Disconnect between theology and behavior?

[Clete]

:think:
Interesting YOU chose 'potter.' Read it with me:
Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
Rom 9:12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
Rom 9:13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Further:

Rom 9:30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;
Rom 9:31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. (answers some of your question to Clete).
Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,
Rom 9:33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”


Scripture is scripture is scripture and I will deny none of it/cannot deny any of it. Whatever Paul says and means, I'll not ever argue with Paul. Whatever theology I cling to, it will not be apologizing for Paul. That would be madness. Whatever we believe, it must be embracing Paul. All of him and Him.

You are welcome to explain Romans 9. To date, I simply say "It says what it means (clearly at least to me) and it means what it says (whether I want to agree or not).

The elder of those two children never served the younger, Lon.

That's because the passage wasn't talking about babies, it was talking about nations. All of Paul's immediate audience knew that intuitively because, unlike you, they knew their scriptures and were not only very familiar with the book of Genesis but the exact verse in Genesis that Paul was alluding too...

Genesis 25:23 And the Lord said to her:

“Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
One people shall be stronger than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger.”


Also, the use of the terms "loved" and "hated" in such a context is a well known and totally undisputed Hebrew idiom (i.e. figure of speech). The passage isn't saying that God despised the unborn child. It simply means that He blessed one over the other. The idiom is used throughout the bible. Jacob did not hate Leah. He loved Leah but loved Rachel more. Jesus doesn't want you to hate your parents, He wants you to love God more than you love your parents. Get it?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Lon, do you think that this verse are speaking about salvation?:

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" (Ro.9:21; NIV).​

 

[Lon]

Lon, do you think that this verse are speaking about salvation?:

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" (Ro.9:21; NIV).​

Yes, in the strict scriptural given sense that Pharoah wasn't 'saved.' My understanding isn't just on the Calvinist spectrum, the Arminian also believes God uses men, based on their now or future choices (even Open Theists). I'm a bit against relegating threads to blame or problematic to any particular theology system. The main thrust of this one is about the importance of God working grace in us.

However, I'm also very certain I cannot argue with God about scriptures He has given. This one has a lot to do with God's sovereignty over ALL of His creation. "Freewill" has an 'autonomous' feel that I don't believe exists. No man is sovereign (god) unto him/herself. Whether we live or die, we do so as beings completely made of all the material that belongs to God.

I pray it is meaningful for this discussion thread as well. -lon

 

[Clete]

Yes, in the strict scriptural given sense that Pharoah wasn't 'saved.' My understanding isn't just on the Calvinist spectrum, the Arminian also believes God uses men, based on their now or future choices (even Open Theists). I'm a bit against relegating threads to blame or problematic to any particular theology system. The main thrust of this one is about the importance of God working grace in us.

However, I'm also very certain I cannot argue with God about scriptures He has given. This one has a lot to do with God's sovereignty over ALL of His creation. "Freewill" has an 'autonomous' feel that I don't believe exists. No man is sovereign (god) unto him/herself. Whether we live or die, we do so as beings completely made of all the material that belongs to God.

I pray it is meaningful for this discussion thread as well. -lon

Your understanding of sovereignty is meaningless.
It makes no sense to say that someone is sovereign over beings that have no free will. Sovereignty isn't about control its about authority. God is the highest authority that exists - period. I, as an Open Theist, say that with no caveat or qualification whatsoever and it is I who can say it with actual meaning because I understand that people have a will and can choose to either submit to or rebel against that authority. The Augustinian notion of "sovereignty" is no more meaningful than it would be to call a puppeteer the sovereign ruler of his puppets. It's a totally ridiculous thing to even say. The puppeteer has no authority over his puppets because his puppets are inanimate objects. When an audience watches a puppet show, they are watching the performance of the puppeteer, not the puppets. The puppets do not submit to nor rebel against the puppeteer's authority, because they don't do anything at all. So, while the puppeteer is in complete control of his puppets, he is not their sovereign because they cannot have a sovereign because they have no ability to submit to or rebel against any authority.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, in the strict scriptural given sense that Pharoah wasn't 'saved.'

