a sick world.

Sounds like this guy is straight out of the school of Laodicea. Sounds like he has done his research. Sounds like someone who ought not to preach the gospel. What a loser.

Steven Anderson is the same “pastor” who was tased.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/Phoenix-news-051309-pastor-beaten-tased-dps.224e6b81.html

And also has this lovely sermon straight out of scripture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo3o4nfiG7A&feature=PlayList&p=A6E8AACE069DDD52&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15

He should not be taken seriously on anything he says. He’s another shade of Fred Phelps.

Chris – The phrase “pisseth against the wall” is a prophetic reference to the modern male urinal. And as the man said, God hates them!

I have a difficult time seeing the plight of African-Americans in the same light as the so-called plight of the homosexual.

There is absolutely no parallel, though the gay agenda would like to create one. When we start seeing these matters in shades of grey we are going blind.

That does not mean we are to hate homosexuals in any way, as they are in need of the gospel as much as anyone else.

But when people try to draw this parallel (”Gay in the New Black”), it is to make homosexuality acceptable as just an “alternative lifestyle”. That there is no sin at all, just an external difference, like the color of one’s skin, and therefore they should be embraced.

As someone who has stood and preached under the authority of the church the word of God, as someone ordained of Christ to preach the Gospel, I simply cannot fathom the sort of seared conscience it must require to say such hateful words.

I mean this: I would be terrified of what Christ himself would say to me if I preached such things from the pulpit. I cannot imagine having the nerve to stand in Christ’s pulpit and say such things under ‘his authority.’

I read the article about the pastor in AZ but did not realize he was the same one who preached the “pisseth against the wall” sermon.

He very well may be a racist, but what too many do is connect that dot just because he opposes Obama.

I have also seen several reports about black leaders claiming opposition to Obama-care is racist.

it’s that kind of lunacy that diminishes calls against actual racism.

Does Steven Anderson address Paul’s command to pray for our leaders?

#106–I’m not interested in fomenting an argument. I’m interested in why there is such a disconnect. Why is there such a difference of opinion? How can such things be so clear to some on one side and so clear to others on another side?

Perspective

Jerry,

I did not think you were trying to connect those dots – I just brought up that some (not here) were… and that does harm to the whole racial thing.

I agree, the things Anderson said are just not right.

Re 110:

I think Phil addressed this is 112.

I will just add that there is a difference between extending basic rights to all people and redefining words.

I have heard the “Gay is the new Black” argument regarding marriage. And examples are given of when it was illegal for interracial couple to marry.

But the parallel fails since laws prohibiting interracial marriage limited the extent of the right – not the definition of marriage. I think any two people who want to get married should have the right to… yet without redefining “marriage.”

So Paul you believe there must be some middle ground?

I too agree that it is disingenuous to give this meaning to King’s words–whether it is his wife or someone else.

I agree that Jesus’ opinion here matters, but my point is to think about how to apply MLK’s words since it is his legacy and words that are being bandied about by anyone and any group who thinks their particular rights are being usurped or threatened.

I want to now what a good use of his words are.

Neil as to redefining marriage, I agree that it should not be done regardless of what the secular government ‘allows’ two people to do.

jerry

So Paul you believe there must be some middle ground?

No – I don’t believe there is middle ground. I believe that we should not back away from identifying right and wrong (including gossip, lying, etc) and speaking the truth from there.

We all are sinners. The elephant in the room (if you read and listen closely) is that some do not believe it is a sin while others do. Without a clear definition, we cannot move forward.

I want to now what a good use of his words are.

You nail an important point. The moment an important figure leaves the scene, all sorts of meanings are attributed to his words and how they can be used in current events. And that’s necessary. But, just as people have done with Christ and Paul or whoever, we can find all sorts of things to justify our own ends.

The gay rights movement has leveraged whatever they can with amazing success – no matter how disingenuous and dishonest (ie: “Gay is the New Black”). That’s even more offensive than Steven Anderson.

Phil – “I think there are some parallels between race and sexual orientation, although I don’t think they are exactly the same.”

Exactly. The similarity is hatred for a group of people who were born that way (not all gays). The difference is that being of a race is not a sin.

If you want to read unchristian hatred for “liberals” and Obama, read Verum Serum who seemingly have morphed into a political blog without any redemption.

that there is a difference between the sexual desire (call it orientation if you like) and the act… just like there is with heterosexuality.

Absolutely – though that is not what we are discussing here at all. Some are advocating that it is not sinful (if I understand it rightly) while others advocate that you can still be a Christian and practice it (presumably, it’s OK, as per Rick’s comment).

I believe a practicing gay person can be a Christian.

And this is what happens when – on certain issues – you become blinded. How does someone arrive at this being OK?

On the other hand, I would hesitate identifying any sin, when practiced, as defining that practitioner as not being a Christian. – Neil

Very well said, and I agree.

But on the other, other hand I hope you would excuse me for the urge to laugh in the face of a “practicing Christian” who supports a man having a certain relationship with another man and calling it marriage. And then trying to say that I support denying people there God given right to get married.

