PK here, Brian Zahnd hits the nail on the head. It's people like him who have helped me address my doubts and concerns and keep my faith. And not just keep my faith, but strengthen a more robust faith.

@frederickg.6155

Жыл бұрын

I left my Church for supporting cruel politicians and many who embrace Christian Nationalism. I do not go to church to hear politics.

@bitrudder3792

Жыл бұрын

@@frederickg.6155 - I think many people would be surprised to find out the secret cruelty and evil of the politicians that they prefer. I have pondered the accusation of “Christian nationalism.“ It is another label, another way of dividing people, an excuse for lazy thinking. (not to blame you, because I do notice when I do similar things with labels… Hopefully sooner rather than later). It is not a label that was chosen by the people so labeled. Some have gleefully redefined it and accepted it in the spirit of the opposite party who delights in redefining words which inevitably create chaos and conflict. Things are quite a mess when humans are involved. I went back to scripture to see what God might think of nationalism, Christian or otherwise. I noted that when patriarchs of the old testament traveled through different areas they always asked permission to cross the land of other people. formerly, the lies told about wives stole my attention. Now I noticed that these patriarchs were asking permission to cross someone else’s borders. Voilà. Is it “Christian“ nationalism to respect someone else’s borders? Clearly not. Border policy that expects others to respect the border, to ask permission before coming in, to abide by the yes or no, that is an ancient practice. What about the idea that Christians founded the United States? They certainly were not all Christians, not even the ones who signed the declaration of independence etc. but Christianity did change the face of world ethics, and our original documents simply affirm the belief in a creator. The freedom to practice religion was derived from the persecution of Christians in England first and foremost, and extended to all other religions. So we can link Christianity to the nation in that way. The thing that I find so odd and interesting is that we have ideas of slavery and freedom at the forefront again. only it seems all twisted up in a strange way now. In ancient days, slavery was a given. Biblical slavery, encoded into the law, was a sort of social safety net. If you owed money to someone, and you couldn’t pay them, you and or part of your family could go live with and work for The person you owed money to. And they would be obligated to house and feed you. After seven years you would get to choose whether or not you wanted to stay in that unpaid labor-with-full-benefits situation, or go free. After seven sets of seven years, everyone went free (and all land returned to the original tribe/owners). The rest of the world practiced slavery by kidnap. And the Jewish people practiced a lot of that. The Muslims were famous for that. frankly, it was a worldwide phenomenon. Christianity brought the first glimmers of hope and freedom for slaves (although it continues in massive amounts in the world today, and we mostly ignore it in favor of hyperfocus on a short period in American history). The Republicans formed as a party with both blacks and whites with the intent to end slavery in America. The Democrats inactive Jim crow laws and other policies all the way up until the 1960s. We can argue about people's intentions and motivations, but Civil rights laws and subsequent laws efficiently continued the oppression of blacks, whether or not they were descendants of slaves or not. Also poor people, but at that time blacks represented far more of the poor class, and were disproportionately affected. these laws were championed largely by Democrats but with Republican participation. You really can’t tell the difference between the parties anymore when it comes down to the wire of who votes for what. No matter how they posture. The pandemic really brought out the idea that slavery is the norm for this country. The slavery encompassed control of individual bodies upon threat of losing their livelihood in many cases. Those healthcare professionals and scientists who saw the dangers early were censored, demonetized, denigrated, and They’re very licenses to practice or threatened. Vindication is coming. Evidence that terrible side effects were known early has come out, albeit suppressed. The concerned voices were right. We have harmed far more people that have been saved. The insanity of this situation has driven home the dangers of modern slavery, of state control that violates the spirit of the constitution that guarantees that people should be safe in their person/body, safe to speak, safe to control their property (coerced installation of smart meters in homes): But it is the left that is promoting slavish control of these things and the right promoting freedom in line with the constitution. I have long listened to leftist politics preached in progressive- and socialist-leaning churches. they seem to forget the part where God loves a cheerful giver and replace the idea of the government forcing people to give as a good solution to selfishness. The most challenging of the debates has to do with pitting the rights of women versus the rights of pre-born children against each other. The overturning of Roe versus Wade was constitutionally correct, returning the decision to the states. This was just kicking the can down the road, though. The pro-abortion camp can only win by dehumanizing pre-born children. And They will only win as long as they can hide The appearance and behavior of pre-born children, and visuals of what an actual abortion does to these little people. Because the children are without doubt the most vulnerable, and the women, except when raped, have control over whether or not they risk impregnation. The act of abortion is the act of murdering an inconvenient person who is guilty of nothing. it’s interesting that other countries don’t mind admitting that abortion can cause posttraumatic stress disorder, but this country covers it up. It conflicts with the narrative that abortion doesn’t hurt the mother, it conflicts with everyone’s innate understanding that a fetus is a person, But it jives perfectly with cognitive dissonance in the name of convenience.

