 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/13/2004 9:28 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Oprah Winfrey celebrated the premiere of her 19th season by surprising each of her 276 audience members with a new car.
In other segments on the show, taped Thursday, Winfrey surprised a 20-year-old girl who had spent years in foster care and homeless shelters with a four-year college scholarship, a makeover and $10,000 in clothes. And a family with eight foster children who were going to be kicked out of their house were given $130,000 to buy and repair the home.
Wonderful actions and the people that received them were made very happy. Is this the fruit of a Christian?
James says,
"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress" and "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself."
I see that this is the criteria that is so often used.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/13/2004 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Oprah must be a Calvinist, trying to distribute her kindness as unevenly and freely as God is believed to have done. 
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/13/2004 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | I was pointing to something entirely different. God is believed by Calvinists to distribute infinte grace UNEVENLY. Everybody equally needs it. God's got plenty of it. God decides to only bless SOME with it. Seemed to me that Oprah might be said to have acted in a similar fashion. I'm just wondering whether refusing to do the good we CAN do makes us MORE or LESS like God. But you wanna talk about whether Oprah and Mother Theresa preached the gospel when they served the physical needs of the poor. That's cool. Carry on!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/14/2004 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
The difference between Oprah and Mother Teresa is that Oprah's gifts are given out of physical wealth, that Oprah does her deeds in front of the widest audience available, and that Mother Teresa got her hands dirty. The gifts are great, but I question the motivation. These things are plain for everyone to see. Might the pharisee's markedly public good works be considered part of his "fruit"?
Sahid,
I think that your differences are “theater.” Oprah may be personally wealthy but both her “gifts” and the “gifts” of Mother Teresa (who may not have been personally wealthy) were financed by others. Besides, when it comes to motivations, lust for wealth is only one manifestation of sin. Lust for power, prestige, a reputation for righteousness before men and even the pursuit of self-righteousness are also sins. Mother Teresa was certainly visible and received honor before men, who knows what her motives were?. (I am not accusing her of bad motives, just highlighting that “motives” are a quagmire to wade through and are better left to God to determine. We can only observe the actions.) Neither Oprah nor Mother Teresa gave their last cent in the activities that I am speaking of. Mother Teresa had the Catholic Church to fall back on and support and care for her even if she had. They were both financed by others, they simply raised the money and distributed it. Paul did the same with the gift of money from the Gentiles to the church in Jerusalem
Your comment concerning the Pharisee and his “fruit” is more the topic I was chasing. The Pharisee, Oprah, and Mother Teresa (to the extent she isn’t explicitly verbally communicating the message of the gospel) are all identical and their “fruit” of their actions has the same value. God will damn these people if this is the only “fruit” that they can claim. God’s commandment and most important “fruit” is to believe in His Son and His atoning death on the Cross which was proved true and sufficient by His bodily resurrection. The actions of Oprah are as much the “gospel” as the actions for which Mother Teresa is best known, which means they are NOT the gospel.
While it is true that, “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress,” this is not the whole passage. Many people stop at this as they look at their actions ands those of others and consider if they are religious. The phrase that completes God’s definition is crucial and failure to understand it is fatal. God the Father also demands this of pure and undefiled religion, “to keep oneself unstained by the world.” There is only way that this is possible and exists in the lives of men, believing in the gospel. Without an external righteousness received as a gift, we are and will remain stained by the world and damned to hell regardless of how many orphans and widows we care for with our last cent.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/14/2004 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | While it is of course true that good works can't save us, and certainly can't atone for even one of our past sins, it is also just as a true that according to James doing absolutely NO good works is a very good reason to doubt whether one's faith is genuine or not.
As to Oprah, it cost her little more than using her influence (which is great), and looked to me to be little more than a publicity stunt, both for her and General Motors Corp. Companies spend a lot more on commercials during the Super Bowl than they did in giving away all those free cars. No doubt the recipients are very appreciative of the gift of a car, but doesn't the fact that the company COULD do this so easily cause you to wonder why they don't do this sort of thing more often?
Anyway, we earn no brownie points for doing what we ought to do. (Not saying Oprah and GM were under any obligation to give these cars away, because they weren't, but the whole idea of "merit" with respect to moral action is totally absurd when you really think about it.
Jesus said, "When you have done all these things, say of yourselves, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have only done that which was our duty.'
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/14/2004 11:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
While it is of course true that good works can't save us, and certainly can't atone for even one of our past sins, it is also just as a true that according to James doing absolutely NO good works is a very good reason to doubt whether one's faith is genuine or not.
