The Gospel and the Church

[ctobola]

The nature of the Gospel and the nature of the Church have been on my mind lately.

When we deal with the nature of the Church, we necessarily have to look back to the nature of the Gospel. Issues of authority, stucture, inclusion/exclusion are part of how we present ourselves to the World. In doing so, are we sending the right message? I dunno.

My understanding of the Gospel is this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the just and the unjust alike. The price of our redemption has been paid in full -- even before we asked, or knew we needed it. In fact, as Lutherans we believe that the ability to accept that salvation is a gift. It is not about what we do.

What should the Church look like in order to accurately communicate that to the World?

The Christian faith is not a religion: it cannot be. In fact, it's the absolute opposite of a religion.

To clarify: a religion is a system by which humans reconcile themselves with a deity. That can involve a lot of things -- praying to Mecca, only eating certain foods, cutting off part of your penis, treating others a certain way.

The Christian Gospel does not focus on our acceptance or compliance with certain rules. It states that what needed to be done has already been done, and we don't even have the power to accept it.

What does that say about the nature of the Church? If we are to salt and light, what are we doing to properly present that Gospel?

Thoughts?

In Christ, -Cloy

[Protoevangel]

The nature of the Gospel and the nature of the Church have been on my mind lately.

When we deal with the nature of the Church, we necessarily have to look back to the nature of the Gospel. Issues of authority, stucture, inclusion/exclusion are part of how we present ourselves to the World. In doing so, are we sending the right message? I dunno.

My understanding of the Gospel is this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the just and the unjust alike. The price of our redemption has been paid in full -- even before we asked, or knew we needed it. In fact, as Lutherans we believe that the ability to accept that salvation is a gift. It is not about what we do.

What should the Church look like in order to accurately communicate that to the World?

The Christian faith is not a religion: it cannot be. In fact, it's the absolute opposite of a religion.

To clarify: a religion is a system by which humans reconcile themselves with a deity. That can involve a lot of things -- praying to Mecca, only eating certain foods, cutting off part of your penis, treating others a certain way.

The Christian Gospel does not focus on our acceptance or compliance with certain rules. It states that what needed to be done has already been done, and we don't even have the power to accept it.

What does that say about the nature of the Church? If we are to salt and light, what are we doing to properly present that Gospel?

Thoughts?

In Christ, -Cloy
One or two...

You have some strong words about religion, Cloy. I wonder how that disparaging attitude holds up against the Biblical record, and the Lutheran faith...


Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. re·li·gion
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.religion
n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: faith, religious belief] 2: institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: faith]
O ye bishops! [to whom this charge has been committed by God,] what will ye ever answer to Christ for having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a moment discharged your office? [You are the persons to whom alone this ruin of the Christian religion is due. You have permitted men to err so shamefully; yours is the guilt; for you have ever done anything rather than what your office required you to do.]

...And, indeed, in a cause of such importance pertaining to religion and the instruction of consciences, they thought that the adversaries would produce their writing without any hesitation [, or even offer it to us]...

...For in a matter pertaining to religion, how could they assent to a writing into which they had not looked, especially, as they had heard that some articles were condemned, in which it was impossible for them, without grievous sin, to approve the opinions of the adversaries?...
The Comprehensive Summary, Foundation, Rule and Norm

1] Since for thorough, permanent unity in the Church it is, above all things, necessary that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form wherein is brought together from God's Word the common doctrine, reduced to a brief compass, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion confess, just as the ancient Church always had for this use its fixed symbols; 2] moreover, since this [comprehensive form of doctrine] should not be based on private writings, but on such books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith, but confess the public common writings which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the dissensions arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to [and maintenance and use of] the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it.

8] 6. And now, in the sixth place, because these highly important matters [the business of religion] concern also the common people and laymen [as they are called]...

16] Now, although the aforesaid writings afford the Christian reader, who delights in and has a love for the divine truth, clear and correct information concerning each and every controverted article of our Christian religion, as to what he should regard and receive as right and true according to God's Word of the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures, and what he should reject, shun, and avoid as false and wrong...

...From this declaration the Christian reader will inform himself in every emergency, and compare it with the writings enumerated above, and he will find out exactly that what was confessed in the beginning concerning each article in the comprehensive summary of our religion and faith...
Church Rites, Commonly Called Adiaphora.

...In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel]...