@eddiecremer7349

Ай бұрын

In other words, you support a person, like Zahn, that teaches a completely false concept of Jesus that is just a cardboard cutout you point to once in a while but actually has nothing to do with how you live your "christian" life.

I left religion 25 years ago, and the current influence/blending of religion and politics horrifies me, and it would were I still a true blue Christian. Christ the American Caesar? However, your discussion was thought provoking for me, food for thought. I plan to re-listen. Thank you.

I have been searching for this Pastor, message, and community for quite a while now. SO happy to have found ya'll!

BZ is a prophetic voice for the Church in this moment

@jennifermartin9867

Жыл бұрын

Amen

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts . This podcast is so interesting! Greetings from Basel, Switzerland!

One of the best conversations I've heard in a LONG time - thank you both!

This conversation, especially the last 30 minutes, was a balm for my soul weary of rancor within the Church.

Thought provoking . It sounds like this pastor’s congregation is doing ok, and listening to his insights and thoughtful remarks leaves a good indication of why.

This is one of the best listens I’ve had in a while. Thank you

Thank you, greetings from Cape Town, ZA

Such a helpful conversation.

This is not merely an American phenomenon, this is happening everywhere especially in Europe and Canada. The US is just having a somewhat delayed reaction to a world wide decline in Christian faith. You can speculate as to the reasons and I think much of what is going on is that Christians no longer live in isolated Christian bubbles like our parents and grandparents but on a large playing field that presents youth to a huge range of different ideas and religions. This raises questions and doubts in people's minds about their own faith. Christians are facing competition in this arena of ideas like never before. The internet plays a huge role in all this. For every sermon a preacher preaches you can google hundreds of hits that shoot it down. This is something Christian never had to face in the not so distant past.

@williamoarlock8634

Жыл бұрын

Christians are commanded 'in this world but not of it' which is why they exist very much still isolated in their bubbles.

@bitrudder3792

Жыл бұрын

Deconstructing faith began at least as early as the late '80's in some churches the southern US. It didn't have that name, but it was happening, pastors approving, pastors participating, congregants lapping it up as it was presented in a way that appeals to people's pride. I see a sneering pride in otherwise lovely adults raised in this ideology - they have been taught to ''other'' people who are equally lovely and loving. Because of hatred-mongering, scripture-affirming belivers have become their targets because of their group membership.

I was deeply touched when I pondered the scenario of Nortre Dome on fire. Isn't it great if that many people start lighting candles for the churches in fire, so that the church will be back on fire for Christ?

Excellent podcast! ☕ 🌞👌

many of the first settlers were saying God brought them to this place but by the time we get a nation 1776 it was a secular experiment (as Brian mentions) and that was well over 100 years of history and life... So just because one group was wishing for this theocracy it was finally established not as one...

How much deception and destruction could have been avoided if Nietsche the PK had turned his face against hypocrisy, instead of against God?

@herewegokids7

8 ай бұрын

The two are the same

When everything is on fire

Could someone point me to the scientific proof that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old using the scientific approach of observable and repeatable experiments alone without any prior assumptions? I would like to study the evidence, logic and reasoning of that scientific proof of the age of the universe.

