ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

[1Way]

Ps 14.1

Ps 14.1

?
I haven’t read this entire thread because of time constraints, but, hasn’t anyone challenged Jim on this sort of verse already?
?

(In hopes of getting the focus back on topic again, it is so easy to go astray...) :doh:

Do you want to see the sort of heavy and serious and scholarly bible teaching that gives Jim (Hilston) huge problems? Just quote a “the fool has said in his heart there is no God” verse, and presume that those words mean exactly what it says, and Jim just cannot handle such a complex bible presentation.

Examine the following bible verse as though it is talking about a real fool and a real belief against the existence of the real God of the universe. i.e. scripture’s teaching here is as basic and simple as can be, but Jim must think this passage must mean something very different from what it is plainly saying, because

according to Jim, there is no such thing as an atheist,

even though this passage describes (and condemns) all atheists.

• Psalms 14:1 <<To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.>> The fool has said in his heart, "[There is] no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.

The only wiggle room I can imagine is that he might try to extricate himself from this passage by equivocating over what it means to be an atheist, he might try to say that the fool in v.1 is somehow a different fool when compared to a so called “atheist”. But the fact would remain that they both believe the same exact thing, so whatever semantic problem he might try to invent, the concrete reality is that v.1 is an accurate description of what an atheist is, and applies to all atheists, and it makes his extra-biblical view that atheists do not exist, the false view that it is.

?
I haven’t read this entire thread because of time constraints, but, hasn’t anyone challenged Jim on this sort of verse already?
?

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by LightSon

Further, I acknowledge that your skepticism will manifest itself, not just in attitude, but also in the judgments you make about Christians (me in this case). Because deities do not exist, all Christians are brainwashed, self-deceived, duplicitous and pretentious.

I'm sure that it would be nice for you if you could play the prejudice card here. However, you can't. I don't view all Christians as being duplicitous and pretentious, just a tiny minority.

As to being self-deceived and brainwashed, in some cases yes. Likely though it is a case of people lacking a motivation for applying critical thinking to the issue. Some of it is likely also social pressure that makes people religious.

Certainly prayer serves the function of "self brainwashing" or reinforcing the idea of religious belief by not making room for other, more critical thoughts there.

I will resist your cynical characterizations at every step. I realize my faith my seem pretentious to you.

It is not your faith that seems pretentious to me but rather your expression of it.

If you look around you will see that man can be extremely cruel and hateful to his fellow man. History documents such abuse. This is IMO what the Godless and unregenerate heart of man does.

Anything that is called good and anything that is called evil comes from human nature. Just as the godless are capable of loving and positve actions, so are the godly capable of cruelty and hatefulness.

You may claim that the godly are falling off the wagon when they do this, but there is no godly switch that gets turned on and makes human beings suddenly good.

Without God, there is no such thing as being true anyway. IMO

Patently false, the godless can be just as "good" as the godly can be "evil".


[/QUOTE]
(in response to john2001 asking about Light Son's reaction to sitting down at a table with folks saying grace to Satan.)

If I had any sense that a prospective host was in cahoots with the Evil One, I would not go to dinner with him or her.

But, not to skirt the confines of your question, I would leave the table.

That may irritate your sensibilities, but let me explain. From your perspective, all religion is the same: it is just a bunch of superstitious garbage. So whether one addresses a made-up god called Jehovah, or a made-up god called Satan, it doesnt matter.

From my perspective, not all values, people (or gods) are equal. Some are good; some are bad.

love good
rape bad.

Billy Graham good.
Hitler bad.

Ice Cream good.
broccoli bad.

Jehovah good.
Satan bad.
[/QUOTE]

These things are relative. I view Billy Graham as being worse than Satan because I know that Billy Graham exists. I get a bad vibe from him. As far as Jehova and Satan are concerned, I view them as characters a story. Nothing more. So, I would have to say that Hitler was certainly bad while he was alive. Now that he is dead, he is out of the picture. Eventually, he will be a movie cliche.