10] We believe, teach, and confess also that at the time of confession [when a confession of the heavenly truth is required], when the enemies of God's Word desire to suppress the pure doctrine of the holy Gospel, the entire congregation of God, yea, every Christian, but especially the ministers of the Word, as the leaders of the congregation of God [as those whom God has appointed to rule His Church], are bound by God's Word to confess freely and openly the [godly] doctrine, and what belongs to the whole of [pure] religion, not only in words, but also in works and with deeds; and that then, in this case, even in such [things truly and of themselves] adiaphora, they must not yield to the adversaries, or permit these [adiaphora] to be forced upon them by their enemies, whether by violence or cunning, to the detriment of the true worship of God and the introduction and sanction of idolatry.

29] 4. We likewise regard it as a sin that deserves to be rebuked when in time of persecution anything is done either in indifferent matters or in doctrine, and in what otherwise pertains to religion, for the sake of the enemies of the Gospel, in word and act, contrary and opposed to the Christian confession.

I know how tempting it can be to make up your own definitions, Cloy, but it really isn't that helpful. Perhaps what you practice is the opposite of religion (somehow, I really doubt it, though), but the Small Catechism, the Formula of Concord, and even the Bible itself, do not claim to be the "opposite of religion".

[ctobola]

One or two...
You have some strong words about religion, Cloy. I wonder how that disparaging attitude holds up against the Biblical record, and the Lutheran faith ...snip...

Dan,

You offer a reasonable defense for different definitions for the word religion; but the point of my post wasn't to discuss semantics: the point was to contrast the Gospel message against humanity's attempts to reconcile itself with God (which I defined as religion within the context of this conversation.)

I'm certainly not the only person who has posited this use of the term -- Karl Barth, Jacque Ellul, Dietrich Bonhöffer have contrasted Christianity and the Gospel as being fundamentally different from what we popularly think of as religion. Robert Farrar Capon sums it up well in his 1983 book Between Noon and Three: A Parable of Romance, Law, and the Outrage of Grace. Here's what he writes:
"I want you to set aside the notion of the Christian religion, because it's a contradiction in terms. You won't learn anything positive about religion from Christianity, and if you look for Christianity in religion, you'll never find it. To be sure, Christianity uses the forms of religion, and, to be dismally honest, too many of its adherents act as if it were a religion; but it isn't one, and that's that. The church is not in the religion business; it is in the Gospel-proclaiming business. And the gospel is the good news that all man's fuss and feathers over his relationship with God is unnecessary because God, in the mystery of the Word who is Jesus, has gone and fixed it up Himself. So let that pass." (p. 167)

Hope that helps clarify what I was trying to communicate.

My question, then, is how is it that we keep using all the trappings of religion (an attempt by humans to reach God) right along side the Gospel message, which is fundamentally about God's action to do it all Himself.

Are we sending the wrong message? (I tend to think that we are -- Christianity is still considered by many to be a system of what you have to do in order to be good enough.) And if so, how do we stop?

The Gospel is fundamentally an outrageous message. Sadly, I think the Church has slowly replaced the dangerous and radical notion of Grace with something that is far more palatable for the masses... and that disturbs me.

In Christ, -Cloy

[Protoevangel]

Dan,

You offer a reasonable defense for different definitions for the word religion; but the point of my post wasn't to discuss semantics: the point was to contrast the Gospel message against humanity's attempts to reconcile itself with God (which I defined as religion within the context of this conversation.)
I am not the one offering novel definitions here, Cloy. I use the definition the Bible uses. Greek - Threskeia, (religious worship, religious discipline). It's good enough for me.

I'm certainly not the only person who has posited this use of the term -- Karl Barth, Jacque Ellul, Dietrich Bonhöffer have contrasted Christianity and the Gospel as being fundamentally different from what we popularly think of as religion. Robert Farrar Capon sums it up well in his 1983 book Between Noon and Three: A Parable of Romance, Law, and the Outrage of Grace. Here's what he writes:

"I want you to set aside the notion of the Christian religion, because it's a contradiction in terms. You won't learn anything positive about religion from Christianity, and if you look for Christianity in religion, you'll never find it. To be sure, Christianity uses the forms of religion, and, to be dismally honest, too many of its adherents act as if it were a religion; but it isn't one, and that's that. The church is not in the religion business; it is in the Gospel-proclaiming business. And the gospel is the good news that all man's fuss and feathers over his relationship with God is unnecessary because God, in the mystery of the Word who is Jesus, has gone and fixed it up Himself. So let that pass." (p. 167)

