The discussion is the age-old faith vs. works debate. Someone made a comment that (and I'm paraphrasing), in effect, faith and works are the same thing, it's just that the word "works" could refer to the work of God in our life.
I disagree. While I agree that God can and will work in our lives, trying to redefine the word "works" just confuses the argument. It's almost universally understood that "works" refers to the good things that people do, for one reason or another, in response to the invitation of God to join him in Heaven. It's always about what people do, not God. When God works, we almost always use the word "miracle" to describe it.
But that's not really what prompted me to write this. I really want to respond to the two opposing viewpoints mentioned in the post. Both of these statements really get under my skin.
"Protestants claim that Catholics are not really Christians because they are trying to earn their salvation."
"Catholics think that Protestants believe they can say a 2 line prayer, live however they want, change nothing, and still get into heaven."
I think the best way to describe how I look at these statements is to start with a parable. Here goes:
The 4 Bums and the Rich Man
Once there were 4 bums, living in a back alley of a large city. Broke and destitute, they lived in their cardboard boxes, living off whatever clothes and food they could find in the nearby dumpsters.
One day, a very wealthy man happened by. He glanced down the alleyway, saw these four wretched men, and their condition broke his heart. Determined to make a difference, he picked his way through the trash and squalor in their alley and called them together. "Hey there you four, listen to me a moment", he said, "Outside the city, I own a very large mansion. The thing about this mansion is that it has so many rooms that most of them are empty all the time. Now, I worked hard to build this mansion, and I don't like to see these rooms empty, so I have a proposition for you. I'm a busy man and I'm leaving today on a business trip, but if you will show up at my mansion in a week, you may pick a room and live there. I will have my staff get you some clothes and see that you get meals 3 times a day. This is my gift to you. But right now I have to get going; See you in a week." Having said this, the wealthy man left the 4 bums, who stood there looking after him in amazement.
A week later, the wealthy man returned to his mansion and strolled down to his front gates to meet the men he had invited.
When he reached the gates, he was dismayed to find that only 3 men were standing there waiting for him. "Where is the fourth one? Why did he not come?" the wealthy man said. One of the bums stepped forward and said, "He didn't believe that you really meant what you said. He thought you were just lying to us, like so many other people have. He just decided to stick to what he knew."
"But doesn't he live in a cardboard box?" asked the wealthy man, "Wouldn't a room in a mansion be worth the risk?" The 3 bums shrugged. "Can't speak for him, but that's why we're here," said one.
"You're right," said the wealthy man, "so you are. But, before we head up into the mansion, I'm curious; how did you spend your last week in the alley?"
The first bum of the three shambled up, smelling of alcohol and smoke. "Shhir," he slurred, "I was shho happy that I wash getting out of that alley, that me and my other friendsh, we broke into a local convenience shtore and shtole some beer and cigarrettesh, so that we could throw a proper party to celebrate my good fortune. I'm ssho excited that you're doing this for us! Woooooo!"
The wealthy man's face clouded as he pondered this news for a moment, "Hmmm. Well. That's not at all what I had in mind." Then he sighed and said, "But, I suppose, I did make a promise. And you did show up. Go on then, I guess, my people will get you cleaned up."
Suddenly, the second bum shouted. "What!? That's not fair!," he screamed, incredulously.
The wealthy man turned to look at the second bum. "Oh? Why is that?"
"You mean to say that he can do all that horrible stuff and still get in!?" said the second bum, "but I worked so hard!"
"Oh?" said the wealthy man, "What did you do?"
"Sir," began the second bum, "I knew that no opportunity like this is ever free. So I started working the moment you left us. I looked through every trash can in the city for pop cans I could turn in. I checked the change slots of vending machines. I washed car windshields for people. I..."
"Well, color me impressed," said the wealthy man, "that's the kind of initiative I like to see. How much did you earn?"
The bum held out his dirty hand and proudly deposited a handful of grimy bills and change into the wealthy man's hand. The wealthy man spent a moment counting the money. "$6.85. Not bad. Now, if you follow my butler, here, he can get you situated..."
"So we're even, right?," interrupted the second bum.
"Umm, what?" replied the wealthy man.
"We're even. Square. I figure that should cover my stay here. I earned it, right?" the bum said matter-of-factly, and then added under his breath, "unlike that other guy."
The wealthy man looked sadly down at the small lump of cash and then back at the bum, "Do you really think this is enough to buy you a room in my mansion?" The bum nodded enthusiastically. The wealthy man shook his head slowly. "No, unfortunately, while I appreciate your contributions, this falls far short of the value of the room that I'm giving you. If you'll remember what I said to you back in that alley, this is a gift. All I asked was that you show up. And since you did, please accept my gift and follow this man here and he will get you cleaned up."
Finally, the wealthy man turned to the last bum, "Tell me, what did you do on your last week in the alley?"
"Sir," began the last bum slowly, "to be honest, I didn't have any parties or bring any money with me like they did. When you came to us in that alley, it overwhelmed me so much that I could only weep for the first couple days. The next day, I started imagining what it would be like to live in such a wonderful place. But then I looked down at my hands and they were so dirty. All of me was so dirty. I was so worried that I would get your house dirty, that I did the only thing I could think of."
"And what was that?" asked the wealthy man.
"I took a bath." replied the bum, "I'm sorry, I couldn't clean it all off in the fountain in the park, but I did the best I could."
"That's alright" said the wealthy man warmly, as he put his arm around the man's shoulders, "Come inside and I'll help you get clean."
The question is, can you say a 2 line prayer, live however you want, change nothing, and still get into heaven?
Yes.
Don't believe me? Check out Luke 23:40-43. This is part of the crucifixion where Jesus is speaking to the criminal next to him. The criminal freely and openly admits that he is getting what he deserved for the life he lived. I don't know exactly what he did, but it has to be pretty bad for the guy, hanging there dying on a cross, to look back at his life and say, "Yep, I deserve to die." I think we can safely assume the guy didn't live a life filled with prayer and fasting, and being all holy and stuff.
He then literally says one line to Jesus, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" and boom, he's got himself a ticket to heaven. In Jesus' own words, not John's, not Paul's, but Jesus himself.
Does this seem somehow not fair?
Ah, now see here's the heart of the matter. This will seem unfair and wrong to you if you somehow believe you are better, or more deserving of salvation than that guy.
The thing is, we all did the exact same thing as he did to gain salvation. We simply and sincerely accepted the gift that was given to us. No more, no less.
I don't care if you spend your life preaching the gospel, caring for the sick, feeding the poor, or whatever list of good deeds you want to come up with; It doesn't make you any better than the rest of us in the eyes of God. You may be a bum with $6.85, but you're still a dirty bum. We all don't deserve salvation, but he's going to give that gift to us anyway, because that's just how he does things.
So, does that mean you can go off and live your life however you you want and do whatever you please, without regard for any good deed whatsoever?
Maybe. But I'd personally advise against it.
See, we as fellow believers can't see your heart, we can't determine your innermost thoughts. All we have to go by is the stuff you do. So, if we see you doing stuff contrary to what God has asked you to, then we begin to assume that you didn't really mean it when you said it.
Unfortunately, the story of the criminal next to Jesus ends right there. Think about it, wouldn't it be a lot easier to accept if it had continued on? Imagine if it had gone this way: Jesus dies, and while the sky is black and the earth is shaking and rumbling, somehow the nails come loose on the criminal's cross. He falls off his cross, right behind the Roman soldiers who are busy peeing their pants in fear at the terrifying natural events. He's able to slip away from them and he spends the next few months in hiding, recovering from being almost crucified. Then, suddenly, he appears back on the scene and he's a changed man; no longer is he a despicable criminal, he's now spending his time leading people to Christ.
Wouldn't that seem much more "right"? We'd be able to point at him and say "See, you can tell he really put his faith in Jesus, look at all the good he's done."
Conversely, if it had happened the other way around and, right after Jesus breathes his last, the one criminal looks over at the other criminal and says, "Haha, can you believe he bought it!" we'd all be expecting the guy to show up at the pearly gates and have his ticket denied.
But that's not the way it happens. There's no more said about the criminal. I assume that a few minutes or hours later, he was most likely stone cold dead and it's up to God to determine whether his "death bed confession" is true or not.
The whole point is that there are only two key ingredients to salvation. A) God's amazing gift to us, and B) our sincere acceptance of it. Anything else is a nice gesture, but has nothing to do with our salvation.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
58 comments:
This is B4B,
Considering Jesus' words to the thief who recognized Him, do you think we we can say that the thief's confession was real?
And a question for you. What does it mean to 'simply and sincerely accept the gift'?
I just thought I would ask.
Weston...
Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.
Your post was very interesting. I definitely enjoyed reading it. At the same time, it does offer many opportunities for discussion. So, let's begin.