@peteralbrecht473

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't be so blunt like Zahnd to say there is evidence and we shouldn't dare to question it, because it's not real proof, but accepted in the scientific community. Nothing can be proven even with the most accurate measurements and methods, because even the premise could be wrong, for instance because time could be speeding up or be slowing down and we wouldn't know about it or the expansion of the universe could also speed up or slow down and we wouldn't know about it, but here it goes: What's the age of the universe and how can it be proven? The age of the universe is estimated to be approximately 13.8 billion years. This value is derived from various lines of evidence, including observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the expansion rate of the universe, and the ages of the oldest known objects within it. One of the key pieces of evidence for the age of the universe comes from studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. The CMB is the residual heat left over from the Big Bang, which is the event that is believed to have initiated the expansion of the universe. By studying the properties of the CMB, such as its temperature and distribution, scientists can gain insights into the early universe and estimate its age. Another method involves measuring the rate at which the universe is expanding. This is done through observations of distant galaxies and their redshift, which is a phenomenon caused by the stretching of light as the universe expands. By measuring the distances to these galaxies and their redshifts, scientists can estimate the current expansion rate and use it to calculate the age of the universe. Additionally, the ages of the oldest known objects in the universe, such as globular clusters or white dwarf stars, can be determined using various techniques. By studying the composition, brightness, and evolutionary models of these objects, scientists can estimate their ages. These age estimates provide additional evidence for the age of the universe. It's important to note that while these methods provide a reasonably well-supported estimate for the age of the universe, there is still ongoing research and refinement in the field of cosmology to further improve our understanding... like i said this is whats believed to be true, but tomorrow we might find new evidence that puts into question, how we derived the data for the cosmic background radiation. Just now the are making observations with the James Webb Telescope to verify some of the methods, and i am curious, if we might have to update the age of the universe soon, because of recent findings. It might also be that we find new evidence that makes it less clear. Increasingly Scientists agree that some of the methods that have been used in the past aren't that clear and easy to interpret. Im sure the age of the universe according to scientists will never be just 6000 years, but a lot less clarity of what it actually is seems to be more and more the case. Also we could live in a simulation. :)

@noderoad

10 ай бұрын

The easily repeatable part you can do yourself is Foucault's experiment from the 1850s. This gives you a speed of light index. Sadly after that, you need an expensive telescope and/or a good Mathematics degree, but it is relatively straightforward (you can teach yourself the maths, but I found it tough even as a molecular biologist). You either measure the density of globular cluster stars and therefore their age, or the mathematical route using hubble’s constant and extrapolating the current rate of expansion backwards - most people land at around 13.8 BA - but it’s critical to understand that this is still just an estimate.

@guangouyang3023

10 ай бұрын

@@noderoad Could you clarify the mathematical formula that calculates the age of universe by density of globular cluster stars? Also, why is the current expansion speed of the universe relevant to the age of the universe without the assumption of constant universe expansion speed and the universe origins from a big bang from a sigularity?

@noderoad

10 ай бұрын

@@guangouyang3023 I’m sorry, I’ve tried to understand your second question a few times, but I’m just not getting what you mean. As to globular clusters, stars have different masses and their life cycle depends on their mass. High-mass stars are much brighter than low-mass stars and so burn through their supply of hydrogen fuel more rapidly. On the other hand, low-mass stars burn slowly enough for their fuel to last more than 20 billion years. Globular clusters can serve as cosmic clocks since all of the stars in a globular cluster formed at roughly the same time. The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low-mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun and suggest that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old. Does that answer your question?

@guangouyang3023

10 ай бұрын

@@noderoad Thank you for your reply. For the age of globular clusters, if I understand it correctly after some simple web search, it relies on a model that assumes that globular clusters are simple, homogeneous collections of ancient stars. Are there any evidence supporting this critical assumption to be absolutely true? For the second question, I wonder if you are calculating the age of universe by assuming the model of big bang is absolutely true? If yes, what are the evidence to support this strong assumption? If we agree that science is a pursuit for absolute truth of the material world, then objective evidence for all assumptions being made do matter.

I call it REVIVAL. We in the church have prayed for it for years. I think in the American Evangelical movement there's been lots of bullshit. Exclusivity, 1 way of teaching about hell, atonement theories that exalt an angry God, and the general way of KNOWING we have it all figured out! That's my 2 cents. Maybe that structure needed revival.

@bitrudder3792

Жыл бұрын

What do you mean by exclusivity? What do you mean about “one way of teaching about hell” or “Atonement that exalts an angry God?” I am genuinely curious whether there are churches that preach something other than what is biblical about these things versus whether you have remade God in your own image, a God in which scripture paints him too harshly.

@rodfriesen4370

8 ай бұрын

​@@bitrudder3792great questions. Enjoy your quest in answering those. Although I think the questions ARE the answer oftentimes. Look into Brown Zhand. Or Jersak "a more Christlike" series of books! Enjoy

@mtcstyle

5 ай бұрын

I would imagine we're talking about the teachings of hell from the perspectives of conditional immortality and ultimate restoration. Both can be argued with the same biblical rigor as eternal conscious torment.

You have to have FAITH to believe in God.

