Jack in the Box crude commercial

Really? Is that what you see in scripture? Do you see the NT preachers engaging Christians in a different method than non-Christians? They always preached in this method - exposing sin and the need for repentance, and then showed that God forgives sin upon repentance. In other words, the message was we are sinners and Jesus is the advocate, the friend of sinners. Repent and flee to Him.

 

For Pete's sake boys, run down to Jack in the Box and grab a taco or something to keep you from pecking at each other! You just ruined ANY witness you might have had on the public internet.
And try to do it within the next four hours...

 

You can't engage the world without drawing some lines in the sand; you have to judge what is right and what is wrong. John 7:24 - judge righteous judgment. The point of the passage in Matthew is to refrain from hypocritical judgment; the point in John is that we have to draw some lines in the sand.

Don't forget Jesus' example, either; when talking to the woman at the well, He told her exactly what she was doing wrong.

 

Wow. jaigner's position is absolutely scary.

No absolutes. "Right" and "wrong" can't be determined.

"it's not our place" to name sin as sin.

Yikes.

Three thoughts:

1. Jaigner would've hated OT prophets. They did what he says shouldn't be done.
2. It's one thing had he said, "we shouldn't expect righteous behavior if someone doesn't know God." There's an element of truth there. But he went beyond--to the point of saying that it isn't our place to point out evil/sin/wrongdoing. That's positively scary--and patently unScriptural.
3. Basically, Jaigner is an advocate for Laodicean behavior. He may not mean to be--he may not wish he was--but if he maintains the position of, "It's not our place to call sin, sin," and "There is no objective authority to which we can look to make decisions regarding right and wrong"--well, Laodicean he is.

Um...that's precisely what you are doing.



Bluntly put, if he was in my church, and insisted on holding to that position, I would forbid him from teaching our kids or youth.

 

Check out Greg Boyd's Myth of the Christian Religion. Great book.

 

Why don't you check out the bible sometime, and pay particular attention to how the NT preachers went about preaching the gospel. It might enlighten you.

 

I didn't say any of those things. I believe there are absolutes. I just don't believe it's my job to enforce them. My main job is to live a life that reflects the Creator, sharing Christ's love with people. Only the Holy Spirit can convict of sin.

Again, I'm talking about the context of relationships here. I'm not talking about what should be proclaimed inside the Church. I'm not telling you to compromise truth, in fact I am telling you to proclaim the Gospel of Christ in all its power.

And OT prophets are some of my personal favorites. Micah is an amazing book.

First, the word is "unscriptural," not "unS.." Second, I'm saying precisely that we shouldn't expect righteous behavior from non-Christians. If we call them to repentance without relationship, we're off-task. There is a place for discernment and discipline, but I'm talking here about judgment. When we confront another Christian about an issue, that is one thing, but when we go around shouting hate and trying to function as some cosmic watchdog, that's another thing entirely.

Don't believe it, didn't say it. This is not a fair representation of what I said.

So, let me get this straight. If I told children (and youth are still children) that they should strive to be clear and faithful representations of Christ's love, not running around judging (which is "I/it [behavior]"), but engaging, loving and sharpening (which is "I/you [person]"), you wouldn't want me to be around kids. You'd rather I tell them to go out and tell everyone what they are doing wrong without forming relationships, which is what judging is?

I don't get it.

 

Check out The Holy Bible. It ain't too shabby either.

 

I've got the Bible. There's an TNIV on my desk at school, another one on my desk at church, and an ESV, NASB, and NRSV floating around the house for reference. I have about 20 translations in my home library.

I read one of them (at least) everyday. I pray for wisdom, I try to interpret faithfully.

 

Whoa. Nice. Bleeding heart. The truth is that I'm no liberal. I believe in biblical authority. I believe in the miracles. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. I am thoroughly and completely evangelical and orthodox.

Now isn't the time to go into the spanking issue, but the Bible says to discipline (as in the same rod found in Ps. 23), not to spank. Not against it, but, well, be careful how you exegete wisdom literature.

Repentance is part of faith. I believe wholeheartedly in confession and repentance. I don't like calling regeneration "being saved," since that word isn't used that way in the Bible (it refers to inaugurated eschatology; the future promise of salvation's completion). The Spirit's work is leading people there. If I have a relationship with those people, I can counsel them accordingly. Drive-by judgment is no substitute for authentic relationships.

Well, that is pretty offensive (as well as theologically problematic), since I'm doing my best to let the Spirit's work be done through me. Preaching a moralistic gospel leads to moralism (obviously), legalism, and a salvation based on works. Salvation found in Christ is based solely on faith. Being a faithful representation of Christ is doing the work of the Christian. In fact, it's doing everything humans were created to do.

 

Eloquently spoken, but you still are wrong for not speaking out against sin.

 

No one said not to condemn sin. However, beating someone over the head with a Bible the first time you meet him isn't going to help matters.

 

This is one of the most vapid posts I've read. Lots of rambling that is not coherent.

Also, I'm not a liberal. Even if I was as bad as you say, there's nothing liberal about my stance. Check the theological definition. They had some fights about it, oh, maybe a hundred years ago.

 

Very good. I'm definitely not in favor of sin.

Drive-by evangelism filled with venom and anger isn't going to do much good.

 

Sorry, but that's not the position you espoused:

You weren't talking about "beating up folks with a Bible." You were espousing not taking a stand against matters of sin; thus giving tacit approval to a relativistic worldview.

 

Who asked you to enforce them? I'm talking about speaking out regarding matters of right and wrong; sin and righteousness. No one has asked you to be the Holy Spirit--but to discount the role of the prophetic--the John the Baptist, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Nathan--is to blatantly disregard part of what God calls His people to do. Like it or not, sometimes we are called on to say, "this is sin." And your desire for warm fuzzies aside, to ignore such is wrong.

Don't be pedantic. My point was to emphasize through the atypical capitalization--the need to maintain the centrality of Scriptural admonitions. It gives us many examples about speaking out against sin. That was my point. Sorry it was unClear. I'll be less unAmbiguous next time.

I don't understand where you determined that anyone here is asking for calls of judgement without an idea of love and grace. Good grief--I would hope that all of us understand the need for such. But we're called on to "speak the truth in love." Sometimes, there's a tension there--we find ourselves (especially those who lean toward the "gift of mercy" side of the spectrum) leaning toward "love," and we struggle with "the truth." Others of us (the more "prophetically" gifted) have little problem with "the truth," but we fall short on the "love" side of the equation.

Obviously, you have the mercy thing down. While you're fixing up your recipe, don't forget to add a tablespoon of "the truth" with your half cup of "love."

No...that's not quite what you indicated earlier. My point was this: I'm very leery of anything that approaches moral relativism. And some of your earlier posts were mighty close to that point of view. You seem to confuse enforcing the truth (which is God's job--although sometimes folks in authority have the ability to do something there) with proclaiming the truth--a task which we do have a responsibility to carry out.

Yes, I'm quite sensitive to the dangers of a worldview weak on absolutes. I consider it toxic to a young mind and spirit.

 

The word scriptural shouldn't be capitalized either. Neither should biblical. Bible and Scripture(s) should be capitalized only if used as proper nouns. Examples:

Giving money to the church is scriptural.

A fair reading of the Scriptures will show that amillennialism is correct, and if you disagree you are wrong.

It says in the Bible to love your neighbor as yourself.

The Book of Mormon and the Bible make up the scriptures for Mormons.

The DSM-IV is the bible for psychiatrists.

The biblical view of fornication is that it is a sin.