This column is a column I wrote for www.TownHall.com today.
At least one lesbian is not happy with me for the case I made last week against same-sex marriage on our TV program. She wrote me this ALL CAPS e-mail with “VERY JUDGEMENTAL” in the subject line:
ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME AND I AM A CHRISTIAN LESBIAN AND HAVE BEEN FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS. STOP JUDGING AND MOVE ON!!! I AM SO TIRED OF ALL YOU UPTIGHT, DO RIGHT, SINNERS JUDGING PEOPLE.
I wrote her back asking her why she was judging me for judging. It seemed like a fair question. After all, if I am not to “judge” her, why is it OK for her to judge me? And if she’s a Christian, doesn’t she know that God has already judged homosexual behavior as immoral? I mean, I didn’t make the judgment that homosexual behavior was wrong. God is the standard of morality, not me.
But the main point is that my lesbian pen pal did what most liberals do when they are faced with arguments they don’t like—they misuse Jesus’ apparent command not to “judge” in order to shut you up. So if you oppose their behavior or their attempt to get the nation to endorse their immorality (i.e. same-sex marriage), you’re sure to hear “Thou shalt not judge!”
As with most slogans shouted by the left, the truth is exactly opposite to what they claim. Liberals take the judgment statements of Jesus out of context because they want to avoid any moral condemnation for their own actions, and they don’t want you to notice that they are making judgments too. Let’s take a look at what Jesus actually said:
Do not judge lest you be judged. ? For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Mt. 7:1-5)
Notice Jesus isn’t telling us not to judge—Jesus is telling us how to judge. He actually commands us to take the speck out of our brother’s eye—that involves making a judgment. But he also commands us to stop committing the bigger sins ourselves so we can better help our brother. In other words, when you judge, do so rightly not hypocritically.
Jesus expressed this same idea when he said “stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment” (John 7:24). Jesus would never tell us to stop judging– that would be suicide! Just think about how impossible life would be if you didn’t make judgments. You make hundreds, if not thousands, of judgments every day between good and evil, right and wrong, dangerous choices from safe ones. You’d be dead already if you didn’t make judgments.
What does this have to do with politics? Every law is a judgment about what’s best for society. Homosexual activists are making a judgment that same-sex marriage would be the best law for society. It’s a wrong judgment as I’ve argued in this column before (Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know it’s Bad), but it’s a judgment nonetheless. So in addition to being self-defeating, the belief that we “ought not judge” is completely impractical and even dangerous. Making judgments is unavoidable both personally and politically. If you want to meet a sudden and premature demise, just stop making judgments.
Unfortunately, liberals are propelling our society toward a premature demise by making the disastrous judgment that we ought not make judgments about their behavior. They, of course, can judge our behavior as immoral when we oppose same-sex marriage or the killing of the unborn. But we are not to judge their behavior. This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that Jesus warned against. The passage they quote actually convicts them!
For folks so concerned about the “separation of church and state,” it’s amazing how fast liberals quote the Bible when they think it helps their case. Don’t let them get away with that. If they believe the Bible when they think it condemns judging (which it doesn’t), then ask them why they don’t believe the Bible when it certainly condemns homosexuality. If they want to use the Bible as their standard, then they will be judged by that same standard.
Thanks for this post, Frank. Spot on!
Frank,
I am so glad you posted this, I wrote a similar article on the very same issue pertaining to the politicizing of the act of judging behavior. We are called to judge, we do it everyday without much consideration – whether we’re buying shoes or a car, or deciding same sex issues, we are comparing what is right for us [conditionally] or right period. Judgment is an assessment of current information. The left has purposefully attempted to blur the lines between critical behavioral assessment and condemnation. Condemnation is one thing – we aren’t our maker; that solely rests with God the Father. But to “weigh and consider” is our daily duty, otherwise how do we know what the standard is and how to adjudicate right actions to beget right results… over clearly the wrong ones? Judgment of behavior is morality in action… which government through the law has the right to set the standard, whereas condemnation [on the other hand] is theological by nature and the state takes no position on, rightfully so.