First, let me attempt to explain in a few short sentences that Catholics, myself included, do not believe that we can earn salvation. We believe that it is a free gift from God. I am hoping that the Catholic faith or the view of faith and works is not the depiction that you were making with the bum who tried to earn some money in order to pay his way. If you would like to go more into the faith alone vs. the faith and works debate, we can.
After reading your conclusion, this is what I struggle with:
The question is, can you say a 2 line prayer, live however you want, change nothing, and still get into heaven?
Yes
Really? And the evidence to support this claim is the "thief on the cross"? I don't believe so.
The thief on the cross died the same day that he confessed Christ as Lord. His story does not show us that once you accept Christ, you can live however you want and still get into heaven. His story show us how an individual who has heroically sinned against God, can be forgiven and allowed access into heaven if that person approaches Him with a truly contrite heart. A contrite heart is something that God is the judge of.
it's up to God to determine whether his "death bed confession" is true or not.
Amen!!!
So, how contrite can your heart be if after you say a 2 line prayer, live however you want, change nothing...? Can you still expect just to saunter into heaven? Of course not.
God is the judge, not us. Have you ever noticed that every single account of judgement, people are not sentenced to Hell because of their belief, it is because of what they did? It is not how much you believe that determines your faith, it is what you did with that faith. Or as James would say, faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26) And how can a dead faith save?
born4battle,
Yes, based on Jesus' comments to the thief, I believe his confession was real. This is a very unique and interesting case, because, if he had been speaking to anyone else, there would be no way to determine whether the confession was real. But because he was speaking to Jesus himself, who has the ability to see into his heart, we can be certain.
Well, simply and sincerely accepting a gift has two components, simplicity and sincerity.
Simplicity means that it is no more complicated than communicating to God that you accept his gift. As evidenced by the criminal on the cross, it doesn't need to be any more complicated than a single statement.
Sincerity is a bit tougher to nail down, but I think that most people have a decent sense for what is sincere and what is fake. It's important to remember that this is between you and God and you can't fool him.
Carlus,
No, I specifically avoided labeling the bums as one denomination or another. I do not believe that the Catholic church teaches that you can earn your way into heaven, any more than I believe that Protestant churches teach that you can go ahead and live however you want and still get into Heaven.
However, while the church, Protestant or Catholic, as an religious organization does not teach these things directly, there are certain doctrines that are misunderstood by the people in the congregation in very common ways. A good example of this is 'Covenental Baptism' (infant baptism) in the CRC and Reformed churches. Even though the church teaches that it is a promise between God, the parents, and the Church to be constantly leading the child towards Christ, despite this, many people think that once they get their child baptised they have a ticket to Heaven for life.
I believe that all churches have people who correspond to both bums. There are plenty of people in the Protestant church who believe that if they just show up on Sunday, drop a moderate amount in the offering plate, and just generally be a good person, that they've done the stuff required to earn their way into Heaven. Likewise, I think that there are plenty of people in the Catholic church that feel like, as long as their name is on the roll of a church somewhere, they can do whatever they please.
>> continued in next comment >>
The repentant criminal on the cross is an slam-dunk example of a faith-alone salvation. There was no possible way for him to do any good works after his conversion. However, you are right, it doesn't answer the question of what if he had continued to do bad things after his conversion.
At this point, however, the discussion starts drifting away from "Faith vs Faith+Works" towards "Once Saved, Always Saved?", i.e. Eternal Salvation. I've done a whole blog post on how I disagree with my own chosen denomination on that, but let me recap my thoughts.
I personally don't believe that when we say that "two-line prayer" that our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life in permanent ink. I prefer to think of it more like a reservation at a fancy hotel. If you call up and say, "Hello, I'd like to book a room for December 15", they will write your name in the book (or enter it into their computer systems, these days) and you can be confident (unless it's a bad hotel) that when you show up, a room will be waiting for you. You never have to worry that somehow they will erase your name. However, at any point in time, you have the option of calling up and saying, "You know what, never mind, cancel my reservation for December 15, I've decided to go elsewhere." You can even call back again and say "You know what, that other place was a bad idea, can I reserve a room on December 15?" Theoretically, you can do this as many times as you want (if you don't mind really annoying the hotel), right up until December 15 rolls around. When that day comes, whatever your final decision was, it becomes permanent. If you cancelled your reservation and you show up on December 15, there is not going to be a room for you. Think of December 15 like the day of your death; once that day rolls around, there is no more chance to change your mind.
This topic hits close to home with me. I am certain my ex-wife said that "two-line" prayer at one point in her life. However, if you were to look at the things she has done and continues to do since then, it does not appear that she is a Christian. She will most certainly tell you that she is, but her actions don't match her words. I honestly can't tell you whether she will be in Heaven or not. Ultimately, that's a judgement call that only God can make, because only He truly knows her heart. However, what I do know is that any Christians she encounters from here on out should judge her actions and, based on that, consider her an unbeliever. They need to be constantly pointing her towards repentance. (I say "they", because I no longer have that opportunity.)
I believe that principle applies to all people. It is not our place, as fellow Christians, to make that decision as to whether someone gets into Heaven or not; that's God's prerogative. However, if their deeds do not indicate that their heart has been committed to God, then we need to interact with them as if they are not saved.
Weston,
Clarification understood and I am in complete agreement with you.
Thanks for clearing it up.
God bless....
"Well, simply and sincerely accepting a gift has two components, simplicity and sincerity."
That doesn't really explain what it means to accept/receive/believe in Jesus Christ.
What are we believing? what ar we acknowledging?
What is the gift of salvation? What are being saved from? What is sin? What are we being saved from?
Is one man smarter than the other?
Perhaps I didn't phrase the question succinctly enough.
B4B,
You're right. It was never meant to be a comprehensive description of what exactly you are assenting to, when you accept Jesus Christ; there are volumes written on that subject alone, and it wasn't really the original topic, which was, "is faith alone sufficient, or are good works also necessary for salvation?"
However, since I brought up the criminal (Sidebar: why do people always call him the 'thief'? Does it say somewhere that he stole something?) on the cross, I'll point out that the the necessary components are right there in his words.
Luke 23:40
But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.
Here are the components:
1) Accept that you are not innocent. (I avoid using the word 'sin', because it's not a word most people fully understand or use in non-religious conversation.) Realize that you are an imperfect person who cannot remain in the presence of a perfect God. "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve"
2) Understand that Jesus is uniquely qualified to resolve this separation between God and Man. "But this man has done nothing wrong"
3) Ask Jesus to intercede on your behalf. "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom"
The basics are pretty much all right there.
To go into more depth than that would probably warrant a blog post. However, before I put time and effort into that, I need to know your agenda.
Are you:
a) Truly interested in the answer, because you want to know
b) Checking to see if my explanation matches yours.
c) Starting an argument for argument's sake.
d) Some other reason.
Weston,
I was interested in hearing what exactly it is that you believe. These days, just because someone says they are a Christian or 'saved', it is not necessarily true. Much of today's 'evangelicalism' preaches a 'gospel' that is not the Gospel. So I ask.
Scripturally speaking, 'sin' IS the main issue, and the Holy Spirit, who draws men to Christ is not afraid of it. Without that initial drawing there is no salvation, for 'no one seeks God' unless God do a 'first work' to give life to the dead.
To lead someone to Christ without using the word 'sin' has resulted in many, many false conversions where people came to Christ and NEVER dealt with sin at all.
If you remember, 'repent' was recorded as the first word preached by John the Baptist, Jesus when he began His ministry and the Apostles on the streets of Jerusalem on Pentecost.
So I was genujinely interested in what you had to say.
reference your a/b/c/d thing, I guess it would be 'a' (interested in your answer - I already know THE answers to the questions I posed - they are plain in scripture)
You misunderstood my point. My point was not that we should remove the concept of sin from the Gospel message; on the contrary, I believe that it is a very critical part. However, I was suggesting that we refrain from using the word "sin", in order to better communicate the concept of sin. Let me explain.
See, the word "sin" is a "religious word", like "salvation" or "gospel"; people don't use it in normal conversation, only when they are talking about religious topics. We Christians use the word "sin" as a shorthand term and assume that everyone understands what we're talking about. The problem is, they don't.
In reality, the word "sin" is nebulous and hard to define. If you were to walk down the street and ask 100 people to define what it means to sin, you would probably get 100 different answers. A lot of those people would define sin in the context of the 10 commandments, which might be a good start but leaves out all sorts of other behaviours that separate us from God. Ask those same 100 people if they consider themselves sinners, and a good share of them would say no. Why? Because many people think of "being a sinner" as a scale; if the ratio of good deeds that you do outweighs the bad things you do, then you can feel comfortable that you're a "good person." Our society has even gone so far as to pervert the meaning of the word, to the extent that "Sin City" sounds like a fun place to visit, for quite a few people.
