One issue here is that “act[ing] like one consistently and daily” is a relative term. At one church I attended there were some who had turned to Christ yet still used drugs, stole, and other things most outsiders would say were contrary to being Christians , but to those who knew them it was a different matter: we saw the definite changes from how they had been before, such as drug users who had used three or four hard drugs but had reduced that to just marijuana or the thieves who no longer stole from people but only from stores. Yes, there was one who on emerging from the Baptismal waters was free from all urges to use any drugs, but it doesn’t happen that way for everyone; for most the change is a matter of the Holy Spirit convicting of one sin at a time and the person doing hard work to shed that one.
*Boy are you on a dodgy wicket. It is one thing to say that God forgives all sins, but it is something else to say that this gives us the freedom to commit a lesser version of that sin or repeat sins ad infinitum. I am pretty sure that Romans 8 refutes it(although not in the same rationale)
Not to pre-empt God but there is something about intent and knowing what is right and wrong that comes into play
As a retailer I do not think I should be susceptible to stealing any more than an individual. I can no more afford it than they can. At what point can we write our own standards and laws? Is stealing a pen not theft? Is taking a “sickie” not deception and fraud? Is there such a thing as a harmless sin? Or a victimless crime?
Richard
So why and where did you come up with that idea?
What’s that got to do with anything? As a rational being, I can see that changing to never steal personal things from people and instead only from businesses is a step in the right direction.
Or are you maintaining that everyone should become a perfect saint overnight?
Christ recruited his followers with a simple phrase…“come follow me”
He didnt give them an aptitude or physcial fitness test, he just asked them to follow.
A Christian is a person who simple takes up their cross and chooses to follow Christ. There is no education program required.
Therefore, an individual becomes a Christian the moment they decide to follow Christ.
When organisations determine that an individual must meet standards in order to be saved…that organisation is copying the legalism of the pharasees.
Oh this is a perfect opportunity to bring up a shocking news story that highlights exactly my point above…
Judge Sarah Leighfield found the 25-year-old struggled with shame and guilt for what he did as she decided to hand him a sentence lower than the standard term.
He has also been excluded from the Brethren Christian church community he was raised in."Exclusion from church and the community has been particularly difficult in circumstances where your entire life has been in that community," she said.
Christ said he came to save sinners. I for the life of me do not understand how the Christian Bretheren denomination turn that into kicking this man out of its ranks because he made a stupid mistake? This is fundamentalism gone mad and clearly a false religion.
Now i know what 1 Corinthians 5 says, however, i would argue if we read chapter 4 first, then Pauls statements in 5 about removing wicked man from among the church ranks is not the same scenario to that of the news story above. This individual is obviously very remorseful…so why the religious punishment in addition to the legal one?
Unless some miracle happens then the answer is no in my opinion. You need to grow into the faith. Deconstructing and recostructing new things about your faith constantly. Its a difficult path but nonetheless one that if someone is willing to take in the end is worth it. Ive had my fair share of struggling with my faith. A lot of it. Still do sometimes. Sometimes the answers i find satisfy me sometimes not. But in the end looking at the state of the world as i mm growing up i find that you need to have some hope ,and since life have not treated me very good i place my hope unto the next one. Thats my personal experience.
My personal bible verse if you dont mind strangely enough is Mark 9:23-25
Jesus said to him, “If[a] you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”
Lord i believe help my unbelief. Thats my motto!
Equating Christianity with salvation is preposterous, entitlement, insulting (to God and man), and downright evil (turning religion into a destructive force in the world). Christianity is a word for a religion distinguished from other religions and the only way we human beings can make that distinction is by beliefs. And equating that with salvation is Gnosticism not Christianity.
I am wary of speaking of how the beliefs of other people can change, so I can only speak for myself and that change in belief took a great deal of time because I never accepted the dictation of what I believe by other people, but decided every detail for myself.
To be sure, the gospel of salvation in Christianity is by the grace of God. You accept a gift and rely upon God to do what you cannot. On the other hand, there is no entitlement – nothing by which you can say salvation is yours and belongs to you. It is always God, and only God can say where you stand. Our judgement can never be trusted. So regardless of what I believed all this time, asking God to come into my life and do what was needed was a singular event. On the other hand, there were moments of atrocious pride and arrogance since that request which have no place in a Christian’s relationship with God – quite sufficient to condemn me forever.