Lon, the following words are in regard to "service" and not "salvation":

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" (Ro.9:21; NIV).​

In regard to Pharaoh the following in "bold" makes it plain that he could have repented and avoided being a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction:

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" (Ro.9:21).​

 

[Lon]

Lon, the following words are in regard to "service" and not "salvation":

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" (Ro.9:21; NIV).​

In regard to Pharaoh the following in "bold" makes it plain that he could have repented and avoided being a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction:

​

Though I'd seen you and AMR go round and round on this, I don't think it as pertinent. It is rather that indeed, and you agreeing with me: God does have rights. No question.
I'd been Arminian for a long time, so I do recognize and sympathize with what you are saying. I don't believe theologically, it matters too much of 'when' God uses vessels for His purposes but I agree it truly does set up the rest of one's theology afterwards. I'm simply saying, whatever Romans 9 means, I don't ever want to be arguing with my Maker. As the scripture continues: "Why have you made me like this?" isn't legitimate regardless if one is Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist. The point is that whatever we are, God is Sovereign in and among our choices such that He is never without control. Pharoah's story illustrates and provides the foundation for this important truth: that God is sovereign and especially Holy regardless of Pharaoh's poor choices. Its important, regardless of camp, that we understand two biblical concepts (and others among them but two that I see of import in Romans 9): God is righteous, regardless what it 'may' look like and God is completely sovereign (nothing out of His control).

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" (Ro.9:21).

In the sense of agreement, God gave Pharaoh 10 (Ten!) opportunities to submit, acquiesce, recognize, see grace, etc. That indeed is longsuffering against arrogance and stubbornness. God is in the business of saving. The whole of His plan is to seek and save that which is lost. We must rightly see, even with Pharaoh, "God is unwilling that any should perish." I'm not sure what most Calvinists do with such verses, but AMR used to pos-rep me for posting them and he believed them. He didn't live long enough to truly cement any Calvinist theology in me, but some has stuck and I'm grateful to him for his tutelage, friendship, and loving-kindness to me while I've ever looked at where God is speaking. In Him -Lon

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The point is that whatever we are, God is Sovereign in and among our choices such that He is never without control.

Lon, was the LORD in control here?:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Mt.23:37).​

 

[Lon]

Lon, was the LORD in control here?:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Mt.23:37).​

Yes. You've read He could have called down angels. You've read the wheat and the tares. He doesn't want tares and is able to remove them from this world, but for the sake His wheat. That is sovereign. Did you happen to remember this thread is about our behavior? It is about what God is doing in people, and what verses say we should correct with all gentleness. Don't let "Calvinist" anything distract. No systematic theology should disagree with holy living and God working in us to will and do. This is what we are discussing:

Philippians 2:12Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. 13For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good pleasure. 14Do everything without complaining or arguing. 15so that you may be blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and perverse generation, in which you shine as lights in the world.

2 Timothy 2:25 with gentleness, correct those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth.

Ephesians 4:1As a prisoner in the Lord, then, I urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling you have received: 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3and with diligence to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.

Your example on TOL, to me, has been in line with these instructions. Part of 'doing' is also teaching 'how to.' What do you do when insulted on TOL? I think you mostly ignore it and then ask questions to try to steer conversation back to the topic (somewhat like here, but on topic rather than away from it).

I started this thread because a few people on TOL (one on ignore in this thread) NEED to hear the scriptures and comply with them (not me or my rendition, just the above scriptures).

The question would be/is: Is it JUST the Holy Spirit's job to make us presentable people in this world? Or do we have some onus? It'd SEEM that freewill people would have to say: Yes, we should be following Paul's example, ACTIVELY, as he follows Christ and because I have culpable freewill, I should be making an effort. Others would say "No! I want nothing to do with even the APPEARANCE of works involved with salvation and I'll say "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me, I once was wretched, and still am, but finding my righteousness in He..." While the verse change is true, sanctification is part of the process of us spending time indwelled and with the Savior. We become like whom we hang around. It is my contention that as "His workmanship" we see something actively happening and working grace in our lives. Paul didn't say glass completely muddled, he said glass. Darkly. It means there is a semblance of our sanctification and learning here while we are in the world. It may be a bit darker for some, it seems, but glass nonetheless. They, we too, need to see through that glass when reading the above scriptures. There is an onus given to freewill theists, and a truth that must be happening with the rest of us theists, that we are being made and molded for His purposes. -Lon

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes.