So, instead, I chose the words "not innocent" and "imperfect". I'm still conveying the same concept, but it's easier for non-Christians to comprehend. If you were to ask those same 100 people if they were "perfect" people, almost all of them would say "no". If you explain that God requires perfection and that we don't meet that standard, people who don't lie, cheat, and steal and generally regard themselves as "good people", can still comprehend that their selfish thoughts and questionable deeds can still disqualify them from being fit for the company of God.
I did not miss you point. I have been engaging folks in serious discussion about spiritual matters for about 30 now, and it is not necessary to omit the 'S' word, simply put.
"the word "sin" is nebulous and hard to define. If you were to walk down the street and ask 100 people to define what it means to sin, you would probably get 100 different answers."
True, you would get a lot of different answers, but using the word opens the door to provide the Biblical definition. It IS THE issue, aftr all.
"Not innocent' and 'imperfect' actually do NOT convey the same concept - they soften the truth of man's true condition apart from Christ.
It's not just selfish thoughts and questionable deeds (things/works done/not done) that define sin. We sin because we are sinners, through and through - it's who we are apart from Christ - DEAD in sin and objects fit for God's wrath.
Ephesians 2 and Romans 3 are good starting points for the truth about sin.
Then read 1 Cor 15:1-4 to see what exactly Christ died for. To omit the word 'sin' does a great disservice to the Gospel of Christ and in many cases nullifies the seriousness of the message.
When 'sin' and 'repentance' are not spoken of clearly and Biblically, there is half a message at best, and no real message at worst.
Many churches today are like you, they don't use 'sin' or repentance', so they can get folks in the door and entertain them to keep them there. They produce false converts. And to speak honestly about 'sin' later sometime, when they feel 'comfortable' with Jesus is lyhing up front and performing a spiritual 'bait and swith' later.
The whole 'it's a religious' word that might turn someone off is nothing more than one of the enemy's very successful tactics these days to lie to those who most need the truth.
"The whole 'it's a religious' word that might turn someone off is nothing more than one of the enemy's very successful tactics these days to lie to those who most need the truth."
Completely agree...
Hi Weston,
Been following you a bit, and I guess what is bothering me is it sounds like you are willing to compromise and soften the blo so to speak, to try and help people understand sin. I understand your heart here, but is it not our job to understand God's Word to the best of our ability, and then help people conform to Him? What I am hearing is that you are trying to conform God to the people. Sugar coating or making things seem less severe than they truly are is just not a good witness and even lessens what He truly did on the cross.
Hebrew and Greek have different words and meanings, but all sin is violating God's perfect standard, either a standard we can not reach or a line that is deliberately and sometimes unintentionally crossed.
That should be a pretty easy concept to convey. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit and an individuals search. So it sounds more like you are wanting to take the harshness not only out of "sin" but possibly of God's Wrath, and the price He had to pay.
The difference between someone coming up to me and saying "Deb, your imperfect, and not innocent" and "Deb, you have sinned against God" is the difference that will send me to my knees in repentance.
It's our job to know and convey truth, that includes being able to effectively explain sin and and salvation, and the true hopelessness and depth of depravity without Christ.
Deb, if I were to say "Sie haben gesündigt gegen Gott", would that send you to your knees in repentance?
You both still misunderstood what I meant. I am not suggesting that we water down, soften, or in any way alter the Gospel message. What I am suggesting is that we communicate in a language that our target audience understands.
A few years back, a speaker made a point that really opened my eyes to one of the problems that the Church has. I'll attempt to summarize what he said. He spoke about Acts 17, where Paul visits two very different cities. At the first one, Thessalonica, he goes to the synagogue and proclaims that Jesus is the Christ. Later he goes to Athens and presents a very different message. He speaks about the altar to the "Unknown God".
Why did Paul do this? Why did he present one message in one place and another in different place? Because Paul was smart enough to understand his audience. When speaking in the synagogue in Thessalonica, he was speaking to a group of Jews. He could be confident that the people hearing his message already had an understanding of who the one true God was and the prophecy about the Christ. However, when he got to Athens, his audience was drastically different. These people believed in any number of gods. If he had walked in and proclaimed "Jesus is the Christ", everyone would have looked at him and said, "Huh? What's a Christ?" They didn't have the religious background that the Jews did. Paul first had to come to where they were, what they understood, and then go from there. He first had to convince them that there was only one God before he could tell them anything about Jesus.
The problem with the Church in today's day and age is that we preach to people like they are Jews; i.e. we think they already have a foundational understanding of the topics involved. This was true 50 years ago. Back then, it was expected that families would go to church on Sunday. Everyone knew who God was, whether they obeyed him or not. Christian values and teaching were present in government, schools, etc. American society was like the Jews of Thessalonica. And it was OK for churches to present the Gospel with an understanding that people already knew most of the core principles.
That is not the case anymore. Christian teachings have been chased out of American society, such that we have an entire generation or two that have no understanding of the basics like "sin". We are dealing with the Athenians now and churches haven't figured this out. We're still using the same words and methods that we did 50 years ago and wondering why it isn't working. People don't understand. It's like standing on the street corner and preaching the Gospel in the original Hebrew. Sure, it's the pure message of God, but you will have zero success if people don't understand the words you are using.
So many people, if you walked up to them and said, "You have sinned against God", it would not send them to their knees; instead, they are more likely to respond with, "God doesn't exist" and keep walking.
P.S. If you hadn't figured it out, I said "You have sinned against God" in German. Does it have the same effect if you can't understand the words?
Weston: I can see you are locked in, problem is, so am I. When relaying the Word of God, use the Word of God. It is living, and sharper than a two edge sword for a reason. I'm not going to get into a theological debate, but I think you have what is wrong with the church of today.
"Christian teachings have been chased out of American society, such that we have an entire generation or two that have no understanding of the basics like "sin".
Exactly, and yet you want to omit it.
"We're still using the same words and methods that we did 50 years ago and wondering why it isn't working. People don't understand."
Right, I agree, so go back to 2000 years ago the way it was done in the Bible and we'll be making some progress. :) Not alot of warm fuzzy people pleasing back then......
By the way, any foreign teacher that I have ever heard has always had an interpreter. I doubt that would be an issue. But to answer your question, "Sie haben gesündigt gegen Gott" would send me to my knees every time. Sie sind unvollständig und nicht unschuldig would not.
"but I think you have what is wrong with the church of today."
That should read "but I think you have what is wrong with the church today, wrong."
I guess this ends my discussion with you, because if you want to go back 2000 years, then I expect from now on you'll be quoting verses in Hebrew. Unfortunately, I don't understand Hebrew, so I can't have a discussion with you.
How about this: You stand on the street corner and yell at people about how they are sinners. I'll try my "warm fuzzy people pleasing" approach of loving people and meeting them where they are. We'll see which approach is more effective.
Wow Weston, sorry I struck a nerve. Been walking with the Lord since 93 and haven't stood on a street corner yet...although I have walked the streets of Vegas, Reno, Seattle, Juarez and Southern California and ministered to drunks and prostitutes. Never yelled, held them while they wept though when they realized the depth of their sin, repented and turned their lives around.
Going back 2000 years was simply a referral to how Jesus and the apostles taught on the topic. Not that you had to speak Hebrew....
There are some things that are extremely important in your witness to help people see the depth of their depravity. Not understanding the depth of our depravity lessens what He did on the cross and tends to give people a flip attitude regarding their sin.
Look at how Jesus Himself taught on sin. Matthew 15:19-20 "For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man." the parallel passage is given in Mark 7:21-23 "For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man."
Obviously it is extremely important for people to see that sin comes from the heart. It is not accidental or external. People need to comprehend that it's not a thought process or superficial treatment that can heal us.
Then look at John 8:34 "Verily, verily I say unto you, everyone that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin." Serious stuff. Yes there is hope, yes He died and set us free, but first you get across what He freed us from and the evil that He had victory over, then it lifts Christ even higher than we can imagine, and sets the believer on a course of never wanting to return.
Again, sorry you got upset, not my intention. But I have found that when a nerve is struck it means I need to regroup and take a closer look. Oh, and if you ever have the time or inkling to study Hebrew or Greek, it really is worth the time. It gives you a much deeper understanding at a much deeper level. Starting with a word or two here and there isn't too hard to do. Good luck with your endeavors. =)
Sorry for the frustration. I just don't know how many times I have to say "I am not suggesting that we water down, soften, or in any way alter the Gospel message." And yet somehow people read that and somehow conclude that I think we we should not tell people they are sinners. I was just getting very tired of repeating myself. This is the third time I've reiterated my stance and I'm still not certain that it will sink in.
My entire point was not about the concepts of sin and man's condition; I firmly believe they need to remain intact. It's the way those concepts are communicated. Let me repeat that again, in case others are reading and still haven't gotten it. Same message; different words.
This discussion, I believe, has illustrated my point very well. Imagine if I had no prior exposure to Christianity. Can you imagine how confused I would be, just reading these comments?
