- Aug 8, 2017
- 2,607
- 2,526
- 32
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I'm just using it as an example. They tend to be the most common group that takes this notion of instant holiness as a given. We Lutherans reject it. Our lives are complicated, we are saints yes, but we are also sinners at the same time. Therefore, we don't play God, we don't speak for God unless it is clear through biblical evidence and plain reason. Not just pious whims so common in other evangelical churches. We actually want rock-solid certainty before we go spouting off what is God's design or God's will.
Denominational problems aside (since I have none lol), righteous judgement had nothing to do with instant holiness. Nor has that been implied at all. Righteous judgement is judging, or coming to a decision based on the authority of the Word, as oppose to leaning on your own understanding. The Christian baker saying "no", whether or not it makes people feel less happy, is them exercising righteous judgement. Its a decision that is based on what the Word of God already clearly established about associating yourself with it (ex. of righteous judgement: The Word of God said not to associate, doing this act will have me associate, therefore I can't do this act.) My argument is that they should not be forced to say yes, they should have that right to say "yes" or "no". I would not shame them, because I know why they would say "no". I still stand by that, so idk what else to say.
Upvote
0