Repentance
Does the sinner need to repent in order to be saved?
by Colin Maxwell
I'm afraid so!. Not the best of news to any who want to enjoy Heaven while they can hold unto their sins, but this is how it stands in the Bible, and we fail to preach the whole truth if we either neglect it or (worse still) oppose it.
Repentance in the Bible is a change of mind, induced by faith in the gospel message, but it is a change of mind that will lead to a change of direction. IOW, you can talk all you want about a change of mind, but if it doesn't work its way through to the behaviour, then your words are empty words.
Does this leave us open to the charge that we are preaching salvation by faith plus works? Are we asking the sinner (say the drunkard) to give up his sins in order to be saved? Are we preaching reformation of character as part of the mix that leads to forgiveness of sins? We say, like Paul, at this point not only "In no wise" but "God forbid!" The sinner has no power in himself to forsake his sins in any Evangelical sense of the word. He might be able to swap his sins i.e. cease being a drunkard and become a good living Pharisee, but he cannot forsake them in the manner demanded by the word of God. Furthermore, unless the Spirit of God has being moving upon his heart, the sinner has no desire to forsake them. They are the darling sins of his heart. He loves their darkness rather than the light, for his deeds are evil (John 3:19) Only the goodness of God will lead him to repentance (Romans 2:4) and such must be given unto him (Acts 11:18) While he has a responsibility to forsake his sins - it is never right to stay in sin - yet that same sin has chained him and so he needs nothing less than the mighty power of God's saving truth to set him free (John 8:32-36)
Repentance preachers are not looking for reformation of character. We do not tell (say) drunkards to go away, clean up their lives and come back when they have been off the drink for 3 or 6 months (zero tolerance) and then (and only then) we will explain John 3:16 to them.
A sinner hears the gospel. He learns that there is a hell for sins and a Saviour in Jesus Christ etc., Being convicted of his sin by the power of the Holy Spirit, he expresses his desire to be saved. We ask him: "Saved from what?" We are not looking here for theologically precise answers. He is a sinner from off the street and not necessarily a doctrinaire. We are not going to nitpick his language, but we need to know why he has expressed a desire to be saved. If he just wants to be saved from the hell below, but not from the hell within (i.e. the chains and bondage of sin) then he has not properly understood the gospel. That might (at least partly) be our fault. Have we faithfully preached Christ as the Saviour of His people from their sins? (Matthew 1:21) Did we emphasise in our message that Jesus Christ is the One Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Titus 2:14) If not, then we must make up the slack here as we chat with this interested sinner. We lay it down the line, gently but firmly, that he cannot know peace with God if he is still living in rebellion as a sinner. God does not save His people in their sins, much less for their sins. Is he willing to then forsake these sins that alienate him from God and is he willing to cast the destiny of his soul upon the finished work of Jesus Christ as the only hope of his salvation? He affirms. We do not (as said) send him away for a trial period. There and then, we point him to the Lamb of God in faith. If the Spirit of God has truly being doing His work, that sinner's life will be changed for ever - not by mere outward, man produced reformation, but by the mighty power of the gospel that automatically makes those that be in Christ to be new creatures. There is no more merit in repentance than there is faith. Neither of them earn salvation for the sinner, but both are required to bring him salvation. Christ does not pardon those who are living in brazen rebellion.
This is the old time gospel, as proclaimed by old time Evangelicals, both Calvinists and non Calvinists alike. Listen to J. Vernon McGee's comments on Ephesians 2:8-9
"Someone else objects, 'Maybe I'm not given the gift of faith.' That's not your problem. Your problem is that you don't want to give up your sins which the Bible condemns. Whenever you get sick of your sins, when you want to turn from yourself, from the things of the world, from religion, from everything the Bible condemns, and turn to Christ, then you will be given faith. You can trust Him."
Let me take another man, John R Rice, whose books sold in the millions:
“To repent literally means to have a change of mind or spirit toward God and toward sin. It means to turn from your sins, earnestly, with all your heart, and trust in Jesus Christ to save you. You can see, then, how the man who believes in Christ repents and the man who repents believes in Christ. The jailer repented when he turned from sin to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” (John R. Rice, What Must I Do to Be Saved?, 1940).