Why are people 'turning away from faith'? Two reasons (and a possible third): - 1. They aren't being told the authentic gospel - 2. The authentic gospel isn't being modelled (to be modelled those modelling would need to be living holy, just, merciful and gracious lives). - 3. They are a wicked generation (such generations exist in scripture). But we will never know this until the first world church (I don't feel able to speak beyond the first world - where Christianity is growing rapidly) is both speaking and modelling the authentic truth - instead of offering a cynical self-serving alternative to it. The first world church doesn't want to preach a gospel that involves dying with Jesus in order to rise with him because they refuse to pay the price of faith - they refuse to believe that one can only purchase Jesus by exchanging all that we have and are.

@KN-ul5xe

Жыл бұрын

1. They aren't being told the authentic Gospel which, in turn, 2.makes it hard to model the authentic Gospel since you don't know what it is, which, in turn, 3.makes for a wicked generation.

@philipbenjamin4720

Жыл бұрын

@@KN-ul5xe Yes K N - or in the case of number 3 a generation whose sin is substantially ignorant (a lesser form of failure than free, knowing, and wilful rejection of the gospel).

1 Chronicles 16 New International Version Ministering Before the Ark(A)(B)(C) 16 They brought the ark of God and set it inside the tent that David had pitched(D) for it, and they presented burnt offerings and fellowship offerings before God. 2 After David had finished sacrificing the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, he blessed(E) the people in the name of the Lord. 3 Then he gave a loaf of bread, a cake of dates and a cake of raisins(F) to each Israelite man and woman. 4 He appointed some of the Levites to minister(G) before the ark of the Lord, to extol,[a] thank, and praise the Lord, the God of Israel: 5 Asaph was the chief, and next to him in rank were Zechariah, then Jaaziel,[b] Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-Edom and Jeiel. They were to play the lyres and harps, Asaph was to sound the cymbals, 6 and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests were to blow the trumpets regularly before the ark of the covenant of God. 7 That day David first appointed Asaph and his associates to give praise(H) to the Lord in this manner: 8 Give praise(I) to the Lord, proclaim his name; make known among the nations(J) what he has done. 9 Sing to him, sing praise(K) to him; tell of all his wonderful acts. 10 Glory in his holy name;(L) let the hearts of those who seek the Lord rejoice. 11 Look to the Lord and his strength; seek(M) his face always. 12 Remember(N) the wonders(O) he has done, his miracles,(P) and the judgments he pronounced, 13 you his servants, the descendants of Israel, his chosen ones, the children of Jacob. 14 He is the Lord our God; his judgments(Q) are in all the earth. 15 He remembers[c](R) his covenant forever, the promise he made, for a thousand generations, 16 the covenant(S) he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac. 17 He confirmed it to Jacob(T) as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant: 18 “To you I will give the land of Canaan(U) as the portion you will inherit.” 19 When they were but few in number,(V) few indeed, and strangers in it, 20 they[d] wandered(W) from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another. 21 He allowed no one to oppress them; for their sake he rebuked kings:(X) 22 “Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets(Y) no harm.” 23 Sing to the Lord, all the earth; proclaim his salvation day after day. 24 Declare his glory(Z) among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples. 25 For great is the Lord and most worthy of praise;(AA) he is to be feared(AB) above all gods.(AC) 26 For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.(AD) 27 Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and joy are in his dwelling place. 28 Ascribe to the Lord, all you families of nations, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.(AE) 29 Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name;(AF) bring an offering and come before him. Worship the Lord in the splendor of his[e] holiness.(AG) 30 Tremble(AH) before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.(AI) 31 Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;(AJ) let them say among the nations, “The Lord reigns!(AK)” 32 Let the sea resound, and all that is in it;(AL) let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them! 33 Let the trees(AM) of the forest sing, let them sing for joy before the Lord, for he comes to judge(AN) the earth. 34 Give thanks(AO) to the Lord, for he is good;(AP) his love endures forever.(AQ) 35 Cry out, “Save us, God our Savior;(AR) gather us and deliver us from the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name, and glory in your praise.” 36 Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,(AS) from everlasting to everlasting. Then all the people said “Amen” and “Praise the Lord.” 37 David left Asaph and his associates before the ark of the covenant of the Lord to minister there regularly, according to each day’s requirements.(AT) 38 He also left Obed-Edom(AU) and his sixty-eight associates to minister with them. Obed-Edom son of Jeduthun, and also Hosah,(AV) were gatekeepers. 39 David left Zadok(AW) the priest and his fellow priests before the tabernacle of the Lord at the high place in Gibeon(AX) 40 to present burnt offerings to the Lord on the altar of burnt offering regularly, morning and evening, in accordance with everything written in the Law(AY) of the Lord, which he had given Israel. 41 With them were Heman(AZ) and Jeduthun and the rest of those chosen and designated by name to give thanks to the Lord, “for his love endures forever.” 42 Heman and Jeduthun were responsible for the sounding of the trumpets and cymbals and for the playing of the other instruments for sacred song.(BA) The sons of Jeduthun(BB) were stationed at the gate. 43 Then all the people left, each for their own home, and David returned home to bless his family.

