Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/7/2003 7:39 PM (GMT -6)

Just want to float some thoughts out there, possibly get some feedback. Much of this is review, but I'm chewing it over from different angles. Some of this was inspired by Iconoclast's excellent discussion of the "legal view" verses the "christocentric view" of Scripture and the world which he gave in "Gay Man Defends Himself."

* Sin is most fundamentally "missing the mark" (harmatia). We can think of the "mark", the "bullseye" as the center we are to live in. It is Christ. We are to 'abide in Christ" (John 15 etc.).

* To abide in Christ means (among other things) relating to God, to oneself, and to all others in and through Christ. It means letting God's worth and identity, your worth and identity, and every other person's worth and identity be defined in and through Christ. He payed Calvary for you. This says everything about God, you and everyone.

* Abiding in Christ means abiding in perfect love as revealed in Christ: God's love to you, in you and through you. It is abiding in life -- God's life, the fullness of life he created us to share.

* Whenever and however we are not "in the center" -- in Christ -- we sin. We "miss the mark." Whenever we get any degree of our identity and worth -- our "life" -- from sources other than Christ, we sin. Whenever we think a thought, say a word or do a deed that does not flow out of the perfect love of God, it is sin. (Hence, "cracking down on sin" by going after particular sins [which, usually, we don't happen to commit] is a deflection mechanism that excuses us and grotesquely trivialization of sin).

* Yet, a central part of what it means to "abide in Christ" is to abide in forgiveness, for God's love in Christ is forgiving. Were this not so, we would all be hopeless lost, for all sin, in and of itself, IS separation from God.

* When we are "out of the center" we define God, ourselves, others and good and evil ON OUR OWN. Because we are lacking the fullness of life God alone can give, and because we thus experience a vacuum in our innermost being, our definitions of God, ourselves and others are always in large part SELF -SERVING. We are trying to get our needs met. This is the essence of all sin.

* Getting our own needs met always involves 'eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2-3). Hence this is depicted as "the original sin" in Scirpture. We set up a grid by which we judge God, ourselves and others according to a criterion of good and evil that is always bent in our favor, to meet our own needs (and in accordance with our own idolatrous ways of getting life). We activiate the "omniscience mechanism" that is appropriate to divine knowledge, but since we are finite in knowledge, we always judge wrongly and inappropriately. We do not know people's level of responsibility, for example, but pretending we do feeds us. (Judging others is parasitic and is the opposite of love, for love ascribes worth to others at cost to oneself while judging ascribes worth to self at cost to others. Ohhh, I like how that came out!

).

* All attempts to "get right" without returning to the center keep us from the center. The only way to abide in the center is to GIVE UP -- TURN FROM (REPENT OF) -- the way of life which tries to get life ON ONES OWN. It is to realize the futility not only of evil, BUT OF GOOD.

* Until we wake up to the deception of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we are locked into the futility of the pursuit of goodness. We will read all Scripture's behavior descriptions of life as prescriptions TO GET life. We will think IF ONLY I can do x,y,and z I will have life, and if I get others to do x,y,and z, they will have life. But WE can never DO life. We can only RECEIVE it and ABIDE in it by giving up trying to DO it.

* One central purpose of God is to challenge us to DO life as a means of causing us to despair of Doing life. This is the law, the letter that kills. It comes out in much of Jesus' teachings (e.g. You aren't doing life by not doing adultery -- you have to not think about it as well -- EVER. And don't think you're doing life by not murdering -- you have to refrain from thinking and speaking of anyone as a fool as well. And don't think any of you are doing life by having a justified divorce -- go back to Genesis: it ALL involves "hardness of hearts"). God is in a sense playing our idolatrous self-righteous creating game to expose that it is a "lose-lose game". This is how the law leads us to Christ.

* When we despair of the game, repent of (turn from) idolatry and all its sin -- we enter by forgiveness into "abiding in Christ." The one and only goal of the Christian life -- and of all creation -- is to live in this center. As we live in this center, we receive life, and this life gradually permeates our habitual uncentered thoughts, then words, then deeds... and we find ourselves being set free from the pull of sin away from the center. This is the work of the Spirit in our life.

