Answering the Questions, Part 4
"Late Comer" arrived at The Diner yesterday with a few questions, and on this lazy Saturday morning business seems to be slow enough to sit down and chat...so, these are from those comments yesterday:
"If you are "saved" at a young age and then turn your back on religion, are you really always saved? How is this just? It seems to me at issue is whether or not you'd been "saved." Believe & confess (Romans 10: 9-10). It seems pretty clear to me (although not all followers of Christ believe this) that once you've "been sealed" your behavior is irrelevant to that process...even if that process is denied by the individual. God is faithful to his process whether we are or not. Many conservative Christians actually have a pithy saying that sums it up: "Once saved, always saved."
Interesting that you asked is this "just." According the the Bible, the only "just" thing that could happen to a human is eternal separation from God. The deal is that a sinful human and a holy God are incompatible. Hence, since all humans sin, we're all condemned. The GOOD NEWS is that God, through the sacrifice of His Son (long story) as a propitiation (long definition) for sin, provided a way to reunite Himself with humanity. And humans don't deserve it. Therefore, God is gracious to mankind because of love.
So, Late Comer, the true beauty of the Christian faith is that justice isn't the issue at all. Grace is. So, even if people fail, God is faithful.
"What makes you so sure that you are right just because you grew up a Christian? I grew up a Buddhist and am equally sure I am correct." It's presumptive to think that I'm a follower of Christ because of my upbringing. Granted, I grew up in an area where the Christian faith is predominant (if not a "default" religion). However, my area of study at university was World Religions. During my early adulthood I was encouraged to destroy my faith and actually spent the better part of three years in exploration. In other words, I've been able to not only academically "re-think" my entire position but also experientially analyze my faith in that process.
It seems to me that any thinking person can take a look at the one event central to the Christian faith: The bodily resurrection of the dead prophet Jesus Christ. If this event happened, then the Christian faith is true and, by definition all others are false. If this event didn't happen, then we, as a Tribe are most to be pitied. Early church fathers even said as much.
For a myriad of reasons too long to invest in here, I believe the resurrection to have occurred. Everything in my life flows from that belief, which has significant intellectual reasons to hold to it. If that didn't happen, I'd certainly be on a continuing search for truth, but frankly, my guess is that we'd all be "food for worms" and my lifestyle would involve a lot more "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
One of us is "wrong." That's for sure.
"Is it really plausible to say that Christianity is relevant purely based on what Holy texts say, even though those living out the Christian faith are failing at it? Can it really be truth if it can't be lived?" As a pastor of a church, I'm likely privy to much more awful behavior than you see in Christians. Many thinkers have used the same line of questioning as you have...can it be truth if it isn't lived out?
Again, at issue isn't philosophical outworking of the faith, it's the necessity of the resurrection that makes it "true" or not. Scripture is clear that a follower of Christ can, at any given moment, be "in the flesh" or "Spirit-led." (see Galatians 5) Hence, our "holy text" is actually saying that individuals will often, by omission or commission, NOT live it out at various times. Failure is actually defined, rebuked, corrected and given instruction toward holy living in our text. It's a matter of choices, actually, in any given situation to live abundantly, joyfully and/or peacefully, or have those realities stolen, killed & destroyed. But it's our choice.
That being said, it's nearly impossible to say that the majority of followers choose abundance over slavery. My guesses as to why this is so are legion.
So, thanks, Late Comer, for the addition to the discussion! You're always welcome, although for this session you will be given a tardy slip and two more of these will result in a detention.
:)
"Late Comer" arrived at The Diner yesterday with a few questions, and on this lazy Saturday morning business seems to be slow enough to sit down and chat...so, these are from those comments yesterday:
"If you are "saved" at a young age and then turn your back on religion, are you really always saved? How is this just? It seems to me at issue is whether or not you'd been "saved." Believe & confess (Romans 10: 9-10). It seems pretty clear to me (although not all followers of Christ believe this) that once you've "been sealed" your behavior is irrelevant to that process...even if that process is denied by the individual. God is faithful to his process whether we are or not. Many conservative Christians actually have a pithy saying that sums it up: "Once saved, always saved."
Interesting that you asked is this "just." According the the Bible, the only "just" thing that could happen to a human is eternal separation from God. The deal is that a sinful human and a holy God are incompatible. Hence, since all humans sin, we're all condemned. The GOOD NEWS is that God, through the sacrifice of His Son (long story) as a propitiation (long definition) for sin, provided a way to reunite Himself with humanity. And humans don't deserve it. Therefore, God is gracious to mankind because of love.
So, Late Comer, the true beauty of the Christian faith is that justice isn't the issue at all. Grace is. So, even if people fail, God is faithful.
"What makes you so sure that you are right just because you grew up a Christian? I grew up a Buddhist and am equally sure I am correct." It's presumptive to think that I'm a follower of Christ because of my upbringing. Granted, I grew up in an area where the Christian faith is predominant (if not a "default" religion). However, my area of study at university was World Religions. During my early adulthood I was encouraged to destroy my faith and actually spent the better part of three years in exploration. In other words, I've been able to not only academically "re-think" my entire position but also experientially analyze my faith in that process.
It seems to me that any thinking person can take a look at the one event central to the Christian faith: The bodily resurrection of the dead prophet Jesus Christ. If this event happened, then the Christian faith is true and, by definition all others are false. If this event didn't happen, then we, as a Tribe are most to be pitied. Early church fathers even said as much.
For a myriad of reasons too long to invest in here, I believe the resurrection to have occurred. Everything in my life flows from that belief, which has significant intellectual reasons to hold to it. If that didn't happen, I'd certainly be on a continuing search for truth, but frankly, my guess is that we'd all be "food for worms" and my lifestyle would involve a lot more "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
One of us is "wrong." That's for sure.
"Is it really plausible to say that Christianity is relevant purely based on what Holy texts say, even though those living out the Christian faith are failing at it? Can it really be truth if it can't be lived?" As a pastor of a church, I'm likely privy to much more awful behavior than you see in Christians. Many thinkers have used the same line of questioning as you have...can it be truth if it isn't lived out?
Again, at issue isn't philosophical outworking of the faith, it's the necessity of the resurrection that makes it "true" or not. Scripture is clear that a follower of Christ can, at any given moment, be "in the flesh" or "Spirit-led." (see Galatians 5) Hence, our "holy text" is actually saying that individuals will often, by omission or commission, NOT live it out at various times. Failure is actually defined, rebuked, corrected and given instruction toward holy living in our text. It's a matter of choices, actually, in any given situation to live abundantly, joyfully and/or peacefully, or have those realities stolen, killed & destroyed. But it's our choice.
That being said, it's nearly impossible to say that the majority of followers choose abundance over slavery. My guesses as to why this is so are legion.
So, thanks, Late Comer, for the addition to the discussion! You're always welcome, although for this session you will be given a tardy slip and two more of these will result in a detention.
:)
.jpg){kind=avatar}
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home