I do not question my faith in God. Faith in God is required in order to please him. Bible teaches it is sin to not fully trust God.

I really believe that the words LEADER and LEADERSHIP should be erased from the Christian vocabulary; they present another barrier wall between laity and clergy.

@charisvarnadore9862

Жыл бұрын

I forgot to add that we all are SERVANTS.

Zahnd claims that it is a mater of scientific fact that the the age of the universe in the billions of years? To make such an assertion is to make the same error as those who firmly hold to 6,000 years.

@herewegokids7

8 ай бұрын

The speed of light is measurable

@PaDutchRunner

8 ай бұрын

@@herewegokids7 The creation was supernatural. The speed of light can’t tell us anything definitive regarding timing in a supernatural context.

Why are you discussing Nietzsche? I thought this would be about the current faith deconstruction of some of today's Christians. You should really talk about the reasons that the deconstructionist give. When the doubts of the faithful go without getting real answers to their serious questions, how are they supposed to react? They probably begin to question their faith. Time to get real. Get down from your ivory tower.

Nietzscheee? No; pronounced Neetcha.

MK atheist here: my father was an excellent example of a Christian but tgat didnt overcome any of my objections

"Being angry with people who lose their faith is like being angry with people who die of the plague". An equivalent statement to this is that God being angry with people who lose their faith - a God who judges anyone who believed and stopped believing worthy of hell - is unjustified in that decision. The statement of Zahnd’s that I quoted is based on the idea that the reason we became a Christian is we were convinced that after much deliberating we determined that God was a good bloke. And when we decided not to believe any more we did so because we were having doubts either about whether God is real - or a good bloke. But that's complete nonsense. The foundation for saving faith isn't that as a result of examining the entirety of God's character we concluded that he was divine - some people may even end up being saved without ever concluding that God is real (because God concludes that their repentance is real - see 1 John 4:7 and Romans 2:28 ). We don’t come to God as a result of attempting to examine his full character because our carrying out such an examination implies that in order to assess what is or is not divine we must already be divine ourselves - full of divine understanding - without blindness. And if that's the case who cares if there is or is not ANOTHER God - when one already exists! No - the foundation for saving faith is God's holiness and justice and our sin - the fact that these combined to leave us indebted - it is us recognising that the generosity of God revealed to us in creation is undeserved. A person having doubts about the truth of Christianity will feel compelled to have those doubts while remaining repentant for sin - and therefore in relationship with God (because according to Romans 1 there is absolutely no doubt that such a person is aware that on the basis of sin they stand indebted to God) - the person who instead chooses not to work through their doubts while remaining repentant is ignoring what is plain. Imagine you owe someone fifty bucks. Then imagine they aren't someone you like. Tough luck - you still owe them fifty bucks. That's the situation with God - the authentic gospel requires us to repent WITHOUT full insight - with doubt about God's character - we are required to repent IMMEDIATELY after becoming aware that we stand in debt - that our lives fall short of God's absolutely holiness. I’m not saying that we have no insight into God’s being merciful and gracious - we do because of creation - and we do because God’s Spirit testifies God’s WANT for us - his feeling love for us. But only those who accept this state of indebtedness ever get to see and experience the fullness of God's unchanging mercy and grace. Divine resources with which to truly repent don’t exist in our concluding that God is a good bloke (for the reasons I just explained - there is no way in which to bow before God while insisting on behaving as if one is already God) - and therefore no-one leaves the faith either on the basis that God did not prove to be a good bloke - or because people in the church failed them. These are non-category issues. Brian Zahnd is a false teacher and has been a leader in this dismantling of the truth - he does everything he possibly can to suggest that a gospel that centres on God's holiness and justice is in some way backward - I have absolutely no idea why he's being interviewed on this channel - which does interview SOME leaders whose character and thinking deserve our attention. Please find in my own replies to this post a more detailed explanation of the way in which there has been a mass turning away from the biblical gospel in the first world church - an attempt to completely change its foundations.