Hope that helps clarify what I was trying to communicate.
That would be the same Robert Farrar Capon that said: "I don’t believe in resurrection. I don’t believe in eternal life. I don’t believe in life after death. I don’t believe in the hereafter. Those are all opinions. I simply trust Jesus that He will deliver to me as He rose from the dead, He will raise me. Whatever that means, however it works, I trust Him because in His death is my reconciliation and in my reconciliation is my joy in Him." (http://www.30goodminutes.org/csec/sermon/capon_3705.htm) Sorry, but I have no use for someone who rejects the tenants of the Christian faith over "semantics."

Resurrection: (Anastasis) Jesus himself tells us of the Resurrection. In fact he calls Himself the Resurrection! And ol' Bobby don't believe in the Resurrection.
Eternal Life: (Aionios Zoe) Again, Jesus teaches Eternal Life. John tells us "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.", but Mr. Capon thinks it's only an opinion.
Life After Death: Really now? "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment". No Life after Death?
Hereafter: Means nothing other than Life After Death.

So just like he abuses the word Religion, he abuses the very foundation of the Christian faith. "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised" (1Cor 15:13). It appears that whatever Bob "trusts" in has no resemblance to Christ Jesus.

Sure Cloy, I know where he is coming from, and what he is trying to convey. But at the very least, Robert Farrar Capon's redefining of the major words used in Christianity is irresponsible.

Christianity is indeed a religion; religion, as a word, has no necessary connotation of "what you do". No more so than the very word Christian does. Just as many people as think "religion" is what you do, think "Christianity" itself is about what you do. Do you propose we just get rid of the word Christian as well?

My question, then, is how is it that we keep using all the trappings of religion (an attempt by humans to reach God) right along side the Gospel message, which is fundamentally about God's action to do it all Himself.
Once again, an attempt to reach God is not the true definition of Religion.

Are we sending the wrong message? (I tend to think that we are -- Christianity is still considered by many to be a system of what you have to do in order to be good enough.) And if so, how do we stop?

The Gospel is fundamentally an outrageous message. Sadly, I think the Church has slowly replaced the dangerous and radical notion of Grace with something that is far more palatable for the masses... and that disturbs me.

In Christ, -Cloy
Here, out of your long message, we have something worth really discussing. Unfortunately, I am out of time and energy. Maybe I'll pick up on this part tomorrow night.

[ctobola]

I am not the one offering novel definitions here, Cloy. I use the definition the Bible uses. Greek - Threskeia, (religious worship, religious discipline). It's good enough for me.

Dan,

Have you ever taken a Myers-Briggs personality inventory? It's a really handy tool for gaining insight into your own personality and understanding how to relate to people around you and how to listen to their ideas.

The inventory gives you a four-digit code to understand how you interact with ideas and people. My code is INTP. I'm not sure exactly what yours is, but I would guess that you are an xSxJ. (The x's are the areas where I'm not sure.)

The beauty of Myers-Briggs is that it gives you [some degree of] insight into your own views, and it helps you understand that there are other ways of seeing the world.

Your xSxJ code indicates that you are a S)enser and a J)udger. (As opposed my me -- I'm a i(N)tuitor and a P)erceiver.

The S means that you prefer to deal with concrete realities. (I'm an N who deals better with themes and possiblities.) The J means that you see categorizations and groupings of things -- you're good at seeing parallels and similarities. (I'm a P[erceiver], which means I tend to seek out the nature of things as they are, rather than how they can be categorized or grouped.)

None of the Myers-Briggs types is more correct or more accurate than any other -- they are just different ways to see the world. I would think that your type makes you very competent in computers, data, and mathematical structures. Mine makes me very comfortable in areas like long-term strategy, developing systems and processes.

I guess the point is that there are a lot of ways to see things. Words have lots of nuances and meanings. In the New Testament, the word Θρesκeα has it's own subtle shades of meaning... including the idea of following the ceremonial rules.

If defining a word with a slightly different nuance than what you prefer is bad, then I'll stand with Barth, Ellul, Bonhöffer and Capon, and consider myself in pretty good company.


