 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Did Jesus Die To Grow You A New Leg | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/11/2004 5:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
And it seems to me that the good coaches would be easy to spot. Wouldn't they be the people that everyone feels loved by - that everyone respects? The people that no one seems to have a problem with? I wonder how many of these folks there are?
True enough, Iconoclast, but I think that even Jesus (the perfect human being) was not easy to spot by all -- in fact they crucified him. The Pharisee's did indeed have a problem (big time) with Jesus -- they felt threatened by him. Many were too preoccupied with being right, living by the law that they missed love when he was standing right in front of them.
It goes to show you that no matter who the person be, even Jesus Christ himself, there will be people who will be able to knit pick....
The ultimate coach in learning to love and serve is the Holy Spirit. The ultimate place to learn this is ministering to the wounded and the broken, especially if these folks are from a totally different walk of life than ourselves. When we give we receive and I have to tell you when we reach out and serve we are blest beyond measure.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/11/2004 9:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
We are never, ever, to "hupo-krites" (be a hypocrite) -- before we take a speck out of our brother's eye, we make sure we do not have the same speck in our own eye.
Hello John,
What is your source for this "same speck" stuff?
Matt. 7. "first remove the log from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to help your brother."
Sorry John, I still don't see the word "SAME". The same sin?
Matt. 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Christ himself says that with the "same" judgement we judge, we shall be judged, and with the same measure we use, we will be measured.
That said, it is clear from the context that we must remove the plank from our own eye first, and then we will be able to see clearly to help others.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/11/2004 11:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Some of the commentaries which support the view I hold on this subject:
From the People's New Testament Notes:
Mat 7:1 -
Judge not, that you be not judged. The term "judge" is used in more than one sense, but Christ's meaning is plain. 1. He does not prohibit the civil judgment of the courts upon evil doers, for this is approved throughout the whole Bible. 2. He does not prohibit the judgment of the church, through its officers, upon those who walk disorderly, for both he and the apostles have enjoined this. 3. He does not forbid those private judgments that we are compelled to form the wrong-doers, for he himself tells us that we are to judge men by their fruits. (See Mat_7:15-20.) What he designs to prohibit is rash, uncharitable judgments, a fault-finding spirit, a disposition to condemn without examination of charges.
From Matthew Henry's Commentary:
We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults, while they allow themselves in greater ones. Some sins are as motes, while others are as beams; some as a gnat, others as a camel. Not that there is any sin little; if it be a mote, or splinter, it is in the eye; if a gnat, it is in the throat; both are painful and dangerous, and we cannot be easy or well till they are got out. That which charity teaches us to call but a splinter in our brother’s eye, true repentance and godly sorrow will teach us to call a beam in our own. It is as strange that a man can be in a sinful, miserable condition, and not be aware of it, as that a man should have a beam in his eye, and not consider it; but the god of this world blinds their minds. Here is a good rule for reprovers; first reform thyself.
Wesley:
Mat 7:1 - Judge not - any man without full, clear, certain knowledge, without absolute necessity, without tender love.
Barnes Notes on the NT:
Mat 7:1 -
Judge not ... - This command refers to rash, censorious, and unjust judgment. See Rom_2:1. Luke Luk_6:37 explains it in the sense of “condemning.” Christ does not condemn judging as a magistrate, for that, when according to justice, is lawful and necessary. Nor does he condemn our “forming an opinion” of the conduct of others, for it is impossible “not” to form an opinion of conduct that we know to be evil. But what he refers to is a habit of forming a judgment hastily, harshly, and without an allowance for every palliating circumstance, and a habit of “expressing” such an opinion harshly and unnecessarily when formed. It rather refers to private judgment than “judicial,” and perhaps primarily to the customs of the scribes and Pharisees.
