The problem with humanists is that they throw out the baby with the bathwater. They call it ‘humility’ to suspend judgment, yet they judge others in matters that suit them. They want compassion for all, but any hint of truth they dislike coming from the mouths of others equals Phariseeism. The real truth is, they can’t tell a true Christian from a Pharisee. To
them, Paul was a Pharisee when he condemned sins (of course, he was a Pharisee before conversion).
The essence of Phariseeism is that keeping of the rules makes one righteous. A true Christian knows that this is not so, yet he seeks moral purity because he loves God and hates sin. He hides in mercy and gives it to others, but also seeks to live and declare the truth to save himself and others from sin.
An unconverted ‘Christian’ flees from the truth and towards
truthless mercy because he, remaining uncoverted, still wants his sin more than God. He can not preach against sin, except that of ‘judging
others’ because he himself is still living in it, powerless to transcend or fight it without the indwelling spirit, and must make excuses for himself.
In being ‘graceful’ (truthless) with others, he may pass this off as generosity, but he is mostly excusing himself from continuing in sin. And until the supernatural power of God does convert him, he can do naught but try to fool himself and others that he is really Christian.
a book you should check out if you think you really know all there is to know about mercy and grace
another book I've been reading which I recommend
Thank you Louis, I certainly do NOT know all there is to know about mercy and grace. I do note, however, that you left out TRUTH again – mercy and TRUTH. This is my whole point.
I have heard of that first book, but I've shied away from it because of the kitchy, cutsie word "ragamuffin" – also, because I associate that term with the Christian artist Rich Mullins, whom I was not fond of, and who used that same term as one of his album titles. But it may in fact be a good book.
I am not fond of Karen Armstrong either, and have one of her books. Not only is she a theological liberal, she is an Islamic apologist, blinded by multicultural BS.
However, in the 'liberal theologian' vein, I have read and enjoyed (but disagreed with in many respects):
– Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith
– Dance of a Fallen Monk: A Journey to Spiritual Enlightenment
– If God Is Love : Rediscovering Grace in an Ungracious World
Despite your assertion, I have not forgotten "Truth." In fact, it is central to my concerns. I happen to believe that mercy and grace are central to Truth, and that Truth cannot exist without them. What you mean by "Truth," it seems to me, consists of legalistic interpretations of scripture and a demand for orthodoxy. Certainly, the Truth which will set us free does not consist of following Hebraic law and custom. Rather, Truth is a living thing, and something we see in all great religions.
The title of the book should not put you off. However, with your cast of mind, I doubt you would find congenial a book which puts Grace center stage rather than Law. This is illustrated by your strange equating grace with truthlessness. Again, the two are not – indeed, cannot be separate. You may condemn those who make Grace central in their lives, but you are making the typical Pharisaical mistake: not only did they think that they could somehow be made whole by their own actions, but they felt that this somehow entitled them to judge and exclude others as being unworthy and that they could thus somehow control who could approach God. God doesn't love and accept us because we are worthy or sinless, but despite our lack of worth or sinful state. Righteousness has nothing to do with it. Jesus didn't give the keys to Heaven to Caiphas, but to that scruffy world-class bumbler, Peter the fisherman. The Good News is that we are loved and saved from ourselves no matter how unworthy. That is the transforming Truth that can turn around even the most hardened heart. Jesus didn't interrogate those who came to him about their practices or the state of their souls, he just told them they were forgiven. Nothing they did (other than ask for it) made the slightest difference. See the parable of the prodigal son for His illustration of this central Truth.
I wish you would stop labeling people as "liberal." It gets in the way of knowledge. I wonder if God thinks of human beings or ideas as liberal or conservative. If you think He does, then you are merely projecting your desires onto Him. More of your "truth" I suppose.
I think that Truth liberates in many ways – not only from fear and guilt, but from sin and self-deception. My reading of the New Testament shows that the law is to make us aware of what evil is so that we may flee from it, as well as our guilt AND God's mercy – mercy means nothing without a need for it – that is, impending judgement for our guilt, and the reality of sin.
>> LOUIS: This is illustrated by your strange equating grace with truthlessness.
I think that these two necessarily exist together, and to separate them is an error. Certainly, legalists focus only on truth and not on mercy (the Pharisee I was discussing), but I think you prove my point that anyone who mentions truth, even if they do mention grace (both of which a Christian would want to include), the unregenerate blanch at the inclusion of truth, and only want to focus on 'grace and mercy' to the exlusion of truth.