That would be the same Robert Farrar Capon that said: "I don’t believe in resurrection. I don’t believe in eternal life. I don’t believe in life after death. I don’t believe in the hereafter. Those are all opinions. I simply trust Jesus that He will deliver to me as He rose from the dead, He will raise me. Whatever that means, however it works, I trust Him because in His death is my reconciliation and in my reconciliation is my joy in Him." (http://www.30goodminutes.org/csec/sermon/capon_3705.htm)


That's him and I agree with him completely. My faith is not in hereafter or eternal life -- my faith is in Jesus Christ.

I think I sort of understand what "eternal life" means, but I don't have a firm grasp on it. (I don't think any human being can full understand [i]eternal, let along "eternal life.") Is it clouds and people with wings playing harps? Is it like earthly life but without the sin? I dunno. I have no faith in "eternal life." For all I know, it's something far beyond human comprehension and God just used the human term that pointed in the right direction.

The point is that I don't know what eternal life, resurrection or any of these metaphysical concepts really mean. I do know what Jesus means.... and I think the reason he became human was so that human beings could wrap our limited minds around that reality.

I will not be saved by my belief in eternal life or resurrection.* (I think those things will happen, but I cannot explain them and if they are different from what I expect... no big deal.) I am saved by my belief in Jesus Christ. That is what Capon is trying to say. (Note that he never says those things don't exist.... he just says they don't merit his faith.) Our Lord has promised us salvation and that is where our hope lies... not in our adherence to metaphysical terms that we cannot fully comprehend.

God bless you, Dan.

-Cloy

*Just a quick side note: Many years ago I had friends who loved the hellfire and brimstone routine. One day it struck me... they had completely lost track of Jesus. One day I observed them "witnessing" to a fellow. As I listened I noticed that the word Jesus came up once: the words hell and damnation came up at least 20 times. I figure 'whatever gets you to Jesus' can't be all bad... but sadly, their faith was in hellfire, more than it was in Jesus. That was a wakeup call for me.

[Protoevangel]

Have you ever taken a Myers-Briggs personality inventory? It's a really handy tool for gaining insight into your own personality and understanding how to relate to people around you and how to listen to their ideas.

The inventory gives you a four-digit code to understand how you interact with ideas and people. My code is INTP. I'm not sure exactly what yours is, but I would guess that you are an xSxJ. (The x's are the areas where I'm not sure.)

The beauty of Myers-Briggs is that it gives you [some degree of] insight into your own views, and it helps you understand that there are other ways of seeing the world.

Your xSxJ code indicates that you are a S)enser and a J)udger. (As opposed my me -- I'm a i(N)tuitor and a P)erceiver.

The S means that you prefer to deal with concrete realities. (I'm an N [iNtuiter] who deals better with themes and possiblities.) The J means that you see categorizations and groupings of things -- you're good at seeing parallels and similarities. (I'm a P[erceiver], which means I tend to seek out the nature of things as they are, rather than how they can be categorized or grouped.)

None of the Myers-Briggs types is more correct or more accurate than any other -- they are just different ways to see the world. I would think that your type makes you very competent in computers, data, and mathematical structures. Mine makes me very comfortable in areas like long-term strategy, developing systems and processes.
Being our resident scholar of communication, I am sure you know what ad hominem is. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason is a really poor tactic, Cloy.

But far be it from me to avoid your questions. Actually, yes. I am quite familiar with the Myers-Briggs tests, I have taken a number of them for different companies I have worked for, and occasionally check out the cheap imitations on the net. I always seem to come out with INTJ, Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging. Go ahead and analyze that all you want.

If defining a word with a slightly different nuance than what you prefer is bad, then I'll stand with Barth, Ellul, Bonhöffer and Capon, and consider myself in pretty good company.
And here you demonstrate the Straw Man. My argument is clearly not about “slightly different nuances in words”. "Christianity is not a religion" is not slightly different than "Christianity is a religion". A thing can not (be) and (not be) at the same time. It is important to be clear about your meaning, and not to equivocate, that is the basis of any meaningful communication. If you want to say that Christianity is not about actions performed to earn Salvation, you can easily do so without entirely divorcing Christianlty from what it is; religion. The only true religion.

That would be the same Robert Farrar Capon that said: "I don't believe in resurrection. I don't believe in eternal life. I don't believe in life after death. I don't believe in the hereafter. Those are all opinions. I simply trust Jesus that He will deliver to me as He rose from the dead, He will raise me. Whatever that means, however it works, I trust Him because in His death is my reconciliation and in my reconciliation is my joy in Him."That's him and I agree with him completely. My faith is not in hereafter or eternal life -- my faith is in Jesus Christ.
Here you go equivocating again. "I don't believe in..." is not the same thing as "my faith is not in..." You see, my faith is not in the fact that Timothy was the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer. But I would be making a very explicit point if I were to say "I do not believe that Timothy was the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer".