Great article… as cogent as it was lucid. The left has used political correctness to brow beat people into submission to consider the acceptance of behavior clearly short of the standard written on our hearts and replace it with a system of convenience based on lifestyle… this is not what God nor our founding fathers had in mind.
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I think Darn Republican gets it right, too: there is a difference between judging based on God’s Word and condemnation. My mom, bless her, tiptoes around this stuff; she won’t even say that, for instance, adultery is a sin, because “we are not supposed to judge”. But we’re supposed to be salty…if we’re not speaking of God’s standards, who will until He returns? And who will He hold responsible for not lifting His standards and rules high?
Jen,
I couldn’t have put the more succinctly… We are the vanguards of His standard until such time as He returns, which is why we won’t go through the Great White Thrown Judgement… which will be a final condemnation – which God’s Words tells there is no condemnation for us in Christ Jesus. Yes it was great article and thank you for your comments.
Frank is correct when he notes that all assessments of policy rely on judgments of the same sort as those the gays tell us Jesus said we should not make. That’s as far as the argument needs to go. If the gays were correct, there could be no laws against murder, against rape, or against beating up gays.
Matthew 7:1-5 expresses an important lesson that most Christians need very badly to learn, though — namely, that they will be judged using the standard they use to judge others. This principle addresses individual relationships rather than general policy assessments; where Jesus would never have said that God forbids making general statements of moral assessment or advising national or local policy based on moral choices, He most definitely would have said you should not condemn the man standing next to you for what you perceive as a weakness in his character, his performance of Christian duty, or his theology. Far too many Evangelicals are far too ready to condemn what they consider crucial errors in another believer’s take on jots and tittles of the law, and far to ready to call a simple dispute over systematic doctrine “heresy.”
My own take has been that I want Jesus to be lenient when He examines my life, character, and theology, so I’m pretty lenient with the people around me. I recommend this posture to all.
Bob,
“My own take has been that I want Jesus to be lenient when He examines my life, character, and theology, so I’m pretty lenient with the people around me. I recommend this posture to all.”
I am not quite sure what you mean bu lenient? could you clarify that for me?
Simply put, I expect that if Jesus puts my theology through a fine-tooth comb, he’s going to find plenty of errors in it; I don’t think my systematic theology is so perfect as to pass that muster. So, I’m extremely tolerant of what I consider errors i n other peoples’ systematic theologies. There have been one or two cases when I said I thought somebody had crossed the line into heresy, but those were individuals who showed a clear impulse to separate themselves from the Body, and were touting doctrines that struck at the very heart of God’s ability to produce righteous servants out of the redeemed,
Short version, I don’t call anybody “heretic” or “in error” solely on the basis of disagreement over interpretations. I reserve that for hearts that have clearly chosen another god.
Bob,
Interesting, I would just sue additional clarity in adding this. For one I really respect what I think your driving at, but there is only one Christian Theology, and we didn’t create it… we are constantly under attack by secular minds that blame us for what they don’t’ want to feel… conviction for their behavior. We are the implement of that disdain, see Christ spelled out his ministry before us and let us know how we should live before others – that act is called discipleship. Now, what are disciples? the word in Greek simple means disciplined learner… or disciplined in instruction. Disciples maintain the standard. We we slack off when we hear something errant, we are in essence advocating it – basically buying into political correctness to avoid confrontation. We should look at Christs model for our behavior in the fact the he never backed down from lighting up arrogant Pharisee’s and Sadducee’s from their hypocritical postures.
The Apostle Paul – even laid out a system of reproach for errant believer’s – If you call on the standard you should fall on the standard and not be ashamed when you do – for the Lord will judge the believer for that and if we are ashamed of His Gospel before others… then He will be before the Father – that I couldn’t bear… so in that I bear the standard without shame or waiver. Times are getting tricky, we need to be on fire for the truth and speak the one Truth he gave us [Eph. 4:3-5]
there is only one Christian Theology, and we didn’t create it…
I don’t really want to get into a theology match with you, but I think this errs in several ways, the most important being that it posits Christianity as an exercise in theology rather than a relationship. I don’t think the differences in theological opinion among Christians are because one group has it right and the rest just aren’t as smart, as biblical, as faithful, or whatever; I think God gives different people different emphases, because we all have different tasks and the work of the Church is many times larger than any one man, or one group, can reach.