@philipbenjamin4720

Жыл бұрын

My claim is extremely far reaching. I believe that the heart of the gospel is now absent from the vast majority of churches in the first world. Whilst I believe that some of this absence is ignorance in many cases it is the result of people’s actively seeking to undermine the truth as part of seeking to win and keep people on a false basis. If you think you know the heart of the gospel I can only ask that you give me a chance to establish my bold claim. What I say at the start may be familiar to many but I will soon venture into much less familiar territory. Whilst people will assent to the idea that no-one can be saved without being born again preachers take advantage of the fact that people don’t understand what being born again means. Being born again is two steps - first we must ‘die’ and then we must ‘be made alive’. As you might imagine it isn’t the being made alive which is the problem with our preaching - it’s the dying. What does it mean to die? If you are lucky you might have heard someone explain that dying is about turning from sin - no longer finding our identity in anything we have achieved separate from God. But while this is part of repentance it is a description which doesn’t fully reveal the heart of the cross - it provides those committed to false teaching with room to wriggle out. Dying has two further characteristics which I NEVER hear any preacher in the first world explain - despite the fact that any obedient believer should experience them in their daily walk with God: -to repent is to choose plan A before and without knowing whether that choice will turn out to be life to the person choosing. -to repent is to close the door to ALL plan B’s BEFORE knowing how plan A will turn out. There is no “I’ll say sorry to God and see how he responds”. We see two examples of this kind of repentance - this kind of dying - in scripture. The thief on the cross repents without ANY insight that his repentance will see him gain anything. He is acknowledging his debt to Jesus even while his only prospect is death. Only AFTER he repents does he hear Jesus say “today you will be with me in paradise”. And the prodigal decides before arriving home that no matter how his father responds he will say to his father that he is no longer worthy to be called his father’s son - that he wishes instead to be a hired servant. He decides this WITH little insight into how the father will respond (someone might at this point say that he knows his father - but he isn’t assured of the goodness of his father - that’s why he left!). Having said that it isn’t in fact true to say that God is asking us to turn to him while having NO insight into his mercy and grace - because all non-believers have experienced God’s mercy and grace in creation. And all believers - at the moment when God requires them to again step out in faith - also have insight into God’s past faithfulness and they have the promises of the word of God. However God has ensured that these deliberately don’t provide the necessary resources to turn to him. See my next reply.

@philipbenjamin4720

Жыл бұрын

So what then does provide the resources with which to make the radical choice to turn to God no matter how he responds? The answer is a revelation of God’s holiness and justice and our sin. The first thing the non-believer experiences is God revealing his holiness - leading the them to see by contrast their sin - which then leads to God revealing his justice in relation to that sin. As a result of these things ALONE the non-believer is obligated - enslaved (but due to enabling grace is able to make a free choice whether or not to accept that they are in debt in a way that they cannot repay - enslaved - obligated - bound to God forever). This is the first part of faith - it is a choice - not a gift - to live as if God is holy and just - this being repentance. This response must happen BEFORE anyone is given insight into how God will respond. So every person who is truly saved is enslaved by the gospel. The reason why people come to God is not because they find out what a great guy he is - the reason why people offer their lives in a way that burns all bridges is on the basis of obligation created by God’s holiness and justice and their sin. To be saved is to offer one's life without knowing what the future holds - without knowing if God will respond positively to that offer. Any preacher who fails to reveal that obeying the gospel requires people to burn all bridges is leaving a path of escape open - they are still leaving open the possibility that someone will choose Jesus without the cross - just as Brian Zahnd here imagines someone can leave the faith without ever rejecting the cross. Once a person offers themselves without reservation - and without condition - to God - ONLY THEN does he reveal the fullness of his mercy and grace. Whilst people have a choice as to whether to live as if God is holy and just - those who choose to live as though enslaved to God because of his holiness, their sin, and his justice then receive an impartation of mercy and grace which is not a choice. It is an irresistible gift. So the first part of faith (also called repentance) is a choice - and the second half of faith is an irresistible gift - making saving faith both a choice and a gift. Why then is being placed under obligation necessary to being saved? Because only in death do we escape sin (because God remains holy - the gospel satisfies his justice - it doesn’t destroy his holiness). Jesus’ death pays for past sin - it doesn’t make it possible for an unrepentant person to walk into the presence of a holy God. No sinful person can stand in front of a holy God “alive”. See my next reply.