As to Oprah, it cost her little more than using her influence (which is great), and looked to me to be little more than a publicity stunt, both for her and General Motors Corp. Companies spend a lot more on commercials during the Super Bowl than they did in giving away all those free cars. No doubt the recipients are very appreciative of the gift of a car, but doesn't the fact that the company COULD do this so easily cause you to wonder why they don't do this sort of thing more often?
Anyway, we earn no brownie points for doing what we ought to do. (Not saying Oprah and GM were under any obligation to give these cars away, because they weren't, but the whole idea of "merit" with respect to moral action is totally absurd when you really think about it.
Jesus said, "When you have done all these things, say of yourselves, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have only done that which was our duty.'
John,
I agree with you. I think my point is going even farther than your statement, "the whole idea of "merit" with respect to moral action is totally absurd when you really think about it." What I am saying is that it is even more absurd to use moral action as a "justification" of someone's teachings or beliefs. There is a legitimate use for the "lack" of moral actions as a yardstick that calls teachings and beliefs into question and ultimately rejects them. Even there, however, there are "almost" exceptions as in Phil 1 and Paul's pleasure at the gospel being preached by people out of envy and malice. Thus "moral actions" is a yardstick that is useful only when they are lacking. When good moral actions are present, we must not assume that they make the teachings and beliefs of those that practice them acceptable or "safe."
I have seen this type of argument used several times on this site with the presence of these types of "fruit" used to justify the beliefs of some teacher or individual. It is absurd.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 9/14/2004 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Spen Lake wrote:
quote:
When good moral actions are present, we must not assume that they make the teachings and beliefs of those that practice them acceptable or "safe."
I have seen this type of argument used several times on this site with the presence of these types of "fruit" used to justify the beliefs of some teacher or individual. It is absurd.
What, specifically, are you referencing?
Are you, per chance, again alluding to "Seeing is Believing"?
If not, what?
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 9/14/2004 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Spen Lake wrote:
quote:
..... I think that this is because the Law has been minimized and therefore the gospel has been cheapened.
Is that an attack on Dr. Boyd and his mysticism, maybe, but it wasn't a conscious one.
--------
SOURCE: Judgment - the mission of Christ
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3660
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/15/2004 2:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Mayflower
.
Spen Lake wrote:
quote:
When good moral actions are present, we must not assume that they make the teachings and beliefs of those that practice them acceptable or "safe."
I have seen this type of argument used several times on this site with the presence of these types of "fruit" used to justify the beliefs of some teacher or individual. It is absurd.
What, specifically, are you referencing?
Are you, per chance, again alluding to "Seeing is Believing"?
If not, what?
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
Actually Jo-Ann,
I am not alluding to Dr. Boyd at all in my statement. The criticism I am making is not towards the "teacher" in this case, whoever he may be, but on those that defend their "teacher" based upon absurd criteria. I believe that there are numerous examples of this on the "Seeing is Believing" thread. I have also seen them on threads where I didn't participate and wasn't to involved with the topic being discussed.
The thread here isn't intended to attack any specific teacher (which is why I chose Oprah who isn't even Christian and Mother Teresa who is dead) but what I perceive as a flawed method of "judgment." I also believe that this flawed system of judgment leads to tolerating teaching that causes damage to the flock. You were sympathetic to a family I was involved with when I used a 3rd party example of something not directly related to this site. The concern I have is that the justification for the abusive behaviors done out of compassion and "perceived love" articulated by these men is the same as I witness here.
Additionally, the justification of "pragmatism" or "it works" as proof that an idea or belief is valid is obviously absurd when looked at through the Oprah example. It is just as absurd when applied to teachings and beliefs of others.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/15/2004 2:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I have seen this type of argument used several times on this site with the presence of these types of "fruit" used to justify the beliefs of some teacher or individual. It is absurd.
If there was a preacher who seemed to preach the "truth", yet raised children that went on to lead lives of bad choices, including children born out of wedlock and living with people who beat them up, would examining the fruit of the pastor's life temper how you viewed that pastor's "truth"?
by their fruits, you shall know them?
I think that a man's family and the way it is run is a legitimate measure based upon 1 Timothy . I understand this to apply to a family that is still within the governmental "jurisdiction" of the father/mother. There is a part of this measure that also needs to be weighed in with the personal responsiblity of "choice" that is so dear to OVers. Was Adam a poor father and responsible for Cain's decision to kill Able? Do we hold Isaac responsible for Esau? In the story of the prodigal, was the father responsible for the choices of his son?
I think that parents are responsible for the actions of their children while they live with them and are under their jurisdictions. This is what I think it means in Timothy to "manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity." The actions of the father of the prodigal seem consistent with this.
Ultimately, if this concept of assigning blame and responsibility to parents for the actions of their children once they had established their own lives, God would be responsible for the actions and sins of Adam, who was also a creation of God and called his son. Managing his household well and being held responsible for the decisions of his children once they depart from this household are 2 very different things.
