The Death of Evangelical Christianity?

[DominionSeraph]

but they can no longer call themselves "Christians" if they do.

In your opinion.
They'd disagree.

See how this works?

No amount of "prayer and reflection" changes what the Bible says regarding homosexuality.

And no amount of prayer and reflection changes what the Bible says about the circumference of a circle with a diameter of 10 cubits. So, to be a Christian you must believe that pi equals three.

 

[Retro Rob]

Weigh it yourself.

http://carm.org/christianity/miscellaneous-topics/eternal-security

Hmmm...

He hits on some points I clearly understand, but he seems to suggest (or is, rather) that those who fall away, weren't Christians to being with -- a point which would make his position nearly indisputable.

That means that god predestined his followers, specifically, but that also suggests that God lied to us in regards having free-will to choose our faith. If he not only knew, but choose, Christians before they were even born, then free-will automatically goes out the window, and anyone that isn't currently a Christian is doomed by default.

What's the point of preaching, then, if God already choose us? It would have made Jesus look foolish going to people whom he knew would turn down his message (and people did) and it would also invalidate his sacrifice (for all men to be saved... after all, not all people are Christians, right??).

I hope I am not misrepresenting the article or the point, but it doesn't make much sense when I thought about the above remarks.

 

[alzan]

Again, they are free to accept SSM, but they can no longer call themselves "Christians" if they do. No amount of "prayer and reflection" changes what the Bible says regarding homosexuality.

They are like any other group professing one thing and when their numbers and donations are threatened, change their beliefs to pull more in. It's a common church practice.

You point fails becasue I am not making judgment calls based on what I think they're doing, I'm going off what I see. We are allowed to come to conclusions based on the outward practices and statements of another.

If you think, for instance, I'm a stupid idiot for what I am saying, at least you have basis for that. You just didn't pull me off the street and say "hey, I bet that guy's an idiot".. or anything like that before talking to me.

More hubris and arrogance; "they can't call themselves Christians". Most of what the Bible says about homosexuality is from the OT and a little from Paul, a guy who had trouble with sex of all kinds. Maybe people who call themselves "Christian" should concern themselves with what Christ said and leave the OT out of it. Of course since the Bible has been rewritten and mistranslated throughout the years who knows what it truly says.

Fascinating; sect(s) of Christianity decide to go against the grain, opening themselves to vile commentary and criticism public and private, threatened with removal from the global community to/from which they contribute/receive support: all to get a little more money in the collection plate and a few less empty pews. Boy you've got this all figured out don't you?

You're making judgement calls based on a lot of things not just what you perceive visually; and what you perceive visually is interpreted in part by your already-made-up mind. Sure you're allowed to come to conclusions based on outward statements and practices of another; they'll be wildly inaccurate and falsifiable every single time but you can certainly do that.

 

[Retro Rob]

More hubris and arrogance; "they can't call themselves Christians". Most of what the Bible says about homosexuality is from the OT and a little from Paul, a guy who had trouble with sex of all kinds. Maybe people who call themselves "Christian" should concern themselves with what Christ said and leave the OT out of it. Of course since the Bible has been rewritten and mistranslated throughout the years who knows what it truly says.

Fascinating; sect(s) of Christianity decide to go against the grain, opening themselves to vile commentary and criticism public and private, threatened with removal from the global community to/from which they contribute/receive support: all to get a little more money in the collection plate and a few less empty pews. Boy you've got this all figured out don't you?

You're making judgement calls based on a lot of things not just what you perceive visually; and what you perceive visually is interpreted in part by your already-made-up mind. Sure you're allowed to come to conclusions based on outward statements and practices of another; they'll be wildly inaccurate and falsifiable every single time but you can certainly do that.

Jesus didn't leave the OT out of it himself, so why should Christians? He quoted from it regarding marriage, and when Satan was tempting him, etc. You should read up on that.

When he first came to the synagogue, he quoted directly from the scroll of Isaiah, but I suppose you didn't know that either.

 

[stormkroe]

Hmmm...

