LIVING WITH WAR

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

I have no faith in the leaders of the Republican party.

And you shouldn't.

[the captain]

But if God is not in control of the US election, He is not in control of anything.  And if He is not in control, how can you trust Him for anything?

Does Him being in control mean the same thing as Him putting someone in office, in your opinion? I guess that's what I'm wondering. Obviously, any believer would believe He is in control on a grand scale, and capable of control on as detailed and specific a scale as He'd want to be. But that doesn't, I don't think, mean that He necessarily DOES choose to put someone in or take someone out of office.

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

Jesus didn't need to pay taxes but he did.  They are irrelevant because they accomplish nothing toward my completing my mission in life.  God may call me as an individual into public service, but as far as the Church goes, there is nothing politics can do to help that cause.

The fact that Jesus showed us an example of following civil law tells me they aren't irrelevant.  Laws and politics should not become idols to distract us from what is most important, but that does not mean they have no significance or bearing.

How about this then?  "irrelevant for executing the Christian mission".

Yes.

[Jeff Mason]

Does that kind of intervention mean that you don't believe in free will? It would seem to me that if elections are "rigged" from above, the wills of voters is not free.

That kind of belief --and please don't think I mean to say you think what I'm about to say, but it is just how I am playing out that thought in my head--would lend itself to arguments that we've got God on our side, woudn't it? I mean, the sort of thought that goes into crusades or holy wars.

And then it also stands to reason that God has placed all world leaders in their respective places, including those in North Korea, Iran, etc., correct? Or historically, including Hitler, Hussein and the like?

This is where I think you start to see the limits of human understanding.  Like, for instance, how logicians like Godel and Turing have proven that it is impossible for logic to prove every possible argument.  Logic itself loses its grip on things at a certain level and this is actually logically provable (take a graduate symbolic logic class if you don't believe me -- I did and was amazed to see the boundaries of human understanding).  I do believe in the sovereignty of God, and I also believe in the freedom of man.  I don't see how they easily go together.  Some modern theologians speculate that we creatures limited to 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time can't see things that might make perfect sense in multiple dimensions beyond us.  I don't know.  Whatever the case may be, I believe in both.  The term I use is "trump card".  God's will trumps mine.  When His will and my will clash, I lose.  But most often, it is done by control of circumstances.  I want to make my flight.  But if there is a traffic jam out of my control, I am not free to exert my will.  God has not violated my free will but has acted in such a way that I can't exert what I want to do.  Simple stupid example, and this gets REALLY deep really fast, but I believe in both.

And as for "God is on our side", even MORE reason why the church should stay out of politics.  The church needs to remember what happened the last time that it won temporal power.  It wasn't pretty and it didn't work.  Also, I don't know the full mind of God, and while I know He is for me as an individual, I don't know if He is for my plans and intentions.  Plenty of times what I wanted was not what God wanted.  "God is on our side" is a terribly arrogant thing for any Christian to believe.  After all, most Christians were anti-Clinton and very disrespectful of him, yet in some way he was God's choice for that job at that time.

[Jeff Mason]

But if God is not in control of the US election, He is not in control of anything.  And if He is not in control, how can you trust Him for anything?

Does Him being in control mean the same thing as Him putting someone in office, in your opinion? I guess that's what I'm wondering. Obviously, any believer would believe He is in control on a grand scale, and capable of control on as detailed and specific a scale as He'd want to be. But that doesn't, I don't think, mean that He necessarily DOES choose to put someone in or take someone out of office.

I will tell you this:  Clinton claims the name of Christ.  My pastor in college was friends with Clinton's pastor in Arkansas and that pastor swears up and down that Clinton had a true conversion experience.  If nothing else, if Clinton was a believer, and if Bush Sr. was a believer, don't you think that God would have to do something in that case in order for His promises about guiding our steps to be true?  And while I can agree that God might not actively exert his will in every single event (though honestly I am not sure of even that), don't you think that the leader of the US is a pretty important thing to be involved in?  I mean, the Bible says that God put various pharaoahs into office, and other leaders.  Why would he pick one election over another?  For that matter, how can we ever know ANYTHING about God's will that He chooses not to reveal?  But since God has the ability to control things, and since He promises to lead history to a certain point (or else prophecy is worthless), I have to assume that every election is another step toward the fulfillment of God's ultimate plan.