Lon, so you think that the LORD is control of the following people in "bold"?:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Mt.23:37).​

You said the following, that "God is unwilling that any should perish:

The whole of His plan is to seek and save that which is lost. We must rightly see, even with Pharaoh, "God is unwilling that any should perish."

Since the LORD is unwilling that any should perish then why would the people in bold perish?:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Mt.23:37).​

I can't see how you can argue that the LORD has total control of these people because if He did, since He wants none to perish, then they wouldn't perish.

 

[Lon]

Lon...
I can't see how you can argue that the LORD has total control of these people because if He did, since He wants none to perish, then they wouldn't perish.

Sovereignty and coneptrol are important words for definitions. There are a few who I'm sure you are aware of, that believe in universal salvation because none 'can' thwart His will. However, the sheep and the goats, wheat and the tares all speak of loss. It means, though God is unwilling that any should perish, that some will.

Let me ask you, at this point: What does that mean to you? Does it mean God isn't sovereign? Are there things out of His ability to fix?

I'll answer the same: It means to me that God has 'ordained' that men should be able to resist His will, for however long He deems. Can they even take a breath without the sustaining power of Christ? :nono: Not to me, if I read Colossians 1:17 correctly and John 15:5 correctly. Does it mean God is not sovereign? :nono: Once again, for me, Colossians 1:17 gives a strong statement that nothing is out of His sustaining power, such can only exist by the power God gives into the universe. Are there then, things God is unable to fix? In the sense that there are weeds, and against His intention, there is a sense that God may be able to fix it, but there is a damage done if it were done. It still makes God sovereign in choice, just better equipped to choose which things are certainly going to happen, and which, because of His prescription, will happen against His original ideals and design, but He'll work with, until His outcome objective is met (Computer is being a bit weird tonight, hope I don't have to proofread my entire post). In Him -Lon

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It means to me that God has 'ordained' that men should be able to resist His will, for however long He deems.

Lon, first you say that the LORD has total control and that He is unwilling that any should perish.

Then you turn around and say that men are able to resist His will.

If He is unwilling that any should perish and He is in total control then none would be able to resist his will and none will perish.

We are to "reason" out of the Scriptures (Acts 17:2) but if we are to believe your ideas we must throw our reason to the wind!

 

[Lon]

Lon, first you say that the LORD has total control and that He is unwilling that any should perish.

Then you turn around and say that men are able to resist His will.

Start a new thread? Even an Open Theist agrees God 'can' stop any man from 'resisting' His will. Sheer force, necessarily means complete sovereignty.
Listen please: ANY force outside of God would create a duality in the universe where something exists 'beside' and 'outside' of God. If so, then is God just one of many elements in a pre-existing universe? I've thought long and hard about 'implications' and direction of specific theological ideas. I know where they logically lead. Without being condescending, I simply invite others to think long and hard about these same things. Part if this is logic and philosophy class (classes that are supposed to teach us 'how' to think) but I was thinking like this long before I took these classes. Our thoughts and ideas, logically lead somewhere and we have to determine where ideas point as well as well as if scripture upholds them. Again, after this point, could we please start a new thread? It doesn't really carry the intent here and I don't want this thread diminished by conflicting and distracting agendas. My last post was engineered to get this one back on track because the topic is very important to me. It means I really need a new thread on this very different and separate topic or I'm not going to respond in this thread to any more questions in this direction.

If He is unwilling that any should perish and He is in total control then none would be able to resist his will and none will perish.

We are to "reason" out of the Scriptures (Acts 17:2) but if we are to believe your ideas we must throw our reason to the wind!