There is no shortage of quotes from the Calvinist side of the Evangelical fence, but I'll let these quotes from John Calvin suffice:
"The Hebrew word for repentance denotes conversion or return. The Greek word signifies change of mind and intention." (Institutes 3:3:5) Having defined repentance, Calvin continues elsewhere, "We never obtain forgiveness without repentance."
So, we answer that the sinner must repent to enjoy salvation. If he does not repent, then he will perish (Luke 13:5) The perishing of Luke 13:3-5 is not some temporary, earthly disaster. The wicked do not always reap their sins in this life. This fact has often caused great problems to many of God's people - David in Psalm 73 comes to mind. They often die in the greatest of prosperity and live long, pleasure filled years. The Lord Jesus in Luke 13:3-5 is referring to the burning hell of Luke 16:19-31 from where (significantly) the Rich Man sought Lazarus to be sent to preach repentance to his five remaining brothers, lest they too come to place of torment.
I, for one, regard this as a fundamental of the Christian faith. Don't let it be lost!
Useful reference pages with quotes:
http://www.bloomsburgbaptistchurch.net/Gospel.html
I am not a fan of David Clouds, but this page on repentance is sound, again many good quotes:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/repent.htm
Any thoughts? Keep them civil!
Labels: Colin Maxwell, Repentance
posted by mark pierson at 11:56 AM
54 Comments:
I assume Malley is unfamiliar with gospel terminology?
The hell below is the place of the damned (as in Luke 16:19-31) The hell within is the fact that people are not only sinners, but compulsive sinners - they break the law of God because they are captive to their own lusts. They not only sin, but they enjoy doing so and will continue to do so, until the saving grace of God smashes its power in their lives and sets them free. The mataphor or analogy is Scriptural and most helpful.
Colin Maxwell
January 16, 2008 3:16 PM
I tmight be more helpful if we could keep the conversation free from anything that is offensive. I am not happy with the spirit that I detect in your writings.
January 16, 2008 4:37 PM
"I am not happy with the spirit that I detect in your writings"
Good discernment "safehome".
Excellent post.
It became even more clear than before how repentance is a requirement of God, and yet only those who are granted repentance shall repent, though God demands that all come to repentance, and to turn from their sin to Christ, and to trust Christ Jesus; to cry out for mercy; to ask for forgiveness; to confess ones sinfulness, and sins against God, and against his/her neighbor.
"Today is the day of salvation".
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one can come to the Father unless they come by Me."
January 16, 2008 4:54 PM
"Then I might understand..."
You have to kneel and pray that God, who does exist, will forgive you. Ask Jesus Christ to help you repent, for you cannot do this by yourself.
Ask Jesus Christ, who died, and rose from the dead, to help you trust Him for your salvation from your sin.
It don't get any plainer than this.
And I have a strong feeling you will have some excuse, and say something that will make this statement not good enough, though it couldn't be any plainer.
January 16, 2008 10:12 PM
Maalie,
Does this definition help answer your question?
lust (lŭst) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2.
a. An overwhelming desire or craving: lust for power.
b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
3. Obsolete Pleasure; relish.
If there are any other words that you do not understand, check a dictionary.
January 16, 2008 10:44 PM
maalie, lorenzo -
I find your language and tone offensive. You are hereby asked to stay away from this blog.
Mark Pierson, blog administrator
January 17, 2008 7:20 AM
Mark, I must say I am uneasy about your decision. It could give the impression that we lack the courage of our convictions or are unwilling to enter into free and open discussion. That guy (or gal) made some good points but we've heard them all before.
January 17, 2008 8:05 AM
If I repent, can I come back on?
Lorenzo.
January 17, 2008 8:29 AM
I think the problem is the deliberate use of offensive language - out of all the sins to discuss, do we need the first one that is mentioned and surely, the second one is worded somewhat provocatively? And all this talk about tautology etc., is a bit of a cod as well. Every one else seems to know what it is about!
In closing, we might be tempted to ask: What part of Thou shalt not covet/comit adultery do you not understand?
January 17, 2008 8:32 AM
Goodnight: I didn't say I didn't understand coveting or adultery. I said that coveting is natural as we all desire things. It is wrong to act on our desires, and to dwell mentally on our desires and feed them, but it is not possible not to have a sneaking thought now and again. I have studied and practiced meditation for many years and I know how difficult it is to still the mind. All the great mystics meditated and I have read some of their instructions and reflections. I have also been on retreats to study meditation and contemplation. Perhaps study of the great mystics, i.e. Julian of Norwich, Thomas Kempis. St Ignatius of Loyola, St John of the Cross etc. would give you a new dimension into your faith. I also recommend 'The Cloud of Unknowing' which was written by a medieval monk to a young man of 24 who wished to follow the contemplative life.