Certainly rape harms others. I can't think of a situation where this would be a good, except if the other person were into it in some way. But for some people with allergies certain foods could be worse than rape---fatal. Loving the wrong person could also be fatal, so I would have to say that love is not always good, either.

Fan's of Satan may be into bad things, but you are not guaranteed that a satanist would necessarily be a bad person. I suspect that a lot of them have good and bad in them and all put their pants on one leg at a time, just I do, so if I were sitting down with the Ozbournes and they said grace to the Devil, it might all be in good fun, unless of course, they are praying to Billy Graham, that is ;-).

Now suppose I have a Hindu friend that invited me to dinner. I do not know if they pray over their food, but for the sake of argument, suppose they do and I know this. If I chose to go, I would be respectful while they pray. There is a slight difference between a person honestly seeking goodness and one seeking evil. Satan is evil and isnt even on the same plain as a genuine religion, even though I do consider Hinduism false.

On this point I can imagine 1WAY reacting; well wait and see.

Yes. The Judeo-Christian way is to view everybody else's gods as being the same as your Devil, so you are being liberally ecumenical today.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by john2001
I'm sure that it would be nice for you if you could play the prejudice card here. However, you can't. I don't view all Christians as being duplicitous and pretentious, just a tiny minority.

As to being self-deceived and brainwashed, in some cases yes. Likely though it is a case of people lacking a motivation for applying critical thinking to the issue. Some of it is likely also social pressure that makes people religious.

Certainly prayer serves the function of "self brainwashing" or reinforcing the idea of religious belief by not making room for other, more critical thoughts there.



It is not your faith that seems pretentious to me but rather your expression of it.




Anything that is called good and anything that is called evil comes from human nature. Just as the godless are capable of loving and positve actions, so are the godly capable of cruelty and hatefulness.

You may claim that the godly are falling off the wagon when they do this, but there is no godly switch that gets turned on and makes human beings suddenly good.



Patently false, the godless can be just as "good" as the godly can be "evil".

(in response to john2001 asking about Light Son's reaction to sitting down at a table with folks saying grace to Satan.)

If I had any sense that a prospective host was in cahoots with the Evil One, I would not go to dinner with him or her.

But, not to skirt the confines of your question, I would leave the table.

That may irritate your sensibilities, but let me explain. From your perspective, all religion is the same: it is just a bunch of superstitious garbage. So whether one addresses a made-up god called Jehovah, or a made-up god called Satan, it doesnt matter.

From my perspective, not all values, people (or gods) are equal. Some are good; some are bad.

love good
rape bad.

Billy Graham good.
Hitler bad.

Ice Cream good.
broccoli bad.

Jehovah good.
Satan bad.

These things are relative. I view Billy Graham as being worse than Satan because I know that Billy Graham exists. I get a bad vibe from him. As far as Jehova and Satan are concerned, I view them as characters a story. Nothing more. So, I would have to say that Hitler was certainly bad while he was alive. Now that he is dead, he is out of the picture. Eventually, he will be a movie cliche.

Certainly rape harms others. I can't think of a situation where this would be a good, except if the other person were into it in some way. But for some people with allergies certain foods could be worse than rape---fatal. Loving the wrong person could also be fatal, so I would have to say that love is not always good, either.

Fan's of Satan may be into bad things, but you are not guaranteed that a satanist would necessarily be a bad person. I suspect that a lot of them have good and bad in them and all put their pants on one leg at a time, just I do, so if I were sitting down with the Ozbournes and they said grace to the Devil, it might all be in good fun, unless of course, they are praying to Billy Graham, that is ;-).

(In response to Light Son showing respect to Hindu prayers, and thinking that 1WAY will give him hell over it.)
Yes. The Judeo-Christian way is to view everybody else's gods as being the same as your Devil, so you are being liberally ecumenical today.