He hits on some points I clearly understand, but he seems to suggest (or is, rather) that those who fall away, weren't Christians to being with -- a point which would make his position nearly indisputable.

That means that god predestined his followers, specifically, but that also suggests that God lied to us in regards having free-will to choose our faith. If he not only knew, but choose, Christians before they were even born, then free-will automatically goes out the window, and anyone that isn't currently a Christian is doomed by default.

What's the point of preaching, then, if God already choose us? It would have made Jesus look foolish going to people whom he knew would turn down his message (and people did) and it would also invalidate his sacrifice (for all men to be saved... after all, not all people are Christians, right??).

I hope I am not misrepresenting the article or the point, but it doesn't make much sense when I thought about the above remarks.

Careful Rob, you're treading the treacherous waters of Calvanism vs Armenianism here 🙂 The Bible does say that fall away, or 'go out', weren't Christians to begin with.

1John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that [d]it would be shown that they all are not of us.

The whole 'panties in a bunch' freewill vs predestination arguement is easily explained by examining your reference point. No person on this planet can honestly say they don't have free will. You can pee in your refrigerator right now if you want. Go ahead, try it. That's man's perspective.
Now, Christians, by definition, believe in an omniscient (excluding molenists), omnipresent creator of the universe that lives unaffected by the time and space dimensions He made for us. This means that there is no 'not yet' to him, nothing that hasn't 'happened'. In this way, predestination becomes the only way to describe the fact that a certain set of people will/have had justification.
1st century authors simply describe things differently than we would today, just like our descendents 2000 years from now will describe Hawking's black hole theory differently, though they will be able to 'get the gist' of his meaning by knowing his limitations.

 

[Retro Rob]

Careful Rob, you're treading the treacherous waters of Calvanism vs Armenianism here 🙂 The Bible does say that fall away, or 'go out', weren't Christians to begin with. The whole 'panties in a bunch' freewill vs predestination arguement is easily explained by examining your reference point. No person on this planet can honestly say they don't have free will. You can pee in your refrigerator right now if you want. Go ahead, try it. That's man's perspective.
Now, Christians, by definition, believe in an omniscient (excluding molenists), omnipresent creator of the universe that lives unaffected by the time and space dimensions He made for us. This means that there is no 'not yet' to him, nothing that hasn't 'happened'. In this way, predestination becomes the only way to describe the fact that a certain set of people will/have had justification.
1st century authors simply describe things differently than we would today, just like our descendents 2000 years from now will describe Hawking's black hole theory differently, though they will be able to 'get the gist' of his meaning by knowing his limitations.

Are you saying that no one can become a christian? Or every move (even thpse who left one religion for Christianity) is preordained?

No offense, but the predestination argument is a weak one (and false one) to make someone's interpretation infallible.

 

[DominionSeraph]

No person on this planet can honestly say they don't have free will. You can pee in your refrigerator right now if you want. Go ahead, try it. That's man's perspective.

Hmmm... seems that my perspective is above man's, as I can say that free will does not exist. That the output can change based on the input and that the internal mechanism can shift over time, altering the relationship, does not mean that the internal logic can shift extra-temporally or that the output is not bound by any rules.

No offense, but the predestination argument is a weak one (and false one) to make someone's interpretation infallible.

For there to be omniscience, the future must be set. A set future is not a future open to possibilities.

 

[stormkroe]

Are you saying that no one can become a christian? Or every move (even thpse who left one religion for Christianity) is preordained?

No offense, but the predestination argument is a weak one (and false one) to make someone's interpretation infallible.

There's no arguement whatsoever that the Bible teaches election, or 'predestination' ( And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Romans 8:30). Note it doesnt say 'some' of those or 'most' of those.
What matters, then, is what you take from it. Freewill, as Biblically described, is only free will from our point of view.
To say that predestination is false, even ignoring the fact that it's specifically described in the Bible, is to say that God doesn't know what our choices will be. It can't be both ways, because if he knows what our choices will be, and has always known, He knew little Billy was going to steal the lunch money in 2nd grade and started the universal ball rolling anyway. He pre-knew it would happen, he destined the boy to steal.
But the boy still chose to do it.
I think both extremes are wrong (which is usually the case in life), but you learn a lot listening to people you disagree with. Iron sharpens iron.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hmmm...