Asking if you can lose salvation is highly improper and completely contrary to the meaning of faith. Salvation is never your judgement to make. Your only assurance is the love and goodness of God. And whether God can do anything with these filthy rags is another question entirely. We can only have faith and throw ourselves completely in the ring (doing whatever good we can), which is very much worthwhile whether we can get anything out of it or not.
Can’t you see how wrong this is? How can you rationalise levels of theft? Theft is theft. A business is no different from an individual, especially if it is sole trader or comparatively small business. Stealing from a multimillion business is ok then?
What is the rationale for theft? Perhaps you sympathise with the Dire Straights Money for nothing? So that there is still effort in theft that can be rewarded?
?
I think you will have difficulty validating that with Scripture, whereas “thou Shalt not Steal” is unequivocable.
Seeing as you do not believe in perfection that is a bit rich, also.
There is nothing in scripture that distinguishes one sin from another. There are no “petty Sins” or hierarchy of sin (Other than sinning against the Holy Spirit, before you jump)
Richard
It might seem to be overnight, but the Holy Spirit can be working in a person’s heart long before he realizes it.
Depends on the content of the term. True Christians are believing followers of Jesus while the same word has been used for any member of a Christian church, independent of the beliefs of the person.
Although I do not want to judge any person, a sad fact is that nowadays a relatively large proportion of the so called ‘Christians’ are not believers and an even smaller proportion are followers of Jesus.
In our country, questionaries have concluded that less than half of the population believes in some sort of god/God, about 25% tell that they believe in the God of Christianity as taught in their church. Among the youngest generation (<30 years old) only about 15% believe in the God of Christianity. Yet, more than 60% of the population are members in the Lutheran church and about 3% in the other Christian churches. A very small proportion of the members of the Lutheran church attend to the Sunday services or comparable activities of the church (<5% monthly, <1% weekly).
Are the members who do not believe in God Christians? In the official statistics they are, in reality I would say no.
I am not sure you can equate going to church with being a Christian. My sister was a nurse which means working Sundays but that did not prevent her from having a faith. My grandfather was basically thrown out of his church because my father started youth group. He never went anywhere else but never lost his faith either.
I reckon it would be be hard to nail down the criteria for being a Christian
Richard
I do not equate going to church with being a Christian. The figures I presented just show that a too small proportion of the members believe in the God of Christianity, or participate actively in the activities of their church. The statistics are limited, therefore I was forced to use the statistics I could find.
Living faith affects both words and acts.
If a person informs that (s)he does not believe in the God of Christianity, at least not as churches teach about God, I take those words as a sign that the person is not a Christian.
If a person tells that (s)he believes in God but that belief does not affect her/his behavior in visible ways, does not guide the decisions of life, I suspect that the faith is dead.
This disagreement between words and acts was something that made me think about my relationship with God as a young man. It took some time before I was ready to surrender to Lord Jesus so that he became my Lord. I was officially a Christian before my surrender but not truly a follower of Jesus.
I’m not sure there’s a right way or a wrong way to become a Christian. I’m also not sure the amount of time it takes can tell you much.
A while back, I attended a United Church of Canada congregation where the minister’s husband was also a UCC minister. The husband had not been a believer until one day he had a vision of the risen Christ and was instantly converted. When he returned to university to undertake his M.Div., he wrote a research paper on conversion experiences, which can and do happen. He was a very kind and thoughtful and methodical person, not given to wild claims of any kind, so I have no doubt that his experience was what God thought best for him.
Even for those who’ve had sudden conversion experiences, there still remains the task of catching up, so to speak, with what you already know to be true in your heart and soul. This is the journey of study and contemplation and personal change that takes us closer to the God we trust is always with us.
I don’t know which is more challenging – starting with a desire for faith, but having to work your way towards it, or starting with a lightning strike of faith that puts you between a rock and a hard place. Or both! All I know for sure is that we, as humans, have different ways of connecting of God and finding our sense of faith.
I doubt there are any perfect saints anytime or anywhere, but there are many people who are trying hard to learn from their mistakes and, in so doing, come to a better understanding of their relationship with God.
On the question of stealing from others, there is always the underlying reality that “how you do anything is how you do everything.” I’m not sure who first coined this saying (I’ve seen several different theories), but this saying perfectly captures a universal truth about how human beings act on (or try to act on) the moral code they want to abide by.