* We can contrast the two antithetical ways of life along these lines: (I wish I knew how to draw tables here).

Christ :: World
Center :: Outside of Center
Tree of Life :: Tree of Knowledge
Spirit :: Letter
Life :: Death
Love :: Legal
Life in Being :: Life in Doing
Doing to Express :: Doing to Acquire
Relationship :: Contract
Accepted :: Accused
Principles :: Regulations
Worth at Beginning :: Worth at end (never)

From where I sit right now, this seems to sum up everything everything everything the Gospel, and Life, is all about.

Any thoughts? Further explorations? Critiques?

Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

Edited by - GregBoyd on 05/08/2003 12:42:54 AM

selah
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210

Posted 5/7/2003 8:04 PM (GMT -6)

wow, just add this to the SK stuff... and I'm good!

late night huh?

love,
selah

Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 5/7/2003 8:30 PM (GMT -6)

Nice.

One thing that has hit me lately (sorry if this isn't related tightly enough) has been SK's way of speaking about grace and works. You didn't oppose these in your schema above, so this is not a critique, just a thought that I am interested in relating to your stuff.

Of course, we are saved by grace alone. But we like to do this mathematically. We like to say, cool. Grace alone. Now leave me alone about works. Or, fine, works it is, but don't talk to be about grace.

The gospel (not only the law!) actually requires that our lives passionately express the fullness of life that will manifest as we strive in obedience to God's will. But this doesn't earn us one second of salvation. It is works, but yet saved by grace alone. This seems like a contradiction. But things only contradict if they are commensurate. Works are not commensurate with grace, works (as Greg put it above...) express a new reality. But the way SK puts it is even more pointed (to my mind) in terms of understanding the role of works. Works are the witness that Christ has today. We don't express for expression's sake (or even simply to be who we are, though this too is legitimate, though not all there is), but for the world (testimony) and to God (worship). These don't pertain to our salvation. There is no "contradiction" here. We have a job to do and this way of relating works to grace includes a strong sense of vocation rather than putting the emphasis on salvation.

Maybe this was already obvious to everyone, but I found it to be a pretty profound reframe.

"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 5/8/2003 1:36 AM (GMT -6)

DOc,

Glad to see your finally catching up

.

peace and love, don

---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/8/2003 4:36 AM (GMT -6)

Good stuff Doc. I’m still trying to grasp this “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil” stuff. Don’t know why it’s evading me!

Just some thoughts.

Doc: To abide in Christ means (among other things) relating to God, to oneself, and to all others in and through Christ. It means letting God's worth and identity, your worth and identity, and every other person's worth and identity be defined in and through Christ.

Tom: I like this.

Doc: Whenever we get any degree of our identity and worth -- our "life" -- from sources other than Christ, we sin.

Tom: Ouch!

Doc: Whenever we think a thought, say a word or do a deed that does not flow out of the perfect love of God, it is sin. (Hence, "cracking down on sin" by going after particular sins [which, usually, we don't happen to commit] is a deflection mechanism that excuses us and grotesquely trivialization of sin).

Tom: I don’t quite get it. This sounds self-refuting. You identify “sin” as not abiding in Christ. You label “going after particular sins” as sin. Doesn’t this make identifying sin as not abiding in Christ a sin?

Does abiding in Christ mean there ARE no sins we may rightly ever open our mouth about? Racism? If we stand up and say “Racism is sin” and tell our city councils or school boards “such and such” is racism and it’s a policy that will damage us”, we’re cracking down on sin by going after a particular sin and are sinning. How do we ever speak then?

Doc: Yet, a central part of what it means to "abide in Christ" is to abide in forgiveness, for God's love in Christ is forgiving.

Tom: If we refuse to identify particular sins, we can never identify ourselves as particularly offended and can never particularly forgive anybody. Am I making sense? I mean, to forgive somebody means to identify their actions as sinful? No?

Tom

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/8/2003 8:24 AM (GMT -6)

One thing.

quote:
* Abiding in Christ means abiding in perfect love as revealed in Christ: God's love to you, in you and through you. It is abiding in life -- God's life, the fullness of life he created us to share.

