Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
b/
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 months ago
in A Video Response To The Recent Debate! on Vicky Beeching
Great follow-up, but I do have to apologize again, because one area where I countered, I suggested that you used a scripture out of context, when I was the one who did not do my work hard enough and looked at the wrong chapter. Thanks for the forum.
3 months ago
in Once Saved, Always Saved?? on Vicky Beeching
Let me first state to everyone that I apologize for how my post came across. I really meant it all with respect. Unfortunately, after reading it, I believe it came across with less love than what I had intended. Indeed I appreciate Jeff T's post which comes across with a stronger hold of grace than mine.
In response to Jonathan Paul: I felt that I did give specific information by pointing out what Paul is saying when he says "if." Though, clearly I did not do a very good job explaining what that "if" means. The English just doesn't capture what the original language was saying. You suggest that "If Paul's intent was to communicate that God reconciles us regardless of any choice or action on our part, he could simply omitted that last conditional phrase." What I'm saying is that the response is not conditional at all.
In the Greek the if is not a conditional clause, rather, "In the Greek, the “if” indicates an assumption of truth. Paul assumes that the Colossians will continue in the faith. This is not an “if” of the future; it is an “if” of the past. The word can be translated “since.” “Since indeed you continue in the faith.” Our reconciliation is an accomplished fact. Continuance is a test of reality. There is no uncertainty of the believer’s reconciliation. The believer will be uncharged and without blemish when he stands before God (v. 22). Salvation was an accomplished event at the moment of faith." Dr. Grant Richison
In response to Jonathan Paul: I felt that I did give specific information by pointing out what Paul is saying when he says "if." Though, clearly I did not do a very good job explaining what that "if" means. The English just doesn't capture what the original language was saying. You suggest that "If Paul's intent was to communicate that God reconciles us regardless of any choice or action on our part, he could simply omitted that last conditional phrase." What I'm saying is that the response is not conditional at all.
In the Greek the if is not a conditional clause, rather, "In the Greek, the “if” indicates an assumption of truth. Paul assumes that the Colossians will continue in the faith. This is not an “if” of the future; it is an “if” of the past. The word can be translated “since.” “Since indeed you continue in the faith.” Our reconciliation is an accomplished fact. Continuance is a test of reality. There is no uncertainty of the believer’s reconciliation. The believer will be uncharged and without blemish when he stands before God (v. 22). Salvation was an accomplished event at the moment of faith." Dr. Grant Richison
2 replies
Jonathan Paul
Thanks for your heart on this, B. I think we've all been guilty of that sort of thing and much worse before. :o) I take your apology as a sign of maturity. Thanks also for the response about the Greek. I still don't agree on the interpretation of that verse, but I do better understand your point, and I appreciate you taking the time to help with that!
rawkalways
thanx for pointing out your views.
I think its important that we not try to pull out of scripture what we want it to say, we should let God just tell us what he means in all this. if you ask me I dont think God is very vague.
I think its important that we not try to pull out of scripture what we want it to say, we should let God just tell us what he means in all this. if you ask me I dont think God is very vague.
3 months ago
in Once Saved, Always Saved?? on Vicky Beeching
This is rather long, but I too felt that the subject needed extensive treatment. I hope this does not come across as offense, it is not intended, just a passionate dissent.
It is difficult to argue against "Scriptural support" when it is pulled out of its context. It appears as though much of your support are one verse or two that is plopped down without explanation. That is, in most of these you have placed your thoughts on a phrase in parenthesis. When not in context and without the aid of the original Greek or Hebrew, most of these definitely support your view that one can "lose salvation."
For instance, if I pull Colossians 1.23 out of its context, you could use it for your argument here, and I am surprised actually that it did not show up. That verse would say out of context, "if you continue in your faith, established and firm..." The parenthesis might say, (sounds like there is a possibility that some won't continue in their faith).
If we put that verse into context (Col. 1.15-28), however, and allow the original language to speak to the original audience before bringing it to 2009 we have a completely different interpretation. The context is the Apostle Paul arguing for the supremacy of Christ in all things, even salvation (and "through him" to reconcile "to Himself"... but now "He" has reconciled you [not the other way around]).