I also think that God permits differences in theological opinion because — I know you’re not going to like this — He just doesn’t think systematic theology is all that important. What He’s after is fellowship through the Spirit, and He’ll accept it from anyone who approaches with an upright heart: “The Lord is near to all who call upon Him; to all who call upon Him in truth.” (Psalm 145:18)
I’m not saying truth is not important; I’m saying Truth is a person, and what God calls us to is a relationship more than it is a mental exercise. Systematic theology is important only because the Church needs to confront a skeptical world; fellowship within the Body of Christ should always be on the basis of common relationship with the Father, in the Spirit, through Jesus, not on the basis of reconciling our different theological teachings (see I Corin 1-3 for support).
Bob,
“I don’t really want to get into a theology match with you, but I think this errs in several ways,”
How does this err in any way? It is scripture – let me ask you this, do you believe in the inerrancy of scripture?
“I also think that God permits differences in theological opinion because”
Let me challenge that rather liberal perspective with scripture… I personally think you are treading on more dangerous territory and may be difficult for you to defend the faith, and may collaspe laigh a house of cards under more rancorous attack/defenses by more skilled seculaists – your postitions need the clarity of scripture to embolden your thirst to learn the Ways of the Master [Christ] and strengthen your discipleship.
Ephesians 4:3.6
“…endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith [one doctrine and theology], one baptism[public expression of faith]; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ”
Now, knowing this [as you claim to be a Christian] how can your practice of faith be any less? I just think you should hold your faith and thoughs in light of scripture. Bless you my friend…
Bob,
I had to approach this one differently…
“…He’ll accept it from anyone who approaches with an upright heart: “The Lord is near to all who call upon Him; to all who call upon Him in truth.” (Psalm 145:18)”
This is a splinter argument, on one hand you are saying theology is subjective. Then you use this verse in Psalms to support your claim. I don’t’ mean to suggest you don’t know what you mean… but , that i snot at all what that scripture is talking about. Check out Stand To Reason link on this sight, Greg has a booklet called “Never read A Bible Verse” it guides you on how to not read verses out of context, I personally think you’d benefit from this study. Yes the Lord has a strong desire that we all come to know His loving-kindness, grace, mercy, and salvation through the shed blood of His sacrifice. But does He also say lower the standard to attract more to the Gospel? No, certainly not… “many are called but few are chosen” that is where that comes from… because they find the standard unpalatable to the way they want to live, I just felt I would offer this perspective to your out of the utmost of respect in love through our Savior.
- Blessings
Pardon, my typo’s BTW, sorry.
TDR –
I’ve been studying the scriptures for more than 30 years. I read “Never Read a Bible Verse” last week, after buying some materials from STR; it’s a nice little introduction for beginners. I could have written it myself, although, as I pointed out in a letter to STR after I read it, their example based on John 5:17:23 is in error because it assumes that the Pharisees were correct in their assessment of Jesus, and it’s quite clear from the context that they were not correct at all. But, no, I don’t think our disagreement here is that I don’t understand Biblical Hermeneutics 101-level context considerations. That’s pretty demeaning of you, actually, and I haven’t noticed anything convincing enough in your own writings to earn you the right to be my instructor in these matters.
“How does this err in any way? It is scripture – let me ask you this, do you believe in the inerrancy of scripture?”
The error is not that of the scripture, but of your interpretation thereof. When you said “There is only one Christian theology, and we didn’t create it,” you’re in the middle of an argument that assumes (without support) that your own interpretation of Christian theology is the correct one, and further assumes (without support) that the pursuit of the correct Christian theology is the primary goal of the Christian life. I’m sorry if my quoting that particular phrase led you to believe that I think there’s more than one Truth. I don’t. There is only one Truth. He’s a Person, not a set of correct theological claims; and your position does not represent the perfect realization of that Person (nor does mine.)
Is that clearer?