From Clarke's Commentary:
Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged—These exhortations are pointed against rash, harsh, and uncharitable judgments, the thinking evil, where no evil seems, and speaking of it accordingly. The Jews were highly criminal here, and yet had very excellent maxims against it, as may be seen in Schoettgen. This is one of the most important exhortations in the whole of this excellent sermon. By a secret and criminal disposition of nature, man endeavors to elevate himself above others, and, to do it more effectually, depresses them. His jealous and envious heart wishes that there may be no good quality found but in himself, that he alone may be esteemed. Such is the state of every unconverted man; and it is from this criminal disposition, that evil surmises, rash judgments, precipitate decisions, and all other unjust procedures against our neighbor, flow.
Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment—He who is severe on others will naturally excite their severity against himself. The censures and calumnies which we have suffered are probably the just reward of those which we have dealt out to others.
Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote—Êáñöïò might be translated the splinter:
for splinter bears some analogy to beam, but mote does not. I should prefer this word (which has been adopted by some learned men) on the authority of Hesychius, who is a host in such matters; Êáñöïò, êåñáéá îõëïõ ëåðôç, Karphos is a thin piece of wood, a splinter. It often happens that the faults which we consider as of the first enormity in others are, to our own iniquities, as a chip is, when compared to a large beam. On one side, self-love blinds us to ourselves; and, on the other, envy and malice give us piercing eyes in respect of others. When we shall have as much zeal to correct ourselves, as we have inclination to reprove and correct others, we shall know our own defects better han now we know those of our neighbor. There is a caution very similar to this of our Lord given by a heathen:—
Cum tua praevideas oculis mala lippus inunctis:
Cur in amicorum vitiis tam cernis acutum,
Quam aut aquila, aut serpens Epidaurius?
Hor. Sat. lib. 1. sat. 3. l. 25-27
“When you can so readily overlook your own wickedness, why
are you more clear-sighted than the eagle or serpent of Epidaurus,
in spying out the failings of your friends?”
But the saying was very common among the Jews, as may be seen in Lightfoot.
Matthew 7:4
Or how wilt thou say—That man is utterly unfit to show the way of life to others who is himself walking in the way of death.
Matthew 7:5
Thou hypocrite—A hypocrite, who professes to be what he is not, (viz. a true Christian), is obliged, for the support of the character he has assumed, to imitate all the dispositions and actions of a Christian; consequently he must reprove sin, and endeavor to show an uncommon affection for the glory of God. Our Lord unmasks this vile pretender to saintship, and shows him that his hidden hypocrisy, covered with the garb of external sanctity, is more abominable in the sight of God than the openly professed and practised iniquity of the profligate.
In after times, the Jews made a very bad use of this saying: “I wonder,” said Rabbi Zarphon, “whether there be any in this age that will suffer reproof? If one say to another, Cast out the mote out of thine eye, he is immediately ready to answer, Cast out the beam that is in thine own eye.”
This proverbial mode of speech the Gloss interprets thus: “Cast out? íéñ÷ kisim, the mote, that is, the little sin, that is in thy hand: to which he answered, Cast out the great sin that is in thine. So they could not reprove, because all were sinners.” See Lightfoot.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/12/2004 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
quote:
And it seems to me that the good coaches would be easy to spot. Wouldn't they be the people that everyone feels loved by - that everyone respects? The people that no one seems to have a problem with? I wonder how many of these folks there are?
True enough, Iconoclast, but I think that even Jesus (the perfect human being) was not easy to spot by all -- in fact they crucified him. The Pharisee's did indeed have a problem (big time) with Jesus -- they felt threatened by him. Many were too preoccupied with being right, living by the law that they missed love when he was standing right in front of them.
It goes to show you that no matter who the person be, even Jesus Christ himself, there will be people who will be able to knit pick....
The ultimate coach in learning to love and serve is the Holy Spirit. The ultimate place to learn this is ministering to the wounded and the broken, especially if these folks are from a totally different walk of life than ourselves. When we give we receive and I have to tell you when we reach out and serve we are blest beyond measure.