The original Greek also reveals a great deal in that the "if" seen in verse 23 is in the indicative tense, meaning, what Paul is really saying is, "there is actually no way you could not continue in your faith and remain established and firm, and I'm only saying 'if', but really there is no way you could not."
Context and language.
In Mark 13 Jesus is addressing specific people, His disciples, who have asked very specific questions. He addresses his disciples very specifically saying, "You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
According to early church history, the disciples fulfilled these things, save Judas who was actually out of the circle before the crucifixion and resurrection, events that had to take place before the things Jesus spoke of. They all stood until their end. Sounds like this goes against your parenthetical thought.
Context.
Furthermore, you put words in Jesus' mouth that suggest people will not stand firm to the end when He never speaks those words. You infer when He did not necessarily imply.
The context of 1 Corinthians 9.27 is Paul arguing his apostleship, not his salvation (v 3. 'this is my defense to those who sit in judgment of me.') The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 9 is arguing Paul's gift or calling of apostleship that has been placed on him. Furthermore, the word disqualified is translated from the word adokimos. Every other time Paul uses this word it is in reference to his test as an apostle. One author writes, "The fact that no instance of the use of adokimos or a cognate referring to Paul relates to the test of faith or salvation, rather, that every instance has to do with his fitness as an apostle raises doubts about the view that adokimos in 1 Cor. 9:27 means rejected from salvation and suggests instead that it means rejected as an apostle (Gundry-Volf, 236-7).
Context and language.
Your "interpretation" of Matthew 24 is fundamentally flawed because you treat is as a real life example thus doing violence to the text. This is a parable. Not every element of a parable is directly translatable and this is one of the first principle rules in proper exegesis. You suggest that the man is a servant of the Master using a capital "M" when the text does not do so and you also suggest that the man is a 'follower of Jesus,' once again, adding meaning to the text which is not to be found. He is speaking of an earthly master and proper exegsis will not allow us to say Jesus is referring to His servant.
In Psalm 51 you have a man, David, who is asking God to not take His spirit from him. This is a man's request because he knows the pain of people leaving Him. The first problem with using this text is that God never said He would leave, David's request does not indicate an action that would ever be done on God's part. That is, David supposes God would leave, God never says that. The second problem with using this text to support your position is that this is an Old Covenant text. The Spirit has not yet been sent as a seal.
In the New Covenant, the Spirit has been sent as a seal and this is what Paul says about that in 2 Corinthians 1, "18But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not "Yes" and "No." 19For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas[b] and Timothy, was not "Yes" and "No," but in him it has always been "Yes." 20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. 21Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
We don't make ourselves saved. God makes us stand firm in Christ. He set His seal of ownership on us. In doing this he guarantees what is to come, namely, abundant life which begins now, not at some future point.
I am actually appalled by the last argument. The first error is that you suppose you can link all these scriptures and apply them to this one person. You suggest that Judas' name was in the book of life. What passage of Scripture says Judas' name was written in the book of life? (Ex 32 is written to a specific group of people and if it is written to all people at all times, then we are all screwed because we have all sinned against Him). How do you know that Judas' name was blotted out? None of us has seen that book and the Scripture never says, "Judas' name was blotted out."
You suggest that Judas healed the sick and delivered people and used Matt. 10 as your support. Again, context shows that the 12 are not involved in this passage. Matthew 10.1 says, "[Jesus] appointed 72 others..." indicating that Jesus appointed others, not the 12.
It seems very audacious to suggest that any one of us could claim whose name was written in the book of life and whose name has been blotted out.
I feel that my response has been too long, but no argument is complete without addressing both sides. And since I have already addressed much of the arguments for the "fall away" side, a few brief verses for the perseverance of the saints will do. Which I would argue, based on Paul and Peter's writings is actually the view held by the early church.
Peter writes, "1 Peter 1:5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
He caused us to be born again. We therefore have an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away. John Piper writes, "There are no commandments in the first 12 verses of this letter. No demands or requirements or directions. What Peter is doing here is not telling us what to do but telling us what to enjoy. He is not exhorting, he is exulting."