Let me challenge that rather liberal perspective with scripture… I personally think you are treading on more dangerous territory and may be difficult for you to defend the faith, and may collaspe laigh a house of cards under more rancorous attack/defenses by more skilled seculaists…
Quite the contrary. I adopted what you inaccurately call my “rather liberal perspective” (which is actually a more accurate reading of the scriptures than the stuff reformed Evangelicals routinely claim) because when I was an Evangelical I found myself having to defend readings of the scripture that were logically ridiculous, that unbelievers could correctly dispute, and which turned out to be completely unnecessary for the defense of the faith. My current positions are the result of roughly 20 years’ worth of defending the faith before skilled secularists, and never comes close to collapsing, most emphatically because I’ve dropped some of the weaker claims of Evangelicalism and have adopted modified positions that actually hold water.
Liberals doubt the historical authenticity of the scriptures, and dispute their authority. I do not; I am not a liberal. I am also not an Evangelical. Theologically, I suppose you could call me “neo-pentecostal,” although there are elements of my theology that come from other corners of Christendom (my bibliology is similar to that of the Eastern Orthodox church, for example.)
To question whether I’m a believer or not on the mere basis that I disagree with you is a stunning disobedience to the passage you quote next:
Ephesians 4:3.6
Here, I think you need to heed your own lecture about reading within context. You assume that “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” means that we all have to agree about the interpretations of those things. The context says something quite different, and in fact similar to what I said: that each one is given a different gift for the edification of the Body, and that with the help of those gifts (and others mentioned elsewhere) we all grow up into communion with the Head, who is Christ. It goes on to enjoin believers to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, not approaching each other with wrath or bitterness, etc. Note that Paul, by noting that the outcome of the process will be to finally attain to the unity of the faith (v 13), says basically the same thing I said — that we don’t manifest the unity of the faith at this time.
However, this discussion actually misses the point I was making, which was that what Paul describes as “a mature man” and “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” is probably more about us all behaving like Christ toward each other, and less about the particulars of our systematic theology, and that in my experience, God doesn’t bother much with our systematic theologies.
What I mean by that is, I’ve met men and women who have walked long and close with Jesus, and who manifest genuine love of God in their lives by virtue of their decency, their service, their simplicity of soul, their centeredness, their devotion, etc. I’ve met such people from many different corners of Christendom — some from Plymouth Brethren, some Evangelicals, some Pentecostals, some Charismatics, some Catholics, some Orthodox, even some Seventh Day Adventists. They all would describe God’s character the same way, and all their characters looked pretty much the same — holy, peaceful, full of joy. But their systematic theologies were all different. From this, I inferred that God cares more about individual character than He does about systematic theology; otherwise, all mature Christians would hold the same systematic theology as every other mature Christian. They seem all to have similar PRACTICAL theology, but not similar SYSTEMATIC theology.
And I do as the Apostle advises: I mark those who labor among us, and considering the outcome of their way of life, I imitate their faith.
you are saying theology is subjective.
I don’t recall saying it was subjective. I recall saying that systematic theology is not as important as how we treat one another, in God’s eyes, and that the goal of a universally correct, universally agreed-upon systematic theology is man’s goal, not God’s.
We don’t have to agree on this, TDR. We can just agree to disagree, and have peace with each other.
Bob,
“…The error is not that of the scripture, but of your interpretation thereof. When you said “There is only one Christian theology, and we didn’t create it,” you’re in the middle of an argument that assumes (without support) that your own interpretation of Christian theology is the correct one, and further assumes (without support) that the pursuit of the correct Christian theology is the primary goal of the Christian life. I’m sorry if my quoting that particular phrase led you to believe that I think there’s more than one Truth. I don’t. There is only one Truth. He’s a Person, not a set of correct theological claims; and your position does not represent the perfect realization of that Person (nor does mine.)”
This is great… and exactly the kind of arena I like to debate in. When someone challenges my theology, and flips it into an issue of interpretation – then it is where and I how get to take issue. Was Ephesians 4:3-6 not clear enough? That is what supports my theology. It iis highligting with no ambiguity what the Church is and what our roles are and focuse are be. We are to submit to what is plainly before us, to not suggests a rebellious resistance.