Regarding the point concerning, "living with people who beat them up," I would be deeply saddened and disappointed in any person, Christian or non-Christian, that would place blame on the father of someone who is being physically abused. The phrase also seems to place blame on the person being abused, and this would increase my concern. I would see this "shoot the victim" outlook consistent with blaming the woman who was raped. This whole attitude and outlook strikes me as being in direct conflict with the commands of Jesus and the demands of the gospel. If someone were to hold these views I would be greatly concerned for them. This is "bad fruit" of a serious nature.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kublai Khan
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 9/15/2004 2:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I think that a man's family and the way it is run is a legitimate measure based upon 1 Timothy . I understand this to apply to a family that is still within the governmental "jurisdiction" of the father/mother. There is a part of this measure that also needs to be weighed in with the personal responsiblity of "choice" that is so dear to OVers.
Oops, I yanked my post too late, I'd wanted to change the question.
I wouldn't ultimately blame the parent for the sins of the child but I would attribute some of the bad choices the child made to the lousy job the parent did raising the child. Maybe being an overly critical person isn't the best way to go through life and raise children?
This is bad fruit as well.
The Oprah question I wanted to ask was this:
I totally agree with what's been said about Oprah, yes she's seeking glory in giving cars away, yes salvation is based on what Jesus did, not what we do, yes our righteousness is as filty rags compared to Jesus, yes, yes, yes.
BUT, aren't we being a bit too Scroggish? What's wrong with plying our audience with a sympathetic ear before we present our truth?
That was NICE of Oprah to give all those cars away. <--- wouldn't this get you a more sympathetic hearing?
If we go out of our way to appear odious to the world, are we doing God a favor? Aren't we giving people a chance to reject the gospel due to our priggishness before they even hear the gospel?
Who was doing the will of God? The good Samaritan. 
Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 So then, you will know them by their fruits."
"Arrest the usual suspects." | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/15/2004 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I think that a man's family and the way it is run is a legitimate measure based upon 1 Timothy . I understand this to apply to a family that is still within the governmental "jurisdiction" of the father/mother. There is a part of this measure that also needs to be weighed in with the personal responsiblity of "choice" that is so dear to OVers.
Oops, I yanked my post too late, I'd wanted to change the question.
I wouldn't ultimately blame the parent for the sins of the child but I would attribute some of the bad choices the child made to the lousy job the parent did raising the child. Maybe being an overly critical person isn't the best way to go through life and raise children?
This is bad fruit as well.
The Oprah question I wanted to ask was this:
I totally agree with what's been said about Oprah, yes she's seeking glory in giving cars away, yes salvation is based on what Jesus did, not what we do, yes our righteousness is as filty rags compared to Jesus, yes, yes, yes.
BUT, aren't we being a bit too Scroggish? What's wrong with plying our audience with a sympathetic ear before we present our truth?
That was NICE of Oprah to give all those cars away. <--- wouldn't this get you a more sympathetic hearing?
If we go out of our way to appear odious to the world, are we doing God a favor? Aren't we giving people a chance to reject the gospel due to our priggishness before they even hear the gospel?
Who was doing the will of God? The good Samaritan.
Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 So then, you will know them by their fruits."
The issue is do we even preach the gospel itself. It is made very clear in scriptures that the world rejects and hates the gospel and that only "some" of the "many" believe it. I don't think that we need to go out of our way to be offensive. The message is offensive enough. It would be wonderful if that were the only offense that I offered, it too bad that this message is kept in earthen vessels.
I wrote in an earlier post what I believe. "In a similar note, I participated in an outreach on Saturday that was put on by several Twin Cities churches including mine and Woodland Hills. I spoke with one of the Woodlund Hills pastors who is involved in this group, Chuck Fenrick, and expressed my delight that we could come together and unify around the gospel. As you know and as I communicated with Chuck, I and my church have significant disagreements with the OV and other issues taught by Dr, Boyd. It pleased me that I was able to communicate how grateful I was that we could cooperate and display the unity of the faith regarding the core issue of the gospel message. And yes we did distribute clothing and no one went away hungry but most importantly, the real gospel was preached and
some responded."
Regarding the parable of the Good Samaritan, I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the story and what question it is supposed to answer. Luke states And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.” But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
This man knew and understood the first and most important portion of the Law. He was attempting to justify his actions relative to his enemies and humanity. The fact was self evident that the Samaritans believed heresy and that their religion would not save them nor bring them to God. The point of the parable is not that the Samaritan was doing the will of God as you suggest. The point was to demonstrate "who is my neighbor." This is confirmed with Jesus words as He closes the story, "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same."