I think I sort of understand what "eternal life" means, but I don't have a firm grasp on it. (I don't think any human being can full understand eternal, let along "eternal life.") Is it clouds and people with wings playing harps? Is it like earthly life but without the sin? I dunno. I have no faith in "eternal life." For all I know, it's something far beyond human comprehension and God just used the human term that pointed in the right direction.

The point is that I don't know what eternal life, resurrection or any of these metaphysical concepts really mean. I do know what Jesus means.... and I think the reason he became human was so that human beings could wrap our limited minds around that reality.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't claim to have a full, or even an adequate understanding of the nature of Eternal Life. Do you have a full understanding of all that God is? Does that affect your faith in Him? Would you agree with Mr. Capon if he were to claim that he does not believe in God?

I will not be saved by my belief in eternal life or resurrection.* (I think those things will happen, but I cannot explain them and if they are different from what I expect... no big deal.) I am saved by my belief in Jesus Christ. That is what Capon is trying to say. (Note that he never says those things don't exist.... he just says they don't merit his faith.) Our Lord has promised us salvation and that is where our hope lies... not in our adherence to metaphysical terms that we cannot fully comprehend.
Like I mentioned in my previous post, I fully understand Mr. Capon's position. You apparently missed my point, regarding his irresponsible use of language. Words have power, what you say affects everyone who sees or hears your words, in some way. What Mr. Capon did was turn what is unambiguous into an equivocal qualification. He "weasel-worded" his argument, which is all to common, but absolutely irresponsible.

Here is when someone who likes to analyze his opponen may suggest that I seem to have some kind of aversion to ambiguity. Just to clear your mind, I recognize ambiguity in many areas of life, and even within our faith, and embrace that with as much joy and hope as I embrace that which is clear and explicit.. My only point is that it is not helpful to make ambiguous, what can be clear simply by the use of pretenseless and candid language.

*Just a quick side note: Many years ago I had friends who loved the hellfire and brimstone routine. One day it struck me... they had completely lost track of Jesus. One day I observed them "witnessing" to a fellow. As I listened I noticed that the word Jesus came up once: the words hell and damnation came up at least 20 times. I figure 'whatever gets you to Jesus' can't be all bad... but sadly, their faith was in hellfire, more than it was in Jesus. That was a wakeup call for me.
Hellfire, brimstone, etc, can be useful in rare occurrences, the prideful must know the consequences of continued rebellion. But most of the time it is counterproductive to bring up the Law and the conclusion of living under it. What unbelievers most need, is to be confronted with the Grace of free forgiveness in Christ. This should be declared unequivocally, just as should our confession of all that Holy Scripture testifies to.

God bless you, Dan.

-Cloy
God bless you as well Cloy. May we both grow in Wisdom, and continue to be conformed to His perfect will and image.

[Willy]

Nice quote, Dan, from Capon. I like it. He gets the nature of faith. Cloy, don't try to convince Dan to see things differently. It won't happen.

[cableguy]

The nature of the Gospel and the nature of the Church have been on my mind lately.

When we deal with the nature of the Church, we necessarily have to look back to the nature of the Gospel. Issues of authority, stucture, inclusion/exclusion are part of how we present ourselves to the World. In doing so, are we sending the right message? I dunno.

My understanding of the Gospel is this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the just and the unjust alike. The price of our redemption has been paid in full -- even before we asked, or knew we needed it. In fact, as Lutherans we believe that the ability to accept that salvation is a gift. It is not about what we do.

What should the Church look like in order to accurately communicate that to the World?

The Christian faith is not a religion: it cannot be. In fact, it's the absolute opposite of a religion.

To clarify: a religion is a system by which humans reconcile themselves with a deity. That can involve a lot of things -- praying to Mecca, only eating certain foods, cutting off part of your penis, treating others a certain way.

The Christian Gospel does not focus on our acceptance or compliance with certain rules. It states that what needed to be done has already been done, and we don't even have the power to accept it.

What does that say about the nature of the Church? If we are to salt and light, what are we doing to properly present that Gospel?

Thoughts?