Re adultery. I admit my comment was a bit flippant, but hey, we have to have a sense of humour.
When have I ever used offensive language? I haven't sworn or used any blasphemous words? Please point out what I said. Maybe my views and sense of humour are offensive, but certainly not the words I used.
By the way, talking about offensive language, please do not use the word 'cod' in England. It has rather an unsavoury meaning here.
Lorenzo
January 17, 2008 9:04 AM
I don't think it was so much that he doubted that it was a sin, rather than what would be the practical implications of it. I can understand that the notion of chains and ropes etc. might be difficult to comprehend, and I think he was correct in calling this a metafor. The problem seems to me that not everyone DOES know what it means, that's why we need theologians to interpret it for us.
January 17, 2008 9:08 AM
I have decided to de-lurk at last. Lorenzo, I think you have been treated rudely here. I think the offensive bit was actually the other guy who used the M- word in connection with lust.
That meditation stuff sounds really interesting, may I ask where you have been on your retreats?
And I agree with the man from Seattle that there could be overtones of not wanting to answer his perfectly reasonable questions. Maybe a soul has been lost for the want of a bit of patience.
January 17, 2008 9:25 AM
Thank you very much Clara. I have been on retreats in the Cenacle Convent in Manchester, on Holy Island and in Ampleforth Abbey. Ampleforth is in Yorkshire and is run by the Benedictene Monks. I have also studied meditation near Macclesfield where I live.
My teachers have been very holy men and women. The nuns at the Cenacle Convent were amazing and they still keep in touch with me.
Thank you for your comments re Seatles points. I would like to have said that myself but I thought it might be seen as being biased.
I don't want to think about the M. word.
Lorenzo.
January 17, 2008 9:44 AM
"If I repent, can I come back on?"
That's what this post is all about. Even 7 times 70.
I come here to hear the truth from the Scriptures. Mark and the others are very committed to Christ Jesus their Lord, and His Word.
I have learned, and my heart has been shaped by the good posts on this blog.
The Gospel must be put forth without shame, nor apology. I may have to apologize for my attitude, but never for Christ, or His truth.
January 17, 2008 11:24 AM
I asked Colin for his permission to repost this excellent blog post here. I respect his work. This post was pretty straight-forward with a very easy to understand message. I regret the way his post was treated. I've been to the eye-doctor today and only just now can barely see clearly enough to respond. I do not have patience for people who play games with otherwise easy and straightforward posts as this one was. Please be advised that I will delete any comments that seem to be nothing more than gamesmenship. This is a last warning.
January 17, 2008 11:53 AM
Clara,
Thanks for the visit and comment. While God uses human beings to witness and gather converts (elect), rest assured that no souls are lost because of anything man does.
John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Maalie's intent here was to mock Christianity. He is aware of the claims of the Bible and has admitted that he has no answer to the origin of the universe. His attempt to mock the people here has served the purpose of making him aware of his no answer solution compared to the Biblical answer.
January 17, 2008 12:39 PM
Mark, I am very sorry to hear about your eyesight and I hope you will recover quickly.
I trust you are not deleting my comments simply because I don't happen to agree with you on some issues. I cannot agree, for example, that anything biblical is "Straightforward", as you say. It most certainly isn't.
Your own colleague, Even so, pastor and prophet, has admitted (on Susan's blog) that the bible is outdated on some matters. He said:
> Obviously, modern classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy
I agree. But neither was our present understanding of genetics, geology, biochemistry, molecular and evolutionary biology available at the time of the writing of Genesis. So we now left with the problem of deciding which bits we should accept, and which bits we should revise in the light of our modern understanding of the workings of the world.
I think Jazzycat's comment is pathetically naive. Because science doesn't have a complete understanding of cosmology at the moment doesn't mean we won't eventually. To fall back on the argument of personal incredulity ("I don't believe it could be started without God") is no answer at all. 200 years ago we didn't understand epidemiology. 100 years ago we didn't understand nuclear physics. 50 years ago we didn't understand how genetic information is transferred between generations. Now we can replicate the human genome. And we certainly understand that the whole of the world's biodiversity could not have stemmed from what could have been crammed onto Noah's boat.