This parable demonstrates that we are to show mercy to those that are wrongfully abused and not to blame the victim. It is ironic that you chose this story in light of your previous post. The fruit of the false teachers is primarily their false teaching. If it were external actions they would not be in sheep's clothing and able to sneak into the flock. I am guessing that an openly child raping murdering outlaw would have a difficult time sneaking into most fellowships. The fruit is the teaching and good teaching does not come out of the wrong well. Your points are what this thread is all about.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/15/2004 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I agree with you. I think my point is going even farther than your statement, "the whole idea of "merit" with respect to moral action is totally absurd when you really think about it." What I am saying is that it is even more absurd to use moral action as a "justification" of someone's teachings or beliefs. There is a legitimate use for the "lack" of moral actions as a yardstick that calls teachings and beliefs into question and ultimately rejects them. Even there, however, there are "almost" exceptions as in Phil 1 and Paul's pleasure at the gospel being preached by people out of envy and malice. Thus "moral actions" is a yardstick that is useful only when they are lacking. When good moral actions are present, we must not assume that they make the teachings and beliefs of those that practice them acceptable or "safe."
Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 So then, you will know them by their fruits."
By reading Matthew 7, it seems to me that fruits are bi-directional, both good and bad can be used to discern a true disciple of Christ. It is true that the bad fruits can eliminate many, making it easier to distinguish them by such fruits. Granted good fruits are SOMETIMES faked by people, it appears that would only make it more difficult and confusing to know their true hearts. Never the less, good fruits should by no means be used to identify counterfeits, to the contrary it should be bad fruits. It seems to me you are reaching the borderline of playing God by declaring you can read into a man’s heart.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/15/2004 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Sparky says, "It seems to me you are reaching the borderline of playing God by declaring you can read into a man’s heart."
I have, instead, been attempting to highlight that external actions of mercy, compassion, and even good moral behavior are NOT proof of the correctness or validity of one's beliefs and heart. Lack of them will point to a flaw, but the existance of them do not "prove" one is right or one's heart is right.
I agree with what you just stated above. But not with your previous post of: "Thus "moral actions" is a yardstick that is useful only when they are lacking." That is what I Highlighted. My point is we need to look at both fruits, good and bad. If you don't, you end up placing weight on trying to discern the heart's intent of others. If that's the case, I think we all can be better served by tasting our own fruits and let the harvest of other men be reserved to the omni-eyes of God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 9/15/2004 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Sparky says, "It seems to me you are reaching the borderline of playing God by declaring you can read into a man’s heart."
Spen asks, "Could you clarify what you mean, I don't think that I understand you." In this thread I haven't intended to "prove" that I know what is in a man's heart. I have, instead, been attempting to highlight that external actions of mercy, compassion, and even good moral behavior are NOT proof of the correctness or validity of one's beliefs and heart. Lack of them will point to a flaw, but the existance of them do not "prove" one is right or one's heart is right.
I agree with what you just stated above. But not with your previous post of: "Thus "moral actions" is a yardstick that is useful only when they are lacking." That is what I Highlighted. My point is we need to look at both furits, good and bad. If not, you are placing more weight on the heart's intent. In that case, I think we all can be better served by tasting our own fruits and let the harvest of other men be reserved to the omni-eyes of God.
I still don't understand what you mean. Ultmately, I think that the "fruits" of the false prophets were primarily their moral failings. This type of "judgement" is so obvious that Paul states "remove the wicked man from among you." Good moral behavior is simply the default mode of what we expect to find and is not really a "positive" but a "minimum." Actions of mercy, compassion, and generosity is not something that should set one Christian as "more" than another as all Christians should and are required to exhibit them. Even an unsaved Samaritan can exhibit such actions to his neighbors around him.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/15/2004 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I still don't understand what you mean. Ultmately, I think that the "fruits" of the false prophets were primarily their moral failings. This type of "judgement" is so obvious that Paul states "remove the wicked man from among you." Good moral behavior is simply the default mode of what we expect to find and is not really a "positive" but a "minimum." Actions of mercy, compassion, and generosity is not something that should set one Christian as "more" than another as all Christians should and are required to exhibit them. Even an unsaved Samaritan can exhibit such actions to his neighbors around him.
The truth is that most so called Christians don’t even exhibit the good fruits, your moving way over their heads by discounting the importance of the good Samaritan. We need more good fruits and need to be careful not to discourage people by making such (good) fruits sound trivial. We need more people like you that participated in the outreach on Saturday.
I think I understand your point and for the most part agree with you. But you can't go from one extreme to the other. We need to look at both good and bad fruits. That's all I have time to say about it now. Take care, Mark. | | Back to Top | | |
| 36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|