In Christ, -Cloy

I, too, do not think of “religion” as you stated above. Funny how the meaning of a word can be changed to fit ones theology. Shucks, here I thought the anti-religious were called atheists.

What do you find in error about the church, or Lutheran Theology concerning worship? I know you asked the question, but I’m very curios about what your getting at. If your assumptions are correct, what would YOU do to properly present the Gospel?

[cableguy]

Cloy, don't try to convince Dan to see things differently. It won't happen.

*chuckle* Pot calling the kettle black?

[cableguy]

Dan,

Have you ever taken a Myers-Briggs personality inventory? It's a really handy tool for gaining insight into your own personality and understanding how to relate to people around you and how to listen to their ideas.

The inventory gives you a four-digit code to understand how you interact with ideas and people. My code is INTP. I'm not sure exactly what yours is, but I would guess that you are an xSxJ. (The x's are the areas where I'm not sure.)

The beauty of Myers-Briggs is that it gives you [some degree of] insight into your own views, and it helps you understand that there are other ways of seeing the world.

Your xSxJ code indicates that you are a S)enser and a J)udger. (As opposed my me -- I'm a i(N)tuitor and a P)erceiver.

The S means that you prefer to deal with concrete realities. (I'm an N [iNtuiter] who deals better with themes and possiblities.) The J means that you see categorizations and groupings of things -- you're good at seeing parallels and similarities. (I'm a P[erceiver], which means I tend to seek out the nature of things as they are, rather than how they can be categorized or grouped.)



What the...

Poor taste Man. I was following you till you drove off into psycho analyzing a guy who used Scripture as the basis of his argument. Can't you do the same instead of using cheap shots?

[Willy]

It may not be appropriate for Cloy to ask Dan to look at himself psychologically. But it would be appropriate for Dan to decide to take that look, although I am not sure that the Myers' Briggs is the place to start. I am not talking about anyone in particular here, but I am convinced that the need for religious or political rigidity is often rooted in people's issues. Sometimes it is simply rooted in ideology. Ellen Goodman convinced me of this when after the 9-11 attacks. She said we wanted to psycholgize them, as we are prone to do. She said we need to understand the power of ideology. I think she is right. The folks who ran planes into buildings may have been psychologically healthy people. They were driven by ideology. So ideology has great power. But still sometimes in the church it has been my experience that those who are so convinced of their positions, so needing to live in a black and white world often are running from issues in their own lives. Instead of embracing the messiness of their lives it is much easier to run to theological rigidity.

[ctobola]

I mentioned an interesting tool I've found that helps us listen and understand each other better. My point is that we each have our own biases and we need to cut people slack and understand that there are different ways to see the world. MBTI is a great approach to putting our own views and the views of others in perspective.

What seems to be the problem with that?

-Cloy

What the...

Poor taste Man. I was following you till you drove off into psycho analyzing a guy who used Scripture as the basis of his argument. Can't you do the same instead of using cheap shots?

[cableguy]

Ah, so when Dan comes up with a good rebuttal about a liberal author, and defends the term religion his ideology is off…that darn cave man! How dare he take Scripture seriously…what does he think he is, a Christian or something!

No, Willy, it was a cheap shot plain and simple. Your assumption, as well as Cloy’s, is that if he doesn’t agree with you, something must be wrong with his ideology. He must be one of those red neck, bible thumpers. It’s a low point of any argument or debate when someone has to use that sort of tactic to get their point across, rather than having a good solid debate centered on the issue.

How about this. Instead of attacking someone’s Psychological frame of mind, you find your arguments based on Scripture. I don’t know why anyone would be afraid to try to find their answers there. Instead we see those who want to push some sort of agenda coming up with “this author said this” or “the Scripture is flawed” OR “ this guy is some sort of neo-con bible thumper who doesn’t get it”. You weaken your argument! So many times on these threads have I been genuinely interested in some ones point of view only to retract that interest when they use off the wall counter arguments. This attack on Dan’s character is one of them. If you guys are so dang smart, come up with something better to counter a rebuttal.

Okay, I’m off the soap box.

[Protoevangel]

Cloy, don't try to convince Dan to see things differently. It won't happen.
Actually, if I can be proved wrong using Scripture and plain reason, I will be more than happy to change my mind. In fact, I have already done so on a number of issues, resulting from discussions with people using Scriptural arguments, here at CF. Can you say the same Willy? What would it take to get you to change your mind on an issue? You have made it clear that the clear message of the Bible isn’t enough for one as “enlightened” as you. What exactly would it take? What exactly is your authority?