It would be convenient for those of us who want to justify our harmful choices if we could claim that there’s a moral difference between stealing from people and stealing from businesses. But there really isn’t. Stealing is stealing, and if you can justify stealing from a business, it won’t be long before you start looking for ways to return to stealing from people – because how you do anything is how you do everything.
Every business is built on the choices and actions of people, so stealing from a business is just a way of saying you’re stealing from people whose names and faces you don’t know, so you can feel less guilty about what you’re doing.
The hardest brain habit to break is self-justification for the things we do that we know are wrong. I personally don’t know of any way to overcome the “demon of self-justification” except to ask God for help. But God’s forgiveness and guidance – and patience! – can get you past the excuses (themselves a form of “stealing”) that make you not want to look in the mirror some days.
I wonder whether the call to sainthood, or at least being Holy is part and parcel of Christianity as a whole? Certainly some are called to be set apart, but the remainder?
It does seem tat Scripture, and Paul in particular, strives for a perfection that is both unattainable and unreasonable. Does God want saints or ordinary people? Sainthood has always been viewed as abnormal,or special so perhaps we should temper our demands both of ourselves and others?
Richard
Who said anything was "ok’?
If you preach like this to people I feel sorry for your audiences because you’ve thrown grace out the window into the trash! From the perspective you give, there’s no reason for even trying to be/do better because unless you become perfect immediately you haven’t accomplished anything. This isn’t the Gospel, it’s the bald, cold Law demanding what can never be given.
Have you even read what I wrote? You’re just making stuff up here, not responding to my comments!
So you think that personal progress is wrong – got it.
This response tells me that though you may be a preacher, you’re not a pastor in any way at all. It shows the sort who finds a smoldering wick and instead of blowing gently to bring forth a fame you snuff it out, who finds a bruised reed and instead of strengthening it just breaks it off.
And your response to that when someone makes improvement is to tell them, “There’s no point in letting the Spirit work, so sin more! Sin more!”
Which is why I followed with the explanation:
Your true Scottsman (I mean true Christian) renders the term useless for human beings and is thus not how the term is actually used by the majority of them. And thus regardless of how you change the term into some imaginary useless meaning, equating it with salvation remains insulting and encouraging the entitlement which is downright evil.
Not believers in what? …in the dogma you choose to identify with Christianity?
What country is that?
The problem with questionnaires is they fail to properly handle the full complexity of the questions involved.
Sure there is. Here’s an example:
When I was a university student my mountain bike got stolen from where it was locked to the luggage rack on my vehicle. That wasn’t just an offense against property, it was an offense against me with an immense emotional impact; it wasn’t just that an object was gone, it was that my weekend had been ruined because there was no way for me to replace that bike in the next fifteen minutes I had available, and it was a harsh blow to lose something that had many happy memories.
The next week a mountain bike identical but for color was stolen from a bicycle shop where a few of my friends worked and one was a partner. Instead of anguish, they just responded with a shrug and a bit of annoyance at the paperwork; there was no sentimental value or emotional attachment to the bike – it was just an inventory item.
That’s what the guy I talked about saw: when stealing from a person, he was harming the person, engaging in an emotional attack along with taking property. It showed that he had acquired something that wasn’t present before: he had started seeing strangers as people, understanding that taking personal possessions caused personal harm – and the people who knew him recognized the difference and wondered what had changed him. Something that had been dead in him had come alive, and the change was clear to those who knew him. It wasn’t the end of the journey, but it was a substantial beginning.
You’ve got it backwards: if suddenly you can no longer justify stealing from real live people, it won’t be long before you start realizing that stealing from a locally-owned store isn’t that different from stealing from people, and once you can no longer justify that it won’t be long before you grasp that stealing from a store with four or five outlets isn’t that different either, and then it’s not a huge leap to understanding that stealing at all is wrong.
But he would never see that until he made that first step of grasping that when he stole from people directly he was harming actual people. There wasn’t any “less guilty” involved because he’d never felt guilty in the first place, what he’d felt was enjoyment – guilt only came along because the Spirit opened his eyes to recognize that he was harming people.
And when there’s no effort at self-justification because there’s no ability to see that something is wrong? He’d never had to self-justify anything; his view of stealing wasn’t a heck of a lot different than of hunting for agates on gravel bars in the river; it was just something he did. Stopping stealing at all showed a massive shift in how he was seeing the world!