* Whenever and however we are not "in the center" -- in Christ -- we sin. We "miss the mark." Whenever we get any degree of our identity and worth -- our "life" -- from sources other than Christ, we sin. Whenever we think a thought, say a word or do a deed that does not flow out of the perfect love of God, it is sin. (Hence, "cracking down on sin" by going after particular sins [which, usually, we don't happen to commit] is a deflection mechanism that excuses us and grotesquely trivialization of sin).

I tend to be very suspicious of the highlighted parts.

Like we can live as such. Jer 17:9 "The human heart is most deceitful and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?"

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 5/8/2003 12:22 PM (GMT -6)

If God would have us to be very clear about what sin is, how it has affected our lives, and how to avoid committing it in the future, then He must, too, desire that we be clear in being able to identify sin; to abide in Christ, we must be clear about and cognizant of what it is in both us and in others to not abide in Christ. To discipline,
correct, and ensure proper conduct in others (and in himself), as is appropriate for abiding in Christ, was, it seemed, half the content of Paul's writings.

I do NOT mean that we are to play the Big Judge about what others can and cannot do. (This James addressed just fine.) Rather, it is to understand something of the "ought" and "ought not" of life's morals, the absolutes and truths of God's Word in regard to sin: "Thou shalt not murder." Where there are gray areas, we discuss and debate them, but they are not the entire contents of the Word of God. God has been clear about many things in regard to what assists and hinders abiding in Him.

Yes, sin is missing the mark, but certainly not in an isolated context of just our fallen position before God; sin exists by way of our ability to conscientiously and cognitively understand the clear communication God has spoken through His Word. The Ten Commandments are of no value if there isn't first comprehension and understanding of communication.

Not disagreeing with anyone, just tossing out a thought or two.

For communicating,

Starkman

Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown

Edited by - Starkman on 05/08/2003 5:25:38 PM

S.B.G.
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143

Posted 5/9/2003 3:24 AM (GMT -6)

Greg,
This is fabulous stuff!!! Beautiful, well stated, profoundly true. I am in total agreement with you!

"Judging others is parasitic and is the opposite of love, for love ascribes worth to others at cost to oneself while judging ascribes worth to self at cost to others)"

You out did yourself with that one! I already printed it and taped it to my computer at work!

S.B.G.

To understand and to be understood is bliss.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/9/2003 4:54 AM (GMT -6)

Are we saying that "identifying sin" and "judging sinners" is the same thing?

Tom

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 5/9/2003 5:09 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Are we saying that "identifying sin" and "judging sinners" is the same thing?

from a dictionary - Judge

quote:

1. To hear and determine, as in causes on trial; to decide as a judge; to give judgment; to pass sentence.

2. To assume the right to pass judgment on another; to sit in judgment or commendation; to criticise or pass adverse judgment upon others.

3. To compare facts or ideas, and perceive their relations and attributes, and thus distinguish truth from falsehood; to determine; to discern; to distinguish; to form an opinion about.

Only God can do #1
Given certain offices, we can do #2 (a bone to DLW and ecclesiastical order)
We all can/should do #3

Disclaimer, I'm not talking about human justice systems.

Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/09/2003 10:14:21 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/9/2003 5:30 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

"Meditation" means going over something again and again. We REnew our mind on something. WE chew on it again and again, from different perspectives. Here's another chewing.

* Abiding in the center, Christ Jesus, means living in, taking residence in, making one's permanent home in, the revelation of who God is and who we are in Christ Jesus. EVERYTHING inconsistent with this is "missing the mark" or "outside the center." Every thought we have or should have had but didn't; every desire or feeling we have or should have had but didn't; every deed we do or should have done but didn't; it is all sin insofar as it "misses the mark" .

God's goal for us is PERFECT LOVING UNION, a union that replicates the united love HE IS throughout eternity. We abide in him as he abides in us (Jn 17:20-26). The goal, in short, is Christlikeness. Everything short of this is "missing the mark."

* Brandon is right in asking "who can live this"? We can't, at least not as we are right now. Indeed, the very attempt to ATTAIN the center by our doing ensures that we remain outside the center. You can't DO your way to union. The very act of doing to GET there reenforces the very thing that keeps you from BEING there. Loving union isn't the conclusion at the end of an ethical striving. It has to be the presupposition of all ethical striving.