Good points QFT. The prostitutes and tax collectors felt loved by Jesus but the Pharisees felt no such thing. I would think though that it wasn't a problem with Jesus actually loving the Pharisees but rather that they were somehow blocked from experiencing His love. I wonder if it is true that those who are open to loving would always recognize a good coach but those who are not would not.
And yes, I like your thought on the Holy Spirit being our coach. That metaphor makes a lot of sense to me. God knows these skills are difficult for us to learn so He gave us the best coach around.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/12/2004 6:23 AM (GMT -6) | | John / JEE, rossfadeinout thought this post I did on another thread might be helpful to the conversation here. So here it is. Let me know what you think.
Previous post from Iconoclast
I struggle with the notion of love being “the law”. I agree that love fulfills the law. But I do not understand how love can possibly be the law.
Perhaps part of the confusion is that there are two senses of the word “law”. I think on one hand we can understand “law” as a legal requirement – a “should with teeth”. The notion here is that it is some legal requirement that we can and should enforce on others. Let’s call this the “legal requirement” view of law.
On the other hand we can think of the word “law” as simply the way it IS. Gravity is a “law” means nothing except that there is a universal notion that the way things are is that two bodies with mass attract one another. There are consequences to this notion of law just as there are with the legal notion of law. If one jumps out of a building the “law of gravity” will attract you powerfully toward the earth. Let’s call this the “natural consequence” view of law.
Notice a key distinction between these two notions of “law”. The legal kind requires someone to enforce it upon another whereas the natural kinds is automatically “enforced”. In fact, to say that it is “enforced” is to confuse it with the legal kind. It is not “enforced” it simply IS.
So, what kind of a law is love?
Is it a legal requirement sort of law that requires someone to enforce?
Or is it a natural consequence sort of law that simply IS.
I think the notion that love must be chosen else it is not love contains within it the answer to this question. Love simply cannot be a legal requirement sort of law because that is a contradiction in terms. Love cannot be enforced else it is not love.
So what does it mean for love to be a natural consequence sort of law?
I think it means that choosing to love leads to the natural consequence of eternal life and that not choosing to love leads to the natural consequence of eternal death. I think love is a law like gravity is a law. It is inexorable. It just IS.
So, what should our attitude be toward someone who chooses not to love their spouse?
But before we ask that we need to ask, what is our goal regarding the unloving spouse? What are we seeking to accomplish? Are we seeking to enforce the law of love as a “legal requirement”? Or are we seeking to help the unloving spouse find a place within themselves where they have hope of being able to love their spouse once again?
If it is the former then is it likely that we will be helpful? Is it likely that we will actually be able to enforce the law of love as a legal requirement?
If it is the latter then what kind of an attitude do we need to take toward the unloving spouse? I would say that we need to take the same attitude that Jesus takes toward us.
The goal in my mind is to influence others to choose to love such that they can gain the natural consequence of eternal life. The only way to be effective at this is to actually love them. Love begets love. Judgment begets judgment.
Now, one huge difficulty in this is that people quite easily fall into judgment of others. And when we are judging it is quite impossible to both give and receive love. Thus, loving action toward someone caught up in judgment is to help them see for themselves how their judgment is actually unjust and hypocritical. Only when we see for ourselves that our judgment of others is faulty, that our judgment of others is actually unjust and self-serving can we possibly let go of it and thus receive and give love. Judgment blocks love.
As evidence for this look at what Jesus called “the unforgivable sin” – “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”. It was when the Pharisees saw Jesus heal a sick person and judged that Jesus was healing out of the power of Beelzebub. In other words, the Pharisees were confronted with total and utter love itself – the Lord of life healing another person and judged it as evil. The unforgivable sin is when we are so caught up in our own judgment that the most loving act possible does not even impinge on us – we actually cannot comprehend the love at all anymore or see that our judgment is unjust. This is the point of no return. It is “unforgivable” NOT because God does not want to forgive but because the very definition of love is that it must be chosen and it is possible to become so caught up in judgment that we can no longer receive and therefore no longer give love anymore. There is a point where we have forever closed ourselves off from being able to choose to love. I believe this is the state of eternal death.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/12/2004 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
We are never, ever, to "hupo-krites" (be a hypocrite) -- before we take a speck out of our brother's eye, we make sure we do not have the same speck in our own eye.