[Willy]

Can you tell me what the "clear message of the Bible" is? What is this in reference to?

[Willy]

IT is not my desire to quote Bible passages to prove various points. For me, the Bible is the manger for the good news, not an ideological tool to beat people over the head with.

[cableguy]

I mentioned an interesting tool I've found that helps us listen and understand each other better. My point is that we each have our own biases and we need to cut people slack and understand that there are different ways to see the world. MBTI is a great approach to putting our own views and the views of others in perspective.

What seems to be the problem with that?

-Cloy

If that was indeed your intent, I’m sorry for misinterpreting you. The statement did sort of take us out of the realm of your original question, however. As I stated before, I’m very interested to know what you are getting at. In other words, how would you respond to your own question?

[Protoevangel]

Can you tell me what the "clear message of the Bible" is? What is this in reference to?
Is this yet another true Lutheran concept that is ridiculed by ELCA pastors and seminaries?

Christ has opened our understanding to understand the Scriptures...
If many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from their own blindness or want of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of the truth...
Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear scriptures of God…
If you speak of the internal clearness, no man sees one iota in the Scriptures, but he that hath the Spirit of God... If you speak of the external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world.

Wily, do you stand as a Lutheran, a child of God, for whom Christ and His Spirit has opened the mysteries of God’s Word? Or do you stand with Erasmus and the Sophists, for whom the Word is truly hidden and obscure?


IT is not my desire to quote Bible passages to prove various points. For me, the Bible is the manger for the good news, not an ideological tool to beat people over the head with.
So Willy does not test his ideas against the light of Scripture? You are your only rule and norm? Truly, you show your superiority. Yes, yes, why would you want to sink to the methods of the Bereans, the Apostles and even Jesus himself? But if the clearness of the Word is indeed hidden from your eyes, Willy, maybe it is better this way.

[Willy]

That's right. I don't test my ideas through the light of scripture. I avoid the Bible. I make it up as I go. Yes, I am superior to the Bible and to the traditions of the church. Yes, the clarity of the scriptures is hidden from eyes. I stand with Erasmus and the Sophists. I feel better getting that off my chest. Thanks for exposing my heretical nature. Maybe we should look for someone who can burn me at the stake. Oh by the way, you never did tell me what the "clear message of the Bible" is in reference to? I got to go. I need to prepare for a Bible study, look at the Biblical lessons for preaching this coming Reformation Sunday, look at Luther's Catechism in preparation for Confirmation instruction, read more Luther and Calvin and Mother Theresa in preparation for another class that I am teaching.

[Protoevangel]

That's right. I don't test my ideas through the light of scripture. I avoid the Bible. I make it up as I go. Yes, I am superior to the Bible and to the traditions of the church. Yes, the clarity of the scriptures is hidden from eyes. I stand with Erasmus and the Sophists. I feel better getting that off my chest.
Thank you for your honest and forthright answer Willy. That is one thing we can always count on from you. http://www.aximsite.com/boards/images/smilies/ohbfrank.gif

Thanks for exposing my heretical nature. Maybe we should look for someone who can burn me at the stake.
Bleh, whatever. Just remember to ask for dry wood. It burns faster.

Oh by the way, you never did tell me what the "clear message of the Bible" is in reference to?
And I can’t remember a time when you have ever given an honest, non-evasive answer to any of my questions Willy. Considering that fact, this complaint seems more than somewhat unctuous. And then you go wonder why I have so little patience for you here, and continue to escalate the abrasiveness of my discussions with you. Try to be forthright, and answer some questions of your own instead of prancing around and that accusing others of not answering your questions. I’ll be happy to disagree and debate with you all day and then share a couple of pints after the discussion, if you will only stand up for what you believe in, and discuss it like a man (no offence ladies).

Re-read the post you are questioning. Answer the questions you can, and then, see if what I meant by the “clear meaning” isn’t illuminated for you. My meaning is in my context, the context of the thread, and even in the history of our conversations. Just stop canting around, answer the questions yourself, and if you are still clueless as to what I meant regarding the “clear message” of the Bible (none of the questions I posed are dependant on that anyway), then I will answer your question.