The only way to abide in the center is to DISCOVER YOURSELF already there by grace through faith. Christ HAS brought you into the center. It is given to you as a gift, rooted in forgiveness. All growth -- overcoming the "outside the center" aspects of our being -- comes as a RESULT of our already abiding in the center. They are not the precondition for our GETTING to the center.

* Another way of saying this is to say that everything outside the center is eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The act by which we critically evaluate how God, ourselves and others are doing -- based on our knowledge of good and evil -- both reflects that we are not IN the center and keeps us from ever getting to the center. We make ourselves the center of judgement -- a surrogate, idolatrous center -- that competes with THE center. Abiding in the center means dying to this idolatrous way of life. It means ceasing from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and beginning to eat from the tree of life. It means abiding in the life that only comes to one as sheer gift, perfect love. When you cease eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you find you are ALREADY being fed the tree of life. The act of dying to the death mode of life is the act of waking up to life.

* So long as we are working toward the center by ethical striving (evaluating how we and others are doing), we keep ourselves from the center. God's goal isn't a bride who obeys out of ethical obligation all the "rules" that a "perfect wife" should do. A bride who did this -- even if she COULD do this (which she can't) -- wouldn't be a bride worth having. There's no "life" in sheer obedience to external rules. God's goal is a bride who is loved and loves in a manner that reflects the love he is. His goal is loving UNION (mirrored, analogically, in the husband-wife "one flesh" union, Eph 5:22ff.). When the loving union is established, the loving DOING gradually follows. But the doing is only LOVING doing if its not doing to express what is already there.

* God plays the game we create "outside the center" to get us to despair of it so as to receive the gift of being in the center. He sets the bar at perfection -- which is where it really is -- so that we come to the realization that we can't attain it, and getting three quarters there -- in contrast to those who are only one quarter there -- is utterly irrelevant. The law brings DEATH, Paul says, which is how it leads us to life. The letter kills so the Spirit can bring life.

* As we abide in Christ, he loving leads us to confront the "outside the mark" aspects of our life that keep us from experiencing full life. Our lives are gradually transformed into his likeness, the likeness of one perfectly united with God, as we yeild to his influence (the Holy Spirit) in our life. Love leads us to in certain contexts be used by God to confront death aspects of anothers life and sometimes even death aspects of soceity. But this isn't done with any presupposition that we are farther along than others, or that we have in our behavior met a minimum bar of approval while others have not. Whether one is three quarters to perfection or one inch is utterly irrelevant. Hence, if we are abiding in Christ, there is no life or worth or righteousness one derives from confrontation. One doesn't feed off of others. One doesn't judge. One only serves out of love. One expresses the life they already have by serving another in a way that facilitates their life.

Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 5/9/2003 5:49 AM (GMT -6)

Laika: 3. To compare facts or ideas, and perceive their relations and attributes, and thus distinguish truth from falsehood; to determine; to discern; to distinguish; to form an opinion about.

And if we are to do the above, we must first have the ability to do so. And that I think we all do. Further, since we are able to do so, it is not enough to merely compare facts, ideas, and truth from falsehood; we must (and are Biblically required) to do something about it: expose it, denounce it, call it for what it is. This Paul did all the time. This is not "judging" someone; the person's worth or value isn't in question. The actions of said person are. This applies to ourselves and to others. Will we all agree exactly what is and is not sin? Of course not. We must therefore seek to understand the Master's Word to us as best as we can. We must converse and debate. We are to neither stop identifying sin nor to participate in sin--that sin about which God has been clear (e.g. Thou shalt not murder).

I expect a fellow Christian to call me on the carpet for my having committed blatant sin. But I do not need a fellow Christian to judge my worth or value because of my sin (though a strong case could be made for doing just this when one reads, say, the book of Jude). Nor do I need a fellow Christian to have an attitude when he corrects me. I simply need to be shown that I'm out of line. God will do the rest.

As I stated above, Paul spent a lot of time correcting, rebuking and exhorting. And he expected those to whom he wrote to do the same (e.g. Timothy).