I believe a practicing gay person can be a Christian.

And this is what happens when – on certain issues – you become blinded. How does someone arrive at this being OK?

Saying a practicing homosexual can be a Christian and saying it is “OK” – is two different tings. The former statement does not necessitate the latter.

I do not know if Rick means to connect those dots or not.

But if you say a practitioner homosexual cannot be a Christian – what about the practitioner of other sins.

But on the other, other hand I hope you would excuse me for the urge to laugh in the face of a “practicing Christian” who supports a man having a certain relationship with another man and calling it marriage. And then trying to say that I support denying people there God given right to get married.

Sorry Brett, I do not follow what you mean here.

Have no fear, Paul. It’s only Tuesday
Plenty of time left in the week for you to come up with goofy ideas again.

I just think that debates about homosexuality are getting a little ridiculous these days. It always seems to boil down to the poor little misunderstood homos vs. the mean judgmental Christians that just want to restrict people’s freedom. We’re all sinner’s in the same boat so there is plenty of blame to go around along those line.

With so much confusion and opinions in the world today about homosexuality, it gets kinda pointless for Christians to discuss the issue unless we take about just what MARRIAGE is, and what it means.

I had a massive arguement last week with a dear friend of mine …Her best friend a Christian who’s HIV positive and continues to act promiscously with guys , shes not telling them at all about the condition , she said at best she SOMETIMES has safe sex… I totally lost it , and said how the heck can she be a Christian acting like that…My friend just was amazed at me and said who are you to judge…

I’m about a shot short of an alcholic i’d guess , a bottle of whiskey , can sometimes be a primer for going out with friends… Man were all struggling , am i any different to this young girl?

I guess it all comes down to conviction ?? I think Rick is saying a praticing gay person can be a Christian if their convicted over their actions?? I just can’t see your saved if theres no conviction at all??? Maybe i’m wrong

…………………………………………..

Sorry you lost your job Jerry , same here after 5 years …I’m now washing dishes and doing starters at a restaurant , i’m enjoying it to be honest ,been doing care work for years the change as been refreshing , hope ur exams work out !!

I am not saying that, Andy. I am saying that all of us lead a lifestyle that is in controdiction to the clear teaching of Scripture and many times without conviction. Jesus said we are not to save up money for ourselves, but how many American Christians are saving up thousands upon thousands of dollars for future personal consumption?

If no one can be saved who practices a sin and is blind that it is sin, then no one is saved. By your standard no ODM is saved since some practice hatred and judgment and are not only not convicted about it, they believe THEY SPEAK FOR GOD!!

Grace, my friends, is the only answer.

There are many anomalies in nature due to the curse. Sometimes a lioness is violent toward cubs and has to be separated. Those are not the norm or even the effective design.

and the still-living civil rights leaders who knew Martin best.

Like the Jesse Jacksons of the world? Some of them, sadly, will do anything for a buck.

Well, my experience is that homosexuality is often singled out as a super-sin of some sort

I can appreciate that it’s your experience, but it is not mine, nor the experience of many I know. But I will say that certain sins have more of an impact on us as people – especially sexual sins. I’m not saying that God sees them differently, but this is a fact.

Grace, my friends, is the only answer.

If that is the case, then we should no longer preach repentance, no longer preach holiness, no longer demand discipleship. It’s all grace.

#138

Thank you for illustrating my point, Break the Terror.
What gay penguins has to do with the marriage of a man and woman created in the image of God is beyond me.

By the grace of God I am freed from the hopeless burden of being just another squirrel tryin’ to get a nut. As an adopted son of God I can be freed of the emptiness of viewing a fellow human being as a object that can give me pleasure. That’s a hope that penguins can not have.

“wear”. Sorry.

Homosexuality has become an easy evangelical hobbyhorse. Comparitively, precious little is said about divorce, adultery, pornography, greed, hedonism, nationalism, prayerlessness, etc., etc., and etc..

I have never been in a service where people were weeping with compassion about the gay community, however I have hear many a self righteous castigation of the same.

You say you see, therefore your sin remains.

Homosexuality has become an easy evangelical hobbyhorse. Comparitively, precious little is said about divorce, adultery, pornography, greed, hedonism, nationalism, prayerlessness, etc., etc., and etc..

Not sure what churches you attend, but this is just not the case. Peruse the Internet to get a cross-section of preaching that occurred just this past weekend and get a sense of reality.

If any of it is works, none of it is grace.

That is a false dichotomy. Grace and works are compatible.

He does not say that – it would be better to quote the scripture directly Rick, in order to get the proper context.

The bottom line: grace and works are not incompatible as you make it seem. They are both important.

#154

Please don’t get him started on purgatory again.

Not sure about the congruity between your comment #152 (the immoral young man) and #154 which is specifically dealing with preachers.

Remember, in 1 Cor 3, Paul is basically warning those who were coming after him (which was a thorn in his side with all the churches) – reminding them (probably Apollos) he had laid the foundation in Corinth and they should not divert from it. Corinth had a “teachers” problem which was causing division.