No, I am not mocking, but I do have serious concerns and questions to ask and so far I'm afraid I'm disappointed.
I expect you will delete this, but in my opinion that would be a cowardly act and, as Seattle Boy remarks, might suggest that you are afraid of the questions.
I wish you no ill, believe me.
January 17, 2008 1:07 PM
Jazzycat, thank you for your reply. Yes, I know that verse too, but it has caused me some worry. You may see from my profile that I am from Autralia. You are sure to know that the indigenous folk here are the Aborigines, among whom I have some dear friends. They were here long before Europeans and the words whoever comes to me I will never cast out does not apply to them because their cultural background is not biblical. They have their own answers to the creation of the world and so on.
So it seems that they and their ancestors will not know heaven because God in His wisdom seems to have denied them the opportunity to come to Him. The same applies to many bother tribes and cultures around the world who do not know Christ, through no fault of their own.
This his caused me great heartache and prayer hasn't helped me so far.
January 17, 2008 1:29 PM
The last half of Romans 1 is clear in its teaching about man not wanting to retain God in his knowledge. Before the Fall that would not have been so. However, after the Fall the results of that Fall would be seen across the coming race. Those results are: Spiritually dead people, under the sway of the devil, doing by nature those things that anger God. Mocking Him, finding fault with His Word (the Bible) by the use of science, are all symptoms of the Fall, and hence, are judged to originate in the pit of Hell.
please turn from your wicked ways. Come to Christ for salvation; or else you'll perish in the fires of the The Lake of Fire.
Off to work for me now.
Wayne, feel free to delete anything you wish.
Good day.
January 17, 2008 1:47 PM
I thought the Fall meant the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Does it mean all those other things too?
I hope no one minds me butting in here, but I have been exploring the blogsites and have come across this very interesting site.
January 17, 2008 2:21 PM
Maalie,
Lets go straight to the bottom line. Since there is something rather than nothing, something must have the power of self-existence. There are two basic choices. Unintelligent matter/energy has this power or a supreme being has this power. You say that my choice of a supreme being (the God of the Bible) has this power is naive. However in light of the historical record, unbelievably accurate prophecy, and miracles, not to mention faith; logic compels me to believe the real naive position is to believe that matter has this power and science just hasn't figured it out yet.
My friend, you are presupposing that science will in fact come up with an answer that excludes a supreme being. That is what we call faith and your faith is just as real as Christian faith. You have faith that science will someday be able to explain how matter/energy has always existed absent any supernatural supreme being.
January 17, 2008 2:37 PM
Wow! This blog had gotten going since I last looked in. I don't think this guy is mocking, I have checked his blog and he seems to be a pretty regular guy. I think he is spiritually confused between what he reads in the bible and what his observations in nature tell him. I've been through that too and now I find spiritual peace with the Church of the Unitarian Universalists.
I strongly sympathise with Clara. I pray that someone can find an answer to her conflict. I'm afraid I can't.
January 17, 2008 2:38 PM
> you are presupposing that science will in fact come up with an answer that excludes a supreme being.
No, scientists consider evidence, not supposition. I am not presupposing it, but I am not ruling it out. The track record is good. We can absolutely exclude a "supreme being" (i.e. the supernatural) to explain the origins and development of life on earth. And please don't insult me by suggesting otherwise, I have been lecturing on the subject for 30 years. I have seen the archaeological sites of some of your best American hominid evolutionary scientists; I have been to Olduvai in Tanzania and seen for myself, and handled, the fossils in situ and have witnessed a virtually uninterrupted fossil lineage of mammalian and primate evolution since the demise of the dinosaurs.
I believe theologians put the age of the earth at about 5000 years (is that correct? I will happily stand corrected) but I know to my certain knowledge that upright-walking hominids were walking this earth some 4.5 MILLION years ago. The earth is hundreds of millions of years old, absolutely incontrovertible. Denying the evidence won't make it go away, though the "home-schooling" brigade apparently thinks it will.
Seattle Boy is pretty much right in his assessment and I respect his judgement. I also respect "Even so" who admitted in his own words that the bible was written in times when knowledge and understanding was not as it is today and we need to revise certain conceptions that have become outdated (his particular example was animal classification).
