The Sermon on the Mount is one of the scriptural passages that progressive christians love to cherry pick and use to support their social agenda. Often choosing to ignore the non temporal aspects of this sermon, in favor of proof texting their commitment to secular social justice.
But, as with many of Jesus' teachings there are parts that get ignored.
"Towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives warning after warning. The final one is sharp. Not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom. Some will stand before Him, listing their works—preaching, casting out demons, performing miracles. But Jesus will say, “I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” It is a gut punch. A moment of reckoning. Jesus has been clear. The easy road leads to destruction. The hard road leads to life. Few find it. Wolves come dressed as sheep. They sound right. They look right. They deceive others. But the greatest danger is not false teachers. It is self-deception. False teachers lie to you. False believers lie to themselves. There are liars in the pulpit and liars in the pews. Jesus contrasts two types of people: those who say and those who do. Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter, but the one who does the will of the Father. Their profession is orthodox in words, but false in life. They call Him Lord, and He is. Their theology is correct, but their hearts are far from Him. They are passionate, saying “Lord, Lord.” They emphasize it, repeat it, speak with fervor. Passion is good, but passion is not proof. They point to their public works—prophesying, casting out demons, miracles. They were known. Respected. Successful. But their success was no sign of salvation. Apparent spiritual activity does not equal spiritual reality. God is so good that He sometimes works through the hands of evil men. Judas preached. Judas performed signs. Judas cast out demons. The disciples returned amazed—“Even the demons are subject to us in your name!” Jesus replied, “Do not rejoice that the spirits obey you. Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” That’s the key. Not the works. Not the words. The name written in heaven. Jesus ends with His own public declaration: “I never knew you.” Imagine hearing those words. Not “You lost your way.” Not “I used to know you.” But “I never knew you.” They were never His. They were in the house of God but not in the family of God. Their faith was a performance, a self-deception, a lie. Goats look like sheep. But goats do not follow the Shepherd. They follow their hunger, their will. They are stubborn, self-willed, independent. They think they are His. They are not. This is a warning against trusting in outward things—in right words, right affiliations, right actions—while your heart remains unchanged. The danger is real. A man can be a preacher, a miracle worker, a missionary, and still be unknown by Christ. A church can be full of passionate people, reciting creeds, singing psalms, preaching truth—and still be a wreck. Because saying isn’t doing. Passion isn’t proof. Success isn’t salvation. In the end, there will be two kinds of people—those who do the will of the Father, and those who only say they do. The question is not merely, Do you call Him Lord?" The question is, "Does He know you?"m Lord?" The question is, "Does He know you?""
Reverend Michael Foster
Personally, I question whether anyone who anchors their theology/worldview in their own personal experience and feelings would probably get a no on that last question.
From Luke 13, "23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’"
Jesus literally tells people who "ate and drank" with Him that they are "evildoers". This passage makes me wonder about all of the people who's big takeaway from Jesus' earthly ministry was that He "ate and drank" with sinners would say when Jesus' then calls them "evildoers".
It is undeniable that Jesus spent time with sinners, the question is what did He do with that time and how did the sinners respond. This seems to indicate that Jesus probably told them to "sin no more", or to follow Him through the "narrow gate", yet they chose the path that is wide and leads to destruction. They though that hanging out with Jesus was enough, Jesus calls them "evildoers". FYI, these aren't necessarily the Pharisees or the other usual bad guys in the progressive eisegesis world. They're the regular folks that Jesus "ate and drank" with.
31 comments:
The tricky part is doing His Will more often than not, if not doing it all the time. So glad He's my Savior. I can't do it on my own.
Foster: "That’s the key. Not the works. Not the words. The name written in heaven."
So, presumably, not God and God's grace, just the whimsical choice of a person by a god who chooses some but not others, where this god chooses for whatever unknown reason to put a name on some "list"? (That's a question, fyi. Note the question mark.)
That's the advantage folks who believe in salvation by grace have... we're not hoping for some whimsical selection and decision by a transactional god who may choose to put someone's name on the "nice" list, rather than the "naughty" list. We can rest in God's grace and love, assuming that God IS a God of perfect love, grace and justice, not some random whimsical trickster godling.