So we’re dealing with 2 complete different scenarios here.

No one shall be saved by works.

We all would recognize that the Lord didn’t begin a work in our lives because of our works – it was solely grace and mercy… but when it pertains to what happens after this work has begun:

> Can you elaborate on the opening message to each of the 7 churches of Asia where Christ himself opens with, “I know your works…”

> What did Paul mean here: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”

followed by

“And let us not be weary in well doing [in behaving ourselves as Christians should]: for in due season we shall reap if we faint not.”

> or in Romans 2 “Who will render to every man according to his deeds: ” (in reference to eternal life “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life”)

> James: “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”

> Peter: “And seeing you call on the Father, who, without respect of persons, judges according to every man’s work,–pass the time of your sojourning in fear…”

There are lots of other places as well where works are just brushed under the rug as unimportant. They are and anyone who says they are immaterial is preaching a false message with eternal consequences.

How do you reconcile these Rick?

BTT,

I have posted the same question on FB and have gotten some good feedback. I’m looking for you, but it’s not easy.

jerry

The bottom line: grace and works are not incompatible as you make it seem. They are both important.

I find this statement very ironic when coming from someone who routinely speaks out against the RCC here…

The thing that seems to get lost in these discussions is the work of the Holy Spirit. If someone is in Christ, it isn’t that they’re doing good works on their own volition. It’s through the Holy Spirit working through them.

Likewise, if a believer sins, the Holy Spirit will convict him of sin. It is not necessarily our job to go and chastise professed Christians for sinning. Now, of course, if someone’s sin is having detrimental effect on the church body as a whole, as it seems was the case with the wackos in Corinth, then something needs to be done. Other than that, I don’t see that we need to constantly be trying to figure who is sinning in what way and who has crossed the line to the point where they aren’t a Christian.

It seems to me that somewhere during the last century Evangelicals decided the Holy Spirit wasn’t doing His job well enough and decided they would take it upon themselves to do His work.

> Can you elaborate on the opening message to each of the 7 churches of Asia where Christ himself opens with, “I know your works…”

Written to churches, not individuals… just like the threat in the letter – to remove the lampstand – this does not mean loss of salvation of an individual, it means that local church ceases to exist.

Written to churches, not individuals

What are the churches if not made up of individuals? Whose “works” is Jesus referring to if not the members of the church?

And what do you think of the other scriptures mentioned?

Look what he says to various churches:

Pergamum: You have people (Christians presumably) there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. 15Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

or Thyatira:

Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

We are always encouraged to do good works, however we are saved by faith without works. If works are necessary after salvation, then they are part of the original agreement.

God never says you are saved by faith initially as long as you have works afterward. That is works salvation.

A person’s sin will be dealt with by the Holy Spirit once they are in a right relationship with God

How do they get in a right relationship with God? Is it not through correct teaching to a very, very large extent?

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

We know he is speaking to believers. Why, if a person is “once saved always saved” would he be asking them to examine themselves to see if they are still on the foundation they were planted on? Similar to the Galatians there is a possibility to drift off the foundation of Christ and miss the mark entirely. This is why Paul and Peter warn repeatedly about steadfastness and vigilance. So does Christ (Rev 2 & 3).

I’ve found that one of the biggest obstacles to a person getting free is a Church that spends inordinate amount of energy condemning them for their sin.

Yes, this can be true. But a bigger obstacle is being told, “You’re a-OK.” (Believe it or not, this is quite common in terms of tone). There’s a lot of confusion in evangelicalism, I believe.

Jesus put it this way:

“To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Some here would argue that this is “works-based” salvation. “If they believe that is sufficient. He should not require anything more, lest any man should boast.”

I will also add that another thing that happens when pastor or leaders harp on particular sins in a way that’s devoid of grace is that those people who struggle with those sins naturally become defensive.

A very wise comment and heeded.

So perhaps one reason why there are a large number of people pushing back on the issue of homosexuality has to do in large part with the way it has been handled in the past

Yes, I said that above (re Rick). And I can see why this is so. But here we’re just discussing it philosophically – not trying to nail someone to the wall.

If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.

This is different than “If you hold my teachings the you will be saved…

The former indicates behavior reflects reality, the latter indicates behavior causes reality.

How do they get in a right relationship with God? Is it not through correct teaching to a very, very large extent?

Sorry, wrong. It’s only through the gracious work of the Holy Spirit convicting a person’s heart that a person enters into a right relationship with God. Yes, the Father has chosen to use different ways of communicating to people throughout history, but ultimately it’s only through the work of the Holy Spirit that a person can believe.

I actually think that many people have come to Christ despite some pretty horrid teaching.

We know he is speaking to believers. Why, if a person is “once saved always saved” would he be asking them to examine themselves to see if they are still on the foundation they were planted on? Similar to the Galatians there is a possibility to drift off the foundation of Christ and miss the mark entirely. This is why Paul and Peter warn repeatedly about steadfastness and vigilance. So does Christ (Rev 2 & 3).

