?

Log in

Jul. 26th, 2004 @ 05:54 pm Frustrated About Anger
Current Mood: curiouscurious
Current Music: Faith Evans - I'll Be Missing You
About this Entry
somanche2
soman_fighter:
[User Picture Icon]
From:soman_fighter
Date:August 2nd, 2004 07:00 pm (UTC)

Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
Interesting, “…SIN IS SIN. Culture doesn’t dictate what sin is..” Though I appreciate your response and the spirited conversation, I have to admit your response troubles me on two fronts:

First, if sin is sin, then I wonder do you chastise women who fail to cover their heads when praying/prophesying? Do you stone a child for his/her disobedience? Will you flout the laws of the land, even though Paul reminds us all to adhere to the laws of our government, when issues of gay marriage arise – and might be passed? These all seem to be clearly delineated in the bible – God’s word; how might I respond to those seekers beyond my culture club called "Church" to these questions? When you refer to sin, aren’t these against the directions? Or do you mean strictly the ten commandments?

Secondly, It seems to me that your position is very vacuum packed as to the black and white of the text, and though you do not state this, you seem to imply that inspiration is limited to the confines of the canon only with a phrase like “some other form of doctrine”. With some latitude, I wonder if you think inspiration is unattainable today? Cannot other culturally relevant doctrines, which compliment the Torah, Gospel, whatever, be directing as well to today’s culture? Obviously, in your addition, you allow that some things the culture of the Church has allowed, i.e. movies, though we can easily rest assured Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Catherine, - all those other equally inspired individuals – would most likely call us all heretical in our approach to presenting and interpreting the sacred text. Some clarification is needed please, because these are issues that I am wrestling with!


Finally, It just seems to me that strict adherence – though often preached – is so rarely adhered to because we choose prefer context and cultural relevance when convenient. Then when this issued is questioned the “Grace card” is immediately played when issues like this are raised. I write this all with a great deal of love, in a spirit of wondering, and desperately seeking some response that can at least keep the door open with the generation that I am called to.

Lets continue this dialouge..
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 3rd, 2004 09:56 am (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
If you'll notice my response, I used the words post-salvation. So stoning children would be a little severe due to the fact that we dont follow "the law" as it referred to the Jews. I also notice all you reponses to Sin are you against others. Which is interesting because it follows along with my thought that "modern christians" often fail to see the negative about themselves and fix it according to the gospel.
Ultimately, as a christian, you have to decide who you are going to be. (although it is really God's doing) Are you going to be weak or strong in the faith? (and there is a difference) If you are going to be strong, you must have an adhereance to the New testament commandments as well as having reverance for the Old testament. If there is such thing as a Grace card, I would instantly say that God's grace is awesome and all encompassing; however, it isn't God's grace that will define us in heaven. It's how well we followed God's commandments. Logic tells us that if some of us will present ourselves approved to God as workmen that do not do not need to be ashamed (2 Tim 2:15), that the is another side to that Judgement. Scary.

There are to many "seeker" friendly churches out there that have left out the individual responsability of christianity. When you're saved, it isn't supposed to be some pleasure cruise of grace and mercy where SIN is relative and all we do is "be" christians and it will all work out. No, when we get saved, thats when the battle begins. Consequently, the less you know of God's Word the less you will be able to: a. Defend yourself agaist Satan and b.Fight back against Satan for God! When you put on the WHOLE ARMOR OF GOD, if your faith is weak, your sheild is small. If your knowledge of God's Word is lax, your sword is non-existent.

As far as Paul's request we adhere to the laws of our government, we must. Do we have to agree, no. Now that isn't to say if a law of our government directly contradicts God's Law we must OBEY it. For instance, if this was China and they tried to take you second child away, you should fight back with rightoues indignance and not relinquish. Do you see the difference though? In one circumstance, the government wants to remove my gift given by GOD himself; in the other, the government is allowiing others to go against God's law. Well thats sad, but we have no place to stop non-believers from doing anything (and if they are participating in a gay marriage, they are non-believers). We dont have to have Gay marriages in our church if we, as a church, are a godly church. What you may not know is that Paul lived in Rome during NERO's reign and he wrote that. So if Paul, the chosen mouthpiece for God (notice the conspicuous apositive), can submit to a christian killing non-believer who could quite possibly have been the most fleshly Roman ruler in all of it's history; then we can submit to a government which permits Gay marriage.

As far as the Fact that I believe the bible is the only truly inspired doctrine, and NO OTHER DOCUMENT OR WORDLY PHILOSPHY SHOULD EVER ACOOMPANY IT, its true. Its entirely bibical. Paul often warns through the epistles that any and all wordly philosphy should be kept out of Good christin doctrine (the Bible). The second you use anything secular, like a movie clip, you have directly rejected the gospel in part; thus, you have rejected the whole body of the Word.