Craig and Foster:
"Often choosing to ignore the non temporal aspects of this sermon, in favor of proof texting their commitment to secular social justice.
But, as with many of Jesus' teachings there are parts that get ignored.
"Towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives warning after warning. The final one is sharp."
Astonishingly, Foster (and Craig?) are ignoring other important words of Jesus... Words like God so loved THE WORLD that God sent God's son to save the lost. Period. Words like those who care for the least of these ARE caring for God/Jesus. That we can KNOW them by their love and their actions and their grace.
Foster appears to ignore all the obvious in favor of a human theory about a "list" where the "good" people are listed and the "naughty" people are left out.
Seems to me he's confusing God with Santa Claus.
"Goats look like sheep. But goats do not follow the Shepherd. They follow their hunger, their will. They are stubborn, self-willed, independent. They think they are His. They are not."
The difference, then, between the sheep and goats is NOT their perfection of understanding or their inability to be mistaken. The difference is between what they DID and DIDN'T do (Matthew 25).
Those who may have this tidbit of "christian theology" wrong or be mistaken on this point or that... THOSE are not the goats. They are just mistaken. THOSE are not the false teachers. They are just mistaken.
Fortunately, we are not saved by perfect understanding. We are saved by Grace.
So, the difference between the sheep and goats is not their perfect understanding of various (conservative) theological theories. The difference is whether they are living by love, grace and forgiveness. Whether they are allies with the poor and marginalized (the sign of having accepted Jesus' good news for the poor...)
What do you think?
Your Michael Foster fella (sorry, gentleman, for the easily offended) said:
Towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives warning after warning. The final one is sharp.
Not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom.
And just as a reminder, Jesus said, in that passage:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Your Rev. Foster continues theorizing:
Jesus has been clear. The easy road leads to destruction. The hard road leads to life. Few find it. Wolves come dressed as sheep. They sound right. They look right. They deceive others. But the greatest danger is not false teachers. It is self-deception.
And Jesus HAS been clear in his teachings, but while this gentleman theorizes that the ultimate gist of Jesus' teachings is whether or not you win the lottery and get your name written on a book.
But this is not in any serious way, "the clear teachings of Jesus."
Of course, first of all, Jesus never mentioned the book of life, at least I don't believe he did, not in his teachings. "Book of life" is mostly a Revelation thing, for what it's worth.
What Jesus DOES make clear is (in multiple places and in multiple ways)...
* he came to seek and save the lost. That he so loved "the world" that he was not willing that ANYONE should perish. No limits mentioned;
* He makes clear that he came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized;
* He said that the poor are blessed but woe to the wealthy and the oppressors;
* That we can TELL who his followers are by the way they love one another AND by the way they care for and ally with the poor and the marginalized;
* That his Way was a way of Grace, a way of an open table with an open invitation that ALL who are willing could come (beginning again with the poor and marginalized);
So, yes, Jesus is clear but it's not the "easy road" that leads to destruction, but rather, the road to destruction is the way that refuses to embrace grace and God's welcome of all, beginning with the poor and marginalized. The false teachers ARE the ones recognizable by their bad fruit, by the way they are deliberately spreading "bad news" (as opposed to actual good news) in order to gain power and increase their wealth. These deliberate con artists ARE on a path to destruction, but we can recognize those who are Jesus' followers by the way they care for/ally with the least of these.
The tricky part is getting out of His way and not thinking that it is up to what we do in the first place.
Dan just commented multiple times on a post, where all of his comments were attempts to avoid answering a few simple questions, and has the chutzpah to start his first comment here demanding that HIS questions be answered.
Yes, the "key" is YHWH. It's not the "works" Dan spends so much time bragging about, it's YHWH. More specifically it's YHWH's grace poured out on those who He chooses to pour His grace out on. It's not about us doing the right amount of the right "works" in order to earn YHWH's grace, It's YHWH bestowing His unmerited favor on His people.