Interpretation is a form of rebellion my brother, it seeks to parse what it can accept of what is plainly laid before us if lieu of a more palatable position to take acceptable to a personal level of comfort. When are we called to interpret God’s Word? Not at any time in scripture is there subjective language used in coming to a knowledge and understanding in all truth to what we are called to submit to in maintaining our relationships with Christ. The bible tells us my people perish for a lack of knowledge” and that knowledge comes from a resplendent understanding of the Holy Scriptures to guide us in all truth.
Even though our relationship is personal… but the truth is the same. Imagine, we’d be all over the place if 1+1=2 to you only… things must add up or you can’t add, the same for me. The same in life… are we both ignorant and arrogant enough to think life will slow down and and wait for us to make sense of it? Certainly not. Life will will not cease on whim for lack of preparedness. The same in God’s economy, His message is universal but the application is personal, we can accept it or reject it, but we cannot parse it. Otherwise we walk away with less the what He had for us to gain a knowledge of.
I submit to you my brother you need to be clear in where you lay claim. The number of years you study scripture is irrelevant, it is the knowledge you walk away with. Now, I respect what you say, but only inasmuch as what I can understand is right in what you bring forth, that and what the Spirit can value of what you say registering in me. That is why the Spirit is ther as the r “Helper” – to help make sense of things. I have been studying scripture for decades but does that make me the resident know it all? Certainly not, and would never claim such. I tender far to much reverence in the word to walk away with such an attitude.
“you are saying theology is subjective.
” I don’t recall saying it was subjective. I recall saying that systematic theology is not as important as how we treat one another, in God’s eyes, and that the goal of a universally correct, universally agreed-upon systematic theology is man’s goal, not God’s.”
I can agree with only in once sense that systematic theology is not nearly as important as application individually. However it is another thing entirely to paint such a broad stroke and say it is man’s goal to have a universally “correct” theology. Technically God isn’t concerned with our vain attempts to understand him, which is why Isaiah told us “…our rightness is but filthy rags before God” it makes sense, perfect sense, why would a Holy, Just and True God have to submit to what we can handle of Him? It is an exercise of lowered expectations.
If everything you say is correct about no overarching system of theological unanimity in the average believers walk, why then do we face a separate judgment as believers – that’s right, as believer’s we may escape the dread of the Great White Throne Judgment – but we still get reviewed by the Almighty. If you studied this as you claim – you’d know that – this would be Christianity 201. So, I am beginning to think your argument dissolves on that – there is One will for us, One walk for us, One Lord for us… One public expression of faith for us, but only one us. The same collectively if none of us can count regardless of 1+1 equaling 2 meaning anything, nothing would get done because no one can add… mainly because the benefits aren’t clear. Now take the individual learning what is plainly before them, and knowing how to add… they can now apply it in their lives individually. Now add the dynamic of multiplicity to this and we can see this start to add up collectively to effect the larger number. So, one standard applied benefits us all. One standard constantly interpreted gains no foothold… but one standard universally understood benefits us all.
Blessing and in love my brother…
I’m scratching my head a little, TDR.
In the first place, when you say “Interpretation is rebellion,” it sounds to me as though you’re dismissing the entire field of Biblical Hermeneutics as being completely irrelevant, and even sinful. Is that what you believe? I’m afraid I can’t go along with you there, and in fact, I wonder how you can exercise yourself to systematic theology without consistently applying hermeneutical rules. It seems to me that the former requires the latter.
In the second place, when you argue “Isn’t Eph 4:6 clear enough for you?” I think you must have missed the argument altogether. I’m making a comparison: devotion to God and one another vs devotion to correct, systematic theology. I don’t see how you can address the comparison with a single passage of scripture, unless that passage mentions both sides of the comparison against each other and states an outcome, like so: “I have called you to love one another, and to study scripture; but the scripture is the greater thing.” Of course, there’s no such passage — that’s my point. Eph 4:6 certainly doesn’t say that; in fact, I can’t see how it applies to either side of the comparison at all. Will you INTERPRET this for me?