I see the exhortations towards steadfastness and vigilance as more of a call for Christians to live in a way that announces they are Kingdom people. To live in a way that is not about the Kingdom is to live below our calling.

Yes, this can be true. But a bigger obstacle is being told, “You’re a-OK.” (Believe it or not, this is quite common in terms of tone). There’s a lot of confusion in evangelicalism, I believe.

I’ve heard very little in the way of people saying, “you’re a-OK”. I hear a lot in the way of “God is very, very angry with you for breaking His law”. What I don’t hear enough of is people announcing that God loves sinners.

“To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Some here would argue that this is “works-based” salvation. “If they believe that is sufficient. He should not require anything more, lest any man should boast.”

Short answer to this is that a convert and a disciple are not necessarily the same thing. I would also add that it’s interesting that Jesus called the disciples prior to them demonstrating any sort of interest in Him for the most part. He called and they obeyed. They certainly messed up a lot during their time with Him, though.

#172 – There are Scriptures that mention works in relation to a manifestation of regeneration, and there are Scriptures that make it clear salvation is completely by faith in Christ’s works alone. In 30 years of ministry I have come to one incontrovertible truth:

Salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Works are the frame, but the picture is all Jesus.

Yes, the Father has chosen to use different ways of communicating to people throughout history, but ultimately it’s only through the work of the Holy Spirit that a person can believe.

Yes – agreed. Without the Spirit of God, nothing happens. And yet Paul saw it this way:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

or in Timothy

And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance

Probably why he saw himself as a co-worker, together with God. It is not man’s doing – God must turn on the lights in order for the delivered word to be received, no?

What I don’t enough of is people announcing that God loves sinners.

Amen.

Short answer to this is that a convert and a disciple are not necessarily the same thing.

Where do you see this distinction in scripture?

If works “maintain” salvation then Christ’s blood needs help.

Short answer to this is that a convert and a disciple are not necessarily the same thing.

Where do you see this distinction in scripture?

I don’t think we need to see the distinction defined in Scripture… anymore than we need to see the distinction between dirt and water defined in Scripture.

The two nouns refer to two different things.

no work, or obedience, or deed was rendered to reestablish his son ship.

But that is not totally correct Neil.

“When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’

Again, I believe you have provided an example of MY point… the son says “I am no longer worthy to be called you son….” it does not say he was no longer his son…

The whole point of the parable is the forgiving nature of the Father, based not on the son’s behavior, but on the nature of the Father.

You trying to use this parable to teach the very opposite of what it affirms.

Paul – you are mixing Paul speaking to doctrines and Paul dealing with specific people. Paul, speaking to the collection of believers in Rome (the church), makes sure they stay faithful to Christ in their preaching and teaching.

How much sin makes you lose your salvation? Why would God take one rebel home early and let another lose his salvation and go to hell?

Sounds like this guy is straight out of the school of Laodicea. Sounds like he has done his research. Sounds like someone who ought not to preach the gospel. What a loser.

Perhaps he is from the school of the Psalms. Have you ever heard of the Imprecatory Psalms?

Mennega’s excellent unpublished master’s thesis gives practical instruction on the prayer life of the Christian:

It is the peculiarly balanced prayer life that the Christian must foster. He is obligated to pray for the conversion of sinners, of those who are now identified with the kingdom of darkness; this he must do in the interest of God’s glory. At the same time and in the same interest he must pray for the coming of God’s kingdom which involves necessarily praying for the destruction of the kingdom of evil and those who are identified with it. It is in this tension that the Christian must live. Since he does not know who are permanently identified with the kingdom of evil he cannot pray for the doom of known individuals in the way the psalmists did and rather must show love to all people, even his enemies. Yet this prayer for their conversion is accompanied by a prayer for the overthrow of Satan’s kingdom, a kingdom which cannot be conceived of apart from its concrete embodiment in actual persons in history

So is it right to, for example, Echo the Psalmist in Psalm 83 for President Obama and other enemies of the Gospel?

Psalm 83
83 O God, do not keep silence;
h do not hold your peace or be still, O God!
2 For behold, your enemies make an uproar;
those who hate you have raised their heads.
3 They lay crafty plans against your people;
they consult together against your treasured ones.
4 They say, “Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!” 5 For they conspire with one accord;
against you they make a covenant—
6 the tents of n Edom and the Ishmaelites,
Moab and the Hagrites,
7 Gebal and Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre;
8 Asshur also has joined them;
they are the strong arm of the children of Lot. Selah 9 Do to them as you did to Midian,
as to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon,
10 who were destroyed at a En-dor,
who became dung for the ground. 11 Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,
12 who said, “Let us take possession for ourselves of the pastures of God.” 13 O my God, make them like whirling dust, like chaff before the wind. 14 As fire consumes the forest, as the flame sets the mountains ablaze, 15 so may you pursue them with your tempest and terrify them with your hurricane! 16 Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek your name, O Lord. 17 Let them be l put to shame and dismayed forever; let them perish in disgrace, 18 that they may know that you alone, whose name is the Lord, are the Most High over all the earth.