Will since you appear to be speaking about some "god", not YHWH, I can't answer your questions about some unknown "god". I can suggest that YHWH, the all knowing, all powerful, Creator of all that exists, who's ways are beyond our ways and thoughts beyond our thoughts, can exercise His grace however He chooses.
Yet, somehow it always comes back to having to earn your salvation by doing the right amount of the right "works". Or by having a small enough number of "minor sins" to keep you safe. I'd prefer to trust in YHWH, rather than in human effort.
Astonishingly, "Foster (and Craig) are not ignoring anything, Dan is just to obsessed with protecting his narrative that he needs to find anything to discredit those who don't buy his bullshit. He does so, by himself ignoring other words of Jesus. But that's kind of the point innit?
Dan appears content to trade in made up bullshit, rather than anything substantive.
There it is, Dan trots out the other misinterpreted proof text to justify his works based theology.
The sheep and goats were behaving as their nature dictated. The "sheep" behaved one way because they were "sheep", likewise the "goats". Nowhere in the parable Dan references does Jesus indicate that the "goats" would become "sheep" if only they'd have done the right amount of the right works.
If, as you say, the issue is solely about what they "DID and DIDN'T do", (their actions) then how could their being mistaken possibly enter in to it? If I murder someone because I'm "mistaken" about the appropriateness of murder, I'm judged on my ACTIONS, not my motivation. Nice goal post move there.
I do so love when you obsessively and monomaniacal introduce one of your pet "human theories" (in this case "perfect understanding") as if anyone is actually suggesting that "perfect understanding" is necessary for salvation. I get the obsessive and reflexive use of straw men, but give it a rest. That Dan acts as if it's only "conservatives" that have these "human theories" is simply disingenuous at best.
The difference is that sheep act like sheep, and goats act like goats. Not some magical "grace" based on works that will change goats into sheep.
"Your Rev. Foster continues theorizing:"
If by theorizing you mean using or paraphrasing the exact words of Jesus, then sure. I guess those are the words of Jesus you ignore or misinterpret in your attempts to proof text your narrative.
But excellent job of (intentionally?) misrepresenting what he's said.
"4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels. 6 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
Given that Revelation records the words of Jesus, I fail to see why those words are less valuable than any others.
That Jesus doesn't use that particular metaphor or language in the Gospels, doesn't mean that He is not clear that there are those who will be saved and those who won't be saved. He clearly references that in Matthew, "13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.". He's also quite clear that "many" follow "the road to destruction", while "few find" the "road that leads to life".
That you can selectively proof text, a few things out of context, and cherry pick some verses that can be twisted to support your "human theory" isn't surprising, it's expected. That you'll ignore other words of Jesus that don't support your "human theory" is also not surprising, but expected. That you can so easily twist Jesus' words would be disturbing, if it wasn't so common. Your selective eisegesis and literalism is always interesting in it's creativity.
Where, specifically in Scripture does Jesus use the term "The Way of Grace"?
The "perfect understanding" mantra is his rationalization for embracing what is clearly contrary to the clearly revealed Will of God on the specific sin he embraces. "Sure...I might be mistaken" only works...if it works at all...where there is true ambiguity. There's none on the sins Dan embraces as somehow no longer sinful. But he can't look to Scripture to "know" because...you know..."not a rule book". Thus, he "might" be mistaken. Spoken like a true goat.
More and more it's becoming obvious that Dan has a few go to responses to things. They don't actually mean anything, in the sense that they relate to something that's actually been argued by someone, they're just little things he throws out when he has nothing of substance to say. It's a shorthand straw man argument. He just assumes that this bogeyman is so impactful that he can throw it out and it'll stop any further debate.
It's just one more example of Dan's laziness.
One additional thought. The problem with the "mistaken" canard is that people who are mistaken usually want to not be mistaken. They usually don't continue in the behavior because they feel like claiming "mistaken" is some sort of get out of jail free card, they search for what is True and if they are mistaken, they stop doing what they were mistaken about.
With Dan it's almost presented as an excuse to continue in sin, because apparently ignorance of the law IS an excuse in Dan's world.