"Reason to the wind" when my I.Q. is reasonably high, is a non starter. Try instead to ask 'how' or what I do with what doesn't make sense to you. It has nothing to do with reason being thrown to the wind, but reason carried where all this logically points to and I believe I do it as well, if not better than most. Again, start another thread. This is absolutley not where I want this thread to go and I crafted my last post prior, to get this thread back on track. As graciously and forcefully as I will convey: I will not continue this line of discussion here, and no amount of baiting will get me to do so. I'm done with this side-rail.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Listen please: ANY force outside of God would create a duality in the universe where something exists 'beside' and 'outside' of God.

Lon, please let me ask you a simple question:

Do you believe in free will?

Or do you believe that the LORD is responsible for all of our actions, including our sins?

 

[Lon]

Lon, please let me ask you a simple question:

Do you believe in free will?

Or do you believe that the LORD is responsible for all of our actions, including our sins?

:sigh: Start a new thread, please.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

:sigh: Start a new thread, please.

:sigh: Why? What could be more germane to the subject of this thread which is:

Disconnect between theology and behavior?

Again, Do you believe in free will?

Or do you believe that the LORD is responsible for all of our actions, including our sins?

Do you not think that these questions are related to "theology and behavior"?

 

[Lon]

:sigh: Why? What could be more germane to the subject of this thread which is:

Disconnect between theology and behavior?

Again, Do you believe in free will?

Or do you believe that the LORD is responsible for all of our actions, including our sins?

Do you not think that these questions are related to "theology and behavior"?

More a distraction than reaching the pertinent, Jerry.

It was 'my' point that freewill theists should be the ones that support this thread the most: the onus of their behavior is on them.

Me? I'm a 'new' creation created by Christ Jesus FOR good works. My will, such as it may be, is on board or I'd not be a Christian.

There: In two sentences: both freewill and not much of a will people of God, need to be conformed to His image by the renewing of our minds.


Thus germane? :nono: It is shadow and mirrors for disobedience as well as trying to cover a life that is stagnant or growing VERY slowly otherwise. THAT is what is germane to this thread.

Discussion of the will simply provides distraction or lame excuse, regardless if you are an Open Theist, Arminian, or Calvinist. As far as I grasp the scriptures, there is no excuse. This thread isn't about the state of salvation, but 1) how much time is EVIDENT from spending daily time in prayer and scriptures with the Savior (we start to look like whom we hang around). and 2) What the Lord Jesus Christ is doing in "HIS" creations. Paul tells us, 'You are not your own! You were paid for at a great price!" That, Jerry, is the end and most important point of this discussion. There is nothing more important or germane that would distract from this biblical, Christ-given, Paul-given truth AND it is so important to ask on TOL. I've been here 20 years. There really should be evidence of the Savior's work, more and more.

Because we 'belong' to Jesus Christ, 'our' will is not the important discussion. It'd be like talking about 'me' all the time when I'm talking about my marriage. It ignores that the 'two' have become one flesh. Likewise, it isn't appropriate to talk about 'my' freewill as a Christian since I'm united with Christ in His death and, IN HIM, am a new creation. There is a sense at that point that 'freewill,' has been replaced with "Ourwill" and "Hiswill." "It is no longer I, but Christ in me" Paul says in Romans.

As Open Theism and Mid Acts Theology venture into the world, there is an even GREATER need for lights in connection with the message. Nobody will believe the messages are 'good' news, without 'good' accompanying the message. The message, rather will look like something MUCH less than 'good' and that blame necessarily falls on the messenger.

Granted Jonah was a very disgruntled messenger, so it is possible that the message can be separated, but God corrected Jonah's bad attitude. A BUNCH of times. He doesn't leave us the way we were.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This thread isn't about the state of salvation, but 1) how much time is EVIDENT from spending daily time in prayer and scriptures with the Savior (we start to look like whom we hang around). and 2) What the Lord Jesus Christ is doing in "HIS" creations. Paul tells us, 'You are not your own! You were paid for at a great price!" That, Jerry, is the end and most important point of this discussion.

Sorry, Lon, but I misunderstood the subject of this thread. Evidently you are speaking of the disconnect between theology and behavior only in regard to those who are already saved. Excuse me.