Starkman

Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown

Edited by - Starkman on 05/09/2003 10:51:37 AM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 5/9/2003 6:00 AM (GMT -6)

Doc says:

quote:
* God plays the game we create "outside the center" to get us to despair of it so as to receive the gift of being in the center. He sets the bar at perfection -- which is where it really is -- so that we come to the realization that we can't attain it, and getting three quarters there -- in contrast to those who are only one quarter there -- is utterly irrelevant. The law brings DEATH, Paul says, which is how it leads us to life. The letter kills so the Spirit can bring life.

This is how I am coming to see the old testament, God showing us just how futile it is to play this game. Almost like saying, "You wanted to be like God, well this is what the one you wanted looks like" .

peace and love, don

---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 5/9/2003 6:45 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Laika
3. To compare facts or ideas, and perceive their relations and attributes, and thus distinguish truth from falsehood; to determine; to discern; to distinguish; to form an opinion about.

Starkman
And if we are to do the above, we must first have the ability to do so. And that I think we all do. Further, since we are able to do so, it is not enough to merely compare facts, ideas, and truth from falsehood; we must (and are Biblically required) to do something about it: expose it, denounce it, call it for what it is. This Paul did all the time.

Paul had the "office" of an Apostle. I think if you are in the correct position to do something, you should. Maybe you're the person's spouse, or their best friend, or their pastor. But if you don't have a relationship or the proper relationship with someone, you probably shouldn't confront them on it.

quote:

This is not "judging" someone; the person's worth or value isn't in question. The actions of said person are.

agreed

I was just trying to distinguish between different types of "judging". My wife mis-judged some leftovers last week and gave me food poisoning. (or maybe she didn't mis-judge, hmmmmm)

Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/09/2003 11:47:46 AM

S.B.G.
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143

Posted 5/9/2003 8:23 AM (GMT -6)

"Paul had the "office" of an Apostle. I think if you are in the correct position to do something, you should. Maybe you're the person's spouse, or their best friend, or their pastor. But if you don't have a relationship or the proper relationship with someone, you probably shouldn't confront them on it."

Well put, Laika.

By the way, you're pretty funny...I like your sense of humor!

S.B.G.

To understand and to be understood is bliss.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 5/9/2003 9:17 AM (GMT -6)

Laika,

I'm in agreement with you! Wasn't in disagreement when I wrote my post. Just adding to the soup (hopefully favoring it some, and not making us all sick!)

For . . . soup!

Starkman

Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown

Edited by - Starkman on 05/09/2003 2:18:53 PM

Ochuk
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102

Posted 5/9/2003 10:59 AM (GMT -6)

Doc:

I have a hard question.

How are we as Christian's to "judge" people in the Church then?

What if someone is caught in a sin, and maybe harming others?

I love your "Don't judge others" quotes, but we have to judge others sometimes. If I rebuke someone, or someone's idea, am I doing that another's expense?

Oh, and with your permission, could I post that on my blog-- the gospel according to Greg?

Thank you.

Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com

Edited by - Ochuk on 05/09/2003 4:04:22 PM

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 5/9/2003 12:11 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
But WE can never DO life. We can only RECEIVE it and ABIDE in it by giving up trying to DO it.

This reminded me of the poster where the man is hanging from the branch of a tree over a cliff crying out for "Help!" He hears God say, "Just let go of the branch and trust me", upon which the man replies "Is there anyone else who can help me?"

Jesus, while hanging on the cross, could have saved HIMSELF but instead died in order to reconcile the rebelliouness of humankind back in obedience to God. He cried out in the garden, "Father, if there is any way let this cup pass... but NOT my will but YOURS be done" The key thing Jesus did was to submit. Living in the center is "Letting go and letting God."

And God patiently waits...

trosie

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/9/2003 1:28 PM (GMT -6)

As Laika so aptly pointed out, there is more than one definition of the word, "judge." Scripturally speaking, Christians are called to discern, while forbidden to condemn.

All sin is unrighteousness, and all sin should be forsaken.

