He Gets Us campaign

[Hazelelponi]

And you're claiming that you have some 'insight' into an Archimedian point that does not epistemologically exist at the level of coherence and substance that you imply it does.

My position at the moment may not seem coherent, and if it doesn't, it's because I've only scratched the surface.

Furthermore, the context of THIS thread is the 'He Gets Us' commerical, not my theology. But if you think you have what it takes to have a go at me, we can take this somewhere else.

Honestly I think our beliefs do matter because they impact how we share the Gospel, why you share it, and it shapes your outreach in general.

I definitely get more of a sense of, in order to change the church itself, at times from people.

And if that's the goal that's cool, it's something to talk about because certainly it doesn't seem clear what most people in Christianity actually subscribe to in our beliefs.

I personally don't want to see potential souls for Christ eternally lost because they were told something that wasn't true.

That's why I talk about stuff like this.. it's a horrifying thought that people who want to come to Christ might not hear the Truth of Christ.

For the church this is the pressing concern. This isn't about public accolades, prestige, or to fit in. That's not a reason to be Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"And you're claiming that you have some 'insight' into an Archimedian point that does not epistemologically exist at the level of coherence and substance that you imply it does."

to which I respond

1. I never made any such claim

You're implying it, however, when you disclaim my statements thus far made.

2. Salvation is a question of theology and eschatology, not of epistemology

That is a misunderstanding of what epistemology is as a field overall and how it plays a part in the conceptual matrix of any one selected 'branded' theology or eschatology.

Yes, in a certain way, epistemology definitely DOES play a part in theology and any aspect of theology. This is part of the current, modern problem.

3. Coherence and substance? Are we going to go down some rabbit-hole and start talking about hylomorphism now? Come on man--that has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.

I'm not "doing" and applying philosophy from the ancients. I start with Descartes and Pascal and move up to .............................. today.

back to the original discussion:

you made vague criticisms of Evangelicals, and seem to take a works + faith = salvation position. I asked you to clarify, and give us your general ideas about the Gospel. I didn't ask for a dissertation

Sure. Faith is an act of 'being' and 'responding' to God in Christ, not merely sitting in a pew and 'believing.' If we do our full exegesis and hermeneutical study, we'd all realize this ................................. by now.

But since most American Evangelicals are stuck in their preselected epistemic boxes, they rarely see the forest for the trees.

 

[Clare73]

Right. If the gay people are actually committing their "sin" in the church. Every person who walks through the door into a church has committed a sin in their life. We are not supposed to show respect to persons or favoritism by judgment of others. If the LGBT folks are genuinely interested in salvation they should be as welcome as the preacher in a church, if they abstain from their sinful behavior in their place of worship.

If they abstain from open sinful behavior in their life.

The church (those in Christ) must judge open sin and not allow it in the body (assembly), for the sake of maintaining its purity and freedom from temptation of its members to sin in the same ways (1 Co 5:1, 12-13, Gal 6:1).

 

[childeye 2]

And yet here you are, exalting yourself, determining who is and isn’t Christian, and not speaking from a place of humility.

If I say I'd rather you be ugly so I can be beautiful, would you trust me?
If I say I'd rather I be ugly so you can be beautiful, would you trust me?

Don't see me as beautiful or ugly, see me as you and I'll see you as me, and we'll all be set free.

TL;DR. Bible passages quoted without the quoted understanding their meaning doesn’t interest me.

My apologies for not giving an explanation. The story is about a Pharisee who looks down on a woman because, unlike himself, she is a sinner with many sins (perhaps she is a thief, a harlot, or an adulteress, but it doesn't really matter).

Jesus is teaching that some have many sins, and some have few sins.
The scripture is showing that those with few sins tend to look down upon those with many sins, in vainglory.

So, Jesus points out that in a scenario where God forgives everyone their sins, those who are forgiven much (those with more sins), love the Master more than those forgiven little, (those with few sins).

Jesus is also saying that although the sins of this woman are many, they are forgiven because her love is great.