 

[LightSon]

Hi 1Way,

Originally posted by 1Way
Lightson – my previous post to coffeeman reminded me of how I look forward to your response to my last post to you. …

Please respond.
thnx

This is in response to post # 493

Originally posted by 1Way
see my previous post to coffeeman for unambiguous bible teachings that we saints will judge the world and the angels come judgment day, and the men of Nineveh will judge and condemn men for not repenting, so your claim that the saints have no role to play in judgment and condemnation in judgment day is simply false.

Yes I agree that 1Cor 6 reveals that saints will participate in judging the world. I still maintain that this revelation does not purport to give Christians unlimited venue here and now. The text is in the context of church matters, Christians taking brothers before unbelievers.

Originally posted by 1Way
BTW, simple humble correction was all I was seeking, not rebuke.

Thanks. Either is fine if spirit-led and Biblical.

Originally posted by LightSon
1st Corinthians 6. This text deals with the saints judging matters within the church and the brethren. In this context, Paul said, “I say this to your shame.” I don’t think one should extricate this “shame” from the context and apply it to me engaging apologetically with an unbeliever.

Originally posted by 1Way
Not so, the immediate application of a teaching is the not delimiting factor of the scope of a teaching, that is thinking backwards from the application to the teaching, no, you understand the application from the teaching and not the other way around.

The teaching is, you should be judging, don’t you realize that you will be in judgment against the world and the angels, how much more so the things in this life. the reflexive balancer is identified as contrasting things of this life and the things of the next life, paul makes no such contrast between saved and unsaved people in that teaching, but the immediate application of that bible truth was over saints having conflict w/other saints.

If you were to try to remain consistent by making a single application of a teaching delimit (restrict) the teaching, then every time anyone would state a teaching that may have various applications or a wider scope, you would be required to give every example for how to apply that one teaching. But of course, that is ridiculous. So the point is, discriminate between the application and the lesson/truth.

Well you lost me a little there. My sense is that the teaching needs to be understood in context first. The contextual application needs to be understood. I do not say one cannot apply the teaching beyond the immediate contextual situation, but there is an additional burden of proof that one needs to make in extending the application beyond contextual boundaries.

Your thinking SEEMS to be saying that since we WILL (in the future) judge the world, that we are fully able and authorized to judge anything (now) and in any venue. I do not think so. I cannot walk into superior court and tell the judge, “Your honor, I’m a believer, so you can just take the day off and I’ll take over here and be judge today.”
There are lots of believers who do not have the rational skills to be a good judge. Such is clearly evidenced on this board. There are believers who still think with their heart and not in a spirit-controlled way at all. I wouldn’t recommend they assert their right to judge too quickly. Perhaps God must work them into that role.

Originally posted by 1Way
One of the heroes of the Christian faith, John the Baptist publicly railed harsh condemnation against the king for great wickedness. Was he sinning or was he Godly for so doing?

no. Of course not. But John the Baptist was a special case. You cannot argue that since John acted a certain way that any baby Christian has the authority to do likewise.

Matt 11:11” I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

It might seem that Jesus is saying otherwise. I’ll have to think about that. But for now I’ll say that, according to Jesus words, there must be a certain sense in which certain Kingdom subjects are greater than John, but they still need to grow into their judicial roles – that is my point.

Yes, John was a particular case, a forerunner sent to herald the coming of the Lord. I’d want to be careful in what extrapolations I accepted from considering John. Not everything John did was meant to be role modeled.

Originally posted by 1Way
How about David when he harshly judged against atheists for being fools. How about the prophet who richly mocked and ridiculed the false prophets just hours or minuets before he went about executing them. What about the saints role in condemning the world for it’s wickedness when we use the law against them for the sake of the gospel.

No argument here. If God moves us to make such judgments or to mock false prophets, then that is what we should do. Conversely, I question whether God would lead all Christians to unilaterally ridicule false prophets as Elijah did. I could be wrong about that, however. It’s just a guess.

Originally posted by 1Way
If all these are not allowed as Godly judgment/condemnation against unsaved sinners, then I have to wonder what bible you’ve been reading.

Yes. If I made such an argument, you should challenge me. I think I did say something to that effect. I think you have challenged me. I stand corrected.