Hello John,
What is your source for this "same speck" stuff?
Matt. 7. "first remove the log from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to help your brother."
John, if you do not have the “same” speck of homosexuality in your eye, can you then take the speck out of a Gay person’s eye? That is my question. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/12/2004 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | rossfadeinout
But if God has clearly pointed that living a a life that rejects love will lead to death, and I see that my brother is living in a way that is rejecting love, shouldn't I warn my brother and encourage him to change his heart? (This is what I think of when I think of "church discipline" or "righteous judgment" or whatever term you want to use)
Iconoclast
You bet. That is what it is all about - helping and supporting each other to choose love.
The key question then is - how can we actually be effective in doing this? It is not a question of simply pointing out that someone is sinning. If it was then the world would be a different place. How do we help others choose love? I think the answer is that first they must feel like we are on their side - that we actually care about them. And how do we do this? Well, we actually have to be on their side and actually care about them. People have great BS detectors. And people can tell whether you are coming at them from a "you should be good" perspective (a legal perspective) versus an "I actually really care about you and want what is best for you" attitude.
The huge difficulty in this is that we are all caught up in judgement. Thus, it is very difficult to come across when giving negative feedback as actually caring because we are very skilled at judging and that tends to come across. It is also difficult because people expect others to judge them and even when we aren't they tend to feel that way. Thus, our effectiveness is blocked.
Take the case of a raging alcoholic. Telling them that they are killing themselves and that they should quit is often not very effective. The only that actually does seem to be effective is to have a group of loved ones give them loving feedback about how the alcoholic's behavior is actually affecting them. Using "I feel" statements rather than "you are" statement is crucial. And it can't be "I feel" like you are killing yourself and are going to hell either. That is simply a "you are" statement wrapped in sheep's clothing. Your feedback has to be honest and it has to be specific.
Now, who can do this sort of thing except those people who are actually in on that person's life? Thus, this can only be done effectively when the other person has already invited you in to their life.
And this is where the argument regarding homosexuality comes in. You simply cannot pronounce to a gay person that they better shape up or they are going to hell because they are not really being loving. First of all this is totally ineffective because they see it as judgment - which it probably is. But even if it is not - even if it comes out of a true concern and a true belief that all gay people are not really being loving it is still totally ineffective because it is heard as nothing but judgment.
But let's look even at this. Is it really caring about this gay person if you don't even get to know them before pronouncing this concern? I think not. I think this is just another form of judgment. And, I do not believe it makes any sense to say that one cares about this general class of people. You can't care about people in general, in the abstract, you can only care about this or that individual.
It is my experience that if you get to know and actually care about someone who is gay you quickly come to realize how your previous notions about homosexuality are completely false. You quickly come to realize that what is best for this person has nothing to do with some legalistic notion found in the bible. What I quickly came to realize is that the best thing for a gay person is that they find someone they can love and commit to the rest of their lives so that they also can have a chance to learn what it means to love another.
It is too bad that our society doesn't help and support them in this endeavor because, in my view, that is what it would mean to actually love them.
sparknheart
shouldn't I warn my brother and encourage him to change his heart?
Iconoclast
There is nothing more important than encouraging another to have a loving heart.
Top leadership coaches will tell you that leadership is most fundamentally about deeply encouraging others.
And what is the most encouraging thing we can do for another? It is to show them in very concrete ways, ways that they will not discount, that they are loved.
So, yes, sometimes we need to warn others about what they are doing to themselves and others. But if this is not done in a way where they feel loved then it won't be effective in encouraging them.