On this subject I would say that a Christian's behavior is mostly determined by His "growth" as a Christian and here is what the Scriptures say about that:

"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen." (2 Pet.3:18).​

 

[Lon]

Sorry, Lon, but I misunderstood the subject of this thread. Evidently you are speaking of the disconnect between theology and behavior only in regard to those who are already saved. Excuse me.

On this subject I would say that a Christian's behavior is mostly determined by His "growth" as a Christian and here is what the Scriptures say about that:

"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen." (2 Pet.3:18).​

Thank you. Appreciate that, Jerry.

 

[Clete]

If there is anyone who reads this thread and thinks that Lon rejects free will and has at least partially accepted Calvinism because some Open Theist (me) offended him then you're a bigger fool than even Lon.

Lon care at all about what the bible says. He doesn't care at all about making an argument or responding to one. He cares about what he LIKES. He liked AMR and so now he starts threads extolling how nice he was. But the only reason Lon liked him is because they are two birds of a feather. They both believed that its far more important to be nice than it is to be right, no matter the issue. If someone is preaching blasphemy, Lon's answer is to befriend the blasphemer! Be kind, gentle and meek to those who impugn the reputation of the God Who created all things and Who died that we might be saved from the Hell we deserve. The result however is that Lon becomes more like the blasphemer!

Heaven forbid that Lon make his decision about what is right doctrine based on reason and sober thought and careful exposition of the scriptures that has as its primary premise the righteousness and justice of the Creator who inspired their authorship. Oh no! It's far better to go with whichever person is the most likable! The one who is saying something he likes hearing, that's the teacher Lon looks for.

Heaven forbid that Lon make any effort to figure out what those nasty open theists are upset about or what motivates them to treat certain people like enemies. That would take too much effort and require paying attention to things that he doesn't want to discuss or to even think about. No, its far better to judge an entire theological construct on the basis of how two or three people come off on a website that is intended to be precisely what it is. That's the easy excuse Lon was looking for! All Lon wants to do is to believe whatever tickles his ears and allows him to be nicer than God. Any excuse he can find to justify it will do.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Nicer Than God by Bob Enyart

Are Christians too nice? Well, Christians today are nicer than God.

Or at least they are trying to be so. In the Church there is a standard of niceness that Jesus failed to reach while on earth. Comparing God's attitude and behavior with that of the Church today shows that believers are far more polite, tolerant, understanding and respectful to the wicked than God is.

The Church is also less offensive, rude and sarcastic than God's men in the Bible were. And no Christian would ever be caught dead mocking the wicked, as God's men in the Bible sometimes did.
The Bible sometimes ministers through ridicule, humor, sarcasm, name-calling, and even mocking. For example, God mocked and defeated the Midianites by giving them a nightmare in which they were attacked by a loaf of bread (Jud. 7:13-14). Elijah, just prior to executing 450 prophets of Baal, "mocked them" as the Bible says, telling them to yell louder to their god so that Baal could hear their prayers since he was either on a trip, sleeping or in the restroom (Hebrew, "private place," 1 Ki. 18:27; and 2 Ki. 6:8-20). And Jesus rebuked the multitudes for not responding in faith to John the Baptist's message as He ridiculed them: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?" (Mat. 11:7).
The especially harsh term hypocrite is used in the Gospels twenty-three times. Christ often insulted the scribes, Pharisees and lawyers. He even called the Pharisees blind guides (Mat. 23:16, 24) and sons of hell (Mat. 23:15). Jesus spoke unkind words unacceptable today. He said to Peter "Get behind me, Satan" (Mat. 16:23). He told the Pharisees "You are of your father the devil" (John 8:44), and made a whip and cleared "thieves" from the temple (Mat. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-15).

Gentiles (as symbols of the godless) and sodomites are called "dogs" in the Bible. (For "dog" as a metaphor for filthy homosexuals see Deut. 23:17-18 and Rev. 22:15. And for this term of derision referring also to Gentiles as symbols of the ungodly see Mat. 7:6 with Lev. 22:10; Mat. 15:26; Ps. 22:16, 20; 59:5-6; Phil. 3:2, with this usage easily originating with Ex. 22:31 and Deut. 14:21.) And Jesus was harsh not only to the Pharisees, as some believers wrongly assume, because if so, that would mean that He only loved religious leaders. But the Lord was harsh with all the unrepentant. See for example His name calling use as described above for the word "hypocrite" and see the Lord's use of the word "liar" (John 8:55, "if I say, 'I do not know Him' I shall be a liar like you", where He seems to be speaking with a group of unbelievers). Jesus instructs believers to not "cast your pearls before swine" (Mat. 7:6). Yet the silly dilemma now is, "Who could Christ possibly have meant by that? For we are too loving, tolerant, polite and respectful to refer to any human being by that mean-spirited term."