Originally posted by 1Way
As to your motives, I’d think so, as to your bible understanding, I’d say you obviously need more correction. Notice, if we take your view that Christians should not judge non-believers, then we could not judge/condemn the murder or adulterer like John did for example. Of course we Christians are supposed to judge the unsaved world, that is step number one in evangelism.

Correct me as you are led to.
We do make the moral appraisal (judgment) that murder is wrong and that the murderer is ought to be condemned. But the actualizing of this “condemnation” is left to the jury and to the guy on the bench in the black robe. I make the distinction between “judging” and “discerning”. Yes the 2 words can be used interchangeably, so given that, I can judge “all things”. But I haven’t been given a set of judicial robes yet. I do not sit on the bench…..yet. Someday I will. I’m not exactly sure what, beyond that, you want me to agree with. It is not my role to say “I damn thee, Joe Blow, for not believing in Christ.” I still maintain that unbelievers are “condemned already” according to JN 3. I can make the appraisal (or judgment) that if they do not believe, then they are condemned. If in the afterlife, God gives me the robes and authority (the gavel) to sit in judgment of them so as to actualize their final condemnation, then so be it.

I hope we can find common Biblical ground on which to agree.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by LightSon
Yes I agree that 1Cor 6 reveals that saints will participate in judging the world. I still maintain that this revelation does not purport to give Christians unlimited venue here and now. The text is in the context of church matters, Christians taking brothers before unbelievers.

And if you don't mind a comment from an admitted "non-Christian", at least as I think you are using that term - I don't know of any Biblical basis on which any human could claim absolute authority HERE AND NOW in determining who qualifies as "saints". Or at least there is a good deal of contention over that issue. Note that one of the largest parts of Christianity - the Roman Catholic Church - has a rather lengthy and elaborate process to go through before THEY will formally claim that someone is a "saint" (which does in this context mean the same thing - a human soul who is known with certainty to be in heaven).

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by LightSon
We do make the moral appraisal (judgment) that murder is wrong and that the murderer is ought to be condemned.

If I may, I think you're confusing two different "judgments" here.

The judgment that "murder is wrong" is a moral one, and one that each person ultimately decides on their own, for themselves. (And it IS purely a personal decision; for one thing, note that the word is "murder," not "killing" - and each person comes to their own conclusion as to what SORTS of "killing" constitute "murder" and are therefore morally objectionable. Some, for example, will not take up arms in a military context, citing this same moral belief.)

That a murderer should be condemned, however, is not a personal moral decision, but a legal judgment made (ideally) per the standards generally agreed to by a society. Some people may believe that law exists to enforce morality, or somehow "is" morally based, but in truth decisions are law are made by a society primarily in order to protect its members.

This distinction between "moral" and "legal" judgment may at some times be a subtle one, but I don't think it is any less important simply for being subtle.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by bmyers
And if you don't mind a comment from an admitted "non-Christian", at least as I think you are using that term - I don't know of any Biblical basis on which any human could claim absolute authority HERE AND NOW in determining who qualifies as "saints". Or at least there is a good deal of contention over that issue. Note that one of the largest parts of Christianity - the Roman Catholic Church - has a rather lengthy and elaborate process to go through before THEY will formally claim that someone is a "saint" (which does in this context mean the same thing - a human soul who is known with certainty to be in heaven).

Hi bmyers,
Nope. I don't mind your comments at all.

I don't want to disparage Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but needless to say I do not agree with them on a number of doctrines.

A simple word study of the New Testament will reveal proper usage of "saint". The word is etymologically related to a number of other NT words: holy, consecrated, sacred, saint. The basic unit of meaning is “set apart”. A “saint” is someone that God has “set apart” (consecrated or made holy) for His own use. Paul called all Christians saints. It was one of his standard appellations to the church. All Christians are saints, because we are God's people, set apart by Him for His own purposes.

The concept of “holiness” needs to be developed further for optimal understanding. Christians are called to be holy. I believe that positionally (in God’s eternal view) we are regarded as holy, yet practically we have a long (very long) way to go. Especially this writer.