I offered this scripture because you said in post #79 that you had become "Jaded" and that your patience had dwindled.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus foot washing was only focus on believers (or His apostles). The act was an expression of caring for the flock who would be soon under the care of the apostles and showed to them the need to go and do likewise to the flock. The ceremony didn't extend to gays, those who were worshipping pagan gods (as depicted by the foot washing of a Muslim), or other such people as implied in the pictures. Could one imagine Jesus washing the feet of the Pharisees-especially after He called the "whitewashed tombs"?

One must wonder who exactly the intended audience was and what was the message that was supposed to be conveyed. Given the amount of controversy this ad has sparked, it missed the point on both accounts. At best, it is simply poor theology. On the other hand, I don't trust someone who is willing to spend $20M on such an add. I'm sure others could have used the money more wisely.

I did a brief search on this organization, but it was unclear as to who was involved or what their beliefs are. For the time being I would give them the benefit of the doubt and believe they had good, but misguided, intentions.

My denomination has nothing to do with this. Where there are grey areas, I'm flexible. Where I am wrong, I welcome correction. But on this I'm not wrong.

I guess your pastor missed the part where Jesus says, "...and whatever you do not do for the least of these, you have not done it for me," or "love your enemies."

But yes, I do agree that spending $20 million on a commercial is probably a bad expenditure of ministry funds...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Honestly I think our beliefs do matter because they impact how we share the Gospel, why you share it, and it shapes your outreach in general.

I definitely get more of a sense of, in order to change the church itself, at times from people.

And if that's the goal that's cool, it's something to talk about because certainly it doesn't seem clear what most people in Christianity actually subscribe to in our beliefs.

I personally don't want to see potential souls for Christ eternally lost because they were told something that wasn't true.

That's why I talk about stuff like this.. it's a horrifying thought that people who want to come to Christ might not hear the Truth of Christ.

For the church this is the pressing concern. This isn't about public accolades, prestige, or to fit in. That's not a reason to be Christian.

Of course our beliefs matter. I never said they don't. In fact, it's because they matter, and how and why they matter, I'm saying the things I'm saying.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If they abstain from open sinful behavior in their life.

The church (those in Christ) must judge open sin and not allow it in the body (assembly), for the sake of maintaining its purity and freedom from temptation of its members to sin in the same ways (1 Co 5:1, 12-13, Gal 6:1).

And some of you here will be surprised to hear that I, too, agree with this, but I may or may not agree with exactly how your denominations may apply this rule of church discipline.

 

[Clare73]

And some of you here will be surprised to hear that I, too, agree with this, but I may or may not agree with exactly how your denominations may apply this rule of church discipline.

Can you be more specific about how this rule should be applied?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you be more specific about how this rule should be applied?

It should be applied as a last resort after all other forms of church ministry, support and rehabilitation have been exhausted. Not as the first line of "defense" against evil and sin in the church.

 

[Clare73]

It should be applied as a last resort after all other forms of church ministry, support and rehabilitation have been exhausted. Not as the first line of "defense" against evil and sin in the church.

Is that the sense you get from 1Co 5:1-6?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is that the sense you get from 1Co 5:1-6?

Well, let's face it, Clare. The Corinthian church was a perfect example of an essentially dysfunctional church; they were mistaken about so many things so much of the time. Paul shouldn't have had to address all that he had to address with that congregation. Saint Clement and his group also shouldn't have had to deal with the Corinthians on other messy matters a few decades later either. There was so much that they were so bad at doing, and church rehabilitation and church discipline weren't apparently things they were wise enough to apply when, and how, they should have.

But here's a true story: I knew a young woman years ago who had a child out of wedlock. In my effort to direct and help her, I suggested she go to her local church, which happened to be a reportedly 'solid' Baptist church. She told me she began going there with her newborn child. And do you know what she was told by some elders of that church after the 2nd time she showed up?

 

[Merrill]

It should be applied as a last resort after all other forms of church ministry, support and rehabilitation have been exhausted. Not as the first line of "defense" against evil and sin in the church.