@philipbenjamin4720

Жыл бұрын

If we must be enslaved to God by the gospel - how is that slavery liberation? It is because while God’s holiness and justice enslave us, his mercy then makes that enslavement freedom, and his grace then makes that freedom overwhelming joy. The gospel isn’t freedom FROM slavery - it’s freedom IN slavery. If we refuse to enslave people we refuse to save them. If we do it knowingly we are a false teacher - and we are without love for those we may claim to love. Any gospel which implies that people are able to come to God only after having been given a full insight into his love - any gospel which says that the reason people don’t come to God is they have yet to fully experience his love - is a false gospel. It’s the opposite - we don’t get to experience the fullness of God (at least the fullness of God this side of eternity) without first responding to what he first reveals about himself (see John 7:17 and John 8:31 which say this in different words - and also James 1 which says that merely listening to the word of God without acting on it is a form of self-deception). No-one ever becomes a Christian ONLY because they found out how much God feels love for them - no-one has been given an adequate reason to repent only after they hear of this - or experience this. God makes sure that experience of this isn’t a sufficient reason - and doesn’t provide sufficient resources - for people to turn to him. So what then is it correct and not correct to say about God’s love? It’s correct to say that God’s love (his holiness, justice, mercy and grace) is unchanging - but half the church then draw wrong conclusions from this. Just because God’s love is unchanging doesn’t mean that there is nothing we need to do to be rightly aligned with his love - and it also doesn’t follow that because God’s love is unchanging no-one can do anything to become wrongly aligned with his love (see Romans 11:22, Hebrews 10:29-31, 2 Peter 2:20, and Hebrews 6:4-6 as proof of that). Having said that though it is possible for people to have absolute assurance of salvation if they do not knowingly withhold anything from God - they can be assured of the fact that God will make sure their choice sees them with both the reason and the resources to freely choose to remain in him. People should not be told that God accepts them because of Jesus before they repent. The bible speaks as if the cross has made people right with God in letters to churches - to those who have already become right with God. In the Old Testament people didn’t offer sacrifices out of gratitude for already having been forgiven - they offered sacrifices in a right heart in order to be forgiven (see Leviticus 4:20). This is a sign that we must appropriate Jesus’ sacrifice in a similar manner. We aren’t able to experience the fullness of God’s love before accepting the terms under which he chooses to reveal his love. Just as wise people don’t offer ourselves without reservation to others on first contact neither does God. He is the first to reach out to people - even to those who oppose him - and we should be the first to reach out to others - even to those who oppose us - this being grace - however this isn’t the same thing as saying that we should trust those to whom we reach out before they have revealed themselves to be worthy of that trust. Whilst we should most definitely continue to reach out to people whose lives are dominated by sin we shouldn’t continue to reach out if those to whom we have been reaching out are specifically contemptuous of what we offer them. See my next reply.