I guess Asaph and David must have been out of the school of Laodecia as well.

“The young man would NOT be saved without repentance.”

Where is the Scriptural proof for that? Paul says that if the man in Corinth did not repent and died in his sin, his flesh would be destroyed but his spirit could be saved.

Paul – Which individual Jews was Paul saying were already cut off? He was speaking of the transition from the Jews to the primarily Gentile church.

Rick, is it not true you would call this works?

To those (individuals) who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

The best explanation of grace is emphasized in the parables of Matthew 18 (The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant). According to you, God was unjust. He received grace, yet because of his response, he was punished eternally.

Or what of Matthew 25: beautiful examples of grace, as well as making sure we are “stewards of the grace of God” (as Peter puts it).

Would you would also accuse Paul of works here?

No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

Paul says that if the man in Corinth did not repent and died in his sin, his flesh would be destroyed but his spirit could be saved.

No he didn’t. He told them to take this route so that (perchance/perhaps) he would eventually “come to his senses” (like the prodigal) and repent – which he did. He was wonderfully restored by the grace of God.

So, yes, I do believe there is room for people to miss out on the love of God.

That’s what I’m saying. God’s love is immeasureable toward us (demonstrated by giving the best he had). But when we refuse it, live in unrepentant sin and so forth, we will not reap eternal life.

Grace is unmerited by definition.

Yes it is. But where I think the confusion lies is here: God gave us grace through Christ. We were worthy of nothing but damnation (condemned already, as John 3 puts it). The parables of Matthew 25 hit the balance perfectly. These parables have meaning and absolutely parallel the rest of scripture.

Could you explain the parable in Matthew 18?

…My point is that:

1. God’s love never ceases – he has demonstrated that
2. we have a responsibility to live for God and our eternal destiny is tied to this

And I reject unequivocally #2… we are saved by grace… we remain saved by grace… our eternal destiny is not tied to our performance reviews.

The young man would NOT be saved without repentance. He would have died eating hog food, face down in the mud.

Again, the parable is not about salvation, and you cannot force particulars – it is a parable not an allegory. The point of the parable is the nature of God in relation to those who are his – not how to become and/or remain his.

Again, read John 8:31-32.

I addressed this in comment 173

Read some of the scriptures I mention in #157

Again, behavior has consequences apart from the issue of salvation.

Paul C.,

you are asking us to explain a lot of Scriptures, yet I ask you to explain, in light of works salvation or losing salvation – Paul’s security of the believer in Romans 8, Jesus saying those who hear his words and believe in John 5:24, the fact that we are saved by grace so no one can boast in Ephesians, that believers who have their deeds judged are still saved in Corinthians, and that Paul says women can be saved by having a baby.

The problem here is that I don’t see any incongruity whatsoever between grace and works.

I agree – the problem is you do not see the incongruity between being saved by grace and keeping it by works.

It is either unmerited or it is merited.

The wages of sin is death, but the free gift is salvation… no earning it.

convert – someone who switched religions, someone who makes a statement of adherence

disciple – a leaner, a follower, someone who follows after the teachings of a mentor

I agree – the problem is you do not see the incongruity between being saved by grace and keeping it by works.

It is either unmerited or it is merited.

The wages of sin is death, but the free gift is salvation… no earning it.

Yes, exactly.

If Warren Buffet chose to give me a billion dollars, I could accept the gift and choose to continue to live my current lifestyle, i.e., not as a billionaire. That doesn’t mean I don’t possess the gift, however.

I could on the other hand, completely refuse the gift.

It’s hard to imagine how I could at some point accept the gift and then at a later point refuse it, though. Perhaps in some way I could choose to give the gift back, but I don’t think Mr. Buffet could come and say to me, “hey, you’re not using that money correctly, I’m taking it back!” If that were the case, it wasn’t a gift in the first place.

Read some of the scriptures I mention in #157

Again, behavior has consequences apart from the issue of salvation.

You may sow what you reap – if you have an affairs it will ruin your marriage – sin has consequences.

Believers will be judged based on their deeds – yet they will be saved – sin has eschatological consequences.

Yet they are saved – 1 Corinthians 3:15 – loss AND salvation.

205 – Neil. I was asking for a scriptural example. Where does this distinction arise in the bible?

206 – thanks for your kind comment Nathanael and your genuine concern. But I do not live in fear of losing my salvation at any moment. The issue is that I believe the view I take is very scriptural.

A simple thing like the parable in Matthew 18 (Unmerciful Servant) or the parables in Matthew 24 accurately describe this relationship between works and grace.

If you read James 2, you see a perfect relationship between works and grace.

205 – Neil. I was asking for a scriptural example. Where does this distinction arise in the bible?

Off hand I cannot think of one. With the possible exception of Paul himself, who was converted then took time in Arabia and returned a disciple… but as Phil said in 210…

Neil: You may sow what you reap – if you have an affairs it will ruin your marriage – sin has consequences.