Craig asked:
Where, specifically in Scripture does Jesus use the term "The Way of Grace"?
He literally never uses the word Grace. But you and I agree that a writer or thinker need not USE a term to be talking about or describing a term. After all, you all put a lot of stock in "inerrancy," "total depravity," "trinity" and other terms not found in the Bible.
But that the TERM isn't in the biblical record of Jesus' words, the IDEA is, from start to finish.
Do you disagree?
Some examples of Jesus speaking of his/the Way of Grace:
1. Jesus said he'd come specifically and literally to preach actual good news to the actually poor and marginalized. THIS, in the context of the pharisaical system that excluded and marginalized the poor and marginalized and laid heavy burdens upon the "normal" people, the poor and the marginalized.
Jesus, instead, said, come to me, you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Good news. Grace for the actually poor and oppressed.
2. Jesus said he'd come to bring salvation to the lost. Good news for the poor, the oppressed, the lost... those often excluded by the graceless religionists and rule-demanders.
That is, Jesus' way of grace is evident in ALL of his opposition to the religionists and legalists of his day. We are not SAVED by legalism, Jesus says repeatedly (and in confronting the legalists/pharisees), we are saved by Grace.
3. Jesus' Way of Grace is evident in the words of the angels and his mother even before he came onto the scene...
"Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people."
Actual good news and great joy for ALL the people, said the angel. A way of inclusive/welcoming grace, NOT graceless legalism that condemns the majority of humanity in graceless threats of torture.
And Mary, in her song about the poor and marginalized being lifted up while the rich oppressors are brought down. Grace and salvation and freedom for the poor and oppressed. AND an implicit bit of grace and salvation hope even for the rich oppressors, as they accept a way of Grace instead of their wealthy oppression.
4. Jesus spoke of the way of Grace in his parables, where the excluded and oppressed are invited in, not by them "deserving" invitation, but by Grace.
" The lost coin did nothing to be found. The lost sheep did not rescue itself. The prodigal did not deserve to be received as a son.
Without saying the word grace, Jesus left lasting impressions of unmerited favor."
5. By his widely, wildly given forgiveness, specifically to and for those typically cast out and considered "unclean."
"When preaching to those under the law, Jesus made forgiveness conditional. But on the street, Jesus revealed a forgiveness that is unconditional."
That IS a Way of Grace.
Are you arguing that Jesus did NOT preach a Way of Grace because he didn't use that term?
I don't think you are, but you can answer for yourself.
"Do you disagree?"
Stupid, lazy question, but I'll answer in this case.
Your point that a term doesn't need to be used for that term to accurately reflect what scripture says is correct. Yet, you so frequently argue that the absence of a specific term or specific language in scripture invalidates the use of the term. Perhaps applying the same standards to other that you apply to yourself would be a helpful thing to do.
1. When you cherry pick one text, as a proof text, and ignore the rest of the text that doesn't support your cherry picked proof text, it doesn't make you look particularly intelligent.
2. These are all just random proof texts, cherry picked, out of context, and forced into your mythical "way of grace" box regardless.
Craig falsely claimed...
you so frequently argue that the absence of a specific term or specific language in scripture invalidates the use of the term.
Of course, the reality is I've been abundantly clear and stated clearly and repeatedly THE EXACT PHRASE OR WORD IS NOT NEEDED for a concept to be discussed in a text.
But don't let reality overcome your delusions, I guess.
Rather, I note that human traditions like penal substitutionary atonement are absent from Jesus' teachings in any direction manner. Having two instances of words that can be construed to hint at psa does not make it present. Same for inerrancy.
Grace is hard to escape in a wide range of Scripture, but not psa or inerrancy.
Again, if reality matters to you.
Dan
Craig...
"When you cherry pick one text, as a proof text, and ignore the rest of the text..."
That IS a shame on problematic when some people do that. Which is why I strive to avoid it.
Craig...
"These are all just random proof texts, cherry picked, out of context, and forced into your mythical "way of grace" box regardless."
I get that this is your personal human opinion. Just the way I think conservatives go WAY out of their way to cherry pick verses that they think support their pet human theories.