I did not equate grace with truthlessness, I merely said that the unregenerate do not like to mention truth and focus on grace because they have yet to be freed from sin through regeneration. And your sentence mentioned ONLY grace, so it was quite literally missing 'truth'.
>> LOUIS: You may condemn those who make Grace central in their lives,
Again, only those who do so by excluding truth as relevant and convicting.
>> LOUIS: not only did they think that they could somehow be made whole by their own actions, but they felt that this somehow entitled them to judge and exclude others as being unworthy and that they could thus somehow control who could approach God.
Louis, you are making my point perfectly. While I mention both truth and grace, you fail to discern the difference between this approach and the judgmental Pharisaical 'truth only' approach. As I said, you act like the unregenerate person I was describing – unable to tell the difference, because any mention of truth or guilt is seen as evidence of Phariseeism.
>> LOUIS: The Good News is that we are loved and saved from ourselves no matter how unworthy.
I entirely agree. I have never said otherwise. What I have said, however, is that 'anyone who names the name of Christ should forsake sin.' Not for righteousness sake, but merely because that is their regenerate nature. But those who are NOT born again lack the will, desire, and ability to hate sin.
Now, we all struggle while here in these bodies, as even Paul the Apostle admitted. I am not talking about living sinlessly or perfectly. But I am talking about desiring to appropriate truth and forsake sin, the hallmarks of the regenerate Christian.
>> LOUIS: See the parable of the prodigal son for His illustration of this central Truth.
That is a great story, and the older brother is the typical Pharisee. However, without 'truth,' the story of the sinfulness of the Prodigal's life and his return to his father (leaving the 'sin' of the world), the story makes no sense.
Unregenerate 'Christians' justify living in the pigpen while claiming grace. The Prodigal repented and came with penitence and acknowledgement of his guilt.
Sure, the father didn't make him jump through hoops. And neither does God. But those who claim they are Christians while justifying their consistent return to the pig sty are decieved, and to call those of us who call them back to the Father through forsaking sin and hiding in his grace (not just hiding in grace and justifying remaining in sin) Pharisees are giving evidence of the counterfeit faith they have.
Of course, I can not really tell who is really saved and struggling v. who is a false Christian, but I can obey and teach the truth about what sin is, and what faith is, and how grace and truth work together. And by teaching these things, the individual who hears them can judge HIMSELF rightly. And that's the point.
I hasten to add that if such a person, whether unregenerate or struggling, wants to become a church leader, I may disqualify him if he is not 'the husband of one wife, not given to much wine,' etc.
>> LOUIS: I wish you would stop labeling people as "liberal." It gets in the way of knowledge.
Well, I think labels are necessary when discussing systems of thinking (various ideologies) and those that hold them. I admit, no 'group of people' is monolithic, but certain ideas do logically and practically hang together. Also, such terms as 'liberal theologians' or 'conservative theologians' have a commonly understood meaning.
While such generalizations may be too broad for the comfort of some, they are a necessary evil and useful in explaining differences of ideology. I'm not sure what you would have me do instead.
Glad you are back, strange to say. We get a decent number of visitors, but few commenters. I've taken to commenting on atheist blogs – but I swear, I'm trying not to troll ;)
I don't have much to say, other than I'm not much surprised at your response. I wish you would grant me the sincerity and precision of my words rather than implying I am one of the "unregenerate" and thus incapable of dedicating myself to Truth. I think we differ in our approach to Truth, that's all. While you seem to see it as a set of facts or rules listed in the Bible or the mythical "natural law" (correct me if I'm wrong), I tend to view it as a living and sacred entity: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." As such, it is something with which we have a relationship, a living presence in our lives beyond legalistic or theological concerns. It is an existential act we commit. Thus, it has the power to transform our lives beyond that of merely assenting to a list of rules or following the law.
I also fail to connect with your addiction to such labels as "unregenerate" or "regenerate." I suppose these are terms common to evangelical circles but they leave me cold. I see nothing of your approach in Jesus' actions – the opposite in fact. Besides, if you think we can attain moral purity or a sinless life through our own actions and beliefs, I fear you are seriously deluding yourself (even St. Paul admitted this was impossible). Can you add an inch to your stature through thinking? (cf, Luther's sola fide)
If I'm back, it's to comment upon spiritual matters, as I find your political stance and commentary uncongenial in the extreme. I'm also here, as part of my Ninth Step, to express regret for the intemperate language I used in the past. I now see it as a pointless exercise in resentment and fear, merely striking at you rather than convincing you. I'm sorry. I will try to treat you with the respect I wish you would extend me.