News-Record.com

We each have the right to believe whatever we choose. I won't pressure you to become Lutheran if you promise not to pressure me to become athiest. Put up your billboard if it gives you comfort - but don't complain if I get comfort from prayer. I'm promise that I won't ask you to pray with me.

"We each have the right to believe whatever we choose."

Sorry Grits, we do NOT get to choose what or Who we believe - at least with impugnity. As St. Paul says, "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" He is speaking to believers here, but ALL men will be judged according to their belief, or unbelief. And anti-God thoughts and actions have grievous consequences, even in this life, that affect people greatly.

This whole humansit idea that everyone gets to believe what they want in a stark, god-less universe has absolutely no basis in Scripture and counters everything it sets forth regarding the truth and authority of God and his just requirements of men. When professing Christians (Lutherans) buy into the humanist error of human autonomy they give the unbeliever the upper hand and forfeit their Christian heritage.

I believe in open conversation and debate. I am a believer and am interested in hearing what none believers believe. Truth will surface for both of us. But I do believe that too many believers have shoved down the throats of everyone what they believe. I do not believe that serves Christ.
Shalom;
Bernie Hess

I believe in open conversation and debate. I am a believer and am interested in hearing what none believers believe. Truth will surface for both of us. But I do believe that too many believers have shoved down the throats of everyone what they believe. I do not believe that serves Christ.
Shalom;
Bernie Hess

Does anyone else see the irony of the wording on the proposed billboard?

We Christians know that we are not alone.

"I believe in open conversation and debate. I am a believer and am interested in hearing what none believers believe."

Great. I do to. But discussion and debate are one thing: caving to the notion that there is more than one God, one Truth and one Way of salvation is another altogether (not saying you do!) Debate does NOT mean that all points of view are valid, or all religions the same. They are certainly not. For the consistent biblical Christian, Truth is alboslute and eternal, revealed in the OT and NT Scriptures.

I love debate and discussion: it corrects me at times, sharpens my belief matrix and helps me to orient to the positions and tactics of my opponents - all for the purpose of communicating God's Word and Gospel. If non-believers can accept my criteria, debate can happen. If not, the discussion or bebate has ended.

Both Jesus (Pharisees) and Paul (Mars Hill) entertained the views and questions of those who did not immediately receive their message. However, there was NEVER any question as to the veracity or primacy of the truth they communicated - it was propositional and authoritative. So it must be for Christian apologists to day - albeit,with greater humility and patience, since none of us is Jesus OR Paul. But study and the Holy Spirit do give us the capacity to engage all comers - in redemptive love.

"I believe in open conversation and debate. I am a believer and am interested in hearing what none believers believe."

Great. I do to. But discussion and debate are one thing: caving to the notion that there is more than one God, one Truth and one Way of salvation is another altogether (not saying you do!) Debate does NOT mean that all points of view are valid, or all religions the same. They are certainly not. For the consistent biblical Christian, Truth is alboslute and eternal, revealed in the OT and NT Scriptures.

I love debate and discussion: it corrects me at times, sharpens my belief matrix and helps me to orient to the positions and tactics of my opponents - all for the purpose of communicating God's Word and Gospel. If non-believers can accept my criteria, debate can happen. If not, the discussion or bebate has ended.

Both Jesus (Pharisees) and Paul (Mars Hill) entertained the views and questions of those who did not immediately receive their message. However, there was NEVER any question as to the veracity or primacy of the truth they communicated - it was propositional and authoritative. So it must be for Christian apologists to day - albeit,with greater humility and patience, since none of us is Jesus OR Paul. But study and the Holy Spirit do give us the capacity to engage all comers - in redemptive love.

It's odd how the discussion has become about "debate," when the billboard offered no defense of atheism or attack on religion. All it said was that more than one atheist exists in the world -- a proposition no one disputes. It seems that the very existence of atheists feels like a challenge to Bible-believers, even whan the atheists aren't attacking them. This is because, in my experience, they usually only welcome "debate" as a chance to convert the other guy to their own creed. Atheists don't think Christians will go anywhere different when they die than atheists will, so they lack that drive to convert others (except for those who want to make others atheists because they hate religion; but I think they are a minority). I guess now that Christians have finally stopped persecuting each other, they need a new group to be up in arms about.

First Kuranes, Informed and mature Christians (admittedly rare these dumbed down days) are NOT interested in forcing ANYONE to come to know the Lord Jesus Christ; they ARE interested in seeing all people come to a knowledge of the one who can raise thier souls from the death of sin and separation from God. If their desire is based on one-up-mans-ship it is contrary to the Scriptural model. If it comes from a love and concern, then it is a biblical imperative.

Knowedgeable Christians also see atheism as dangerous in the long haul because it cuts humanity off from the life-giving principles of God's Law/Word, and plunges society into that we are seein gnow in America: a continuing slide into sin, corruption and perversion.

Atheism, especially the more self-conscious version, is an essential existential and noetic rebellion against the very foundations of the universe, in that God is the source of all things, including the principles of love and truth that undergird human life. So, informed Christians do not oppose atheism JUST because it is not their chosen truth system, but for the above reasons.

And OF COURSE, in ANY debate, the goal is to convince the opposing party to "convert" to their opinion, whether a more trivial issue, or a major life concern.

Oddly, though, God's "life-giving principles" mandate death for such corrupt and perverse activities as picking up sticks on Saturday and having sex with persons of an unapproved gender. Not to mention the sinful corruption of living in Jericho (Josh. 6:21). Does this part of God's "LawWord" apply today: "Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect." Titus 2:9,10 (RSV). See also 1 Pet. 2:18-21, Lev. 25:44-46 and many other places. If not, why not?
In my experience, atheists act no worse than Christians as a whole; a bad Christian is no better than a bad atheist, and a good Christian is no better than a good atheist. And yes. I have read the claim that atheists take their morality from Christianity and live on "borrowed capital", but the same folks point to the fact that ethical teachings are similar in all religions, to point out their universality. Well, you can't have it both ways; if ethics are universal, Christianity can't claim that morality comes only from them; if morality comes only from their God, how come the Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, etc., teachings are so often parallel?
And how well does God obey his own "LawWord"? Are we not told that he is jealous, kills the innocent (2 Sam. 24:1-2, 15), lies and decieves (Isa. 19:14), is often "irritable and resentful" contrary ti 1 Cor. 13:5 (ESV) and many other instances.

"Does this part of God's Word apply today: (?)" Of course not: anyone who has done even superficial study in OT/NT theology knows that. This is such a tired, old, silly and uninformed argument that I will cut short any further commentary.

"Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect." Titus 2:9,10 (RSV).

Again, you might consider taking theology 101 somewhere before launching into such lame attacks. The 101 commentary on this is that Paul was simply acknowledging, or working within, the current social system - as he HAD to do everywhere he ministered. Even so, he came close to being killed on numerous occasions. At this point in history, the priority was to advance the Gospel and the Church, not engage in social upheaval. The principle being that once the Gospel takes hold and God's love and justice prevail, the tangential evils will sort themselves out; becuase all real and permanent change must come from within the heart, not from imposed big-government entitlements.

"Christianity can't claim that morality comes only from them."

Again, my first year theology prof clearly explained that the Law of the Creator is embedded in the very essence of all men everywhere. It is sin and rebellion that both hides it and suppresses it - even in modern America. Where there was some measure of God-consciouness the moral Law shone through quite naturally. God's covenantal actions through Abraham, Moses, the Prophets, Messiah and the Apostles was a unique historical revelation of Himself and His Law. Other religons have multiple animal-like or man-like deities and aberations of the Law, or partial versions thereof - no true knowldege of the Lawgiver (athistic Buddhism). Even Islam, with it's monotheism and legalism is a harsh, graceless distortion of the biblical model. In the end, "There is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."

And yes, all men MUST borrow from God, His Word and His Messanic revelation to have any semblance of true and effectual morality - because it IS organically built-into the human soul.

Even if you choose the evolutionary model of "evolved morality," you still see a more or less universal moral sense in humanity as a whole, and which must spring from some primieval essence or matrix, which a theistic evolutionist would call the innate moral Law.

Nikos is so busy mocking my theological ignorance that he misses the point. If he is going to preach that the government and culture should base its laws and mores on the Bible, then either he has to apply all of it or supply a rational standard with which to determine which of God's eternal, changeless laws we can safely ignore.without peril of the divine chastisement. Instead of doing either, he simply says the Sabbath rules don't apply, as though that is self-evident. I'm willing to bet, though, that when it comes to the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus, for example, suddenly it is equally self-evident that they are fully in force today.
As for the "101 commentary" on slavery, the fact that Paul was just "working within the current system" of slavery undermines Nikos' whole position. Why shouldn't we do the same with regard to the evils of our own day? Has the spread of the gospel become less primary? Are we content to let souls slide into everlasting torment because it is finally time to "engage in social upheval"? Nikos' whole agenda is social upheval, replacing the Satanic humanist system with the enlightened principles of Christianity which have worked so well in the past, when torturing prisoners and burning heretics were self-evidently good in God's sight across the whole of Christendom. With all thy getting, Nikos, get some history. Of course, it's convenient to sweep the Bible's acceptance of slavery under the rug of expedience, but when you advocate basing our current laws on those of the same Bible, you need a little more explaining than that. Seeing that "God's love and justice" took 1800 plus years to move enough hearts to eradicate slavery in allegedly Christian cultures, largely because of the very verses that Nikos sweeps aside, he has a long time to wait. Meanwhile, maybe he would favor us with a detailed list of which Biblical laws he would like to see enacted in America and which ones no longer apply, and what the difference is. Should Hindus be executed for worshiping idols? How about adulterers? Should they be stoned to death, as the law commands, or would lethal injections suffice? Inquiring minds want to know.
Deut. 12:32 says, "whatsoever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish it." There are many other verses to the same effect in both testaments. Now if these commandments apply only to the Jews, then Nikos has no warrant for extending them to Gentile America, or anywhere else; if, on the other hand, they are God's will for every nation to follow, as Nikos claims, then he can't pick and choose, because God doesn't: "thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish." So which is it, Nick?

Concerning Paul's comment on slavery (though theology 102 says that Titus was not by Paul but by one of his later followers), Nikos says "Paul was simply acknowledging, or working within, the current social system - as he HAD to do everywhere he ministered. Even so, he came close to being killed on numerous occasions." But the fact that his preaching nearly got him killed shows that he was NOT "acting within the current social system." If he did not shrink from opposition to the whole pagan, emperor-worshiping culture of the Roman Empire, not to mention the Jewish system of righteousness by works of the law, even though it repeatedly endangered his life, he would not have shrunk from opposing slavery, had he thought it an evil. Despite the urgency of preaching the gospel, he nevertheless somehow found time to admonish women to be sure to wear their veils in church and to keep their hair long because of the angels. While dealing in detail with vital matters of salvation such as these, surely he could have put in a word against slavery. But neither he nor any other Biblical writer did so. Yet this is the beacon-light of liberty, the one sure, infallible rule we are to follow as a nation. How else are we to avoid boiling a kid in its mother's milk?

Good response, Kuranes. I am too tired tonight to do it justice, so give me a couple of days to address your points and I be back with you. Jesus addresses the idea of "it has been said, but i say" in a few key places, and Paul also deals wiht the progressive revelation/application. I'll be back ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

On a (brief, I promise) personal note, Nikos seems to assume that the only reason anyone disagrees with his theology is that he is ignorant of it. The thought that someone may be thoroughly familiar with Christian theology yet reject it never crosses his mind. But I was a Biblical literalist Christian for 18 years; I read apologetic works by Calvin, Augustine, Geisler, Strobel, Lewis, Chesterton, and a host of others. So don't be quick to flatter yourself, Nikos, that your opponents simply haven't yet reached your exalted level of theological expertise. Maybe your arguments have been tried and found wanting.

No, Kuranes, I do not think that the only reason people disagree with me is that they are ignorant of biblical exegesis and theology. I have minister colleages with whom I have lively debates and disagreements who know more theology and scripture than I. But I have learned that people can have tons of factual knowledge of the scriptures but little, if any, interpretive insight. I am not saying this is true of you. Only that this is the reason I have little confidence in people's theological sense these days - especially in light of some of the infantile comments that have come forth on this blog in times past.

There seems to be little concern about doing the necessary research and reflection before dissing the Bible or Christianity. Sound bytes and tired old quips seem to suffice more often than not. The idea that one must apply ALL of the OT case law and era-based requirements in a NT context is one of those criticisms.

As I pointed out, both Jesus AND Paul make it clear that the Messianic era, along with the Gospel, changes the MANNER in which the Law is applied in the NT. Jesus raises the bar on biblical morality throughout his ministry. Adultery, for example, is not is not just doing it, but thinking it. And again, his critique of the scribes and Pharisees for being fixated on the minutiae of the Law rather than on its essence.

And Paul is quite explicit about the primacy of the NT revelation over the Old. Not that the OT MO's weren't good and proper for their time, but that the Messianic era raises the standard in a spiritual manner; paritcularly becase of the new birth and filling of the Spirit made possible by the atonement and sending of the Spirit in power.

Nevertheless, the Law, in its principial form, remains the bedrock of all moral standards and law for modern man. It would seem to me that all one has to do is observe the direction our society is headed to see the disastrous consequences of departing from God's moral Law.

And yes indeed, Paul HAD to choose his battles in the first-century climate. He only had so much time and opportunity - and that had to be primarily in preaching and teaching the Gospel. It is clear in his teachings (Philemon, and citing slavery to sin as bad) that Paul opposed slavery as a human MO, but did not have opportunity to organize a movement to end it as a universal social norm in his day. His "accomodations" to it (Philemon) were only for the sake of enabling Christian slaves to function within this social norm and to place the proper emphasis on the spiritual victory and freedom thay had in Christ.

PS Even though one may have had Christian experiences and read in that field, if he has rebelled against God and Gospel principles his new worldview can obscure and distort his grasp of biblical truth. He becomes committed to opposing what which he formally embraced. There is no worse enemy than a former friend.

There is MUCH that I decry about current Christianty and the Church, but my personal faith is still very secure, and I critique all from that biblical and faith-filled perspective. Your critiques neither freak me out nor make me despise you in any way; but I do often strongly disagree with you. Sometimes I even fully agree with you.

So, I see no reason why the debate can't continue. You know my commitments and I do not apologize for them. I respect your position and understand that you will write from that perspective.

My apologies if I misjudged or undersold you in particular.

Not at all, Nikos. I find our debates very stimulating. I admit that I can't resist occasionally pushing your buttons, like those stuffed singing animals at Wal-Mart, just to hear you sing.
I think, though, that in your zeal to establish your understanding of biblical morality in today's culture, you forget how cultures in the past have done so. If you recall that some Christian societies in the past, fully committed to Biblical principles, have, with full Church approval,
* established torture as standard trial procedure
* burned or otherwise tortured people for having different opinions about Christ than the cultural norm
* engaged in and defended slavery (in Britain, up to the 19th century, prominent Christians owned slaves, as they did in America until 1863, though it is also true that other Christians opposed them, both sides using the Bible to defend their positions)
*defended racism and Jim Crow laws
*persecuted homosexuals
* burned those accused of witchcraft
*persecuted Jews
*fought wars with other Christian nations over their conflicting Biblical interpretations.
*licensed brothels (even the Vatican owned one in the 15th century)
*banned innocent amusements on Sundays, the only day most working pwoplw had off, and even outlawed Christmas

In the light of these atrocities, once taken for grante but now, in our corrupt, Godless, humanist culture, nearly universally despised, I hope that even you can admit that despite diminished respect for the Bible in Western industrialized culture, some moral progress has been made. Not all is decline and degeneration. So take heart; the picture is always more complex and nuanced than your black-and-white party-line view would have us believe.
I also suspect that you Christians are going to have to agree on what the Bible actually does teach before you will convince many to follow your blueprint for bibliutopia. Since the days of the apostles, Christians have disagreed on the nature of God, of Christ, of Scripture, of the Church, and just about everything else. Get your own act together and then tell the rest of us how to run things.