I partially agree with this

but the problem is that allowance for open sin, even with the intention of ultimate rehabilitation, allows for entryism of bad actors

the objectives typically involve

1. A "marginalized group", or someone with an alternative lifestyle (lgbt) asks to be included in an organization, such as a church
2. That group is welcomed in, and instead of changing, the congregation itself begins to become more "accepting", and begins to "affirm" the group
3. After some time, the group demands that the organization change its focus, its theology, and its culture
4. In an effort to be "inclusive" and to avoid offending anyone, the church bends the knee, and the marginalized group now controls the church

This happened with the Reformed Church and the Presbyterian USA:

"In 2018, the 223rd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA voted to affirm its commitment to the full welcome, acceptance, and inclusion of transgender people, people who identify as gender non-binary, and people of all gender identities within the full life of the church and the world"

that church, and the Reformed, has consistently lost members over the last 20 years (the Reformed has lost 45% of its members)

as a general trend, progressive Christian churches have been in decline, while traditional churches have gained members

 

[Clare73]

Well, let's face it, Clare. The Corinthian church was a perfect example of an essentially dysfunctional church; they were mistaken about so many things so much of the time. Paul shouldn't have had to address all that he had to address with that congregation. Saint Clement and his group also shouldn't have had to deal with the Corinthians on other messy matters a few decades later either. There was so much that they were so bad at doing, and church rehabilitation and church discipline weren't apparently things they were wise enough to apply when, and how, they should have.

Wasn't that the nature of that pagan Greek territory, the new Christians just coming out of that pervasively sinful culture?

But here's a true story: I knew a young woman years ago who had a child out of wedlock. In my effort to direct and help her, I suggested she go to her local church, which happened to be a reportedly 'solid' Baptist church. She told me she began going there with her newborn child. And do you know what she was told by some elders of that church after the 2nd time she showed up?

Do you know if she was living out of wedlock with the man?
Because that would affect their decision.

 

[childeye 2]

Don't confuse rejection of the normalization of abnormal (contrary to nature, Ro 1:26-27) homosexuality with rejection of persons.

Even if the issue were about sanctification, it still should be articulated as the power of virtue is in the Christ and not the flesh.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I partially agree with this

but the problem is that allowance for open sin, even with the intention of ultimate rehabilitation, allows for entryism of bad actors

the objectives typically involve

1. A "marginalized group", or someone with an alternative lifestyle (lgbt) asks to be included in an organization, such as a church
2. That group is welcomed in, and instead of changing, the congregation itself begins to become more "accepting", and begins to "affirm" the group
3. After some time, the group demands that the organization change its focus, its theology, and its culture
4. In an effort to be "inclusive" and to avoid offending anyone, the church bends the knee, and the marginalized group now controls the church

This happened with the Reformed Church and the Presbyterian USA:

"In 2018, the 223rd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA voted to affirm its commitment to the full welcome, acceptance, and inclusion of transgender people, people who identify as gender non-binary, and people of all gender identities within the full life of the church and the world"

that church, and the Reformed, has consistently lost members over the last 20 years (the Reformed has lost 45% of its members)

as a general trend, progressive Christian churches have been in decline, while traditional churches have gained members

Well, sure. It's a problem. But here's the thing, Merrill. We all know this 'entry-ism' is taking place by bad actors, some of whom are carrying the torch for the so-called Progressive churches. Denominations are splitting over the lgbtqa+ issue, as they have over so many issues since Luther stepped forward to open his mouth so many years ago (or since the Filioque was thought to be a central issue in 1054).

However, this Super Bowl commercial we're all discussing isn't necessarily, or specifically, aligning with either side of that dichotomy. We should realize this. Moreover, gaining members in a church isn't a clear "sign" that there is an absolutely healthy theology in any one church. It's also not a sign that a declining church is absolutely corrupt.

No, we need to ask more questions and dig deeper in order to cull out the actual nuances at play in our attempts to discern the overall nature of things like this "He Gets Us" commercial. So far, I see very little in the way of this sort of analysis going on here.