I got to go. I need to prepare for a Bible study, look at the Biblical lessons for preaching this coming Reformation Sunday, look at Luther's Catechism in preparation for Confirmation instruction, read more Luther and Calvin and Mother Theresa in preparation for another class that I am teaching.
Enjoy, that sounds like a good time to me! One request – please, just try to use their teachings in the context and intent they offered them in.
I.e. It seems to be a favorite Luther quote among ELCA pastors to mention that “the Bible is the manger in which the Word of God is laid.”. This has been offered to me on many occasions, and even every now and then, to illustrate that Luther and Lutherans did and do not see the Bible as the Word of God. I am sure, though, that you are above this kind of deception. Especially since, I am sure you are aware of another Luther quote, where he says, “That the Bible is God’s Word and book I prove thus...” Ah, but I digress...

[Willy]

Don't worry. I will definitely use their writings in their context. That's one of my favorite points, you know. I still don't know what the "clear meaning of the scriptures" was in reference to. You have such long abrasive (your word) diatribes that I begin to lose your points. I will be happy to give a direct response to your questions, if they are framed in such a way that I can do so.

[Protoevangel]

Don't worry. I will definitely use their writings in their context. That's one of my favorite points, you know. I still don't know what the "clear meaning of the scriptures" was in reference to. You have such long abrasive (your word) diatribes that I begin to lose your points. I will be happy to give a direct response to your questions, if they are framed in such a way that I can do so.
Try this Willy.

1. Find the question marks in the post.
2. Find any periods preceeding each of the question marks.

Whatever is in between the preceeding period, and the question mark is the question.

Do you think you can handle that?

Hope this was short enough for you.

[Willy]

no

[Protoevangel]

no
Yea, that's kinda what I expected.

[Willy]

Glad to live up to your expectations.

[Protoevangel]

Glad to live up to your expectations.
It's all right Willy. As much as we argue here, I love you.

[saami]

Get a grip guys - check out OBOB - according to them we aren't the church at all. So I guess that puts us in the catagory of religion and non-religion.

and remember - some of see in two clors - Black and White and others in all the nuances of the rainbow. INTP

[disciple777]

Hello Cable Guy,

Briggs-Meyer test is good to some extent. It is useful in making career choices. But, focussing too much on this does create problems for everyone. Applying this to life is a problem. What would Christ Do? He will Love even His enemies. He will get along well with everyone. If Christ had applied Briggs- Meyer personality test, no one one earth would have qualified. Jesus left His divinity and became a man, took upon your and my sin and became a sacrifice for all of us. This means, Christ broke the fundamental rules of personality matching. He was not focussing on Himself. But, His focus was on you , me and all of us the sinners. Apostle Paul reminds all of us that we must have the mind of Christ. This is the answer to the personality problem. Why would 2 people not get along well with each other? If they are christians, either one or both of them do not have the mind of Christ. Jesus commanded all of us to Love our neighbor as ourselves. This covers everything. Please get on your knees and confess whatever that hinders you from relating to God as well as others. Ask God to grant you to the power to love your enemies. Then, you do not need the Personality analysis. You will have Christian mental attitude. You will draw all around you towards God. You will be a joyful christian who will find Grace with every one else including non believers.

[cableguy]

Hello Cable Guy,

Briggs-Meyer test is good to some extent. It is useful in making career choices. But, focussing too much on this does create problems for everyone. Applying this to life is a problem. What would Christ Do? He will Love even His enemies. He will get along well with everyone. If Christ had applied Briggs- Meyer personality test, no one one earth would have qualified. Jesus left His divinity and became a man, took upon your and my sin and became a sacrifice for all of us. This means, Christ broke the fundamental rules of personality matching. He was not focussing on Himself. But, His focus was on you , me and all of us the sinners. Apostle Paul reminds all of us that we must have the mind of Christ. This is the answer to the personality problem. Why would 2 people not get along well with each other? If they are christians, either one or both of them do not have the mind of Christ. Jesus commanded all of us to Love our neighbor as ourselves. This covers everything. Please get on your knees and confess whatever that hinders you from relating to God as well as others. Ask God to grant you to the power to love your enemies. Then, you do not need the Personality analysis. You will have Christian mental attitude. You will draw all around you towards God. You will be a joyful christian who will find Grace with every one else including non believers.

No kidding. I think you mis-read some posts buddy, or misunderstood my points. I wasn't defedning that test, but pointing out it was an un-needed destraction in the conversation. Please read these posts carefuly.

Who says I DON'T go on my knees and confess? You presume a lot.