Can you acknowledge that we think we're being exceedingly faithful to the text and to reason when we hold our opinions, just like you presumably do?
Dan
If you say so, because that's really the only thing that's important at any given moment.
Interesting, you simply define certain doctrines out of consideration because of how you choose to interpret scripture. Further, your conflation with the larger/general concept of grace (unmerited favor) with your subjective "Way of Grace" is quite the bait and switch.
PSA, inerrancy, predestination, and many other doctrines you don't like are amply present in scripture. It just takes a willingness to put aside one's preconceptions and deal with scripture with an open mind. Again, it's not hard to do a Google search to find every scripture reference that supports those doctrines.
If you were arguing that the references existed, but didn't support the various doctrines, I'd at least give you credit for trying. But this bland dismissal, indicates a complete lack of effort.
The, clearly, your striving is in vain or you are not striving particularly hard.
No, I cannot acknowledge anything about you that I cannot verify personally. Given your cavalier dismissal of scriptures and interpretations that don't fit your eisegesis, i see no way to accept that you are being "exceedingly faithful". Especially given your penchant to insist that various texts actually mean something completely opposite of the plain reading of the text.
Craig...
"PSA, inerrancy, predestination, and many other doctrines you don't like are amply present in scripture. It just takes a willingness to put aside one's preconceptions and deal with scripture with an open mind."
I GET that you personally think they are amply present in Scripture. I strongly disagree with that perception you hold.
And you must keep in mind that I HELD those opinions for nearly half my life. It was having an open mind and a sincere desire for truth and God's Way that led me AWAY from those traditions and opinions. That, and what I came to recognize as the very poor biblical and rational arguments for holding those opinions.
How is it that I am the one lacking an open mind, when I managed to change my opinion from what I strongly believed because of an open mind?
Was there ever a time when you didn't hold to these opinions and an open mind brought you to them?
Dan
That you disagree with something has zero value. It's either there or it isn't. If it's there, but you disagree with it, then who cares what you think. I get that you have to pretend as if the only person who finds these things in scripture is me, because you seem so committed to the notion that the only arbiter of scripture is the individual.
If you say so.
I just look at the evidence of what you say and draw conclusions from there. When you say things like "PSA' isn't present at all in scripture, the only possible answer is that you've chosen to close your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong.
There was a time when I realized that I needed to study the core beliefs of the theological stream that I had grown up in and to determine for myself whether or not I wanted to continue in that stream or move elsewhere. I spent years studying (using resources from all perspectives and comparing those to scripture) and reached my conclusions based on that study.
And I spent years studying - decades, and it's ongoing - and reached different conclusions than you have on these topics. So...
I mean, it was because of those decades of study that I've come to disagree with these human traditions. EVEN THOUGH, I once held to them.
So clearly, whether it's in there or not is a debatable point which humans in good faith disagree with.
Do you have the grace wherewithal to acknowledge that observable reality?
Why do you think an ultra-conservative young Dan (and all the others who once were conservative and now aren't) would leave those positions other than good faith studies and discernment?
As a reminder, I was so conservative that I would not even read liberal or even moderate (which i considered liberal) writers on these topics. It was just me comparing the text of the Bible to the conservative interpretations on these topics that pushed me away from the conservative opinions.
Is it beyond your imagination that people could take that path in good faith?
And if so, why would you think that? Could it be a lack of grace?
Dan
Based on your previous comments, from a while back, one wonders how long it's been since you studied any thing written by someone even slightly "conservative".
It's not a matter of grace to acknowledge that there are different conclusions reached on many topics.
I have no way to determine whether or not you were "ultra conservative" (you seem to increase how "conservative" you were regularly). Your inability to articulate "conservative" positions on various doctrinal issues and your regular misrepresentation of the "conservative" positions certainly raise doubts about how "conservative" you really were. That your new "biblical" positions coincidentally happen to line up almost exactly with modern American political liberalism also seems strange. As does you regular suggestions that political policy be based on your progressive christian interpretation of scripture. Unfortunately, this is an unproven/unprovable claim. Further, I have no possible window into your motivation, thought process, or "good faith". Again, I'm left with an unproven/unprovable claim from you. Given your previous behavior, I see no reason to blindly accept your unproven claims.