Prov. 28:13 No one who conceals transgressions will prosper,
but one who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy. (NRSV)

As to the OT being about how futile it is to try to live up to God's standards, I have to wonder which OT (and NT) one is reading if they: (A) Think the OT was about God trying to inculcate a sense of hopelessness in us (nearly every one of the passages which are used to support Open Theism, a VERY hope-filled theology, are from the Old Testament), or (B) Think the New Testament does not have an even more ethically rigorous standard than the Old. (Please see the Sermon on the Mount).

A couple of things with respect to this issue that come to mind:

If by "judge not" Jesus meant, "absolutely and forever suspend your critical-thinking abilities with regard to others," then one is left wondering why in the world he would say just a few verses later that we should be on the look-out for wolves in sheep's clothing, which by definition requires discernment.

John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

(Jesus seems to say not, "don't ever judge, period," but "judge righteously, not simply by appearances.")

1 Cor. 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons—10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister£ who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13 God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

(Are we willing to brand Paul as "judgmental" and "a self-righteous, hypocritical Pharisee" in his instructions above to the Corinthian church)?

1 Cor 11:31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

(Certainly we ought to "judge" on our own selves).

1 Pet. 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, a criminal, or even as a mischief maker. 16 Yet if any of you suffers as a Christian, do not consider it a disgrace, but glorify God because you bear this name. 17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, what will be the end for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And
“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinners?”

(Sounds awful judgmental to me).

1 John 3:5 You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. 10 The children of God and the children of the devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters. (NRSV)

It seems clear from the above that abiding in Christ cannot be separated from conscious rejection of sin. It seems to me that the only way the "don't ever point out sin in others" idea works is if Christianity is viewed entirely as a self-isolated pursuit, or if "anything goes" is the moral "standard" by which Christians ought to live. (Which obviously entails a contradiction, by saying that there IS an oughtness to moral questions for the Christian).

And for the record, I don't believe ANY sin should ever be "conveniently" overlooked, most of all my own. Most people today seem to just not want to examine themselves much, believe God's moral law requires more than they can reasonably give, and therefore view all biblical calls to holy living as "judgmental."

If God in fact requires more than humans can give, then how is it not true that He commands us to avoid that which, upon pain of eternal death, is in fact impossible to avoid? If God truly exacts this kind of requirement of us (the impossible, even with Christ dwelling within us), then how is it not true that He is the most tyrannical bully imaginable (as in Calvinism)?

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 05/10/2003 2:51:59 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/9/2003 1:55 PM (GMT -6)

Forgive me for missing the mark, but isn't this slightly warmed over neo-platonism? Where in the Bible is the concept of the Center?

In politics, there is constant linguistic manipulation as politicians portray themselves as moderate or part of the center, suggesting that their views will be the ones that will prevail and so it is a waste of time to support anyone else.

I am not saying that the same is the case here, but I think that the center as you call it, does deny the reality of the political in the problem of ecclesiastical order. For example, we might think there should be a "social" component to the Gospel, but Christians with similar faith-commitments disagree even more on social issues than personal issues or ecclesiastical issues. Hence, should we focus on soteriology and the second coming, all things Christians agree upon so as to ensure our unity? Or do we leverage our unity so as to create a space whereby different ideas on which Christian unity is tenuous can be exchanged and debated in a non-threatening manner?

Doesn't the heat in the Homosexuality link show that, when one claims that their personal answer to a question is the center and that others are, by implication, in sin, this is not a productive way for Christians to work out their differences?
May not claims regarding what specifically is the center, or with a greater profundity of Christ-like love, be political, or capable of being legitimately contested? There are competing goals and, of course, one can always rationalize one's lifestyle and demand to be loved just as they are. Look at what happened to Liberal Churches that, in seeking to emphasize the universality of religious experience, chose to neglect the problem of ecclesiastical order? They conflated their teachings with the political views of a particular period and withered away as the very fallible nature of those views became more apparent.

I think a better approach is to meditate on what Christ meant when he prayed that they will be one as I and the father are one. In accordance with the fallibilism of theological tradition illustrated by the OVT, I don't think our answers to this question have been on the mark and if the center within a trinity is dynamic, I think it is better to presume that we probably are not on the mark regarding numerous aspects of our current answers to the ecclesiastical problem of order.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 5/10/2003 3:16 PM (GMT -6)

Ok. This is what I'm getting from this.