In reference to salvation in Romans 8 and a life in the spirit, Paul writes, "29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Those he predestined to be conformed he called, he justified, and he glorified. All of these words are in the past tense. They have already been accomplished. We live in the confines of time and space and therefore cannot understand completely this passage and we can clearly see that we are not presently glorified, but He who does not live in space and time has already glorified us. Will He then unglorify us?
Paul goes on to say about our relationship with Christ Jesus, "38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
What I would argue is that the "nor anything else in all creation" would even refer to our "supposed" ability to be able to reject Christ.
The argument begs the question, "What exactly are we saved to?" I would say abundant life in Christ which includes eternal life. As you argue for John 3.16, "...shall not perish but have eternal life."
Eternity has no end or beginning. If we are saved to eternal life, then it cannot come to an end.
"He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." Philippians 1. I do not negate the fact that we are called to do a good work. In fact our life in Him should cause good works to naturally pour out from us. But the work of salvation, justification, sanctification and glorification are on Him (Romans 8). He began the good work and He will carry it on to completion.
It is difficult to argue against "Scriptural support" when it is pulled out of its context. It appears as though much of your support are one verse or two that is plopped down without explanation. That is, in most of these you have placed your thoughts on a phrase in parenthesis. When not in context and without the aid of the original Greek or Hebrew, most of these definitely support your view that one can "lose salvation."
For instance, if I pull Colossians 1.23 out of its context, you could use it for your argument here, and I am surprised actually that it did not show up. That verse would say out of context, "if you continue in your faith, established and firm..." The parenthesis might say, (sounds like there is a possibility that some won't continue in their faith).
If we put that verse into context (Col. 1.15-28), however, and allow the original language to speak to the original audience before bringing it to 2009 we have a completely different interpretation. The context is the Apostle Paul arguing for the supremacy of Christ in all things, even salvation (and "through him" to reconcile "to Himself"... but now "He" has reconciled you [not the other way around]).
The original Greek also reveals a great deal in that the "if" seen in verse 23 is in the indicative tense, meaning, what Paul is really saying is, "there is actually no way you could not continue in your faith and remain established and firm, and I'm only saying 'if', but really there is no way you could not."
Context and language.
In Mark 13 Jesus is addressing specific people, His disciples, who have asked very specific questions. He addresses his disciples very specifically saying, "You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
According to early church history, the disciples fulfilled these things, save Judas who was actually out of the circle before the crucifixion and resurrection, events that had to take place before the things Jesus spoke of. They all stood until their end. Sounds like this goes against your parenthetical thought.
Context.
Furthermore, you put words in Jesus' mouth that suggest people will not stand firm to the end when He never speaks those words. You infer when He did not necessarily imply.
The context of 1 Corinthians 9.27 is Paul arguing his apostleship, not his salvation (v 3. 'this is my defense to those who sit in judgment of me.') The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 9 is arguing Paul's gift or calling of apostleship that has been placed on him. Furthermore, the word disqualified is translated from the word adokimos. Every other time Paul uses this word it is in reference to his test as an apostle. One author writes, "The fact that no instance of the use of adokimos or a cognate referring to Paul relates to the test of faith or salvation, rather, that every instance has to do with his fitness as an apostle raises doubts about the view that adokimos in 1 Cor. 9:27 means rejected from salvation and suggests instead that it means rejected as an apostle (Gundry-Volf, 236-7).
Context and language.
Your "interpretation" of Matthew 24 is fundamentally flawed because you treat is as a real life example thus doing violence to the text. This is a parable. Not every element of a parable is directly translatable and this is one of the first principle rules in proper exegesis. You suggest that the man is a servant of the Master using a capital "M" when the text does not do so and you also suggest that the man is a 'follower of Jesus,' once again, adding meaning to the text which is not to be found. He is speaking of an earthly master and proper exegsis will not allow us to say Jesus is referring to His servant.
In Psalm 51 you have a man, David, who is asking God to not take His spirit from him. This is a man's request because he knows the pain of people leaving Him. The first problem with using this text is that God never said He would leave, David's request does not indicate an action that would ever be done on God's part. That is, David supposes God would leave, God never says that. The second problem with using this text to support your position is that this is an Old Covenant text. The Spirit has not yet been sent as a seal.