Neil – you are missing the fact that Paul was talking about eternal consequences in this very verse (not natural consequences). He is saying – to believers – that how you live impacts your future.

Maybe – but the fact remains that – Yet he will be saved.

You insist on talking parables but have yet to address Romans 8, Ephesian 2, John 5:24, 1 Corinthians 3:15…

Revelation and the gospels cannot be foundational for church doctrines, only supportive.

207: Phil, I would prefer you address the parables in Matthew 25. I like your example, but I think the parables do a better job of outlining this relationship.

Well, my answer would be that those parables come right after the disciples’ questions to Jesus about the destruction of the temple, and the coming judgment on the Jewish nation. I don’t think we can extrapolate them into saying something universally about salvation/damnation. The Jews had failed at their God-given task of representing the Father throughout the earth, and they were going to be judged for it. However, even though God was judging them, He was still offering them hope through Christ.

The parable just don’t make sense if you strip from the historic narrative of the covenant and Israel’s unfaithfulness to it.

Also, where do you see “works” condemned in the NT? Nowhere. But we do see works promoted in dozens of instances – pointing to eternity.

…pointing to eternal consequences – yes… and he will suffer loss… yet he himself is saved!

As Rick said – if anyone’s salvation is depended on a performance review we are ALL going to Hell!

Revelation and the gospels cannot be foundational for church doctrines, only supportive.

According to?

I see no disconnect whatsoever between the gospels (Jesus’ DIRECT words), Revelation (Jesus’ DIRECT words), and the epistles (corrective letters that were never intended to be theological treatise).

Apparently, you see a disconnect, otherwise there is no need to distinguish.

As Rick said – if anyone’s salvation is depended on a performance review we are ALL going to Hell!

That would be the case if salvation = perfection.

But that is not the case. Every man is given a measure of faith (as the epistles state, as do the parables of the Talents, or the Sheep and Goats, for example).

I am confident I will be a sinner when my last breath is drawn and I will be wholly dependent on the mercy of God.

I see nothing in 157 that addressed Paul’s point that believers will be judged, that deeds and works have eternal consequences – but yet they shall remain saved.

#226: so scripture – in no place – makes any distinction whatsoever between a disciple and a convert. But you will give no quarter on this?

That’s odd. Phil’s reference to 1 Tim 3 was misplaced, yet you still maintain there is a difference.

If there is one, and it has some bearing in any way, it is strangely absent from scripture. I find that odd.

Re 225:

Paul C.,

I do not see how you cannot live in fear except for that fact that you believe none of your sins are bad enough… and you believe you have done enough good.

If one can lose their salvation through sinning – then what sins qualify, and how many? How many times can I view porn before it becomes “practicing” and therefor I loose my salvation?

If one must keep their free gift through works and deeds (and how does this not negate its freedom?) then how much is enough?

#226: so scripture – in no place – makes any distinction whatsoever between a disciple and a convert. But you will give no quarter on this?

There’s no specific passage that exactly states how one is different from the other, but I would think it’s safe to assume that the writers meant different things when they were using different words for different things.

You’re basically making an argument from silence, which is inherently very weak.

yet again, I find myself answering your question while you do not answer my references to 1 Corinthians 3:15 (which was not addressed in 157), Ephesians 2, Romans 8, John 5:24, and women being saved through having a baby…

I’m sorry, but making my salvation conditional on my endurance does not inspire much hope in me.

That’s why we have the Holy Spirit. That’s why God chastises us. But we can refuse to live in accordance to him. Neil pointed to Romans 8 which I covered in #232.

If anything it inspires endless worrying.

Not so Phil. I am a testament that I do not worry. I trust and lean on my Lord for everything.

Basically, it’s saying if a person comes to the conclusion that Christ’s sacrifice isn’t needed or enough, there’s no where else for him to turn.

No – read it again. It is talking about “If we deliberately keep on sinning…”

I do not see how you cannot live in fear except for that fact that you believe none of your sins are bad enough… and you believe you have done enough good.

I don’t – I’m probably the most joyful person I know – honestly.

Gotta head home gents, but I sincerely appreciate the interaction. I’ll pick up your comments later tonight or tomorrow morning.

The wages of sin is death – but the gift of God is eternal life.

Exactly – it is a gift and it is free… free to get… free to keep.

Neil pointed to Romans 8 which I covered in #232.

Except you omitted verses 31 – 39

That was one I missed, but beautifully portrays my point better than I could. The wages of sin is death – but the gift of God is eternal life.

ARRRGGHHHHH!!!!!!!

So frustrating. You’re basically proving our point. A gift is something you DON’T EARN. It’s freely given. That’s why Paul is contrasting it to a wage – something that is earned.

If I give someone a gift – something which is by definition not earned – how can they “un-earn” the gift? A gift has to be irrevocable or it is by definition not a gift…. It can’t be called a gift if I can take it back.

That was one I missed, but beautifully portrays my point better than I could. The wages of sin is death – but the gift of God is eternal life.