So the who RCC “beatification” process is wrong. IMO

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by bmyers
If I may, I think you're confusing two different "judgments" here.

The judgment that "murder is wrong" is a moral one, and one that each person ultimately decides on their own, for themselves. (And it IS purely a personal decision; for one thing, note that the word is "murder," not "killing" - and each person comes to their own conclusion as to what SORTS of "killing" constitute "murder" and are therefore morally objectionable. Some, for example, will not take up arms in a military context, citing this same moral belief.)

That a murderer should be condemned, however, is not a personal moral decision, but a legal judgment made (ideally) per the standards generally agreed to by a society. Some people may believe that law exists to enforce morality, or somehow "is" morally based, but in truth decisions are law are made by a society primarily in order to protect its members.

This distinction between "moral" and "legal" judgment may at some times be a subtle one, but I don't think it is any less important simply for being subtle.

Your distinctions are noted and I agree. Sorry if my handling of the terms were imprecise.

I do think of "legal" in societal sense, but also in a higher theological sense. In my eschatological model, there will be process by which the world is judged. In this context, there will be courts which will consider “records” and pass “legal” judgments. So while “murder” may be immoral, there is also an aspect of “murder” which is “illegal” according to God’s law, and for which the murderer will be held accountable (and judged) in God’s court.

As far as enforcing ("subjective" Christian) morality in a secular venue, that is a whole other can of worms.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by LightSon .

A simple word study of the New Testament will reveal proper usage of "saint". The word is etymologically related to a number of other NT words: holy, consecrated, sacred, saint. The basic unit of meaning is “set apart”. A “saint” is someone that God has “set apart” (consecrated or made holy) for His own use. Paul called all Christians saints. It was one of his standard appellations to the church. All Christians are saints, because we are God's people, set apart by Him for His own purposes.

Even within that usage, I would still have to ask the question - do you think that anyone is truly qualified to give an authoritative opinion regarding the "sainthood" of another? Or is that something that must be seen as strictly between the individual and God?

 

[1Way]

Lightson and Coffeeman – Lets continue this topic of Christians and judgment/condemnation over in another more forum where I started another thread.

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=305823#post305823

Thanks.

 

[coffeeman]

Originally posted by bmyers
Even within that usage, I would still have to ask the question - do you think that anyone is truly qualified to give an authoritative opinion regarding the "sainthood" of another? Or is that something that must be seen as strictly between the individual and God?

That's a great question bmeyers! It does seem strange that anyone today could be called a "saint" doesn't it. This is part of a great truth in the Bible where God actually paid the price for us to be called saints. It's an honor to be called a saint because Jesus Christ died so anyone who believes in Him can be a saint.

First we realize the playing field is leveled by the fact that every human who has ever lived has sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Every human except Jesus Christ who never sinned...And this fact makes it impossible for any of us to be called a saint on our own merits or our own goodness actually the Bible calls us enemies of God.
The penalty of being an enemy of God is death...both physical and spiritual and results in a seperation from God. We might say we all are the opposite of saints before we come to believe.
God chose the act of faith in Jesus Christ and His' sacrifice to be the way back to God and to sainthood. The marvelous thing about all this is that we can accept Jesus Christ now at any given moment and simply tell Him we turn from our sins and sinful condition and believe in His' death, burial and ressurection for us. The second we do, then God says we are saved. Saved is the term used to describe our being saved from damnation, hell and an eternity seperated from God.
Sainthood is free for all who want it and accept it and it is much more than just being given a title by a church....it is really being alive for the first time. Just remember, it isn't how good or bad you are or have been...being saved is strictly whether you have accepted what Jesus has done and accepted who He is Lord and Saviour.

Did that make sense to you B?

 

[PastorZ77]

my connection is so slow i dont want to go through all the pages searching so forgive me if its buried in there somewhere.


what happened to zakath?