Here are the questions I would have if I was that person:
Why are Christians so hung up on telling me I'm a "sinner"? Can't they just mind their own business?
What's the difference between a "sinner" and a criminal? Aren't they both just people that break the law?
What does it mean that I'm "dead in sin"? I'm very much alive.
I'm not a bad person, why do you keep saying that I am?
Can I not sin?
If you're telling me that I'm a sinner no matter what I do, then why does it even matter what I do?
If I become a Christian, does that mean I'm not a sinner anymore?
... and it goes on.
Ok, and I understand your stance...really I do. But see what I'm trying to say is yes, we are asked those questions daily, and it is our job to be able to answer them effectively. What I was afraid of is instead of being prepared to answer such questions, you would want to soften the message of the gospel, and what our Lord had to die for in order to "reach" people. That was rubbing me the wrong way...
Sin, as has been explained in this thread very well. Once someone hears the explanation, and says they don't understand, it's to go straight to scripture. Again, we need to know where to flip when that happens. I am NEVER without my Bible...you just never know when God is gonna plop someone in front of you. So here are some examples in reference to your proposed questions:
"Why are Christians so hung up on telling me I'm a "sinner"? Can't they just mind their own business?"
(If they are coming to my blog, a Christian blog, either they would not ask this, or they would get a mile long answer.....I have not problem telling them why they are a sinner, and my blog IS my business =) )
"What's the difference between a "sinner" and a criminal? Aren't they both just people that break the law?"
The difference between a criminal and a sinner is the difference between what we do and who we are....I would go on from there.
"What does it mean that I'm "dead in sin"? I'm very much alive." Good question, I would start with
Ephesians 2:1-5
"1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved." We need to be able to explain these verses.
"I'm not a bad person, why do you keep saying that I am?"
Romans 3:23...we have ALL fallen short, and yes we are not only bad, we are absolutely dead without Christ. What exactly can a dead man do?....there's a conversation starter... =)
"Can I not sin?"
Well you look at verses like Psalm 51:5 "5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." and it sure wouldn't seem like it. His greatest commandment for a believer is to love God with all of our heart, mind and soul. Yet i have not met a Christian yet, myself very included, that has accomplished this for an entire day. Sin. This is a great segway into exactly why we DO need Him so desperately.
"If you're telling me that I'm a sinner no matter what I do, then why does it even matter what I do?"
Great way to lead into the "Yes you are right, there is nothing you can do, it's not about you and what you've done, it's about Christ and what He's done" stuff... =)
"If I become a Christian, does that mean I'm not a sinner anymore?"
Pretty much same as previous question...
I did this because we are called to :
1 Peter 3:15-16 "15but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."
It's really not about how many questions and how long it takes them, it's more about our preparedness to give accurate answers. Sometimes we are going to have to offend someone all the way out of Hell... when eternity away from the Lord is at stake, I really don't mind. =)
Weston,
If our ability to give correct answers is critical, then we need to use the uncomfortable "S" word and know how to explain it. Every one of the questions you went through is answerable from scripture.
Sin IS THE issue and if we don't address the issue we know not the gospel. In 1 Cor 15:1-4, Paul defined (reiterated actually) what exactly is the gospel. There is no such thing as a 'comfortable' gospel. Do you propose we give them a warm fuzzy 'relationship' Jesus, or the Jesus that died for sin, suffering His Father's wrath on their behalf?
When DO you talk about sin? You don't have to be Jewish to understand it. ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.Paul used the term addressing Jews and Gentile alike. There isn't one message for Jews and a different one for everyone else.
Ours is not to omit uncomfortable scriptural terms, but to use them and be able to explain them. The Holy Spirit will use the uncomfortable terms to convict of sin (Holy Spirit JOB) and draw lost souls to Christ.
Yep, I knew it still wouldn't sink in. I'll repeat it one more time: I am not in any way advocating altering the concepts put forth in the Gospel in any way. I'll try one last time to explain myself and then I'm going to throw in the towel.
So I'm a computer programmer for a living. I'm going to assume for the sake of our discussion that you probably are not. I'm going to take a detour into that world for a moment, but, hang in there, there is a point.
Imagine for a moment that I said to you "You need to be using Dependency Injection; It's a much better way of building software!" Now, I'm going to assume that statement means absolutely nothing to you. I can list the benefits of Dependency Injection all day long but it's not going to make one bit of sense to you. In fact, even being a programmer, I didn't understand it the first couple of times I ran across it.
Why? It's because I'm using terminology that you are totally unfamiliar with. At most, you might get out of it that it has something to do with computers and software, but that's probably about it. If you're from a third world country, your first question is probably going to be "What is 'software' and why would I want to build it?"
Do you want to know how I myself first understood the concept of Dependency Injection? I read a book that explained it in terms of knights and quests. It explained that a software component was like a knight and that instead of the knight going and choosing a quest all on his own, Dependency Injection was like a king giving the knight a quest. And suddenly it clicked.
Now, is Dependency Injection really about knights and quests? No, of course not. But it was language and concepts that I could understand and it helped me grasp the real concept. Now that I have a firm understanding of the concept, when I'm around other programmers, I don't have to provide the full definition; I can use the term as shorthand freely and assume that they understand what I mean. However, as soon as I step outside my circle of programmers and start talking to non-programmers, I need to stop using the term immediately, because people won't understand what I'm talking about.
Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this by now. I feel that the word "sin" is a Christian "technical" term. It's fine to use as shorthand within the Christian community, but I'm telling you it's not going to make one bit of sense to people outside that circle. You asked me "When DO you talk about sin?" My answer is "As soon as the person you are talking with understands what that word means."
Earlier, I told you that I was a computer programmer. I made the assumption that you knew what I meant. On the other hand, if you were a member of an isolated tribe in the South American jungle, I would have a much more difficult job trying to explain what I do for a living. I would first have to explain what a computer was before I could explain what I did with it.
However, I'm still going to attempt to get the concept across accurately with whatever words and concepts they do understand, which is what you are trying to suggest that I am not doing. You're saying that I'm "omitting" sin from the discussion. I've tried to convince you (repeatedly) that is not what I'm suggesting. This has nothing to do with making it "comfortable" for people; it's about making sure they actually understand.
This entire discussion has stemmed from the fact that I simply chose not to use the word "sin" directly because I'm not certain who my audience is and I don't know if they understand the concept behind that word. I'm very tired of being chastised for for trying to strive for as much clarity as I can.
Weston,
You are doing a great job explaining yourself. I think that you have made the following points pretty clear.
1.) You are in no way intersted in altering the Gospel...
2.) The Gospel, without altering it's message, should be delivered in a way that the audience is going to understand it.
I liked your examples of Paul and how he delivered the same message differently depending on his audience....
God bless...
You admittedly do not use the 'sin' word. You do use words phrases that do not carry the 'weight' that 'sin' carries. I am not saying you omit sin from the discussion. What I am saying is that there is NO reason not to use biblical words/terminology.I am also not saying that the first words out of your mouth must have in them 'sin'. All I am slaying is that if we say we share THE GOSPEL, we do need to, at some point explain scriptutal concepts in biblical terms, with biblical meanings.
I do not understand WHY s many these days are afraid to use them. other than they don't really know the true scriptural Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit to draw men to Christ.
This is not personal in any way.
I guess I will try again...I am just saying that we do not need to be afraid to use the topics of sin, judgment, hell, and God's wrath against sin. We can use scriptural topics with scriptural terms. We don't need to use different words for sin, but can use 'sin' and they will understand it.
Hey Weston, hope just checkin' in on ya....you didn't expect to have a blog called "tough topics" without some major discussion did ya???? ;-)
Hope you understand what we're trying to say, and that you will see it is just iron sharpening iron... =)
I've pretty much abandoned this particular topic, because there really can't be a resolution. I think that sin is a word that non-Christians don't understand and you think that they will understand it just fine.
Realistically, neither of us is qualified to make that call, as neither of us are non-Christians. Until we can get an opinion from someone who hasn't been thoroughly indoctrinated in Christian theology, then we really can't say either way.
Personally, I feel that, in today's culture, approaching someone about their sin only comes after a lot of other ground has been covered. i.e. You first have to establish God exists with many people, before you can even begin to talk about sin.
Romans 1 might cause you to change your mind about having to prove God exists.
And again, sin is something anyone can grasp and needs not be avoided. that people are uncomfortable with the term only proves that.
It has nothing to do with being 'theologically indoctrinated', and everything to do with reading the text on the pages of scripture and taking it for what it says.
Perhaps we ned to step back a minute and discuss the question, what is the 'gift' that we accept and trust in?
Did Jesus die to nmake salvation possible contingent upon a person exercising unencumbered free will, or is there more to it than that?
Romans 1 might cause you to change your mind about having to prove God exists.