Beyond that, I’m very sorry, but I honestly can’t make head nor tail out of your argument. I basically said two things: 1) It’s a good idea to judge leniently, since the standard we use will be applied to us; and 2) love toward God and each other is more important to God than is correct systematic theology (short version: to love is more important than to be right). I’m still not sure, three posts later, what you object to in either statement, only that you seem agitated about the fact that I approach systematic theology less seriously than you. To be candid, if it’s that important to you, TDR, by all means go to it. I’ll spend my time, instead, applying myself to the work exchange ministry I’m starting in my local church, and to arranging worship night, because those things serve the Body well. Far be it from me to dissuade you from excellence in systematic theology, though, if that’s your calling.
I do have a couple of questions I’d like you to ponder, though, since you brought up the issue of interpretation in context:
1) You say, “The bible tells us my people perish for a lack of knowledge” and that knowledge comes from a resplendent understanding of the Holy Scriptures to guide us in all truth.”
The passage you’re quoting is from Hosea 4, in which the Lord denounces the sons of Israel for their murder, violence, deception, and adultery, and declares that priest and prophet alike stumble in the dark; “Thus,” he says, “My people perish from a lack of knowledge.” It would seem that the context of the passage indicates that the lack of knowledge Hosea is talking about is obedience to the moral law of God. So, where in this passage do you deduce that the knowledge Hosea is speaking of has the least to do with systematic theology?
2) You say, “Technically God isn’t concerned with our vain attempts to understand him, which is why Isaiah told us “…our rightness is but filthy rags before God”
You’re quoting the 64th chapter of Isaiah here, a passage in which the Jewish prophet is crying out to God over the sin of his own people, who alone of all nations were called by God’s name. The passage is an admission of the depth, and the length of time Israel remained in sin:
5You meet him who rejoices in doing righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways
Behold, You were angry, for we sinned,
We continued in them a long time;
And shall we be saved?
6For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Where in there do you find any justification to apply this passage to God’s willingness for us to understand Him? I don’t see that in the context.
I’m not asking about these passages to embarrass you, nor to hurt you in any way, but to bring home to you that you’re using certain passages of scripture reflexively, without really thinking about what they mean or how they apply. I did the same when I was an Evangelical; the environment encourages that sort of sloppiness with certain, familiar passages, but it’s not proper. If you really feel that the scriptures are that important, and that systematic theology is that crucial, please try to cure yourself of this reflexive sloppiness, and learn to question even common interpretations of verses. An awful lot of the scripture is misapplied simply because people think they know what certain passages are about, without ever revisiting them and learning from them.
(The relevant passage, if you’re interested in proving that God doesn’t care if we understand him, would probably be Isaiah 55:8-9:
8″For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
9″For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts. ”
But I would counter that God has revealed much to us through the Spirit, as Paul tells us in I Corin 2.)
Bob,
The language you choose to assert your arguments is a little disconcerting, we are speaking in a specific light with respect to our walk in Christ, not apologetics which has applied theological principles. We can speak in broad theological dynamics all day but to the everyday believer, well… [in many ways like us] it is still relevant. In the constext of us not being devided by denomination differences, political idealgies and such. There is a standard we are expected to submit to, now [agreed] we are to hold ourselves in light of anyone we lend judgement to as we may be held hypocrites. No big mystery there, I am trying to understand things you wrote – curous do you author in another program they cut and past to this post? because your text is cropped and it is hard to understand… however, moving forward.
“The passage you’re quoting is from Hosea 4, in which the Lord denounces the sons of Israel for their murder, violence, deception, and adultery, and declares that priest and prophet alike stumble in the dark; “Thus,” he says, “My people perish from a lack of knowledge.” It would seem that the context of the passage indicates that the lack of knowledge Hosea is talking about is obedience to the moral law of God. So, where in this passage do you deduce that the knowledge Hosea is speaking of has the least to do with systematic theology?”
It is a universal biblical truth, without knowledge we perish… ignorance [though partially excusable] is one manner in which we may lack requisite knowledge to flourish or avoid peril. Intentional disavowement is another because “the wages of sin is [still] death”. I understand clearly the context OF THE ENTIRE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE – does it still loose the intended relevance in the manner in which I chose to communicate it? absolutely not, and no it doesn’t directly have anything to do with applied theology – but it is contextually relevant. God did give you a mind to reason… be reasonable.