In the New Covenant, the Spirit has been sent as a seal and this is what Paul says about that in 2 Corinthians 1, "18But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not "Yes" and "No." 19For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas[b] and Timothy, was not "Yes" and "No," but in him it has always been "Yes." 20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. 21Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
We don't make ourselves saved. God makes us stand firm in Christ. He set His seal of ownership on us. In doing this he guarantees what is to come, namely, abundant life which begins now, not at some future point.
I am actually appalled by the last argument. The first error is that you suppose you can link all these scriptures and apply them to this one person. You suggest that Judas' name was in the book of life. What passage of Scripture says Judas' name was written in the book of life? (Ex 32 is written to a specific group of people and if it is written to all people at all times, then we are all screwed because we have all sinned against Him). How do you know that Judas' name was blotted out? None of us has seen that book and the Scripture never says, "Judas' name was blotted out."
You suggest that Judas healed the sick and delivered people and used Matt. 10 as your support. Again, context shows that the 12 are not involved in this passage. Matthew 10.1 says, "[Jesus] appointed 72 others..." indicating that Jesus appointed others, not the 12.
It seems very audacious to suggest that any one of us could claim whose name was written in the book of life and whose name has been blotted out.
I feel that my response has been too long, but no argument is complete without addressing both sides. And since I have already addressed much of the arguments for the "fall away" side, a few brief verses for the perseverance of the saints will do. Which I would argue, based on Paul and Peter's writings is actually the view held by the early church.
Peter writes, "1 Peter 1:5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
He caused us to be born again. We therefore have an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away. John Piper writes, "There are no commandments in the first 12 verses of this letter. No demands or requirements or directions. What Peter is doing here is not telling us what to do but telling us what to enjoy. He is not exhorting, he is exulting."
In reference to salvation in Romans 8 and a life in the spirit, Paul writes, "29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Those he predestined to be conformed he called, he justified, and he glorified. All of these words are in the past tense. They have already been accomplished. We live in the confines of time and space and therefore cannot understand completely this passage and we can clearly see that we are not presently glorified, but He who does not live in space and time has already glorified us. Will He then unglorify us?
Paul goes on to say about our relationship with Christ Jesus, "38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
What I would argue is that the "nor anything else in all creation" would even refer to our "supposed" ability to be able to reject Christ.
The argument begs the question, "What exactly are we saved to?" I would say abundant life in Christ which includes eternal life. As you argue for John 3.16, "...shall not perish but have eternal life."
Eternity has no end or beginning. If we are saved to eternal life, then it cannot come to an end.
"He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." Philippians 1. I do not negate the fact that we are called to do a good work. In fact our life in Him should cause good works to naturally pour out from us. But the work of salvation, justification, sanctification and glorification are on Him (Romans 8). He began the good work and He will carry it on to completion.
4 months ago
in Who Knew Animals Could Skype??! on Vicky Beeching
talked with my mom yesterday. She's a missionary in West Africa. We talked about/cried over a people group she worked with the week before. 3,000,000 people, 45 believers, and no one to work with them. It was a sad phone call, but nonetheless one of the best as we were able to join our hearts together over the burden of seeing these people become worshipers.
7 months ago
in Your First Job on Ragamuffin Soul
I was 5. I vacuumed the edges of the carpets, next to the walls in the banks and drug stores where my dad cleaned the carpet
9 months ago
in Ragamuffin Soul » Creative Chaos 28 // Baptism Chaos on Ragamuffin Soul
We baptized over skype. It was amazing and strangely one of the most special baptisms I've ever been a part of even though I was several hundred miles away
9 months ago
in Ragamuffin Soul » Convenient “Truths” on Ragamuffin Soul
okay, there are actually a few more than just two, but enough to contradict the plethora that demonstrate that women maintain influence and leadership
9 months ago
in Ragamuffin Soul » Convenient “Truths” on Ragamuffin Soul
Pick up a copy of the Blue Parakeet when it comes out in a few weeks. It addresses this topic in great detail.