In the King James Version, the seductive women among the people of God are worse than "whores" (Ezek. 16:33). That crude term appears in the Bible dozens of times. The men who use those women are "whoremongers" (1 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 13:4; Rev. 21:8; 22:15), which is the most raw term in the English language to describe promiscuous men. God describes other sinners in terms of filthy excrement (Isa. 64:6) and even worse (2 Ki. 18:27; Isa. 36:12). Sinners truly are repulsive, regardless of how men may try to sanitize them.

Since 1991, our radio program, Bob Enyart Live, has been an occasionally harsh and often confrontational news-talk show. The program does not cater to what Christians expect and is sometimes criticized for being offensive.


Jesus was offensive. Most people were offended by him. The proof for John the Baptist that Jesus was the Christ was that the blind see, the lame walk and the majority are "offended" by Him (Mat. 11:2-19). As Jesus said, "Blessed is he who is not offended because of Me" (Mat. 11:6; Luke 7:23). In Galilee, Jesus did not plead with his neighbors to understand Him when "they were offended at Him" (Mat. 13:57; Mark 6:3). If unbelievers are offended, so be it (cf. Luke 14:3-4; John 5:8-16). "Shake off the dust from your feet" (Mat. 10:14). But alas, that is no longer a Christian attitude.

Christ's apostles asked Him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard [Your] saying?" (Mat. 15:12). What is the accepted Christian response today after an offense is taken? Quick, apologize! Ask for forgiveness! Tell them you are sorry. How did Jesus respond? He said to ignore the complaints of the unbelievers: "Let them alone. They are blind," (Mat. 15:14). Today, many Christians condemn Christ's attitude as unloving.

Jesus promised his followers, "you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. And then many will be offended" (Mat. 24:9-10). When a Canadian started his call into our talk show with a vicious, "Bob, I hate you..." The response was "Cool. Great! Because Jesus taught that if they hated Me, they will hate you" (see John 15:18-20; 17:14; Mat. 10:22; Luke 21:17). And why did the world hate Jesus? Not because He was overly nice, but as He said, "The world... hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil" (John 7:7). Today Christians think if the world hates them, they have failed. The reverse should be true. It is not that a Christian wants to be hated; it is simply an occupational hazard.

Jesus is the Rock. Most believers are unaware, however, that Jesus used this metaphor to issue a graphic threat against the unrepentant. For Christ said that on whom that Rock "falls, it will grind him to powder" (Mat. 21:44; Luke 20:18). Even the Father said that the Son is the "rock of offense" (Isa. 8:14; Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8). Offending unbelievers is Christlike in the deepest sense.

God utterly forbid drinking blood (Lev. 3:17; 17:14). Israelites, from priests, to Pharisees, to average citizens, were at least superficially obsessed with "keeping the law." Thus when Jesus said whoever "drinks My blood has eternal life," (John 6:54) He was being extremely offensive, and intentionally so. Further, He made no effort whatsoever to clarify Himself. Rather, He let the offense work its ministry. Jesus knew He even offended His own followers. As He said to "His disciples" immediately afterward, "does this offend you?" (John 6:61). After He called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, a lawyer said to Him, "Teacher, by saying these things You reproach us also." Jesus answered, "Woe to you also, lawyers!" (Luke 11:45-46)." For those who still didn't get it, Jesus said, "I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!" (Luke 12:5). Even more emphatic, the New Testament warns, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).