I read it, and, no, it did not change my mind. Can you tell me how Romans 1 is going to make an Atheist suddenly acknowledge the existence of God?
You didn't make any point other than to direct me at an entire chapter, so I'm going to have to guess at your meaning. I'm going to assume that you're referring to Romans 1:19-20: "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
You are referring to what is called "General Revelation" in theological circles. The idea that God has revealed himself through his creation. You are correct; one can learn a lot about God through the world around us. The problem (and this problem that did not exist back when Paul wrote Romans) is that our society has come up with a way (Evolution, etc) to explain the world around us, that does not require the existence of God. All of His works are now being attributed to other forces. So, I repeat, in today's society you do need to establish the existence of God before you can go any further.
And again, sin is something anyone can grasp and needs not be avoided. that people are uncomfortable with the term only proves that.
I've never said anything about being uncomfortable; my concern has always been that people understand the words that I use. And I still disagree with you. You try arguing the concept of sin with an Atheist. From their point of view, how can you "sin" against someone who doesn't exist? Sin only makes sense in the context of a religion with a central authority such as God. It might be understood by Jews, Muslims, and Mormons because those religions include a central authority figure, but it has no meaning for Atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc.
It has nothing to do with being 'theologically indoctrinated', and everything to do with reading the text on the pages of scripture and taking it for what it says.
Absolute baloney. To say that someone can simply read it and "take it for what it says" is ridiculously naive. To imply that everyone who reads the Bible should arrive at the same conclusions because it is "so clear", is to not understand the reality of the book that we are dealing with. The Bible is words on paper that were written down thousands of years ago by multiple different writers with different agendas and writing styles. Written communication by itself is extremely easy to misinterpret because it lacks context, facial expression, tone of voice, etc. Then add into that the fact that it has been translated into multiple languages, and, for some languages, multiple different versions and paraphrases, and you arrive at a book that has puzzled great minds for centuries.
Anyone who reads the Bible will come away with a personal interpretation of what it says. However, it is not guaranteed that that interpretation is correct. It is entirely possible to come away with a faulty interpretation. In fact, this has happened many, many times since the day the words were first written down. This has given rise to incorrect church teachings, cults, and heretics.
It is ironic to me that you keep harping on the idea that the Bible is "crystal clear" and yet still consistently misunderstand the points that I'm going out of my way to make perfectly clear to you.
Perhaps we ned to step back a minute and discuss the question, what is the 'gift' that we accept and trust in?
Did Jesus die to nmake salvation possible contingent upon a person exercising unencumbered free will, or is there more to it than that?
I have no idea what you're getting at here. If you want to discuss something, please state your perspective and we can go from there.
Earlier on you stated that salvation was about simple acceptance, in sincerity, the 'gift' of salvation. I asked at one point or another, what does that mean - what is this 'gift' we are accepting and what does it mean to 'accept' that gift?
There are those who believe that it means mentally assenting to certain things about Christ, that Christ died for sin and we just need to 'accept' that of our own unencumbered free will after analysing things and 'deciding' we want in on the deal.
Othere maintain that it is more than just mentally accepting certain facts about Christ. It means confronting our sinful,lost, hopeless condition apart from Christ, repenting (turning away) from sin as part of believing and trusting in Christ's atoning, substitutionary sacrifice for sin.
What is salvation? What does it mean? Is it just about a better life here and now, just about our eternal destiny, is it about both?
A companion question: What is sin? What we do or don't do, or is there more to it than that. No matter what you call it, sin IS the central issue in the matter of salvation. After all, Christ died for OUR SIN, as Paul taught.
At no time did I say or imply that all of scripture is 'crystal clear'. Some of it is, though.
Since you said this is a place to discuss tough questions, I thought you understood the question. Mu apologies.
Wow, there's a lot covered here in this blog post and subsequent comments! This is a good discussion, and one that I think is very relevant in today's culture.
I am a Christian, and I have known Weston for many years. I can assure you both, B4B and triednotfried, that you have really misunderstood him quite a lot of the time. I just wanted to bring up one question; forgive me for not doing my own research, but does anyone know when the original Greek and Hebrew were translated into English?
It would be interesting to look back in history and determine who came up with the English word "sin". It was thought up well after the concept of sin came to be, this I know for sure. "Sin" is specifically not a word that was used in the original language of the Bible. It can't have been... that specific word didn't exist yet. It's a concept, just like the word "rapture" is a concept. (Wes, just a note to you for a possible next blog post; perhaps we could discuss pre-trib, post-trib rapture viewpoints?) The word "rapture" is never used in the Bible, but the concept (to be "caught up" with Christ) is explained.
B4B and triednotfried, while the two of you have some very good points that I would not argue, I think you are missing Wes' point. I'm a little disappointed that the blog turned from the true topic of the original post to a discussion about words. It is a fact that there are different languages spoken all over the world, is it not? Why do we even have language? It's not for the purpose of just speaking to each other, but for understanding each other, for understanding concepts, right? Sin is a concept. There are many concepts in the Bible, and they all have to be studied and understood. Some are easier than others, but some take some time. Isn't this why we even have sermons that we go and listen to? We support a man (in my case, a pastor) to spend his life studying the Bible as much as he can so that he can help us to understand the concepts of the Bible better and better as we grow in our relationship with God. I don't know about you two, but my pastor uses different word pictures and illustrations all the time to explain the Bible. Is he watering down God's message? No! He's making it relevant to his audience.
I think all Weston is saying here is that, unfortunately, there are many people in today's society that don't understand the concept of sin, and it needs to be explained. This is evident in the use of the word in today's culture. Sin City is an example that was already brought up, I've also heard people use the word "sinful" to describe something that tasted really, really good. Do you think that person understands the concept of sin? As a follower of Christ, I would never use the word "sin" to describe something as being fun or tasting good. But that's because I understand the concept.
I think that today's culture is lukewarm, at best, to the word sin. Why would you deny taking the time to explain the concept of sin to an unbeliever? That just seems absurd to me.
I also just wanted to point out that God's message is one of love. There was discussion on this topic. God is gracious and merciful, giving us things we don't deserve (salvation and other blessings in life) and not giving us what we do deserve (eternal damnation). We all know John 3:16, "For God so LOVED the world..." I do understand and think it's important for others to understand WHY God had to give His only Son, because He is perfect and Holy, and we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Adam and Even gave into the temptation of Satan and thus, man fell. This caused a separation from God. But because He LOVED us so much, He presented a sacrifice that would make it possible for us to have a relationship with Him once again. We just have to admit that the gap exists and that Jesus' sacrifice is the bridge that closes that gap. (Look, I just explained the Gospel without using the word sin!)
That sounds like a message of Love to me. Yes, God has the emotions of anger and wrath, but He does not hate one single person on this earth. While we need to understand our separation from God, and what that means, we also need to be sure to explain the message of Love that the Gospel is. For Weston to say that he simply wants to make sure that everyone is able to understand that message clearly, which may mean he has to take to explain the concept of sin, well, I think that's exactly what God would want him to do.
This has never been about just 'words' - I am not talking about that. I am talking about understanding what 'sin' means scripturally and the need to convey that clearly, along with God's answer in Christ and His death and propitiation or our sin.
The 'word' that I am most concernied with in this post is 'accept'. I just wanted to know what Weston meant by 'accepting' Christ. He never really defined that, I don't think. He did talk about 'simple' and 'sincere' acceptance, but what does that mean?
What is it that we are accepting? What is the gift? What is salvation?
Those are questions we as believers need to understand biblically and explain biblically. In matters of salvation 'sin' is the issue, the reason we come to Christ, and there are thousands 'coming for Christ' for all the wrong reasons in today's upsidedown evangelism that says it's all about having a better life.
I like Weston and am just trying to present some of the same challenges I have met and dealt with over the years.
"but does anyone know when the original Greek and Hebrew were translated into English? "
Early in the 9th Century is when it was translated I believe but in the Bible the Hebrew word is "het" meaning to err or to miss the mark. In the Greek in is "hamartia"...again to miss the mark....there are 6 nouns and 3 verbs that describe sin: raah, used more than 600 times translated as evil or bad, chattaah used 300 times translated as sin or offense, rasha, used 250 times translated as wicked...avon used more than 200 times, translated as iniquity, pesha used more than 100 times translated as transgression, asham, used more than 30 times, translated as guilty, taah, meaning to stray deceive, or dissemble...pasha meaning to trespass apostatize offend, rebel or transgress, and shagah, to stray mistake, deceive, err or sin through ignorance.
In the Greek there is hamartia, 174 times or so meaning to sin, offence...paraptoma 23 times meaning lapse, deviation, fall offence... prarbasis meaning breaking or transgression...asebeia meaning wickedness, or ungodly, and harmartema meaning, sin.
To say that sin is nothing more than a concept is to be very mis-informed and simply not true.
Please point out to me where I said "sin is nothing more than a concept." I said it is a concept that people need to understand, but I never said it was nothing more than a concept.