There are really two passages that speak directly to women "not being in leadership." They are contextually driven one will discover when thorough exegesis is done. Read the OT. Miriam (prophet who was part of the three that led the Israelites), Deborah (judge, parallel of modern leader), Huldah, (prophet, the one Solomon consulted), Esther, Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe.
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." That's from Paul. To say that he also teaches that women are inferior in capabilities would suggest he contradicts himself and that there is inconsistency in the text. Got to have context when you read those passages about women.
And for the people that want to suggest that the bible says things that you "don't like but you gotta do it," how's that whole not wearing clothes that are made of two different materials, or going outside of the city limits to poop?
There are really two passages that speak directly to women "not being in leadership." They are contextually driven one will discover when thorough exegesis is done. Read the OT. Miriam (prophet who was part of the three that led the Israelites), Deborah (judge, parallel of modern leader), Huldah, (prophet, the one Solomon consulted), Esther, Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe.
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." That's from Paul. To say that he also teaches that women are inferior in capabilities would suggest he contradicts himself and that there is inconsistency in the text. Got to have context when you read those passages about women.
And for the people that want to suggest that the bible says things that you "don't like but you gotta do it," how's that whole not wearing clothes that are made of two different materials, or going outside of the city limits to poop?
10 months ago
in Saddleback Civil Forum on A day in the life
Or they were blessed to have a staffer that was paid to read the book who said, "make sure you say something like, It's not about you. That's like the most famous line of the book or something and apparently these Christian types really dig it."
I didn't get to see the whole thing, but my perspective was changed a little with what I saw. I appreciate Warrens ability to steward the leadership God has given him and to not be throwing it at himself. We need someone to fill the shoes of Graham when it comes to being a voice for the politicians in the Christian arena. But I'm sticking to my, "Let's not mix the two worlds mentality." Fight for social justice, fight for the poor, the needy, the broken, but let's sacrifice our own time living and breathing with these people rather than all duddied up in a church building telling how we are going to help them.
I am officially off of my soap box.
I didn't get to see the whole thing, but my perspective was changed a little with what I saw. I appreciate Warrens ability to steward the leadership God has given him and to not be throwing it at himself. We need someone to fill the shoes of Graham when it comes to being a voice for the politicians in the Christian arena. But I'm sticking to my, "Let's not mix the two worlds mentality." Fight for social justice, fight for the poor, the needy, the broken, but let's sacrifice our own time living and breathing with these people rather than all duddied up in a church building telling how we are going to help them.
I am officially off of my soap box.
10 months ago
in McCain and Obama to Interview at Saddleback. on A day in the life
Hey man, I like the look of the blog. My thoughts on this post. Jesus didn't come for politics. Jesus didn't spend time with the politicians. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees time and again, the equivalent of politics these days.
Faith is important, however, and Rick is embracing what is weighing most heavily on the minds of culture now. I'm torn.
b/s last blog post..Friday Humor
Faith is important, however, and Rick is embracing what is weighing most heavily on the minds of culture now. I'm torn.
b/s last blog post..Friday Humor
10 months ago
in Listen to this New Tune from Lincoln Brewster on TonyMorganLive.com
80's rock is back! But, at least its not the same old same old that's been coming out for so long.
Uniqueness, a voice speaking for itself.
Uniqueness, a voice speaking for itself.
11 months ago
in Chicago on A day in the life
how is it that you leave comments on my blog and they don't come to me in an e-mail format like everyone else who leaves a comment?
b/s last blog post..missing an opportunity
b/s last blog post..missing an opportunity
11 months ago
in Chicago on A day in the life
what an awesome story man. I wish I could have been there to walk those blocks with you and hear Anthony's story. Thank you for being obedient to the call, the gospel in action
11 months ago
in Ragamuffin Soul » Stress Makes Me… on Ragamuffin Soul
I get the same freakin little sores in my mouth.
Eat LOTS of bananas, gargle lots of water, and go to pharmacy and get L-lysene (taken regularly, this stuff will actually prevent them). They'll be gone as quick as they came.
Eat LOTS of bananas, gargle lots of water, and go to pharmacy and get L-lysene (taken regularly, this stuff will actually prevent them). They'll be gone as quick as they came.