I am concerned about Mark's rejection of science. Presumably he does not abhor medical science from which it appears that he has benefited today. The biology of medicine and genetics and biochemistry are all the same. You can't say it is "right" for one discipline and "wrong" for another. At the end of the day it's all biology.
January 17, 2008 3:14 PM
Scaredy Cat,
Thanks for the visit. You are welcome to comment here any time. I believe Mark was talking about the results of the fall which Paul describes in Romans 1:18-32.
On my blog Sweetjazzycat I have some series of photo devotionals on the bad news, good news, etc. You may want to look them over. One cat to another so to speak.
January 17, 2008 3:34 PM
Clara,
I know it is hard to consider the situation as you described. You may also want to check out the series on the bad news that I pointed Scaredy Cat to check out.
January 17, 2008 3:37 PM
Maalie,
You wrote We can absolutely exclude a "supreme being" (i.e. the supernatural) to explain the origins and development of life on earth. WOW! I was unaware of this, could you please point me to where it is explained how life came from non-life?
It reminds me of a joke I once heard about the atheist who got to heaven and told God that everything that God has done man can do as well. God said really, that is good. The atheist said yes, even life we know how to create and start. God smiled politely and then asked the atheist to prove it, well the atheist was all to eager and started gathering dust, particles and the like to which God interrupted and asked what he was doing. The atheist said that he is creating life, to which God answered that he needed to start like he did with nothing... hahaha
January 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Ben, sorry if this sounds blunt but you are merely revealing your ignorance. It would take me a semester of lectures to explain. I recommend that you start to read some perfectly mainstream biology/chemistry textbooks, it's all there (not the stuff the religious deniers put about). It's not my place to take up space on this blog.
January 17, 2008 4:03 PM
Ben, this stuff is too serious to joke about.
January 17, 2008 4:04 PM
Maalie,
No, you can't rule out a supreme being until you answer the fundamental question as to how it all began. You (science) simply must explain the events before the big bang, the cause of the big bang, etc. before you can rule out the possibility of the "uncaused cause" being a supreme being.
It is simply not good enough for you to retreat to saying it is not your field. It impacts on the whole discussion and if it is not your field then that is your problem to solve.
I am not bound by how old the earth is or appears to be. Scientists and theologians have been wrong before. The theologians error was caused by their interpretation, not the Bible.
Scientists were warning of an ice age thirty years ago and now they are warning about global warming. Does that shake your confidence in your so-called scientific evidence? Let me say that I have an engineering degree and am not anti-science, but I believe scientists are heavily influenced by agenda based politically correct positions. In America their very jobs are in peril if they do not conform to the politically accepted "consensus".
January 17, 2008 4:05 PM
Maalie,
I have read my share of chemistry and biology books and have never come across where any of them have definitively proven how life got started. Now my brother is a Chemist and a devout atheist and he has not heard of any such proof either. Believe me if he did he would wear me out on it.
Perhaps since you know absolutely how this happened and you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt you should write THE book on it. Tell me when you are done and I will buy a copy for my brother.
January 17, 2008 4:08 PM
Please don't mis-quote me. I didn't say "proof": proof isn't obtainable. The bible isn't "proof" either. In one version of Genesis it says Trees were created before man was created (GE 1:11-12, 26-27) and in another that Man was created before trees were created (GE 2:4-9). Please guide me as to which is true.
Even your pastor and self-styled prophet (Even so) has stated the bible is outdated.
What I said was: "We can absolutely exclude a "supreme being" (i.e. the supernatural) to explain the origins and development of life on earth.. That is true. It doesn't mean that it necessarily happened in a particular way, but it is sufficient to say that if it could happened in a particular way without intervention of the supernatural, then there is no need to invoke it. Try reading about Miller's experiments as a starter.
Anyhow it's getting late in England so I'm going to leave you to wallow in you blinkered little evidence-denying world and get to bed.
You would have made a better impression on me if you had tried to address some of my concerns (and those of Clara) rather that attack me. I'm afraid you have given me no cause whatever to change my views, in fact your bigotry has enhanced them.
January 17, 2008 4:37 PM
1Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
2 Timothy 2:25-26 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.
January 17, 2008 4:56 PM
Cristina,
Good Scripture references. Although we are aware of this, isn't it sobering to watch it first hand?