Being rough with the wicked does not automatically turn off unbelievers. An Indianapolis Star columnist, Steve Hall, wrote about our BEL program, "But he's cheerful. Oddly, despite the rigidity of his views, Enyart does not come across as a dour, puritanical type." Jesus spoke of a king who arranged a marriage for his son, but those receiving the invitations killed the messengers so the king, who represented Jesus' own Father, "was furious, and he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city" (Mat. 22:7), and regarding an "evil servant", the Son of Man "will cut him in two" (Mat. 24:51). A harsh style of evangelism is difficult for more sensitive Christians to appreciate. However the biblical approach to communicating with the world includes not only compassion, but severity as well.

When the Ad Council airs anti-drug public service announcements (PSAs) that mock "potheads on Jeopardy" who cannot even remember their names, they are not motivated out of hatred, but out of love. Ridicule can and does save lives. "Why do you think they call it dope?" Ad Council spots run on Christian stations and get no criticism for being unloving or unkind. Why is it that Christians never rise up against the effort to stigmatize drug users? If a pagan brings peer pressure against potheads, that is accepted. Let a believer, however, use mockery to stigmatize fornication or sodomy, and the Church rises in condemnation. God, however, does not condemn those who "rebuke the wicked" (see Prov. 24:25).

God mocked Jeroboam, who "stretched out his hand from the altar" and ordered the prophet arrested. "Then his hand, which he stretched out toward him, withered, so that he could not pull it back to himself" (1 Ki. 13:4). God mocked the Philistines when they found Dagon their god "fallen on its face before the ark of the Lord. So they took Dagon and set it in its place again" (1 Sam. 5:3). The next morning they found Dagon toppled again, but this time he had lost his head (1 Sam. 5:4). God mocked the idolaters who cut down a branch, and with half of it they make a god to worship and with the other half, they make a fire to cook lunch (Is. 44:14-17). Another carves an idol of stone and says to it "wake up" (Hab. 2:18-19). (See also Jer. 49:1.)

When a harsh word is needed God uses a harsh word. This is true in the Old and New Testaments. Herod beheaded John the Baptist for "rebuking" the king for "all the evils which Herod had done" (Luke 3:19) and for condemning the tetrarch for incestuous adultery (Mat. 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18; Lev. 18:16; 20:21) with "Herodias, his brother Philip's wife" (Luke 3:19). Jesus warned of "the leaven of Herod" (Mark 8:15). When notified that "Herod wants to kill You," (Luke 13:31), Christ responded without respect, "Go, tell that fox, 'I cast out demons'…" (Luke 13:32). Then in a parable Jesus said, "bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27), and of course He was speaking about Himself.

The Bible does not say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." It says, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he" (Prov. 23:7). Thus, the problem isn't his sin as much as it is him. Yes, "the Lord hates... hands that shed innocent blood," (Prov. 6:16-17), but those hands are attached to the man and controlled by his heart (i.e., his mind). So God hates "all workers of iniquity" (Ps 5:5). "The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man" (Ps 5:6). Also "the wicked and the one who loves violence [God] hates." (Ps 11:5). So not only does King David say, "Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God! ... Do I not hate them, O Lord who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred" (Ps. 139:19, 21-22). Of God's own nation, He says, "I have hated it" (Jer. 12:8). Further, "The face of the Lord is against those who do evil" (Ps 34:16). God "loves righteousness and hate wickedness (Ps. 45:7).

There are six things "the Lord hates," including "a heart that devises wicked plans… a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren" (Prov. 6:16-19). And God reminds us "All their wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them. Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more" (Hos. 9:15). As Moses recorded that God said, "if you do not obey Me... My soul shall abhor you" (Lev. 26:27-30).

Even in the New Testament, Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9) introducing the concept of hypocritical love. What is hypocritical love? "Should you… love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you" (2 Chr. 19:2). Warning the wicked of the coming judgment is harsh, but is a necessary component of acceptable love. A love that is not hypocritical rebukes and condemns, and then points the way to God.

God uses different methods to communicate the Gospel to people at different depths of depravity. At times, a Christian can pray with an unbeliever. At other times, a believer might ridicule the unrepentant in hopes of waking him up. Painful communication though is in no way reserved just for non-Christians.