At the same time there are situations where a "stop action" is called for. A raging alcoholic is a great example of this. Sometimes we need to lovingly withdraw from another because to not withdraw is to enable.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/12/2004 10:27 AM (GMT -6) | | The speck in the eye, log in the eye refers to "your brother" as in fellow Christian.
So, if you see a fellow Christian with a speck in their eye:
1. remove the log from your eye (may take a lifetime)
2. then help him remove the speck from his eye (help? how do you influence someone to do something?)
I think Jesus' attitude of this passage is similar to the one about the woman caught in adultery.
If you have no sin, start throwing rocks. Jesus said sarcastically
If you have no log in your eye, start swabbing your brother's eye. Jesus said sarcastically.
I think this ties in with my belief that the only real effective agent of change is the Holy Spirit. Not our efforts.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/12/2004 10:28 AM (GMT -6) | | .
AMEN.
And, this should be the key difference between "setting healthy boundaries," and judging.
(SEE: "BOUNDARIES, When to say YES, When to say NO -- To Take Control of Your Life," by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend, Zondervan Publishing House, ISBN 0-310-58590-2).
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
Iconoclast wrote: quote:
At the same time there are situations where a "stop action" is called for. A raging alcoholic is a great example of this. Sometimes we need to lovingly withdraw from another because to not withdraw is to enable.
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/12/2004 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
JEE
Your question does not follow. What Jesus is forbidding is condemning someone else for that which you are also guilty of.
Iconoclast
So, if we are all guilty of sin that means that none of us can judge another for being guilty of sin?
thanks,
Iconoclast
All have sinned. However, as libertarian free will is the power of contrary choice (ability to sin or not sin) and Scripture itself affirms, "he that is begotten of God does not practice sin" (1 John 3:6-9), and, as in Scripture God plainly promises the believer all the power they need to be free from sin and walk in victory over sin (Romans 6 & 8:1-14), it does not follow that all Christians sin perpetually and habitually (contrary to the Calvinist mantra that we MUST sin daily, in word, thought, and deed). Of those who are truly regenerate, sin is the exception to their life pattern, not the rule.
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!
In any instance, we may choose to sin or not sin; therefore, we are truly responsible for our actions in all cases.
Therefore consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God.
Sin shall NOT be your master, for you are not under law but under grace.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/12/2004 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
We are never, ever, to "hupo-krites" (be a hypocrite) -- before we take a speck out of our brother's eye, we make sure we do not have the same speck in our own eye.
Hello John,
What is your source for this "same speck" stuff?
Matt. 7. "first remove the log from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to help your brother."
John, if you do not have the “same” speck of homosexuality in your eye, can you then take the speck out of a Gay person’s eye? That is my question.
Your question does not follow. What Jesus is forbidding is condemning someone else for that which you are also guilty of.
John, is it your general sin (of a different nature then your brother) or the specific sin (same as your brother) that you are also guilty of?
Why do I feel as if I'm being put on trial and judged by the non-judgers? 
Spark, I have to admit that your questions often leave me scratching my head. If you can, please clarify.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/12/2004 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | One thing I should hasten to add at this point: I definitely do not see it as our Christian duty to constantly be pointing out or even looking for sin in others' lives, nor that we should be constantly looking for sin in our own lives. That would obviously be a wrong focus, would be contrary to a life that has been forgiven of many sins (which includes all of us), and would in fact be contrary to the biblical focus of faith--our focus is to be directed towards God and his love.
However, I cannot agree with the position that basically makes Paul out to be a self-righteous Pharisee even after his conversion to Christ, which is precisely what Icon's position strongly implies to my mind.
Paul, the apostle of grace, said "exhort, reprove, rebuke, with all patience and teaching."
Paul, the apostle of grace, told the Corinthian church to "expel the immoral brother." (1 Cor. 5).
Paul, the apostle of grace, called some people "evil workers," and even called God's judgment down on them for working against his ministry.
Paul, the apostle of grace, told people precisely what I'm trying to say: "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!"
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
| 166 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:50 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 |
|
|