""Sin" is specifically not a word that was used in the original language of the Bible. It can't have been... that specific word didn't exist yet. It's a concept, just like the word "rapture" is a concept."
You also stated here that it is specifically not a word that was used in the original language.
"hamartia", "harmartema" & "shaga" most certainly are.
With all of the references listed above referring to sin, I cannot imagine proclaiming God's truth without using the word.
Triednotfried, I think you are completely misunderstanding me. That's okay, you don't know me from Adam, so perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly. The funny thing to me, is that I agree with you, and you are talking to me like I don't. Maybe I shouldn't use the word "concept", because I think you think that I'm saying it's just someone's idea and it's debatable whether it exists or not. I don't think that sin is "just" a concept, it absolutely exists. You pointed out that there are other words for sin that mean the same thing. By doing that you proved my point. I never once stated or would state that I think we can leave the issue of the reason for our separation from God out of the Gospel message.
All I was trying to point out is that sin is not something that is completely understood by today's society, that the word is used in a wrong way a lot of times by a lot of people, and it needs further explanation for those that are lost that don't understand it. When I was in elementary school, I learned that when you are defining a word you can't use the defined word in the definition. If you come back at me and tell me that I'm wrong, again, then I think you're just debating for the sake of debate. I am not saying that I don't agree with you, I'm telling you that I don't think you understand what I'm saying. :-)
" I never once stated or would state that I think we can leave the issue of the reason for our separation from God out of the Gospel message."
"and it needs further explanation for those that are lost that don't understand it."
Finally, it only took 36 comments for someone to reiterate what B4B and I have been trying to say for 36 comments. I personally, will never leave sin, or the issue of sin out of the gospel message. If further explanation is need, I will gladly go into it...
Weston's August 14th, 3:21 PM entry is where the disagreement began I believe. Explaining the concept of sin is fine, but call it what it is. It's not a "religious" word...it's scripture...
That's all I was trying to say...welcome to the internet... LOL =)
The 'seeker friendly' paradigm doesn't allow us to use words that make people feel 'uncomfortable' so as not to discourage the 'seeker'.
The Bible tells us that apart from Christ 'no one seeks God' (Rom 11:3; Psalm 14).
There are two sorts of people in the group that make up what we term the 'lost' (those who have not trusted in Christ for salvation); those in whom the Holy Spirit has not begun a work of drawing them to Christ and those in whom the Holy Spirit has begun a work, giving life to a spiritually dead man (and object of God's wrath - Eph 2).
If we are sharing with a person in the former category, 'uncomfortable' words are still uncomfortable, but the Holy Spirit is not afraid of them and uses them to bring conviction of sin and repentance, which are both inherent in believing/trusting in Christ for salvation.
The one in whom God has not done a work will not only find 'relogious'terms (as Weston puts it) uncomfortable, but might be chased away by them. therefore we make uncomfortable terms/concepts more comfortable - we take the sting out of them, so the one whom we desire to reach with the gospel doesn't go away so we can continue to draw then to Calvary.
That's where we make a mistake. Only God can draw them (John 6:44,65). Ours is to deliver the message, and if the message is uncomfortable on its face (the gospel IS an offense to the unbeliever), we are wrong to make it less offensive/comfortable.
In truth, it is an uncomfortable message to anyone apart from Christ. It is not meant to be 'comfortable'. When we intentionally make it comfortable message we have somehow demeaned it and are not being scripturally honest. We do not intentionally make it uncomfortable either. We tell it like it is - tell the truth in love.
The one who is being drawn to Christ by God (John 6:44) will of course find it uncomfotable and convicting - at first. When it sinks in and that one realizes how desperate he/she is (destined to an eternity in Hell) he/she will run to the Cross and find the greatest 'comfort' on earth. that might not happen when we personally speak to him/her, but if God is drawing, that person WILL come to the cross at some point. (John 6)
That's the power of grace!
I hope that helps in understanding what I have been trying to say.
This is Frank & Kara again, using my blog as our ID instead of my Google Account.
B4B, I agree with what you are saying, but I also think that there is merit in determining a "happy medium" between standing back and saying nothing at all, and standing on the street corners with huge signs that say things like "God hates sinners". Hopefully you caught that... God does NOT hate sinners, God hates SIN. Living where I live, I see these men standing downtown and on college campuses all over proclaiming a message of damnation and hell and completely leaving out the message of God's love. You need both sides of the message for it to be effective.
Now, I'm not saying that you are in this group, the group that stands on the street corner shouting out only the verses in the Bible that tell of God's anger, what I am wondering is just how you go about God's call to bring the lost to salvation. I'm genuinely interested, I'm not asking to set you up for an argument, it's just to have a discussion about what is effective and what isn't effective. I know that we both agree that it is God's Word and the Holy Spirit that do the real work. I even think that even though I would never be the one holding a sign and shouting out a message of hellfire, that the Holy Spirit CAN use that to bring someone to Christ. But it would not be my chosen approach.
For me, there are two ways that I present the Gospel message to people. If I am standing on a street somewhere, you won't find me holding a sign, but you will find me holding my Bible and some literature that fully explains the message of the Gospel (more commonly known as tracks). My first question to them isn't "do you know you are going to hell?" or "do you know that you are a sinner?" I would take the time to introduce myself and make some small talk, I would hand them a track and tell them what it's about, and I would ask them what they know about God and if they knew where they would go when they die. That's usually pretty effective. I am shocked at how many people don't think about life after death.
*continued in next comment*
My other approach is for people that I deal with on a day to day basis, say people that I work with. First of all, I try to live as an example, as any good Christian would. When I do slip up, I am quick to admit my faults, which is not so common these days! That usually intrigues people. Next, I start talking about how God has provided for me, or I talk about a sermon in church that I thought was particularly convicting. Then, I will ask whoever my "target" is out to lunch. It's there that I present all of the same questions as I stated above and have a really good conversation with whoever that is. There is one girl in particular at work that was basically an atheist, but she has told me that I have changed her mind about Christians. She "hated" them before and said that we were all the same (what Christian hasn't heard that before?) I think the biggest thing that strikes the people that I work with is that I am willing to spend time with them even though they aren't Christians. I have been told so many times by so many lost people that they have been written off by a Christian for not having the same beliefs. I think that is really sad.
I will say that in my endeavors I have found something to be true that Wes mentioned earlier... and it's the thing I've been trying to point out as well. People don't understand the concept of being a sinner. It somehow get's through to most people that "nobody's perfect" or "I'm only human", but just like Wes said:
"Ask those same 100 people if they consider themselves sinners, and a good share of them would say no. Why? Because many people think of "being a sinner" as a scale; if the ratio of good deeds that you do outweighs the bad things you do, then you can feel comfortable that you're a "good person.""
So many times when I ask people if I think they are going to Heaven they say, "I would think so, I haven't done anything too bad." And this is why I think that it is better to approach someone, with the same sharp double edged sword (God's Word) that the people standing on the street corners do, but in a different way. I'm not saying "make the message more comfortable", and neither was Wes. We're saying "make the message understandable to them."
"You need both sides of the message for it to be effective."
That would be the "truth in love" approach.....:).....and I wholeheartedly agree!
The 'word' that I am most concernied with in this post is 'accept'. I just wanted to know what Weston meant by 'accepting' Christ. He never really defined that, I don't think. He did talk about 'simple' and 'sincere' acceptance, but what does that mean?
I thought I had covered that in a comment #8 where I outlined the three components necessary. If you feel that you need more explanation, you're welcome to describe your own thoughts on the matter and we can discuss it further. You've described in generic terms how different groups of people might view it, but you haven't given us your personal point of view. If you don't pick a position, it's very difficult to write a response because I can't tell whether I should be agreeing or disagreeing with you.
By the way, stay tuned; I'm taking this concept of "seeker friendly" to its own blog post soon.
My personal view is irrelevant. What scripture teaches us is what matters. I offered a lot of scripture to that end, which incidentially my 'personal' position.
You did give us three components that I believe shortchange the depth and breadth the true gospel message.
To say that we are not perfect or not innocent does not adequately the biblical concept of sin as who we are, not just what we do.
Realizing that Jesus is able to take care of the situation of being separated from God does not come close to describing the nature of the atonement of Christ.
Then to 'ask Jesus to intercede on our behalf' is subsequently far short of describing what it means to believe in/trust in Christ.
Begin with an incomplete definition of 'sin', in whatever words you want, and it's a downhill slide from there.
B4B, I'm not interested in playing your little game any more. I'm not going to stumble around in the dark and spend tons of time and effort trying come up with an answer that finally pleases you. Debates like these are a two way street; if I'm going to put effort into it, I'm going to expect that you do the same. Instead, you're trying to play this like I'm the student and you're the teacher. By doing this, you aren't adding anything of substance or value to this discussion.