 

[coffeeman]

From what I gathered Zakath is fine ...seems he was out on a business trip or something. He did miss the deadline and also an extension of time so Knight has offered any athiest who wants to post an argument in response to Bob's arguments to do so.

 

[PastorZ77]

hmmm...convenient

 

[Analogous]

Standing in for Zak

Standing in for Zak

From what I gathered Zakath is fine ...seems he was out on a business trip or something. He did miss the deadline and also an extension of time so Knight has offered any athiest who wants to post an argument in response to Bob's arguments to do so.



Hey, I'm up for that. Who do I contact to set it up?

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by bmyers
Even within that usage, I would still have to ask the question - do you think that anyone is truly qualified to give an authoritative opinion regarding the "sainthood" of another? Or is that something that must be seen as strictly between the individual and God?

Hi Bmyers,
I notice CoffeeOne also responded. His answer was right on.

Please allow me to expand with some of my own thoughts.
Try to envision man from God's perspective as a class of "fallen" individuals. Scriptures portrays us as "lost" and unfit to be in God’s presence. It says, "there is not a man upon the earth that doeth good and sinneth not".

From this sea of infidelity, God wanted to draw unto himself a people for himself. Such a people would of course be special. The Old Testament is largely about the nation of Israel. God called Abraham and his descendents. God gave them the mosaic code and otherwise worked with them for 2 thousand years to train them to be faithful spiritually. Much of the law was designed to show Israel that they were God’s and should be “set apart” for God and not look and act like the “other” nations that were off doing their own thing and worshipping their gods.

The New Testament represents a paradigm shift. God’s people are no longer organized around a national identity, but around a spiritual identity - the church. In fact the NT makes much of how the church is comprised of both jews and gentiles. Still, much of the same principles of fidelity apply to the NT church as applied to Israel. We are called, like Israel to put God first by loving Him and obeying him. This is good for us to do. By honoring God and being obedient, we sidestep getting hurt by selfish and lustful pursuits. Sainthood is all about such things. We Christians have no business pursing gods of greed and lust. We belong to God. We are saints, a people “set apart” for God’s fellowship and for His glory. This is why God demands that we keep our minds and hearts pure, so that we don’t get enamored with gods (idols) and run amuck. Some of us do not always act like children of God that we are called to be. Over and over the NT admonishes us to “walk worthy” of the vocation to which we are called.

Coffeeman is correct that all Christians are saints. Getting to your question, to what extent is “anyone … truly qualified to give an authoritative opinion regarding the "sainthood" of another?”

Strictly speaking, being a Christian (or saint) is “between the individual and God”. Can I see into another man’s heart and know what his true relationship is to God? NO I cannot, but I can look at his life and the fruit that man bears. Jesus said, “if you love me, keep my commandments”. A man who refuses surrender in obedience to God has no basis to claim to be a child of God. My judgments are secondary to a man’s actual status. I may not be able to answer the question absolutely, but in a practical sense, if an individual is egregiously misbehaving, there will be a point where I must treat him as if he were not a saint.

 

[coffeeman]

Well said!

 

[attention]

Originally posted by LightSon
Coffeeman is correct that all Christians are saints

We know from history - the second world war, the deportation of the Jews, the Holocaust - how many of them ACTUALLY were.

Not very many, I can tell you .......

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by LightSon
.....all Christians are saints

Originally posted by attention
We know from history - the second world war, the deportation of the Jews, the Holocaust - how many of them ACTUALLY were.

Not very many, I can tell you .......

It is clear from your (mis)application that you either did not understand my treatment of what a "saint" is, or have opted to employ your own definition. I would find it strange that the latter is the case, since the word "saint" itself is not germane to your worldview. Hence, you must not have understood my point.

Perhaps you would like to study the matter further?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by coffeeman
Did that make sense to you B?

It "makes sense" in the sense of my understanding your response - it is pretty much the standard Christian version of salvation doctrine - but I am afraid that you didn't answer the question that I asked. However, I see that LightSon did a bit further on in the thread, so if you don't mind I'll continue this from his response.