[the captain]

Thanks, Jeff, for sharing your thoughts on the subject(s). Same to Charles, Ian and various others on this board who have done the same. Respectful discussions about religion and philosophy--without any participants either watering down their beliefs for others' benefit OR fighting like spoiled children--is rare and worthwhile to me. I would never have guessed that a Beach Boys board would be a place to find it.

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

You are very welcome, and thank you.

[Rerun]

Did you change your signature, Rerun?

I was asked to.

[Rerun]

Yes, pastors can sin.  But my point is that they in theory have the ability NOT to sin.

Did you mean what you wrote here?  That you believe pastors have the ability not to sin?

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

Yes, pastors can sin.  But my point is that they in theory have the ability NOT to sin.

Did you mean what you wrote here?  That you believe pastors have the ability not to sin?

We are all flesh and blood mortals, and thus prone to sin, but there's no mandate anywhere stating we MUST sin.  It's simply a historical fact that no human being except Jesus has been able to resist the temptation of sin.

[the captain]

The Church is a supernatural body that has the ability to receive the power of God to overcome the effects of sin in the members to effect true godliness and to execute God's will.

I think you ned to keep this sentence in mind when you quote the "ability not to" part. I don't think Jeff meant that any pastors (or anyone, for that matter) can 100% be free of sin, but that they can overcome their sin.

Of course, I'm not Jeff. So I shouldn't try to answer for him. I'm probably wrong.

[Jeff Mason]

Yes, pastors can sin.  But my point is that they in theory have the ability NOT to sin.

Did you mean what you wrote here?  That you believe pastors have the ability not to sin?

Depends upon what you mean.  Go through life for 50 years and not sin?  No, I don't think anyone is strong enough in faith to do that.  Go 5 minutes without sinning?  Yes, I do.  Do I think that unbelievers can make it 5 minutes (arbitrary number) without sinning?  If you use the understanding of "sin" as seen on the Sermon on the Mount, no, I don't.  Sin is attitude as much as action, and God sees violent anger as a sin as bad as murder, even if the anger is not exerted in public view.  And I believe that the Bible teaches that the only cure for this deep seated sin is the regeneration of Christ in the soul, what most people hear today as "being born again".  Only Christ indwelling a person can keep them from the deep sins of the heart.  In practice, we all still sin and we must be aware of that.  But we have the ability to choose NOT to sin, whereas an unregenerate person is unable to do this.  Augustine and Luther put it this way: non posse non peccare: NOT to be able NOT to sin.

Think of a bird with a broken wing.  It may want to fly, but as long as the wing is broken it is unable to exert that choice.  Only Christ in a believer's heart can mend that particular "wing".

And on the sig thing, I am just trying to put an ugly situation where no one shined, and all have agreed was handled very badly, forever in the past.  That sig was an in-your-face reminder that I felt was unneeded.  Not trying to be difficult.

[Jeff Mason]

The Church is a supernatural body that has the ability to receive the power of God to overcome the effects of sin in the members to effect true godliness and to execute God's will.

I think you ned to keep this sentence in mind when you quote the "ability not to" part. I don't think Jeff meant that any pastors (or anyone, for that matter) can 100% be free of sin, but that they can overcome their sin.

Of course, I'm not Jeff. So I shouldn't try to answer for him. I'm probably wrong.

No, that pretty much covers it. 

[the captain]

OK, sorry to keep prying into people's beliefs, some of which aren't really the topic, here, but...

Jeff, you said you think someone can go 5 minutes without sinning. Wouldn't original sin mean that it not true? Even if one isn't sinning in thought or deed, doesn't original sin mean someone who hasn't been baptised and isn't a believer is in a kind of perpetual state of sinning?

[Rerun]

Yes, pastors can sin.  But my point is that they in theory have the ability NOT to sin.

Did you mean what you wrote here?  That you believe pastors have the ability not to sin?

We are all flesh and blood mortals, and thus prone to sin, but there's no mandate anywhere stating we MUST sin.  It's simply a historical fact that no human being except Jesus has been able to resist the temptation of sin.

And MARY!  Don't forget Mary!  Wait...I'm not Catholic...

[Rerun]

OK, sorry to keep prying into people's beliefs, some of which aren't really the topic, here, but...