January 17, 2008 7:18 PM
"You would have made a better impression on me if you had tried to address some of my concerns (and those of Clara) rather that attack me."
I thought we did.
January 17, 2008 7:31 PM
Ben,
Thanks for your excellent input. Since Maalie falsely accused you and me of attacking him, I suspect he comes from a leftist world-view position.
There was no personal attack as all we did was refute his view in a way that he could not defend. When this happened the only attack I see in this thread was his reference to us as ignorant and bigoted.
He never even offered a theory of how something came from nothing without the input of a supreme being.
January 17, 2008 7:33 PM
NOTE....!!!!
Since Maalie is repeating something that JD said on another blog that is misleading, the following is a copy of the entire comment in context which shows an entirely different meaning than what Maalie indicated:
"Leviticus 11:13,19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (cf. Deuteronomy 14:11,18)
Is this a biological boo-boo?
Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, modern classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
I am wondering if skeptics who make this objection are seriously proposing that when the Hebrews used this word, they actually had in mind the modern classification scheme that defines "bird" as a warm-blooded creature of a certain class who had feathers.
If this is how "perfection" is to be understood, that the Bible is supposed to be prepared for our every change in natural understanding of unalterable data, well then all we'd have to do to make the Bible "wrong" is change our terminology on things. If the Bible says, "the sky is blue," we can change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong. Skeptics who make this sort of complaint don't want answers. The objection has no legitimacy.
It is the same sort of objection as your “heart” problem, which was answered."
January 17, 2008 7:49 PM
Don,
I thought we did as well.
January 17, 2008 7:50 PM
Jazzycat,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. There was no attack or bigoted behavior exhibited on our part.
What happened is that Maalie made an unsubstantiated comment and tried to pass it off as scientific fact. When it was pointed out that it has never been shown/demonstrated how non living matter brought about living matter we were called ignorant. Well I have no problem being called a fool by natural man that cannot discern spiritual things. I will pray though that our gracious Lord and Savior will show His unmerited blessing on Maalie and that he repents and believes.
January 17, 2008 8:16 PM
Hey come on guys, give that guy a break! He's not responsible for your own education. I've heard about that stuff in school too, it's all out there if you want to find it. He's not saying it actually happened that way, only that it could have. You can certainly create organic molecules from inorganic ones and hey some forms of life are only a string of organic molecules. And you must admit you have been pretty thin when it comes to dealing with his own concerns. I will pray with you that he finds reconciliation in his confusion, which is about as far as us Unitarians can go.
And 'Even so' did rather drop himself in it, even I thought that.
Of more concern I think is that one of our own countrymen has just cloned human embryos using his own skin cells. Are we playing God?
January 18, 2008 2:11 AM
Gosh, is this still running overnight?
Well said Seattle Boy. I know some Unitarians and I like their attitude.
You are right of course, I am not responsible for their ignorance. In attempting to humiliate me, they are taking on the whole of the main-stream scientific community, including some of the best brains in America. The answers are out there in your librarians and museums but requires humility to cast aside prejudices to examine the evidence.
That is the problem as I see it. Genesis is an act of faith and a scientist may say "I don't believe it". On the other hand a fossil pro-human skull 3 million years old is tangible evidence of evolution. You cannot say "I don't believe it" - it is there, in a museum for all to see, it cannot be denied. What is open for discussion is interpret ion of the evidence, but not denial of it.
And which did come first, Man or the tree? Of course there is scientific evidence that plant life was in existence many millions of years before the mammals evolved.
January 18, 2008 3:16 AM
You know that fossil skull you talk about Maalie could be a hoax. Piltdown Man was afterall.
Lorenzo.
January 18, 2008 3:46 AM
Exactly. But it was found out - that's the whole point, the evidence did not stand up under peer-reviewed scrutiny. The point is that evidence is available for scrutiny whereas the "Word of God" is supposed to be inviolable.
January 18, 2008 3:51 AM
This blog is going round the time zones!
Good morning everyone! I am disappointed to see that nobody is able to comfort me. The fact that God appears to exclude certain cultural groups from the Kingdom of Heaven worries me. Despite what Maaly says I believe God designed the world. Why should he design a world in which some babies, through no fault of their own, are born in to a community that could never have a chance of coming to Him? It seems so unfair. My own preacher is very vague on this. It is seriously shaking my faith.