ARRRGGHHHHH!!!!!!!

So frustrating. You’re basically proving our point. A gift is something you DON’T EARN. It’s freely given. That’s why Paul is contrasting it to a wage – something that is earned.

If I give someone a gift – something which is by definition not earned – how can they “un-earn” the gift? A gift has to be irrevocable or it is by definition not a gift…. It can’t be called a gift if I can take it back.

Further – if someone is given a gift it is not expected they must earn the right to keep it.

Neil,

I don’t always agree with Paul C, and he’s quite capable of defending himself, but I think your critique of him in unfair.

You seem to constantly make separations between faith/grace (the truly spiritual things) vs. merely physical deeds (like receiving sacraments, or helping old ladies cross the street). Contrary to modern myth it’s not Christianity, but gnosticism that slices the universe up into these categories. I think God still maintains the ability to manifest grace through creation, and his purest expression of grace is Jesus of Nazareth, the spiritual Word made very physical flesh. I always see a combination of faith and works in the bible, and forcibly pitting them against each other is like asking which blade on the scissors does the cutting.

I don’t see where he inferred that we could be saved by reaching that magic number of old ladies helped across the road.

True conversion always results in a change of life on some level. However we are still colossally in need of grace because we still sin every day. people fall into major sin and all of us see our brother in need and turn away EVERY SINGLE DAY.

All of us save up treasures here on earth, and all of us have at least two coats. All of us live substantially above what we need, and all of our prayer lives could be significantly increased without much sacrifice. None of us measures up to the Sermon on the Mount, and yet none of us are very upset about it.

The world around us screams for help; girls cut themselves; children are molested and mistreated; millions have no health care; children’s hospitals are full of cancer patients; jails house millions in need of Christian visitors; millions suffer with AIDS; children die of starvation daily; and yet we all sleep comfortably with the air conditioner on and a great mattress.

Now who is in sin? All of us.

I do hold out that there may be a possibility of a person willfully returning a gift, but that’s something different than losing it through accidental means.

Although even this is contrary to Romans 8 in which Paul declare that no created this has the ability to separate us from Christ.

RE 189:

Pastorboy,

C’mon… seriously? – are you actually even hinting that praying for our President to die prematurely of brain cancer is remotely Christian – and something acceptable from the pulpit?

Even the quote your posted said:

Since [the Christian] does not know who are permanently identified with the kingdom of evil [we] cannot pray for the doom of known individuals in the way the psalmists did and rather must show love to all people, even [our] enemies.

As well as Paul’s admonition to pray for (not against) our leaders.

Furthermore, if you want to pray Psalm 83 – do so literally, pray against “the enemies of God” and let him decide to whom that applies.

Also – on what grounds is Obama an enemy of the Gospel anyway… he may support abortion – but that is a separate issue… he may be a socialist – but so what, that’s not a biblical issue anyway. On what grounds is Obama any more an enemy to the Gospel than any other President?

Show me how to connect these two issues.

“God will laugh at their calamity”

and

“How often would I have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks”.

Phil,

When is comes to losing salvation, a person willingly rejecting their salvation would be the only case I can see with any merit or possibility whatsoever.

Brett, I have no idea what you mean by this, nor what I argued for or against to illicit comments about separation of spiritual and physical deeds – Neil

RE: #228

Exactly.

Grace.

Not works.

You say exactly, like it is a given that grace and works are 2 different things. Like grace is responsible for faith but not works. Like the fact that I got a warm fuzzy feeling one day when I realized what happened on the cross, was all that Jesus cares about. Hopefully grace will continue to work as I work out my salvation in fear and trembling.

ps; don’t read to much into that, like Paul C I’m a pretty joyful guy!

I was hoping John’s comment would go unnoticed since it was absurd at best and indefensible at worst. More pap. More wasted bit-space. More wasted energy.

On a separate note, Rick wrote:

#189 – a pristine example of melding the OT God with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I’m not sure what this means entirely, but there is no difference between the ‘OT God’ and the ‘Gospel of Jesus Christ.’ At face value you seem to be suggesting something sinister. It’s another subject, and I’m not going to carry on further than this reply, but perhaps someday we will discuss it in another thread.

jerry

And allow me to illustrate this inconsistent gospel. Here is a request for prayer for Mike Ratliff concerning his seizure. A reasonable request.

But these same people (PB) pray for Obama to get brain cancer?? And they quote the Old Testament while igoring the direct teachings of Jesus. That is what I mean when people attempt to drag the Old Testament revelation of God into the age of grace through Jesus Christ.

Pastorboy,

You defended the idea, you defended a pastor who is openly praying for our Presidents death.

I wonder if you prayed the same regarding his predecessor?

I’m interested to know how Obama could slow the spread of the gospel.

If Obama actually has some type of *effect* on the gospel, does that mean the gospel is *dependent* upon government for transmission?

Specific examples would be very helpful.