No, it's not. Many people choose the wide road that leads to destruction in "good faith". Grounding one's theology/worldview/morality solely in oneself seems problematic to me, especially when one attempts to project that internally grounded worldview as being right and other worldviews as being wrong.
Not lack of grace, more that I've been interacting with you for a long time. I've been on the receiving end of your vitriolic, expletive filled attacks. I've gotten so inundated with your ad hom attacks that I hardly notice them any more. I've rarely interacted with someone who prates on and on about grace, yet shows so little of that grace to those he disagrees with.
I regularly extend you a grace you deny me by allowing you virtually unfettered access to post anything you want on my blog. I rarely delete you intentionally, and if I do it's for a specific reason which I enumerate. I occasionally delete you accidentally, which I apologize for and ask for you to re post your comments.
It's many things, but a lack of grace is not one of them. I know it's easier to blame others for lacking grace, than to honestly evaluate one's own words/actions than to acknowledge that it might not always be someone else's fault.
"That’s the key. Not the works. Not the words. The name written in heaven."
Why is the "name written on the list"? Could that be grace? Is YHWH incapable of keeping track of those to whom He's given grace?
It's interesting that for all of the focus on grace, the proof texts y'all fall back on are all about works.
Jesus in the synagogue, y'all focus on the works.
Sheep and Goats, y'all focus on what we "must do" in order to be "Sheep".
TSOM, it's all about what we need to do and about alleviating temporal suffering.
That's not grace, it's works.
Craig...
"I have no way to determine whether or not you were "ultra conservative" (you seem to increase how "conservative" you were regularly)..."
1. How conservative was I?
I was a Republican, pro-Reagan for most of that time.
I was solidly pro-life.
I was an inerrancy believer.
I deeply affirmed the depravity of humanity, the sinful nature of humans.
I was a TULIP believer.
The authors I read and loved were Sproul, Dobson, Swindoll, Ravenhill, Torey, Oswald Chambers, Lewis, etc, etc... ALL the standard traditional, conservative authors... but only AFTER the Bible.
I was opposed to the normalization of anything to do with homosexuality.
On point after point, I affirmed and struggled for traditional Southern Baptist conservatism.
How does that mean I wasn't conservative? If one strongly believes conservative ideology, how are they not conservative?
Dan
Craig...
"Your inability to articulate "conservative" positions on various doctrinal issues and your regular misrepresentation of the "conservative" positions certainly raise doubts about how "conservative"..."
2. Y'all say this regularly, but you can't point to any place where I've had an inability to accurately articulate conservative positions.
I was opposed to abortion. Why? Because that fetus is a human life created by God and thus, that life is not ours to take. Having an abortion is tantamount to murder, I believed.
Is that somehow failing to understand conservative belief on the point?
I believed that humanity had a sin nature and were totally depraved, innately incapable of understanding God and God's ways and thus, prone to sin and evil, dead in sin. The ONLY way for them to "get saved" was if God chose to give them life and understanding.
What am I not articulating correctly...?
And on and on I could go and have gone. Always representing traditional conservative traditions and opinions.
Dan
Craig...
"Many people choose the wide road that leads to destruction in "good faith"."
Can you support this rather hard-to-believe theory?
I mean, do you know this as an objective fact or is it an unsupported theory of yours?
Can you even explain what you mean by this? Do you think people are saying, "I
know this path will lead me to destruction and cause harm and pain, but I'm making this decision in good faith because it's the right thing to do, I think..."
Or are you suggesting people make decisions in good faith, but they were mistaken in thinking that it was a good thing when it wasn't? Like, perhaps, the Hiroshima bombers or 9/11 terrorists?
If the latter, are you suggesting reaching bad conclusions but in good faith condemns one to hell... that the sin or crime of being mistaken is worthy of hell?
Dan
Yet, you haven't, can't prove those things to be True. You can, and do, assert them yet have no way to independently attest to those things as objectively factual.