I must add that it was also my interpretation that Even So admitted the bible was out of date. That seems quite obvious or we would still be believing the earth was the centre of the universe. Someone (was it Galileo?) was slaughtered as a heretic for saying that it was not. Christians! Honestly! We have to keep up-to-date with new discoveries.
Clara
January 18, 2008 4:21 AM
Galileo was mere excomunicated for his theories on suns, moons and earth Clara. He recanted and was taken back into the bosum of the Church, or so I believe. It was poor old Savonarola who was brutally murdered.
I am sure old man Galileo would be tickled pink to know there is quite a nice airport named after him at Pisa.
Lorenzo.
January 18, 2008 4:31 AM
But the point is he was criticised for contradicting Christian doctrine at the time. Our understanding has moved on since then. Nobody so far as I know disputes it now. Why can't we move on with other issues that are obviously out of date in the bible? Why can't we accept that the myth of Adam and Eve is just a parable, like some of the parables in the New Testament?
January 18, 2008 4:48 AM
P.S. Did he recant against his better judgement? Or just to save his skin?
January 18, 2008 4:50 AM
There seems to be a lot of judging here. Shame on you.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
January 18, 2008 5:02 AM
Viking Warrior: Greetings from Odin and Asgaard!
January 18, 2008 5:25 AM
Clara, I don't know, but I suspect he did it to save his skin.
Sometimes it is more politic to keep your mouth shut than argue the toss.
Lorenzo.
January 18, 2008 7:33 AM
Clara,
I am sorry that I am coming to this rather late in the game and if this discussion has moved on then so be it.
When you ask why some cultural groups are not saved I would ask you why you think they are damned in the first place. It seems that the Bible tells us that no one searches for the true God and that we all have made our own gods that we follow and worship. Also, do you really believe that the story of Adam and Eve was just a parable?
Maalie,
I assume you are referring to what some people label the two different creation accounts in the Bible when you ask about man and trees? If that is the case might I humbly submit, first they are not two separate creation accounts. What is being discussed in Genesis 2 is more detailed account of day 6. Notice that in chapter 2 it is referring to the garden that God planted for Adam and we know from nature that certain types of trees and plants need to be cultivated and some do not. So, when it refers to trees in chapter 2 it is referring to trees that need to be cultivated. Now notice why these types of trees and plants were not created on day 3? I will give you the answer; it is because there was no man to cultivate the ground. See, when you see the word Earth in Genesis 2:5 it has a different meaning then the whole earth, it actually means something closer to field or plot of land in this case (or could be defined as garden). Now if you really are interested in that I would encourage you to go to your libraries and study the Bible there with a Concordance to grasp the meaning more clearly. Another would be to get involved in a local Church that has sound biblical teaching and a preacher that is sound in doctrine to help you on some of these things.
Magnus
January 18, 2008 8:38 AM
"Judge not lest ye be judged."
"Do not judge according to appearance, but JUDGE with righteous judgment." john 7:24
Also the Apostle Paul tells us to judge people in the church. For the church was allowing a man living in sexual sin with his father's wife, and saying nothing.
And then Paul tells us, that anyone who calls himself a brother, or a sister, must be judged, if they are sinning in a chronic manner, and to not have lunch with them, so perhaps this will help them come to their senses and be restored.
So that one verse you used, which is SO over used by immature people, needs more clarity, don't you think.
January 18, 2008 11:54 AM
The dogmatic, fanatical and intolerant posts and comments on this blog are the precise reason why so many people find fundamentalist christians such smug pains in the butt. Haven't you all got the message by now that you do nothing whatever for the gospel that you are so intent on preaching?
I very much suspect that J.C would feel the same way. I also suspect that he would have had a sense of humour along similar lines to Lorenzo and Maalie's.
January 19, 2008 9:25 AM
Magdalene,
Would you please define "fundamentalist christians" and how they differ from other Christians?
Would you care to point out where the gospel we preach is in conflict with the gospel of the Bible?
It is easy to make charges, but can you back them up?
January 19, 2008 12:25 PM
Jazzy, I would also have to add this question:
"I very much suspect that J.C would feel the same way. I also suspect that he would have had a sense of humour along similar lines to Lorenzo and Maalie's."
From where in Scripture do you glean such suppostions?
January 19, 2008 3:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home