As a christian, A BLOOD BOUGHT BONDSERVANT OF GOD, you have to decide, Is the bible the Whole truth as it says and should I folow its teachings as such? I say yes and yes. Is your work going to be made of straw and burn in the fire? Are you going to present yourself as shameful man worhty of blame? God's Word is black and white, follow it as such. Now the examples you gave have nothing to do with your PERSONAL SIN, which is always the same, now and in the future and in August of 406 A.D. My lusts of the flesh are the same as all the great servants you listed above. But we won't realize it until we as christians stop preaching and learning that knowing God's grace is all that is required of us. I am a slave for God, and you aren't, you are a slave for Sin.

From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 3rd, 2004 10:09 am (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
I meant, "IF", your arent a slave for God, you are a Slave to sin.
[User Picture Icon]
From:soman_fighter
Date:August 3rd, 2004 12:07 pm (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
Well stated.

As I roll-up my sleeves, allow me to query the following comments, you wrote:

1) “Which is interesting because it follows along with my thought that "modern christians" often fail to see the negative about themselves and fix it according to the gospel.”

2) “As far as the Fact that I believe the bible is the only truly inspired doctrine, and NO OTHER DOCUMENT OR WORDLY PHILOSPHY SHOULD EVER ACOOMPANY IT, its true. Its entirely biblical. Paul often warns through the epistles that any and all wordly philosphy [sic] should be kept out of Good christin [sic] doctrine (the Bible).”

First, “modern Christians” – I would agree with your statement were it not so pointed against the “post” movement we are witnessing in the emerging church today. If you are referring to the cookie-cutter Christianity the country witnessed during the late 19th to middle 20th century – bang your right on; however, I must assume you mean the previous, so it is here where I take contention, “(we) fail to see the negative about (our)selves,” are you serious? This postmodern movement is honest with itself – we embrace the concepts of salvation and discipleship – we just believe they might come about in a different order: discipleship to salvation? We realize the negative aspects of our internal lives and the outward by-product this plays in our relations with community. This is sed contra to the window dressing many Christians bought into throughout the 20th century, i.e, the holiness movement. This “(post)modern Christian” movement just might be the most honest generation with itself to date and we openly seeking mentors who are willing to discuss the nature the self in relation to God. Believe me, this generation knows it has flaws and we are more than upfront and honest about them.


Furthermore, were it not for the blatant moral failings and gross corporate judgments of the Church and its leaders, both at times in complete denial of said incidents, the decline of the Church would not be so glaringly apparent today. This “(post)modern Christian” movement just might be the last building block the Church has to a generation that has recent evidence that the shiny-happy world so many church goers are living-in is not the “Six Flags Over Jesus” as some would try to present it as. This is a very troubling position to me and one that wafts Constantinian crusade rhetoric to it. (“repent my way or die”)

Second, its funny to me that you would cite Paul and his words concerning any addition to the doctrine (Bible). Because, as you know, there was no formal “bible” as it were – there was teachings, letters, etc., so which Bible is Paul referring to - you must mean the Vulgate? Hebrew Canon? Protestant canon, which? Which version? Since when does inspiration have a terminal point?

Please elaborate and support your position.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:27 pm (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
I agree that sin is sin... But.. you have to take some verses in context of time and meaning. Now the verse you speak of "women covering their heads" is in 1 Corinthians 11:4. Paul was writing to the church of Corinth. In the same area as the church of Corinth there was another temple.. It was a temple to the goddess aphrodite, in this temple you would find temple prostitutes, the male prostitutes would grow their hair out very long and the female prostitutes would keep their heads shaved. What would happen is you would go to this temple and pay to do lude sexual acts with a temple prostitute and that would be how you were to worship the goddess of love. Now another thing that this means is that in the church of Corinth there were new converts from the temple of aphrodite. So Paul wrote to the church of Corinth and told the men to keep their hair short and the women to keep their heads covered (until their hair grew out), so that there would be no confusion as to how people were supposed to worship Jesus Christ.

The Bible is very clear about obeying the laws of the land and the Bible is also very clear that homosexuality is an abomination. But just because it is now legal marry someone of the same sex DOES NOT make it ok.. It is still wrong in the eyes of Christ and is still very much a sin.

I believe Paul wrote this to the church of Corinth, not because women have to have their heads covered everywhere, but to keep the church from stumbling. To keep confusion as far from the body of Christ as possible.

Well that's all I have to say for now....

-adam
[User Picture Icon]
From:soman_fighter
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:56 pm (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
Good point and right on. But not wanting to rabbit trail this conversation out too much, BUT if a gay couple is married (legally) despite our own biblical guidance, and this couple comes into relationship with Christ - does the Church tell them to get divorced?

Before you jump all over me on that one, keep in mind that sin is sin and there are countless numbers of people struggling with sin and yet totally connected to Christ, but it might be years before they overcome their issues/addictions, etc. What are we supposed to do?

thanks for joining the conversation - cool.

soman