#242: not sure if this is an attempted slight of some sort, but I would advise that if “adding to the scripture” only serves to clarify, then a statement like this is immaterial, and only seeks to subtlely detract. If this wasn’t the intent, then no worries.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to some of these thoughts (father or 3, one more in the oven due anyday now, plus a busy schedule after work).

I believe there is an inseparable relationship, as revealed in Scripture, between grace and works.

Jesus is emphatic that there is a component of responsibility that every believer bares. In comment 217 Rick basically says that it is not suitable to build doctrine upon the gospels or Jesus’ words in Revelation which is completely false (where do we draw this conclusion? By who’s authority?).

Interesting observation: I am told not to use the parables of our Lord (or Rev 2 & 3 – his direct words) to build doctrine, only to be presented with a PLETHORA of man-made sentiment, analogies and metaphors to prove the opposite point. Amazing.

I simply maintain there is NO conflict between Christ and the apostle(s).

But when it comes to our responsibility, it is clear several times through the gospels (feel free to reject if it doesn’t chord with a held doctrine):

Parables of the Seed & Sower:
The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.

Notice, he receives the word. We would call this man a “convert” and some would get him into Discipleship 101 classes, but after a time, he falls away from the faith due to circumstances around him. Lost.

Matt 18: Parable of the Unmerciful Servant:
Was the servant completely forgiven? Yes.
And yet – how does the parable conclude?

“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35″This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”

Notice how the actions (the servant’s) illicited the response from the Lord. There are drastic consequences to what we do with the grace given to us. If we receive grace and yet are not stewards of it, there’s a price.

Matt 24: Parable of the Servant
But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Is God unjust? Here’s a believer having God’s grace withdrawn based on his actions.

Matt 25: Parable of the Ten Virgins
How dare Jesus insinuate that once I’m saved, there’s a possibility I could still be lost! Received the grace but did nothing with it.

“Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us!’

12″But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don’t know you.’

Matt 25: Parable of the Talents
Grace – But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money…

He basically replies “Grace did it all!”

“Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

What did Jesus say? “Well, you claim the blood. Enter into the joys of the Lord.”? No.

‘You wicked, lazy servant!… throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

I’ll pause here for a second. Can we warp and twist what Christ meant in each of these accounts to fit some man-made teaching of “once saved always saved.” What do you suppose the hearers of these messages received?

“Jesus paid it all – no matter what I do I’m OK.” Hardly. They understood the relationship between grace and their responsibility as stewards of that grace.

But there’s tons more…

Luke 6: “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

In other words. He’s not satisfied with us giving mental assent with no resulting obedience or works (read what follows as well regarding the wise and foolish builders). Serious stuff.

Luke 13:
Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”

Rick & Neil might have this response blacked out in his bible.

He said to them, 24″Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

What do you mean EVERY EFFORT, Lord?

John 6: Jesus defines just what he means when he says “faith”:

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

In other words – you need to imbibe my ways and allow me to be formed in you. It’s a process. And again, notice how it’s tied to eternal destination (life).

John 8:
This is where Phil and Neil suppose there is a distinction between a CONVERT and a DISCIPLE – even though there is absolutely no distinction in scripture.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

What does this mean – without twisting the meaning?

John 15:
He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful.

Again – without twisting his meaning (and what the hearers would understand), we cannot say our works are immaterial.

A few more scriptures can be pointed to – in fact dozens.

Here’s a couple more:

2 Peter 1:
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith…

What do you mean ‘add to your faith’ Peter?

For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My goodness – and then this whopper:

But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

According to some this is borderline blasphemy. Should Peter even be an apostle?

ALSO, can a person live a life so as to lose out what God has so graciously given? Some here would argue “NEVER”. Peter says:

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”[f]and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

Simply staggering.

In conclusion, he ends his letter:

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.

Works, works, works!

And, let us not forget Jesus words to all 7 churches in Asia where he opens each with a declarative:

“I know your works…”

To Ephesus:

Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

Some here will say, these warnings are to the church. To which I say, what is the church if it is not a body of people?

We must conclude works are important. If they are important to the Lord, should we not consider this more deeply?

Is this blasphemy?

God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

An overreliance on parables and the gospels can easily lead to a wrong doctrine

No offense Rick, but you believe in Hell don’t you? Where did you derive this doctrine?

After all, where does it appear in the epistles?

See how one-sided this can be. It’s basically cafeteria-style Christianity. Take what appeals and discard the rest.

OK – another list of Scriptures, more questions, and a slight jab followed by a ” ” – yet… my questions from comment 240 is unanswered and the Scriptures I brought up (Romans 8: 31-39, Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 3:15, etc etc etc) still ignored.

I am bowing out unless this becomes a discussion not a continual barrage.

Jerry – For some reason I cannot open the current post on grace.

Some camps have to have a fresh batch of human enemies to retain their raison d’être .

All interpretations of Scripture that do not agree with mine are distortions.

#266 is a non-answer.

acknowledging that W was no friend of the gospel is not the same as praying for his death.

if the tables were turned…i wonder how philosophical people would be…