Abiding in the center (Jesus) means to truly believe by faith that 1) one is ALREADY in union with the God of perfect love by God's graceand 2) this is all that really matters to being a full human being. Not being good. Not being right. Not even being Christ-like. (Has anyone noticed how some people's attempts to be "Christlike" turn into a legalism of it's own??) Just being unified with Christ. To the extent that one actually believes and lives this, that one's actions and thoughts are more geared towards DEMONSTRATING the actuality of who they ALREADY really are rather than trying to BECOME anything. Instead of judgement and condemnation, we have discernment and accountability. Instead of trying to be good and/or right, we ARE being agents of God's love by demonstrating that love in all areas. Instead of trying to correct particular "sins", we cultivate and pursue a GOD-WARD DISPOSITION as our natural default state.

As I see it, "abiding in the center" is more or less taking the beliefs in God's unconditional love and acceptance...AND the Holy Spirit regeneration of the New Humanity in Christ...very seriously.

What do you think, Doc?

"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/10/2003 4:03 PM (GMT -6)

I like the deemphasis on being right.

I like taking God's unconditional love and acceptance...AND the Holy Spirit regeneration of the New Humanity in Christ...very seriously.

However, I still think that selection of the terms Center and Mark is dangerous since they tend to connote the existence of a static point on which we should all be centered on.

I think it is too easy for a clever theologian to manipulate theological language so as to portray their view on a given matter as the center. I.e., manipulating people to view a certain viewpoint as a-political, when it really is... .

And as stated before, if this truly does boil down the essence of Christianity, it still leaves out the problem of ecclesiastical order. An omission that could be rather serious if so much of the evil that has been done in the name of Christianity stems from our lack of attention to the leadership structures of the earthly manifestations of the Christian Church. Or most of the attention that is given is primarily apologetic for the status quo.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/10/2003 6:46 PM (GMT -6)

Keep at it, DLW!

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/10/2003 7:34 PM (GMT -6)

Ouchuk: How are we as Christian's to "judge" people in the Church then? What if someone is caught in a sin, and maybe harming others?

Doc: Two points: 1) How are we to "judge"? The Greek word for judgement or discernment ("krino" ) means to separate or distinguish. We get the word "critic" from it. Since the commandment of the Christian life is to love, the kind of separation we are supposed to do is one that is loving to do. We are to distinguish between loving and unloving behaviors for the purpose of being more loving and helping others be more loving. The kind of separation we are not supposed to do is one that destroys love: separating ourselves from others and above others. When we draw conclusions about a person that are not ours to draw and that we aren’t capable of drawing – conclusions about a person’s heart, status before God, etc. – we are judging. Only God can do this. When we do it we are playing God and inevitably end up feeding ourselves with worth at others expense.

James 4:10-12. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you — who are you to judge your neighbor?

For clarity’s sake I think it helpful to distinguish between DISCERNMENT which is compatible and even necessary with love, and JUDGEMENT which is incompatible with love.

We can’t eat from the tree of life AND the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the same time.

2) Ouchuk: How are we to judge "people in the Church"?

Doc: WHICH "people" in the Church? Newcomers? Strangers? The prostitute or pan handler who walked in off the street to get warm? The old lady who sits across from you each week whose name you can’t remember? You’re close friend? And which "church"? The universal Church? You’re local church? Whoever shows up on a Sunday morning at the location you go to? Whoever is a regular attender? How regular must they be before they are considered part of "the Church"?

Who are we to judge is not an easy question, it seems.

The problem I’m getting at, Ouchuk, is that our modern western "church" context is radically different from the first century. First century Christians didn't have this worry. In the first century, Christians were a persecuted minority who met in each others houses on a regular, even daily, basis. Helping those you fellowship with daily discern loving and holy things means one thing. "Helping" total strangers about whom you know nothing by "judging" them means something different.

JE. It seems to me that the only way the "don't ever point out sin in others" idea works is if Christianity is viewed entirely as a self-isolated pursuit, or if "anything goes" is the moral "standard" by which Christians ought to live.