Jeff, you said you think someone can go 5 minutes without sinning. Wouldn't original sin mean that it not true? Even if one isn't sinning in thought or deed, doesn't original sin mean someone who hasn't been baptised and isn't a believer is in a kind of perpetual state of sinning?

Baptism isn't needed for Salvation.

[the captain]

Baptism isn't needed for Salvation.

You ought to go to Missouri Synod Lutheran church to get the opposite pounded into your head. Their mantra, "He who believes and is baptised shall be saved."

[Rerun]

Baptism isn't needed for Salvation.

You ought to go to Missouri Synod Lutheran church to get the opposite pounded into your head. Their mantra, "He who believes and is baptised shall be saved."

Ah, well, I don't remember that part in my Bible.

[the captain]

I don't remember a lot of things in mine. Partly because I don't read it much.

[Jeff Mason]

OK, sorry to keep prying into people's beliefs, some of which aren't really the topic, here, but...

Jeff, you said you think someone can go 5 minutes without sinning. Wouldn't original sin mean that it not true? Even if one isn't sinning in thought or deed, doesn't original sin mean someone who hasn't been baptised and isn't a believer is in a kind of perpetual state of sinning?

This is tricky, and God hasn't revealed everything in this area (ex: most theologians believe in an "age of accountability" before which a child is not held guilty of sin, but the Bible is silent either way on such an issue).  But here goes:

Original sin means a lot of things, but in essence it means practically that a person is broken in such a way that they are unable to live sinlessly even if they wanted to.  That's why I chose the broken wing analogy.  A bird can want to fly, try to fly, have the free will to choose to fly, but not have the physical capability to fly.  Humans are born broken morally.  The only cure for this brokenness is Christ in you which happens at conversion.  Your wing is healed.  However, before that happens, a lot of patterns of behavior are built.  Plus, the healing is not total until the end of life on the other side.  All of this means that though we can choose as believers not to sin, we can still choose to sin, and will do so, just because of who we are and where we are.  In heaven for those who make it, God will remove the ability to choose to sin so we will be perfect, and that is why there will be no tears.

[Jeff Mason]

Baptism isn't needed for Salvation.

You ought to go to Missouri Synod Lutheran church to get the opposite pounded into your head. Their mantra, "He who believes and is baptised shall be saved."

It's not just them -- there are a lot of Christians who believe that.  I ask them how in that case Jesus could say to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in paradise" if that were true.

[I. Spaceman]

Wonderful, wonderful posts, Jeff.

Well, if he were agreeing with me, I'd say the same.

Mmmmhmm, yeah, I'm sure that's why you think I said that.

[the captain]

Baptism isn't needed for Salvation.

You ought to go to Missouri Synod Lutheran church to get the opposite pounded into your head. Their mantra, "He who believes and is baptised shall be saved."

It's not just them -- there are a lot of Christians who believe that.  I ask them how in that case Jesus could say to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in paradise" if that were true.

I didn't think it was that uncommon a belief, actually. But it is one I don't share. While it isn't for reasons that are backed in Scripture, I can't believe that a ceremony/ritual is the key to salvation. It strikes me as ridiculous. It would seem to me that belief, works, right-mindedness all make more sense (again, not going on a particular religion here, just the ideas themselves) for salvation than saying participation in a ceremony will do it for you.

[Jeff Mason]

Luther, I would say the Bible limits it even more than that -- righteousness (which is only perceived but not genuine anyway) and works save no one.  No one is good enough.  If it were up to us, there would be no hope.  True Christianity is the only religion which teaches that no one has the ability to please God in themselves and that God is wholly responsible for saving those who become believers.  We have nothing to offer God to become a Christian and we are totally dependent upon his grace in order to come to him:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
"And without faith, it is impossible to please God, because whoever would come to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."

There is not one good thing you can do to earn your salvation.  Having said that, one who is saved shoud start doing good works as that is proof that a change has taken place inside.  The Bible calls that "fruit".

[the captain]

Oh, I absolutely know that is what the Bible teaches. I just wanted my statement to go to my personal thoughts on a non-specific level: that for any religion to try to impose ritual over something more moral or spiritual seems horribly correupt to me.

That said, I understand the Christian teaching that a person's behavior is far insufficient for salvation. "saved by grace...not by works, lest any man should boast." And I have to say that such a thing makes logical sense, too, because that belief does, well, exactly what that last quote says: it keeps our heads from inflating too much.