But he didn’t see any need to overcome anything because he didn’t see anything he needed to justify – so why ask God for help? (Especially when he had a rather deistic view of God as a “Great spirit” who cared about nature but not much about people.)
He’d never had a problem looking in the mirror – recognizing that stealing people’s personal possessions was wrong was the first time he any any bad feelings about stealing at all (unless you want to count being upset at having broken what he was stealing).
His next step came about because he knew some of the same people I did at the bike shop I mentioned: he found that he recognized that even though a stolen bike wasn’t personal property, it was something those friends had put effort and pride into assembling and testing and displaying, so that theft of a mountain bike actually had impacted them, and he “crossed off the list” locally-owned stores as okay to steal from – another change that those who knew him noticed, and started asking about.
It’s an essential. “Holy” doesn’t mean morally wonderful, it means “set apart”. Being set apart, i.e. setting ourselves apart, is how we show allegiance to our Savior. It’s the point behind “You will know them by their deeds”: our “setting apart” isn’t (contrary to right-wing faux Christianity) about thundering against anyone’s sins, it’s about what a camp song I learned long ago said – “They will know we are Christians by our love – by our love!”
Yes, moral decisions for our personal lives are important, but it’s the decisions that don’t seem to have much to do with morality and are publicly observable that show our love. As an example, there’s a guy in my town who had taken it on himself to keep the curbs and shoulders of roads and streets; he goes around with shovel, twenty-gallon tub, rake, and trash bags, picking up trash, scraping off moss, and pulling weeds; there’s another who walks the neighborhood and wheels shopping carts back to the store they came from; and one who carries dog-poop bags and picks up other people’s dogs’ poop. Those are some pretty observable ways of being set apart since they are doing good and it’s things no one else would think of doing!
Not originally. The historical progression on that is interesting: Initially Paul called all believers “saints”, which was definitely a matter of being set apart since being a Christian back then entailed not doing a number of things that were expected of a Roman citizen or subject. Of course some were more distinguished than others, and the exceptional ones got singled out as examples to follow; as we would put it, they were “real saints”. The especially “saintly” were still pointed out as examples after they died, and continued to be used as examples to imitate. I don’t think it took more than four generations for the term “saint” to shift from meaning everyone to being exclusively of the “real saints”, so the (equivalent of) “real” fell into disuse and those exemplars were just “saints” while the rest were . . . not. And when there are people who have died who were special, it was just human nature to continue to talk to them and want their help, and from that it was just a short step to having “patron saints” and such. Inclusion of great exemplars in liturgies, both praying for them and asking them to “pray for us”, added to this until being a saint was seen as special, not just here on Earth but in eternity as well.
A professor of “Philosophy of the New Testament” asked that very question in class once, and the answer was “Yes!” because God expects that we will do things that show us as set apart as an ordinary aspect of our lives.
The answer to this question lies in how a person understands his/her relationship with God and also in which religious leaders a person has placed his/her trust in.
If you believe that God creates souls that are somehow defective and have fallen to Earth in sin and can only be redeemed through various combinations of portal theology, grace, and holiness, then you’re going to approach the question of perfection through a very different lens than someone who believes that God creates good souls who are called as human beings to explore difficult questions about what it means to love and forgive.
I do happen to believe that Paul’s teachings on perfection are very different from Jesus’ teachings on perfection. Paul is more interested in starting from the outside and trying to bring holiness into the body (thus making you worthy of being included in glory), whereas Jesus is more interested in starting from the inside (through your own ability to love, forgive, and accept responsibility for your actions) and taking what you’ve learned into the outside world.
Top down or bottom up. People have tried both over the centuries as we try to understand what God is calling us do.
And thus the distinction between the “visible church” and the “invisible church”: the first being everyone with the label “Christian”, the other being “all true Christians”.
An American Lutheran theologian once spoke on this and said that looking at a church with a hundred people, we see a hundred Christians, whereas God, who looks at the heart, may see perhaps ten – and admonished his hearers to strive to be in the ten!
I remember in a sociology class when the professor set us an exercise to illustrate this: we were given a topic and asked to make a five-question survey about the issue, then our surveys were passed around and fellow students were told to do their best to misunderstand every question. When our surveys returned to us with all the bizarre explanations of how each question had been ‘understood’, that almost always could be regarded as not unreasonable ways to take the question, it was more than a little humbling.
[Then there are people like me who respond with, “It isn’t possible to give an honest answer to the question as worded” and screw up the results.]