Paul uses dripping sarcasm telling the Corinthians that they do not need his counsel because they are full, rich, wise, strong and distinguished. They are even like kings, and all that without Paul's help (1 Cor. 4:8, 10). Sarcasm stigmatizes destructive behavior and prods people toward righteousness (1 Cor. 4:14). Paul also fell short of today's compassionate Christianity when he wrote that the government should minister terror, wrath and vengeance against the evildoer and that the sword should be used against them (Rom. 13:3-4). The Apostle also erred by today's standards calling unbelievers fools (Rom. 1:22) and the Galatians fools (Gal. 3:1, 3). Incidentally, Jesus also called men fools (Mat. 23:17, 19; 25:2-8; Luke 11:40; 12:20) when appropriate but never "without a cause" (Mat. 5:22) according to His teaching. Proverbs says that "he who hates correction is stupid" (Prov. 12:1) and a generation earlier King David wrote, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Ps. 53:1). Thus, atheists, for example, are fools and to always withhold this knowledge from them is cruel.

Christians enjoy quoting, "No weapon formed against you shall prosper." However many shudder at the rest of the verse. For thus says the Lord, "Every tongue which rises against you in judgment you shall condemn" (Isa. 54:17). Jesus taught that human beings will condemn the wicked. "The men of Nineveh will rise in the judgment with this generation and condemn it" (Mat. 12:41). Speaking of vengeance, the saints in heaven who no longer have a shred of false religiosity seek vengeance. For of course, vengeance is good, for "vengeance is Mine" says the Lord (Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19) saith the Lord. True, we ourselves are not to exact vengeance on our enemies, "but rather give place to wrath" and that place is with "the governing authorities... For rulers are... a terror... to evil. ... for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Rom. 12:19; 13:1, 3-4). This "is the patience and the faith of the saints." So in heaven, "the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God... cried with a loud voice, saying, 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?'” (Rev. 6:9-10). Once that vengeance is complete, an angel will say, "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you holy apostles and prophets, for God has avenged you on her" (Rev. 18:20). Remember that Jesus said, "For God so loved the world." Two verses later though He added, "but he who does not believe is condemned already" (John 3:18). By today's Christian standard, no unbeliever would know that he is condemned, because most believers will not communicate this vital truth. John 3:16 is nice. John 3:18 is not nice.

WWJD? WDJD? Some have called Bob Enyart Live rude. Jesus was rude. We're not Jesus. (He was a person, we're a radio talk show But the Apostle Paul said to "Follow me as I follow Christ," and he was rude too. Jesus is an example as are the prophets and the apostles. The Lord was asked a question that goes to the very heart of His ministry. "Who gave you this authority?" (Mat. 21:23). Within the answer to that question lies eternal life, yet Christ was not inclined to answer. Rather, He asked them a question, which they failed to answer (Mat. 21:24-27). Therefore He said to them that neither would He answer their question (Mat. 21:27; see also Luke 22:67 and John 12:34-36).

When people misunderstood Jesus He often made no effort to explain Himself. Quite to the contrary, He often purposely let His hearers misconstrue His words (John 2:18-22). Jesus let people walk away in unbelief without running after them. The Bible does not record Him as saying, "I'm sorry, did you misunderstand me?" He is the "stumbling block," and if men wanted to stumble, He let them. For those who want to hang themselves, He invites them (Rev. 22:11). Jesus made the rope available. He is that rope (Rom. 9:33).

Jesus was a man, not a girl. Christianity today has been emasculated. Men and women are different and they communicate differently. Women are softer and nicer than men, and thank God that they are. However, men are not supposed to be women. Today, Christian ministers are expected to behave like women. That foolishness is a death sentence for many unbelievers. Strength, confidence, conviction and tough love appeal to those who are searching. Thus Jesus is a beacon to real seekers. But for those wanting to get lost, Christ is like a street sign that has been reversed by a troublemaker.

Today we are way nicer than God. It is tragic. This spiritual plateau that the Church has reached conveniently reduces the chances for confrontation. Nice people rarely rebuke, judge, confront, accuse or condemn. Nice people have less stress. It seems the only ones that Christians are quick to judge and condemn are fellow believers who judge and condemn the wicked. Go figure.
-Bob Enyart