As for so-called "Progressives," they too, like a number of Conservative Christians, have fault lines running through and within their their theologies and their epistemological justifications. I wouldn't fear them any more than I fear any other organizational group of human proportion. This is one reason there needs to be more room at the table for Christian Philosophers and not just be a 'our denomination's theology only' club.

The real issue isn't whether or not the lgbtqa+ lifestyle is copacetic to biblical morality---we all know it's not---but what is more important and relevant here is our questioning ourselves about the 'way' in which we, as Christians, are going to value and treat any other human beings, even those who don't comport with the Kerygma of the Church.

 

[Clare73]

If the issue is sanctification, I'm saying the power of virtue is in the Christ and not the flesh.

The issue is the purity of the assembly, and its protection from temptation to sin.
Not all Christians in the church are mature.
Some are newborn.

 

[FameBright]

One thing I will mention, is that we have to be careful with the whole "love the sinner but hate the sin" idea

There are passages in the Bible like Psalm 5:5 and Malachi 1:2-3 in which God displays hate towards unrepentant sinners and evil-doers

Likewise, those in Hell are still actively sinning: they have turned away from God and continue to spitefully mock Him.

We are in many ways what we do. I admire the Muslims in their understanding of this--that you cannot claim to be "good on the inside" while committing affronts against God and man--it is through your actions that we understand you. Homosexuality is a sin, and an active, unrepentant, homosexual lifestyle is an affront to God (as would active adultery, or someone who routinely steals)

by "loving our gay neighbors" and excusing their behavior, we are affirming their lifestyle, and committing sin ourselves. If I offered up room & board to a known thief, and let him hide out in my house, while he continued to rob the neighborhood, I would be committing sin. If I saw my friend cheating on his wife with impunity, and simply said "well I love him, even though he does bad things" and didn't tell his wife what was happening, I would be contributing to his downfall (and mine).

The LGBT movement into the church is entryism, and it results in bad theology, and sinful behavior by otherwise devout Christians.

You would put homosexuality up there with adultery or stealing?

 

[Clare73]

You would put homosexuality up there with adultery or stealing?

All are sin against God, with homosexuality having the added distinction of being a perversion of nature, God's natural order (Ro 1:26-27) which defiles even the land (nation)--Lev 18:22, 24-26.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wasn't that the nature of that pagan Greek territory, the new Christians just coming out of that pervasively sinful culture?

That was indeed a part of it. It's also why Paul kept trying to insist that not ONLY they learn to be more holy, but also more loving of each other. As you know, the Corinthians had a difficult time doing either one.

Do you know if she was living out of wedlock with the man?

From what I remember she told me, he was long gone and he left her alone with the baby. Her parents were divorced, and her dad was out of the picture. Her mom was mentally ill and barely able to help.

Because that would affect their decision.

Actually, they told her that she needed to leave because, her quote, "... they told me to leave and not come back because they were afraid me and my baby would be a bad influence on the young girls at the church." Somehow, those elders "knew" that after her having only attended once or twice. They were either incredibly insightful and spiritually wise, OR, and I'm guessing it was the latter, as dumb as a rock. And I'm also guessing their rock wasn't really Peter or Jesus.

 

[Clare73]

That was indeed a part of it. It's also why Paul kept trying to insist that not ONLY they learn to be more holy, but also more loving of each other. As you know, the Corinthians had a difficult time doing either one.
From what I remember she told me, he was long gone and he left her alone with the baby. Her parents were divorced, and her dad was out of the picture. Her mom was mentally ill and barely able to help.
Actually, they told her that she needed to leave because, her quote, "... they told me to leave and not come back because they were afraid me and my baby would be a bad influence on the young girls at the church." Somehow, those elders "knew" that after her having only attended once or twice. They were either incredibly insightful and spiritually wise, OR, and I'm guessing it was the latter, as dumb as a rock. And I'm also guessing their rock wasn't really Peter or Jesus.

Sounds like the situation could have used some careful explaining and instruction for the sake of the assembly, on the nature of sin, repentance and forgiveness.