Again, I don't read minds and have no idea what you really believed or how committed you were. What I do know is that you have never (to my recollection) accurately represented the conservative position on virtually any topic. You consistently misrepresent reformed theological positions, and offer caricatures of other conservative positions.
The simple, undeniable, Truth is that this is simply one more unproven/unprovable claim.
Except we have done so regularly, you just somehow manage to miss the instances when we do. That I'm not going to go back and sift through vast amounts of your idiocy to "prove" this doesn't mean that it can't be proven, just that I've got better things to do.
Well, you know how to copy paste a very basic position held by some conservatives. It's too bad you believe that the Bible told you to abandon this position in favor of supporting mothers ending the lives of their children for the convenience of the mother, or under pressure from family members.
You tend to make these "Always" types of claims, then ignore the reality that simply providing one instance contrary to your absurd claim disproves the claim entirely.
You'll go on and on, obsessed with justifying yourself.
While many Christians would agree with your alleged position on abortion, it's not necessarily the current conservative position. The more current conservative/Christian position is that science is clear that a brand new, unique, individual, life begins at conception. That this life contains all of the information encoded in it's DNA to span through every stage of life from gestation to birth and until death. This new life is not "part of the mothers body", nor is it a "clump of cells", it is a living human being at an early stage of normal human development.
"Can you support this rather hard-to-believe theory?"
Human nature?
Are you suggesting that billions of people you'd consider "good" intentionally choose the road that is "wide and leads to destruction" because they seek out "destruction"? Are you suggesting that most people don't make choices with what they individually consider "good faith"? Do you understand how the term "good faith" is normally used?
"I mean, do you know this as an objective fact or is it an unsupported theory of yours?"
Neither.
"Can you even explain what you mean by this?"
It is pretty well established that most people make choices based on some degree of two objectives, increase pleasure or decrease pain. Given that, it seems logical that people make "good faith" decisions that increase pleasure/decrease pain without thinking about anything beyond the moment of the decision. The "wide" road is the road of following the crowd, it's "if it feels good do it", it's easy. People tend to choose easy over hard.
What Jesus tells us about the "narrow gate" is that it's a difficult path, filled with hardship and persecution. Look at the disciples and those Peter wrote to, do their lives and deaths sound like an easy road? Are huge numbers of people really going to choose hard over easy?
I think people are "saying", this feels good. It's easy. It's inertia. I"ll go along with he "cool people". I want to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. I think that they truly believe that their highest good is found along the easy road that is "wide and leads to destruction". That they listen to the people who tell them that there is no "destruction", that it's all good. That they're "good people" and that they have nothing to fear at the end of the road.
Ultimately, we know the what. Jesus is clear that only a small number of people will avoid the wide road that "leads to destruction". We know that Jesus will tell some of those who "ate and drank" with Him will "seek to enter and will not be able". Many will stand outside and knock at the door, saying 'Lord open to us." Yet Jesus will tell them "I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of inequity.". We know how things will end.
What we don't know for sure is the why. Why will some "choose" one way and not the other? If nothing else, it's highly likely that those who "choose" a rod do so believing that it is the best road for them.
Yes, I'm suggesting that people make bad decisions that result in bad consequences. Although your examples are stupid.
No, i"m not. I'm literally taking the words of Jesus, echoed by His closest followers, and taking them at face value.
Are you really suggesting that Jesus did not mean that two "paths" exist? That one "path" leads to life and the other to "destruction"? That Jesus' warning at the end of TSOTM and in Luke 13 doesn't mean that many who think that they are tight with Jesus will be left on the outside "knocking", and be referred to as "workers of inequity" or "evildoers"?
Finally, I'm suggesting that "good faith" isn't a category that plays into this at all. If Jesus has (as He said) chosen His "sheep", then "good faith" means nothing. If one believes that ones works will sway the outcome, then "good faith" also isn't an issue because it's about the works of "feeding the poor, tending to the prisoners, etc".
If you'd like to explain where Jesus is wrong in His warning, please do so. I'd be fascinated.
Post a Comment