jeff@slovax.wa.com (jeff) (07/13/90)
All of us suffer from an affliction known as 'the natural man'. The Bible teaches us that the 'natural man' is condemned by God. God, however, saw fit to provide Christ Jesus as our salvation from our 'natural' condition. This salvation is not 'in' our condition, but 'from' our condition. A thief is not offered salvation so that he can continue stealing. An adulterer is not offered salvation so that he can continue in adultery. The same goes for every 'natural condition' of man. Jesus taught that we cannot follow Him until we have shed the burdens of our natural lives. We 'naturally' tend toward the very characteristics for which God condemned us in the first place. Christ Jesus calls us OUT of this tendancy, to be His disciples. *************************************************************************** ** THE NEXT 3 PARAGRAPHS ARE SOMEWHAT SARCASTIC - I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE ** *************************************************************************** Pardon my ignorance, but where was I when they threw out the old testament? You remember, don't you? That wonderful history of how God admonished and nurtured His chosen poeple. I've read a lot of responses talking about the 'opinions' of Paul. Since when do we get to pick and choose what's inspired word of God and what's merely opinion? Appearantly, we can choose when it best suits us. I suppose I'll choose to ignore the 'opinions' regarding the loving respect of my wife and family. You know, of course, that I was born with a natural tendancy to dominate and beat women and children. Or maybe I should protest the adultery 'opinions', cause there's just something about me - It just seems natural for me to chase the ladies. From the very beginning, we've had God telling His poeple what He likes and what He detests. I guess all that 'stuff' He told them about holiness and righteousness just doesn't apply anymore. Sad. I must seem pretty naive, what with believing that murder and stealing and lying and adultery and homosexuality and the like are still sins. I mean really - just because God said it was wrong, how can I possibly think it's still wrong? After all, that was a long time ago! ***************** ** END SARCASM ** ***************** My point is, Paul is not the only 'opinionated' person in the Bible. God has a few opinions of His own! And most of them will be found in the history of the original covenant. For a start, try Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Dueteronomy. Good old likes and dislikes of God. Hard to argue against phrases such as "...these things are destestable to the Lord." jeff -- [ jeff@SLOVAX.WA.COM -- Jeffry H. Loucks, RDA, Inc. (206)967-8018 ] [ -or- 1304 34th St Ct NW, Gig Harbor, WA, USA 98335 (206)851-8908 ] [ Buried with Christ in baptism, raised with Christ in a newness of life! ] [I'm tempted to call the comments about picking and choosing opinions a "cheap shot". It's cheap because it suggests that people are making their choices based on ulterior motives, which is a judgement that you aren't in a position to make. There are a number of Christians that believe Paul's judgements were guided by his understanding of the society, and might be different in a different society. Adopting this position certainly opens up the *opportunity* for ulterior motives, because it means that people are going to have to use judgement in deciding how to apply what Paul says to our situation. But people who operate in this way do attempt to exercise some controls. Using judgement is always "dangerous". No doubt people do succumb to this danger at times. But the only way to know whether this has happened in an individual case is to look at the analysis. To dismiss arguments without examining them, and simply assert that the person is picking things as he likes is making an accusation about someone's motives that seems a violation of Christian charity. They could just as well respond that you are refusing to consider the context of Paul's judgements because you are a bigoted person who wants to avoid having to reconsider your prejudices. The point is that you can attribute unworthy motives to any position. It never settles anything. Let's instead adopt a charitable interpretation of what our Christian brothers and sisters are doing, and simply say that we think they have made a mistake. --clh]
stq@cbnewsi.att.com (Scott T Questad) (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.13.05.00.25.1990.11921@athos.rutgers.edu>, jeff@slovax.wa.com (jeff) writes: >> >> I've read a lot of responses talking about the 'opinions' of Paul. >> Since when do we get to pick and choose what's inspired word of >> God and what's merely opinion? Appearantly, we can choose when it clh responds: > [I'm tempted to call the comments about picking and choosing opinions > a "cheap shot". It's cheap because it suggests that people are making > their choices based on ulterior motives, which is a judgement that you > aren't in a position to make. There are a number of Christians that > believe Paul's judgements were guided by his understanding of the > society, and might be different in a different society. Remember that Pauls writings were predominantly guided by the Holy Spirit who, as a member of the Trinity does not change. "Times" change, people change, but that is in NO WAY support for an opinion that Paul's writings are out of date - if God condemned a certain behavior in the OT, be sure that he's not thrilled with that behavior today. > The point is that you can > attribute unworthy motives to any position. It never settles > anything. Let's instead adopt a charitable interpretation of what our > Christian brothers and sisters are doing, and simply say that we think > they have made a mistake. --clh] Living charitably with Christian brothers and sisters is paramount. However, part of being a Christain brother or sister is to "speak the truth in love." If a Christian sincerely, [not hastily], prayerfully believe a bro/sis to be in sin, I believe that it is a responsibility of the Christian to tell that person. Scott Q [Indeed. As I said, I have no objection (as moderator -- this doesn't mean I agree with it) to your concluding that homosexual actions are sinful, or to telling people who do it that you believe they are doing something wrong. My problem is with dismissing arguments with comments of the form "you just believe that because you want to be able to continue sinning". First, there are people who believe that homosexuality is acceptable but are not themselves homosexuals. Second, you have no way of knowing what their motivations actually are. There can be unworthy motivations for anything. As I said, people may just as well refuse to listen to arguments for accepting homosexuals because they are homophobes and don't want their prejudice challenged. Third, even if there were complete correlation between those who accepted arguments for homosexuality and those who practice homosexual behavior, you still couldn't infer that their arguments were formed ad hoc to justify their actions. It could just as well be that their actions follow from their understanding of Scripture. Since I believe in Original Sin, I accept that people may often come up with arguments to justify themselves. But in a group like this, it is not conducive to useful discussion to hypothesize about others' motivations. In one on one counselling, things may be very different. There you may indeed want people to help explore their motivations. But here, I suggest that you should concentrate on what people are saying, not on their motivates for doing so. Note that I am not saying you need to consider homosexual behavior acceptable, or that you need to refrain from criticizing it. All I am asking you to do is to listen to the arguments for it, and to oppose them with arguments of your own, and not with ad hominem attack. --clh]