He hits on some points I clearly understand, but he seems to suggest (or is, rather) that those who fall away, weren't Christians to being with -- a point which would make his position nearly indisputable.

That means that god predestined his followers, specifically, but that also suggests that God lied to us in regards having free-will to choose our faith. If he not only knew, but choose, Christians before they were even born, then free-will automatically goes out the window, and anyone that isn't currently a Christian is doomed by default.

What's the point of preaching, then, if God already choose us? It would have made Jesus look foolish going to people whom he knew would turn down his message (and people did) and it would also invalidate his sacrifice (for all men to be saved... after all, not all people are Christians, right??).

I hope I am not misrepresenting the article or the point, but it doesn't make much sense when I thought about the above remarks.

I know Matt Slick pretty well -- I've spoken with him directly on several occasions, and met him in person a few times -- and your criticisms are some of the very same as myself and others have laid against his positions.

You won't find me defending him, but suffice it to say that many Christians agree with him, and that demonstrates my earlier point.

 

[Retro Rob]

I know Matt Slick pretty well -- I've spoken with him directly on several occasions, and met him in person a few times -- and your criticisms are some of the very same as myself and others have laid against his positions.

You won't find me defending him, but suffice it to say that many Christians agree with him, and that demonstrates my earlier point.

Has he ever considered that he may be wrong? What he believes would make the Bible almost entirely invalid.

Does he preach to people to be saved? If he does, he's defeating his own argument because those whom he preaches to won't be save ('cause they aren't already Christians, and if they are, they don't need "saving").

I know you're not defending him, but he sounds as if he trying to fit the scriptures to agree with his own reasoning.

Nastordamus has a lot of people in agreement with him, and they haven't gained a shred of credibilty till this day.

just sayin'.....

 

[stormkroe]

Rob, I'm just wondering why you're defining predestination as hostile to evangelism? The view of election doesn't exempt us from the Great Commission, to 'go make disciples' (although I have a good friend who's extreme calvanism means exactly that to him, so he doesn't evangelize). Just wondering what your thinking is there.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, I'm just wondering why you're defining predestination as hostile to evangelism? The view of election doesn't exempt us from the Great Commission, to 'go make disciples' (although I have a good friend who's extreme calvanism means exactly that to him, so he doesn't evangelize). Just wondering what your thinking is there.

I'm using logic here. If Chrstians ( those predestined as such) are the only ones eligible for salvation, what reason is there to preach?

Preaching is for others to be saved, so if others cannot be saved, why waste the time? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Has he ever considered that he may be wrong?

Um, obviously not... he's an Evangelical Christian.

What he believes would make the Bible almost entirely invalid.

Does he preach to people to be saved? If he does, he's defeating his own argument because those whom he preaches to won't be save ('cause they aren't already Christians, and if they are, they don't need "saving").

I know you're not defending him, but he sounds as if he trying to fit the scriptures to agree with his own reasoning.

Nastordamus has a lot of people in agreement with him, and they haven't gained a shred of credibilty till this day.

just sayin'.....

He's got a chat radio program that airs in Boise, ID. Call in and tell him. :awe:

http://carm.org/radio

 

[stormkroe]

I'm using logic here. If Chrstians ( those predestined as such) are the only ones eligible for salvation, what reason is there to preach?

Preaching is for others to be saved, so if others cannot be saved, why waste the time? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Ok gotcha. It comes back to the perspective qualifier. I'm saying yes, there are some that no amount of preaching will reach. From OUR perspective, we have no way to know who those people are, and thus we are commanded to 'to make disciples'. Paul amplifies it further when he admonishes believing men and women to stay with the unbelieving spouse, if the spouse is willing, because 'how do you know, wife, if you will save your husband' and vice versa. So yes, without election there is no justification, but we have no way to know so we try for everyone.
There are other themes like this in Scripture, the outcome predetermined agnostic of events prior, such as Satan's defeat. No matter the number of people tempted away, even if all of them, the rocks and trees will cry out. (poetic verse). Satan still loses. So the idea of predetermined outcomes won't be too foreign to your theology if you look around.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on it, though maybe pm so the others here aren't annoyed.
Thanks

 

[buckshot24]

The government cannot be molded in any way different than what the Constitution & Bill of Rights dictates.