My personal view is irrelevant. What scripture teaches us is what matters. I offered a lot of scripture to that end, which incidentially my 'personal' position.
Scripture is written word. It doesn't become truth until it is read and interpreted. That interpretation is a personal opinion. To think that there is some sort of "universal" interpretation that is does not rely on individual interpretation is naive. We only get close to that when the interpretations of many individuals all agree; then we can be fairly certain that we've hit upon a real truth. So, when I ask for your position, I'm asking for your interpretation of the Bible in order to see if it matches up with my interpretation. If we can agree on our interpretations, we're closer to discovering the truth.
You did give us three components that I believe shortchange the depth and breadth the true gospel message.
I can fully accept that my three-bullet-point summary may not have fully covered a subject about which large volumes of information that have been written. However, you have told me nothing about what you feel has been omitted. You've got to support your statements with some sort of rationale or reason, otherwise it's just empty criticism.
To say that we are not perfect or not innocent does not adequately the biblical concept of sin as who we are, not just what we do.
Again, a statement with no supporting rationale.
I said, "Accept that you are not innocent. Realize that you are an imperfect person who cannot remain in the presence of a perfect God." I don't see anywhere in that statement where it implies that sin consists of your actions. In fact, I didn't address at all how you got to that state, only that it is your current state. Does it really matter whether you were created as a sinner or your actions make you a sinner if the end result is the same? In fact, I would argue that describing sin as a direct result of your own actions is much more likely to convince people to take personal responsibility for their sin. After all, why should you feel guilt over something you have absolutely no power over? If you are created as a sinner, and nothing you can ever do can ever change it, and this is true for all humanity, why should you feel like it is your fault? Shouldn't you go through life angry at Adam and Eve, because it was their fault that you're a sinner? If you are a sinner simply because you are a member of the human race, why should you feel any personal responsibility?
Realizing that Jesus is able to take care of the situation of being separated from God does not come close to describing the nature of the atonement of Christ.
And what exactly do you feel would come close to describing the nature of the atonement of Christ? Come on, at least make an effort to support your statements.
Then to 'ask Jesus to intercede on our behalf' is subsequently far short of describing what it means to believe in/trust in Christ.
"Far short"? Sure, I'll accept that. How about you try and take a stab at describing "what it means to believe in/trust in Christ" in 3 sentences or less. Do I then get to smugly criticize you for falling "far short"?
Begin with an incomplete definition of 'sin', in whatever words you want, and it's a downhill slide from there.
You have not even attempted to support and prove your point, so I reject your conclusion.
"You have not even attempted to support and prove your point,"
Absolute nonesense. Did I not give you scripture that, when combined with the indwelling Holy Spirit, is sufficient unto itself to teach you what it says unfilterd by personal opinion?
Oh wait......you just said...
"Scripture is written word. It doesn't become truth until it is read and interpreted."
...that in essence, the words on the pages of scripture are insufficient to proclaim truth clearly until it's filtered by personal reading and interpretation, which means that the Bible lies to us, at least in what it says about itself. Check it out in.....the Bible. You have computer skills so I won't belabor you with any of the many passages that contradict you. You might hit me with the teacher/student thing again.
If it appears that way to you, then it might be true...perception can be reality, you know. I didn't intentionally design our conversation that way. Even if I did, it would have been biblical, since we older (in the faith) fellows are encouraged help younger fellows grow. You can look that up too.
At least I am no longer confused about WHY you kept asking for my personal viewpoint rather than just let scripture teach you. We mere 'imperfect' mortals NEED to interpret scripture inspirerd by God (who perfectly inspired the witten word - for Him to have done otherwise would have been out of character)or we can't find truth.
Therefore I owe you a profound apology for my false assumption that you would consider what has been written sufficient to speak for itself!
Since our views concerning scripture are polar opposites (or nearly so), and I am not going to change mine,lest I disagree with God, I think we might be done here.
Weston, your last comment brought me back to a study of absolute truth we did. More specifically, when you said this:
"Scripture is written word. It doesn't become truth until it is read and interpreted. That interpretation is a personal opinion. To think that there is some sort of "universal" interpretation that does not rely on individual interpretation is naive. We only get close to that when the interpretations of many individuals all agree; then we can be fairly certain that we've hit upon a real truth. So, when I ask for your position, I'm asking for your interpretation of the Bible in order to see if it matches up with my interpretation. If we can agree on our interpretations, we're closer to discovering the truth."
My take on what you were saying is that there is absolute truth, but it's not always easy to determine. Am I understanding you? Because there are many groups that get together and totally misinterpret the Bible and take things out of scriptural context and come up with their own version of truth. So much so that we have things like the Book of Mormon, etc.
I personally think there are many people out there that try to fit the Bible into the world instead of the other way around, and that's why there are SO MANY different interpretations. Would you agree with that statement? Maybe I'm teetering on the edge of a separate blog post?
B4B, I don't appreciate your attitude on this blog. Weston is a brother in Christ to you, and it seems like you continually challenge him just to make yourself feel better or more knowledgeable. You may be older than him (I have no idea, but you did make reference to being older in the faith) but you still need to be respectful. You've taken a lot of time to point out how much head knowledge of the scriptures you have, but you are not at all applying it and respecting how he has set up his own blog. Weston is not trying to point out flaws in the Bible or the Gospel, or in God. You act like he's trying to prove God wrong when really he's seeking to understand God better and have some good (respectful!) debate at the same time. We're all adults here, let's not put each other down and make this a frustrating conversation.
"B4B.I don't appreciate your attitude on this blog. Weston is a brother in Christ to you, and it seems like you continually challenge him just to make yourself feel better or more knowledgeable."
So Weston nails me for not having a personal opinion and trying to provide challenges from scripture (the Berean principle), and now I get nailed for a bad attitude and trying to "show off" or something.
Thanks for the judgment call (the insertion of the word "seems", doesn't take the judgmentalism of words preceding it).
It's a sad day in Cristendom when suggesting that scripture might mean what is says (when/where it IS really clear) is called a bad attitude/divisive/unkind.
That's why I'm outta here, folks. The Berean principle is not in fashion here, which is all I ask.
Just to be clear B4B, it is statements like this:
"Check it out in.....the Bible. You have computer skills so I won't belabor you with any of the many passages that contradict you. You might hit me with the teacher/student thing again.
If it appears that way to you, then it might be true...perception can be reality, you know. I didn't intentionally design our conversation that way. Even if I did, it would have been biblical, since we older (in the faith) fellows are encouraged help younger fellows grow. You can look that up too."
that I was referring to. Carlus and I have both asked Weston to further clarify his point without disrespecting him. It's one thing to disagree and debate, it's quite another to be rude. Yes, that is a judgement call. We are allowed to pass judgement in certain circumstances, are we not? Matthew 7 talks about judgement, and from what I gather we are to be careful about passing judgement, but it is acceptable to do so. Perhaps because I know Weston personally I am more able to understand that he's not being rude. And in my judgement call of your rudeness I said "seems" because it does seems that way, but I could be wrong. Again, I don't know you besides our interaction on here, and written communication is very difficult to understand at times. Honestly if any unsaved soul were to wander onto this comment string he or she would not see at all how we are supposed to be treating each other.
I could see where you were going with the Berean principal statement, but the problem here is, B4B, that you are not speaking "the truth in love", which is something you said was important to you. I'm not saying "B4B, you are completely 100% wrong, now leave here and let us have things our way", I'm saying, show a little love and respect. You stated you believe you are the more mature Christian, and I'm simply asking for you to display that here.
B4B, both you and Kara have demonstrated my point very effectively. I wrote a bunch of words in my comments. Both of you read them and came up with an interpretation of what I meant. Now, there is a "truth" in this situation; the "truth" is what I really meant by what I wrote, i.e. the message I was trying to get across I wrote the words. I know what that is, but both of you do not, because you don't live in my head. So you have to read my words and interpret them in the context of your own life experience, what you know about me, your prejudices, your own beliefs, your mood, etc. The interesting thing is that you both came up with drastically different understandings of what I meant. One of you understood what I meant, the other one did not. How can this be? You both read the exact same words, yet your interpretations were different!
Now, what would you do if I wasn't right here, in the mix, trying to clarify my statements? Whose interpretation is correct? They can't both be correct, because they are opposed. What you might do is enlist the help of additional people. You could ask them to read the words I wrote and tell you what they think I meant. They're either going to agree with one of you or come up with their own, completely different interpretation. After this goes on for a while, eventually a consensus will emerge. Hopefully this consensus is accurate; hopefully it matches up with what I meant when I wrote the words.