11 months ago
in Gasification Plant on A day in the life
Trying to get a little traffic through the goroot website. I love the name dropping.
11 months ago
in Ragamuffin Soul » I Hate It When My Worship Leader… on Ragamuffin Soul
I hate it when worship leaders/pastors play to people who think the worship somehow revolves around what they like and what makes them feel good when it has absolutely nothing to do with our preferences or likes.
1 year ago
in We’re all in the same sinking boat. on A day in the life
oops, just realized your site saved my web address as the typepad account. Now everyone's going to go there instead of th.eophil.us
b/s last blog post..Romans 3.9-20
b/s last blog post..Romans 3.9-20
1 year ago
in We’re all in the same sinking boat. on A day in the life
I'm in with you Heath. This passage was speaking loud and was reinforcing what I'm speaking on this week. Mainly it was humbling me and reminding me who I am, and the nature that is really below the surface (or was below the surface until I was made new). I don't get to decide I'm better than anyone. I get to walk around remembering that Christ has redeemed me. Yes, I am victorious in Him as a sinner, but I cannot forget the depths from which He pulled me out.
b/s last blog post..New Blog Site
b/s last blog post..New Blog Site
1 year ago
in Ragamuffin Soul » Two Words From You…Single or Married? Male or Female? on Ragamuffin Soul
married/male
1 year ago
in Romans Chapter 3 1-8 on A day in the life
Spot on Heath. Not that I would come up with anything different, but this is virtually the same thing I said. I love how this passage points to the bigness of God.
The thing I struggle with is the "fairness" of God. Hear me out before jumping to conclusions. There is no question to me that the Scripture always points to His justice. He always judges justly. But I think our human minds confuse perfect fairness. What I mean is that it seems logical for a person to say, "well, He shouldn't judge me because its not fair to judge me when my evil pointed to His goodness." However, it is completely in line with justice to condemn this person, mainly because they are evil. Justice require punishment of evil whether it brings about good or not, but fairness seems to beckon for some balance (i.e. I'm bad, but it made you look good, we're even). I don't want to go off saying that God is not fair, its just that I think justice is a more appropriate term.
The thing I struggle with is the "fairness" of God. Hear me out before jumping to conclusions. There is no question to me that the Scripture always points to His justice. He always judges justly. But I think our human minds confuse perfect fairness. What I mean is that it seems logical for a person to say, "well, He shouldn't judge me because its not fair to judge me when my evil pointed to His goodness." However, it is completely in line with justice to condemn this person, mainly because they are evil. Justice require punishment of evil whether it brings about good or not, but fairness seems to beckon for some balance (i.e. I'm bad, but it made you look good, we're even). I don't want to go off saying that God is not fair, its just that I think justice is a more appropriate term.
1 year ago
in Intelligent Christians on A day in the life
because they don't take the time to actually study and seek truth. Someone informed them that to rely on religion is a a psychological problem in which the person has come up with a crutch that helps them through life. These people believe this instead of taking the time to do a thorough examination of the proofs of what we believe. This in fact is less intelligent. Furthermore, most people give the benefit of a complete exploratory study to other areas of study such as biochemistry, but refuse when it comes to religion, because it's not "scientific." I was seventh in a class of 300 something in high school, maintained a 4.0 in college and graduated with honors and I still believe in Christ.
I think the problem comes when we confuse religion and relationship. More thoughts later. This was reactionary.
b/s last blog post..challenging questions
I think the problem comes when we confuse religion and relationship. More thoughts later. This was reactionary.
b/s last blog post..challenging questions
1 year ago
in Friday the 13th! on A day in the life
Stuff Christians Like Blog has a post entitled, "Holding Retreats at locations that could double as horror film locations."
b/s last blog post..challenging questions
b/s last blog post..challenging questions
1 year ago
in iPhone or BlackBerry? on A day in the life
Hey, I like the site. My answer is iPhone unfortunately. I say this, because I think it has more cultural relevancy. Of course, the BB has cultural relevancy too, though I don't think to the same level. Maybe he would carry both, one with Verizon and one with ATT to make sure that he had coverage everywhere
b/s last blog post..still thinking
b/s last blog post..still thinking