This is absurd. It's already strayed outside of these "dictates".

 

[alzan]

Jesus didn't leave the OT out of it himself, so why should Christians? He quoted from it regarding marriage, and when Satan was tempting him, etc. You should read up on that.

When he first came to the synagogue, he quoted directly from the scroll of Isaiah, but I suppose you didn't know that either.

And yet he never said one thing about homosexuality in all those sermons.

 

[Jadow]

the Evangelicals are all going to hell anyways. All non-Catholics are.

 

[sao123]

How can evangelicalism right itself? I don’t believe it can — at least, not back to the politically muscular force it was as recently as 2004, when white evangelicals gave President George W. Bush his narrow re-election. Evangelicals can, however, use the economic, social and spiritual crises facing America to refashion themselves into a more sensitive, spiritual and humble movement.

We evangelicals must accept that our beliefs are now in conflict with the mainstream culture. We cannot change ancient doctrines to adapt to the currents of the day. But we can, and must, adapt the way we hold our beliefs — with grace and humility instead of superior hostility. The core evangelical belief is that love and forgiveness are freely available to all who trust in Jesus Christ. This is the “good news” from which the evangelical name originates (“euangelion” is a Greek word meaning “glad tidings” or “good news”). Instead of offering hope, many evangelicals have claimed the role of moral gatekeeper, judge and jury. If we continue in that posture, we will continue to invite opposition and obscure the “good news” we are called to proclaim.

The message of forgiveness is a null point, if they refuse to accept their actions as sinful. Diluted Christianity is as useless as no Christianity.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Lol morons arguing over a fairy tale

 

[nehalem256]

And yet he never said one thing about homosexuality in all those sermons.

Did he ever say murder was wrong in all his sermons?

Assuming he didn't, would you conclude then that despite the OT making it quite clear that murder is against God's law that it is now acceptable?

 

[soulcougher73]

Did he ever say murder was wrong in all his sermons?

Assuming he didn't, would you conclude then that despite the OT making it quite clear that murder is against God's law that it is now acceptable?

You mean besides the "You shall not murder" #6 commandment part handed down by god almighty? :awe:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Did he ever say murder was wrong in all his sermons?

Why would he need to have said something about it in all his sermons? Why wouldn't once have been enough?

Assuming he didn't, would you conclude then that despite the OT making it quite clear that murder is against God's law that it is now acceptable?

The OT is not "quite clear" that homosexuality is "against God's law".

Jesus dictated the two greatest commandments, the two of which should make it clear that there is an obvious moral distinction between homosexuality and murder.

But you go right on thinking otherwise. I'm sure you can find some way to blame women for it too.

 

[nehalem256]

Why would he need to have said something about it in all his sermons? Why wouldn't once have been enough?

Why didn't he even once feel the need to reiterate that murder is wrong?

Perhaps because it was already clear?

The OT is not "quite clear" that homosexuality is "against God's law".

Jesus dictated the two greatest commandments, the two of which should make it clear that there is an obvious moral distinction between homosexuality and murder.

I doubt you would find a christian who would say that homosexuality is worse than murder.

EDIT: http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-13.htm

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

That seems unclear to you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why didn't he even once feel the need to reiterate that murder is wrong?

You don't answer a question with a question, numb nuts.

Perhaps because it was already clear?

If that is your contention, then it is your burden to justify it.

I doubt you would find a christian who would say that homosexuality is worse than murder.

So? My next door neighbor has three rabbits.

EDIT: http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-13.htm



That seems unclear to you?

What does that have to do with homosexuality?

 

[KMFJD]

Let's fucking hope so?

/thread