Doc: John, do you feel it your moral obligation to point out ALL the sins of EVERY person who professes Christ? Do you apply Paul’s rigorous confrontation of the Corinthian adulterer in a universal manner? Since about 80% of all Americans profess Christ, you’d have to be a VERY busy person!

I’m betting you embrace on some level a framework to decide WHICH sins you point out, WHICH Christians (or possible Christians) you point them out to, and WHEN you point them out. And this would lead into the question of WHY you point them when you do and to whom you point them out.

If the above is at all true – if you aren’t consistently uniform in pointing out sins – do you think you are guilty of reducing Christianity to an "entirely self-isolated pursuit" or advocating an "anything goes" morality?

I submit that ordinarily (there are always exceptions) the only way to help someone in discerning good and evil, loving and unloving, helpful and harmful behaviors or thought patterns is if a) you know them well enough to know what you're talking about; b) you have the kind of relationship where this is natural; and c) they know you love them, aren’t judging them, and thus are saying what you say simply to help them.

The first century house-church context provided this. The modern context of large group gatherings does not.

The theory can in principle be tested. Carry out a universal application of your "non-isolated" and "non-anything goes" approach. Over the next week, ask (say) 600 people if they are Christian, and if they say yes, confront them on sin you perceive in their life. Then ask (or better, research it out), did a single one of them benefit from your confrontation?

Then, choose ONE person, whether they are Christian or not. Spend a year or two loving them, getting on the inside of their life, letting the relationship grow naturally, and confronting things as they naturally come up (but not until). Then ask yourself, did THIS help the person?

The SECOND approach, I submit, models New Testament Christianity. The first does not. And, I suggest, the second will accomplish MUCH more than the first.

Of course, if you are a pastor of more people than you can possibly be close to, the situation is different. There’s a level of permission people give to pastors to speak into their life just by virtue of aligning themselves with them. (This is the situation of the church planter-apostle Paul). And the pastor has to have a concern for the good of the whole "flock" that is part of your calling. Even HERE, however, a wise pastor will be very sensitive to the appropriate level of invitation any person has given them by following them. Whenever possible, sin should be confronted on the level of closest relationship (Mt 18).

MephEternal: As I see it, "abiding in the center" is more or less taking the beliefs in God's unconditional love and acceptance...AND the Holy Spirit regeneration of the New Humanity in Christ...very seriously.

Doc: MORE rather than LESS… yes, yes, yes, YES.

DLW: However, I still think that selection of the terms Center and Mark is dangerous since they tend to connote the existence of a static point on which we should all be centered on. I think it is too easy for a clever theologian to manipulate theological language so as to portray their view on a given matter as the center. I.e., manipulating people to view a certain viewpoint as a-political, when it really is... .

Doc: It’s clear your VERY interested in public policies, politics and ecclesiastic order DLW. But I think framing THIS issue in these terms is hindering you from getting what I’m talking about. The "center" I’m referring to has nothing to do with acquiring an agreed upon consensus.

Blessings

Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/10/2003 7:45 PM (GMT -6)

I challenged JE to test his "confrontation" "theory" to see if it works.

You can (and should) also test the "abiding in Christ" "theory" I'm advocating.

Try this. Spend six days with the unwavering resolve to meditate continually on the cross of Jesus Christ. Savor continually what this means about God, his love for you, your identity before him, and the worth of every individual. Resolve to do this ALL DAY LONG. WHENEVER a critical thought arises about anyone -- viz. you notice how overweight they are, that they smoke and you don't approve of that, etc... -- let it serve to remind you that, at least for these six days, you're only job is to ascribe to them the worth God ascribes to them in Christ. Say in your mind, "that person for whom Jesus died has infinite value." Use your kindgom authority to say a brief prayer for them that God richly bless them, their family, etc...

SEE what this does TO YOU. SEE if this focus doesn't give you the wisdom of knowing when and where and how and whom you should discern loving and unloving thought patterns and behavior. SEE if this exercise doesn't do more to transform you and others than being vigilant about yours and their behavior.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Try it.

If you do it consistently, catching your critical thoughts (THIS is the hard part -- taking EVERY THOUGHT captive to Christ, 2 Cor 10:5)... I'm betting you won't ever want to stop.

THIS is abiding in Christ.

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:17 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual