catapult magazine

One of the biggest problems I have with the Bible’s purpose in Christianity is that it seems that there’s always a slippery slope on which it’s interpretted. For example, a couple hundred years ago Sunday/Sabbath observance had a completely different meaning than it does today. In some societies, you just didn’t work on Sunday. Period. But even within my lifetime, Christians I’ve known have changed their own views on Sunday observance. It’s as if the Ten Commandments are being slowly phased out because of contemporary culture. Now I’ve heard the arguments that it’s more of a lifestyle of Sabbath observance and all that, but the bottom line is, the Bible says don’t work on Sunday and we’re coming up with more and more reasons to override that. I’d even say that many of the reasons seem valid to me. But why? Why did we wait until now to decide to override something chiselled in stone?

Women’s role in the church used to be more clearly defined. Now, in comes the tide of feminism, and we’re looking at the places that say “No women speaking in church” and saying that hey, that’s not for us, that’s a cultural norm rather than a moral one. And quite possibly that’s true. We’re a different society, where women don’t have the same roles as men anymore, and so it’s not so necesary to maintain such a male-dominated order to things. BUT my question is this: when you look down the road, at the pace we’re going, what other Biblical things are we going to be throwing out? Think of your grandparents and how stick-in-the-mud you thought they were about ditching hymns during worship. Well, imagine if some of the things you hold as ABSOLUTES were re-interpretted by your kids to fit the norm of society. How can the Bible really be relevant if we’re always reinterpretting it? Are we moving towards a Bible that only has meaning as an allegorical narrative?

Christianity is a religion that says there are absolutes. But with the path we are taking on interpreting the Bible, will that be true in a thousand years (should there be another thousand to come)? Will we be down to “love God and the rest of the Bible is outdated”? Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a molehill . . .

I think that in the not-too-distant future, most of the organized church will condone gay marriages. And I think that most of the honest, thinking, heart-commitment Christians will be right there with it. Whether that’s a good thing, a bad thing, or otherwise, I honestly can’t say. But what I can say is that the church of yesterday told us it was WRONG. And they didn’t say, “It’s wrong, but it may become right if society changes.” And both that church and the church of the future looked or will look at the Bible before coming to their conclusions on the matter. SOMETHING’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE. What is it? What am I not seeing here?

Are there really absolutes?

I’ve been thinking lately about some erroneous things I did. Well, it was yesterday, actually. :)

Anyhow, yesterday I wanted to be humanitarian, and I’m known for being very kind in that respect, but any attempts to be helpful backfired for me. Later, my friend told me that my intention was honorable, but it annoyed him very much and his other friends, as I intruded upon their dorm room with two other people! I did not foresee that that would serve as an annoyance, but my friend told me that I should have thought about it more, etc.

My point is that we may have the best intentions to do something, but it may backfire, hindering another person from their freedoms (i.e. not wanting to be intruded upon). This, in a way, is relative to how people respond to certain situations. However, I think that trusting in what God wants you to do is not only honorable, but it is the exact course of action you should have taken. So, I do think there are moral absolutes in terms of the faith, but in the way that the individual responds is entirely up to them.

In the Bible, it is a requirement to praise God, however we have the choice to not praise God as well. There is nothing does not praise God, for the Great Book says, “…the rocks will cry out in their place.” We are fallible, which is why we need grace. How fortunate that we can talk to God personally!

It sounds as though the topic of Determinism vs. Libertarianism is at play. I’m arguing for Compatibilism, which incorporates both notions.

God chose to test Job without reason, but Job continued to praise God. Want to know what the meaning of life is? That is to praise God in everything. In terms of the courses of action we should take depends on the individual, as I said before. Sometimes, there will be issues that are obviously in need of ratification. The question is “Is it your moral obligation to be involved?” What a wonderful thing that God lets us shape our own destinies as well as our pursuits (i.e. teaching/majoring in music, being an electrical engineer, being a friend to someone)

Whatever we do can glorify God. It’s all in the mindset. Do you glorify God in all things? Do you thank Him everyday? In terms of knowing God’s will, going beyond the thrusts of the self, is another story. However, I will say this. It takes a lot of prayer and examination. Perhaps there is someone more educated in the field of theology that can explore the will of God. I’m sure there are books!

Also, we are becoming more educated, so the Word is revealed to us more so. There are so many commentaries and sources out there nowadays! However, be wary of some of the sources.

Ethan: I think that that line of thought works perfectly . . . if Christians were perfect. But we don’t always produce good fruit. If such is true, then when I do something bad or cease doing good, my faith is at that point dead. And I don’t know about you, but I’ve had plenty of points in my life where I would say my faith was dead by those standards. Is one still under grace while his faith is dead? I don’t think it’s true that we just naturally do good out of thanks to God once we’re “saved.” Many “unsaved” people do much more good than many saved people. I can go along with the idea that it’s a mindset, but I don’t think this mindset is simply and plainly the result of some heart commitment. I think that ideal is a human creation and an illusion of safety that sects of the organized religion of Christianity have created for themselves. I can’t reconcile the heart commitment idea with all of the places I read about good fruit and bad fruit, fresh water and salt water, and the deadness of faith without deeds. I don’t see, feel, or understand any grounds for such a safety as the heart commitment ideal gives us. I think Christianity is dangerous, essentially and completely.

Adam, your earlier post seems to assume that faith is our own activity, a response to God’s grace. I think what kristinmarie was trying to say, though, is that acceptance of God’s grace means accepting faith itself. Faith is not our own doing, but God’s. You’re very right to say that this is mysterious. It’s just as mysterious that we sinned and yet God paid the price himself.

I believe we think too highly of ourselves if we think we did something (“had faith”) to earn salvation instead of accepting the fact that God is the giver of all things, even faith. Why should we argue about faith and works if we really aren’t capable of doing any works without God’s gracious gifts? All we can do, then, is receive.

I don’t know how kristinmarie would explain the “faith without works is dead” line, but I understand this passage to be an attempt to bring faith and works together in right relationship; faith is faithful works…faith is obediently doing works according to the Spirit of God. Faith is not faith unless it is worked out in everyday life. Faith without works has no life in it if it is not lived out.

Faith without works is dead. However, that does not mean we do works so that we have faith. Works is the evidence that their is faith in our lives.

Adam, are you challenging orthodoxy? Or are we just standing on opposite sides of a paradox that we can easily and biblically place the emphasis on one side or the other. We can stand with James and place the emphasis on our works and point to Jesus very clear statements about being judged for what we do or don’t do. On that side Christianity is dangerous and we should make that clear to ourselves and others.
On the other side we are never without the backdrop of grace and eternal life. We don’t live in fear of losing our salvation. If we do we are wasting a lot of time worrying about our own skin when we should be honoring God and serving others selflessly.

Adam: Is it possible for a fruit tree that is in perfect health to produce bad fruit? I think so. Winter can kill its leaves and stop it from producing for a while as well, but if the tree is alive, then it will start to produce again eventually. I understand your problems with the metaphor, and I probably could have explained it better, but if you think it through the metaphor covers your concerns. We are sinful people, and as a result we sometimes produce bad fruit, ie do bad things, but as long as good fruit happens now and then we’re okay. Now if only we could tell what God views as good fruit and what he views as bad fruit.

Good call, Grant.

Ethan: I think you’re probably right. Doesn’t it say somewhere that no good tree produces bad fruit? Anyway, the point is probably moot in this thread.

What I’m trying to get at (which may be a bit of a digression from the original question of the thread) is that the relationship between grace, faith, and works is so intricate and so NOT clearly defined in the Bible, that I think it’s problematic to be certain of one’s salvation. Not only is there no concrete evidence for God, there’s no formula for salvation aside from circumstantial instances of an individual entering the kingdom of God. The language invariably leaves room for different interpretations. Maybe other people don’t struggle with this, but personally I know that growing up I wrestled with “knowing I was saved.” And I’ve come to the point (not necessarily the conclusion) that I think it’s a red herring; a false pursuit—surety of salvation, that is. It’s not a moment; it’s a life. If we could ever be really sure we were saved, then perhaps we’d become a lot lazier about our faith (hmmmm . . . is this already happening?). Praying the Jesus prayer, even if you mean it, isn’t your ticket in. People will do anything under emotional strain—including commit to something they’re really not committed to. Our existence is so fragile and and my fixation with surety has led me to run from that fact in the past (and probably the present). I think the hideaway/diversion we have made from the realization of that fact is, in a word, surety.

Does that make sense? What do you think of that? Am I overlooking something?

Adam: Yes the potential for laziness is certainly a by product of surety. However, “unsurety” has its own by product. There are some who spend their lives so concerned with working for their salvation they never experience the rest God intended for us in the here and now.
It comes back to a question a motivation. Does God want us to be motivated by a certain healthy fear of destruction? Or, does God want us to be motivated by His free gift of love and grace. The later is one of the hallmarks of Truth found only in Christianity. The former is a staple in every othrer religion on the planet.

I would love to be purely motivated by God’s goodness and my will to respond obediently. I’m not though. Perhaps if I work just a little bit harder…
I think I’m getting better at it though. I’m not sure how and I’m not sure why. Raging hell-fire seems to be just as good a motivator as any, but I see that as less of a concern in my walk these days.

Well spoken Norbert. Much like the words of Scripture that say, “work out (not for!)your salvation with fear and trembling”
In other words you have “surety” of your salvation but don’t get lazy.

Makes sense. It’s a point well-taken. Where, then, do you find grounds for surety? I find none, I see none promised in the Bible, and I can’t find a way to reconcile my reading of various parts of the Bible to support any. Is it a matter of simply choosing to be sure (which seems oxymoronic at times) based on the overarching theme you identified as the Truth of Christianity?