I said, "Scripture is written word. It doesn't become truth until it is read and interpreted." I stand by my statement. If I ship my own personal English Bible over to China, it, by itself, will teach them absolutely no truth. In order for truth to be understood, your brain must recognize the symbols on the page in order to form words in your brain, your brain then assembles those words into sentences, those sentences are then interpreted to form concepts, those concepts are merged into your own understanding, and then finally you understand them as truth. The crucial moment in that sequence is the point where sentences are interpreted into concepts. B4B seems to think that, given a set of written words in the Bible, everyone will arrive at the same exact conclusion, that the words will "speak for themselves". I maintain that, while it can happen that people simultaneously arrive at the same interpretation, more often, it does not. That's why we debate topics like this. We throw our conclusions on the table, compare them, examine them critically, absorb different interpretations from other people, and then finally arrive at what we believe is the truth.
(continued in next comment)
I was listening to a podcast recently where the preacher was speaking on the topic of the Trinity and how it is important to believe in this concept. He talked about how the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity. At the center of this debate was John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Now, we quote this verse as support for the Trinity, the Jehovah's Witnesses use the exact same verse to refute the Trinity! How can that happen? How can two different groups of people arrive at a wildly different conclusion? Shouldn't the Bible be "sufficient to speak for itself"? Now, in this particular case, the disagreement boils down to a single letter. In the Jehovah's Witness Bible, this verse reads slightly differently: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God. Small change, but drastically different meaning.
After listening to this message, I began thinking about John 1:1. Now, in my understanding, the "Word", that is referred to, is Jesus. I think that's probably the commonly accepted interpretation. But I wondered, where did I get that from? John doesn't specifically say in the Bible, "For all those of you who were wondering, when I say, 'The Word' I really mean Jesus." He leaves it to us to figure out. In order to get at the real truth, we have to interpret his words.
I wholeheartedly agree. There is 'interpretation' going on. However, your statement that "Scripture is written word. It doesn't become truth until it is read and interpreted.", taken literally, is absolute nonesense!
Scripture IS truth, interpretation means finding the truth within. Do you see the point? Our 'consensus' is what truth is? It might be, if what we think is truth IS the truth presented on the written pages.
Take your John 1:1 example.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
How do I know this was about Jesus? Do I take the words off the page, gather some friends and get a consensus? Of course not. All I have to do is read more of the chapter to find verse 1 explained to me in mofre than sufficient detail for me to know it's about Jesus! You can't read the words themselves and come up with somethng else!
Was there some level of interpretation? Yes! Verse 1 was interpreted by the verses that followed. If I believe Noah Webster's definition of 'interpret', I didn't interpret anything! Scripture intepreted itself for me.
Are there cases where scripture doesn't interpret itself fully to the human mind? Of course there are. I never said there aren't.
What you describe in your 'human consensus' model of finding ‘truth’ is absolute nonesense, although a widely held opinion these days. There might be universal ‘applications’ of the truth present in what is written, there might even be slightly different, but complimentary applications of the truth presented, Truth and the application of same are two different thing.
The truth is already IN scripture. What we decide is truth might be on target, or it might not.
I was hoping I misunderstood your “scripture isn’t truth until we interpret it” statement, but you said it twice and specifically affirmed that you meant it. I am still hoping.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, you might need some thicker skin. I wasn't coming back here, but if I am personally spoken to, I should reply.
B4B, again, it's one thing to debate with someone, quite another to be rude. Everyone else has been civil from what I can see.
Also, not that I'm trying to be snarky, but I was an English major for a couple years in college and I hate to see someone misspell something over and over. "Nonesense" is not a word. I believe you mean nonsense.
Is it time for the next topic?
Unbelievable. Just been sitting back and watching this unfold...all I can do is shake my head.
"B4B, again, it's one thing to debate with someone, quite another to be rude. Everyone else has been civil from what I can see.
Also, not that I'm trying to be snarky, but I was an English major for a couple years in college and I hate to see someone misspell something over and over. "Nonesense" is not a word. I believe you mean nonsense.
Is it time for the next topic?"
Was this really necessary at all? Can we get past the Jr. High level please?
If you want to get technical this statement right here ""Scripture is written word. It doesn't become truth until it is read and interpreted."
pretty much says it all. There is alot of learning that needs to happen Weston and TheKry before you try and teach others. I think the first thing would be to learn what God's Word actually is and how it should be used. Amazing...
Good luck in your endeavors...try to practice a little of what you preach there Kry.
My correcting B4B's English was probably not necessary, you're right, triednotfriend. I do apologize for that coming off the way it did. I was not trying to demean or put down, but I understand how that could come off.
I, personally, am not trying to teach anyone. I'm trying to have a discussion, and I was trying to stop some of the back and forth bickering that I perceived. I suppose in my last comment my frustration showed through. This is no longer really a debate, it seems more like everyone trying to prove who knows more. That's frustrating to me.
When you said this:
"I think the first thing would be to learn what God's Word actually is and how it should be used. Amazing..."
That really offends me, personally. I understand you not agreeing with Weston, and that's fine. If you read through carefully my posts you see that I actually agree with pretty much everything you and B4B stated. If there is something I, personally have said that would make either of you think that I don't know what God's Word is and how to use it, then please, by all means call me out. No one has commented to me directly about anything since last weekend. All I've been trying to say is that I don't think either one of you are understanding what Weston is saying. I guess if you really want to get a picture of my true heart then I would ask that you stop by my blog. You probably won't have much to argue with there.
I just want to be clear here; I believe that the Bible is the absolute and final authority here on earth. I believe it is God's inspired Word, it speaks for itself, it can be interpreted in the right way with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps I'm not cut out for this type of blog. I really did not mean to offend anyone. When I asked if it was time for the next topic, I genuinely was asking, can we move on from this? It seems B4B and Weston are just going around in circles.
Let's all look at the bright side here... we live in a country where we can discuss our belief in God openly. There are many Christians that don't have that luxury. We're all getting caught up in emotions and pride, when really, we're supposed to be acting like a family. I guess I'm talking to all of us when I ask, can we please stop this bickering and move on? Is it really worth it? I mean, really, is it? Maybe I'm getting caught up in the fact that today is the 8th anniversary of a wretched day in the history of America. But seriously, isn't it arguments like this that really turn people off from Christianity in the first place? I guess I'm disappointed in all of us here, myself included.
kry,
Shame on me for the spello. 50 pushups in 2 sets of 25 for me!
maybe your nextime you could include something substantive and scripturally sound to contribute instead of acting like Weston is little brother and I'm the big bad bully? Please?
Hmmm... yeah, I'm definitely not cut out for this. My apologies for interfering.
I had not intended to respond to this thread and instead let it rest and focus my efforts on a new topic an a new blog article. But now I'm genuinely upset. You can criticize me, you can call me names, or whatever; I can take it just as well as I can dish it out. But I will not stand for someone chasing people away from my blog through insults and rudeness.
B4B, please make good on your promise and go away. This is the second blog that I know of that you've caused trouble on. Apparently so much that the author had to institute formal ground rules. It is obvious you are not interested in open discussion and an exchange of sometimes conflicting ideas, but rather you seek to force your point of view on anyone who shows even the slightest hint at disagreement with your beliefs and ideals. I am hereby admitting defeat; You are so close-minded that it's going to take someone with a lot more patience that I to get through to you.
triednotfried, I was disappointed by your last post. You provided so much useful information in your previous posts about the Greek and Hebrew words for sin, that I was really appreciating your presence here. But by belittling the knowledge of both me and thekrywickis you undid much of my respect for you. You could have at the very least told us why you felt that way. At least tell us what you felt we're missing. At least that would have been useful. But it doesn't take very much thought or effort to simply tell someone that they're wrong; any grade-school kid can do that. It takes some intelligence to come up with a well thought out reason why you think they are wrong. I truly believe you have that intelligence, but your knee-jerk reactions are getting the best of you.
Let me clarify something that I stated in my very first blog post that seems to be misunderstood. This is not a teaching blog. I'm not trying to teach anyone anything. I'm not here to reiterate the same thing you hear in church every Sunday. If you want to hear that, go to church. This is a discussion blog. My intent is to pull apart the very core concepts of Christianity, look at the guts, and attempt to verify what is real and what is not. This means that, at times, I'm going to propose some radical ideas. This means that at times I very well may be dead wrong. The whole point of this is to have some real discussion. I am not set in my ways; my mind can be swayed. I've had some very enjoyable discussions with Carlus despite having differing viewpoints. However, as you may have noticed, I am a very big "why" person. It is not enough to simply tell me that I am wrong; if you hope to sway me to your viewpoint, you must logically and rationally present a case for why your claim is correct. I assume that the readers of this blog expect the same out me; I can't possibly expect you to agree with me unless I present evidence and reasoning.
If the ideas proposed here make you uncomfortable, then, by all means, feel free to go read a blog that doesn't challenge you or your beliefs. But if you're up for a spirited (yet civil) debate, then stick around.
thekrywickis, please don't give up yet. I promise we'll be moving on to other topics shortly. It takes me some time to do the homework required for a new blog post.
Post a Comment