“… like so: “I have called you to love one another, and to study scripture; but the scripture is the greater thing.” Of course, there’s no such passage — that’s my point. ”
Never made that an argument – stay on point,
“…Eph 4:6 certainly doesn’t say that; in fact, I can’t see how it applies to either side of the comparison at all. Will you INTERPRET this for me?”
How does it not mean what it plainly states that is reasonble to understand and is not a hard text? I mentioned Eph. 4:3-6 you understand what I meant, so your comment has no place. Now if you want me to grab a Greek lexicon and concordance and TRANSLATE each Greek word in those passages of scriputre, I woul dbe more than happy to – I doubt very seriously you will come out with any different UNDERSTANDING than anyone else’s at face value. Let me know, it wasnt’ a vain request – if you so like, I’ll use my resouserces to translate it for you.
“…(The relevant passage, if you’re interested in proving that God doesn’t care if we understand him, would probably be Isaiah 55:8-9:
8?For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
9?For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts. ”
This is another argument along a similar tangent, to this I would have to agree whole-heartedly Now beyond that – I can’t really read much of what you said i am having a hard time. If you want clarity on anythind I mentioned, just ask… but I am having a heck of a time reading your comments, come are letterally cropped. So I feel any further commentary from me would be of no value until I can read what you said.
Blessing… in love.
and please pardon my typo’s thank you.
I think we’re just having trouble understanding each other, TDR, and I don’t think getting my point across to you is important enough to continue the struggle. God bless you and yours, and may you live a life full of the presence of God.
FWIW, I don’t cut and paste from other locations. Everything I’ve written here has been original, except for one post regarding homosexuality from about a month ago, which I lifted from my blog site.
PS: your typos are forgiven. Go and sin no more.
Bob,
Lol… I felt uncomfortable trying to respond to what I cannot clearly ready – I did do that to one of my posts and it is only [oddly enough] this thread. Wish the same blessings upon you and you family and loved ones as well, and may God bless you with His “peace that surpasses all understanding”.
oops… clearly read, lol!
: )
One of Frank’s premises is being forgotten in this discussion through the introduction of words such as theology and opinion. At least one of his premises is solid, and the lack of input from the regular heavy hitters is evidence of this conclusion. The premise is one cannot exist without constantly making judgments. A related premise is every law is a discrimination, that is, a preference for one group over another.
Understandable is the ignorance of the self-proclaimed nonjudgmentors. Many are unaware of the massive brainwashing that has been occurring in education and the mainstream media (absent talk radio). Fortunately, many people born in the 1950s remember when car keys were left in the ignition with the windows down and front doors were left open. So there is plenty of evidence that the situation can be much better if only people were to judge (discriminate), as they did in the 1950′s.
Paul,
Makes a very good point, now his reference to “heavy hitters” is a bit
ambiguous. But, he states a glaring hypocrisy in the liberal mindset of the day. The reality is, it is not whether we like it or not, they could care less, it is whether they can feel good about what it is they do.
The amazing lack of the presence of intellectual honesty is stunning, they don’t’ care… all they want to do is share the stage with things that actually make sense, and is stunned when people look at some of the things they endear as socially unacceptable. They lash out and accuse those who know better as if they actually have the problem – that is rank projection and is evidence of something far more dangerous and equally pathetic, the sense of denial.
There is a reason why Paul called debased mind just that – debased. It has no value because it values nothing of value, and lavishes value on those things that are literally worth[less]. The average Follower of Christ falls short each and every day in some way – but the standard that we fall short of is entirely different than what is being foisted out there today. We don’t live to play lowered-expectation limbo with morals.
Heavy hitters are those that engage in mathematical arguments, as if mathematics determines what is fact. Mathematics is a construct, no more no less. Is there one kind of mathematics? Lord no. We are constantly constructing various kinds of mathematics.
I was hoping to contribute something here, but by the time I got here, everyone had already started preaching….you can’t really hold a conversation with someone who thinks the problem is already resolved, though. Oh, well -_-