@philipbenjamin4720

Жыл бұрын

But how does this step by step gospel work practically? Don’t people as they hear the gospel preached find out about the cross? Don’t they hear about God’s holiness, justice, mercy and grace all at the same time? Hopefully yes (but these days often no) - but it’s a different thing in terms of spiritual revelation. While people may hear the truth all at once they only get to EXPERIENCE the truth in the order I described above. They must respond to what God first reveals without insisting on having full insight into his character (which God - if they refuse to repent - will never give them). Any gospel which hides this truth - as is the case with a gospel which says that salvation is God embracing the unrepentant sinner - Calvinism - is very damaging. It hides the heart of the gospel - the combination of God’s holiness, justice, mercy, and grace - the only circumstances under which people are able to know God. It places repentance after salvation instead of before it. Accepting this false gospel leads people to imagine that it is not wrong to first determine whether God is of good character - when doing so is behaving as if we are capable of making judgements about what is and is not divine - as if we are God - as if we are perfect - not subject to sin - not subject to blindness. It follows that if we have a darkened understanding that the only way for us to become enlightened is for God to initiate and for us to respond to his initiatives as soon they require a response. Those who instead attempt to judge God - to wait until he first reveals himself fully - never get to see or experience what they imagine themselves able to judge. They end up judging their own picture of God - not the God who only reveals his mercy and grace AFTER people have responded to his holiness and justice. I mentioned Calvinism - it is the first half of liberalism (more on liberalism below). The liberal is just a more logical Calvinist - he concludes that if God is able to embrace the unrepentant sinner at conversion then why not all the time? (The Calvinist still preaches as if following conversion we must be holy - although inevitably this preaching is unable to penetrate when people imagine themselves to be right with God in all circumstances - as they do with liberalism). As part of reaching out to us God may give us insight into the fact that he feels love for us - that he wants to know us - however part of being responsible preachers is explaining that this experience isn’t itself right relationship with God. It is only God wanting to say “I want to know you”. Instead many charismatics treat this kind of experience as if it is right relationship with God - as if to be right with God only involves Jesus having to die for us - instead of us also having to die with Jesus. In the face of all these hard truths some conclude “I will first get people into the kingdom by telling them some of the truth and then filling in the details later”. However this isn’t possible - it isn’t possible to plant a seed of one variety and then transition it into a plant of another variety. Any time we speak the truth in a way which undermines it it only makes it harder to understand - harder to receive - or even invisible - as a result. The way in which we come to know God is also the way in which we continue to serve him. We are told in Hebrews 11:6 that without faith it is impossible to please God. We must ‘step out in faith’ - God requires us to continue to take steps due to our having insight into his holiness and justice and our sin - BEFORE having insight into how he will respond to our obedience. Conversion and ongoing obedience therefore have the same foundation. The way in is the way on. It is therefore never correct to say that person X left the faith because of the way in which people were unloving to them. We don’t obtain the key resources necessary to obey God from people - or lose them when not loved by people. These things are “non-category” issues. Romans 1 says that God has already revealed himself in a way that leaves all people without excuse - there are no exceptions to this. Our resources for obeying God come from him and through the gospel. They aren’t found in people and cannot be taken from us by people behaving badly. No-one experiences hardship without God specifically allowing it as part of his working for their best welfare. Sinful acts of human beings towards a believer might be enormously painful but the true believer will still see them as unrelated to whether or not they continue to follow God. See my next reply.

@philipbenjamin4720

Жыл бұрын

It follows from our having a right understanding of the basis of our being obligated and empowered to turn to God that our having a sterner picture of God will not cause people not to turn to him. This was Charlie’s test in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. At the end of the factory tour he is subjected to strict justice by Willy Wonka (to which Grandpa Joe objects) - he is told that because he and Grandpa Joe broke one rule they are disqualified. But Charlie responds as all people who wish to please God must do - he aligns himself with justice - he accepts the decision and hands back his everlasting gobstopper. Then he finds out that THIS was the test! He passed! He has revealed to Willy Wonka that he is the right person to take over the factory. And he then finds out that Willy Wonka is generous - good - kind - that he had a good purpose in testing Charlie. I know of no better analogy to explain the heart of the gospel than this movie scene. This kind of revelation of God's mercy and grace - via the need to respond to God’s justice - comes about in no other way. Someone finding out only that God feels love for them never leads to their repentance (because as has already been explained only a revelation of God’s holiness and justice and our sin provides the resources and understanding that leads people to repent). Salvation never comes about in that order. When we talk about God’s kindness leading people to repentance - it doesn’t mean that people need to first experience the fullness of God’s mercy and grace in order to repent. It’s referring to God’s prevenient grace - which enlightens us in respect of his holiness and justice - and ensures that our choosing to turn to God is a free choice - it isn’t affected by our being inclined towards sin. It should be clear then that to preach a gospel which centres on God’s feeling love for people (even though he very much does) - will likely have the effect of intentionally or accidentally massaging the egos of people - it will in the incompleteness of the message allow a sinner to imagine that there must be something about them which is to their credit for God to feel about them in the way he does. The message has caused the path to God to become hidden - leading people to be like planes which never take off. It causes people to imagine that the reason some don’t change is they have yet to find out how much God loves them. And this is true - but not in the way in which people understand - it is because they have yet to have a revelation of God’s holiness and justice - which are the first half of his love - or they have and have refused that revelation. To preach without revealing this is to refuse to reveal to people the only basis - and the only message alongside which God provides the resources - for people to see their obligation to turn to God - and then be able to turn to him. But what about those who are contrite in respect of their sin but doubt that God will accept them? Isn’t it true in their case that a revelation of God’s wanting them, his desiring to be with them, his being willing to show mercy to them - is what leads them to take a step towards him? No it isn’t - in being contrite for their sin they have already taken a step towards God (enabled by grace) - they have - like the Samaritan woman in John 4 - already shown that they are wanting to worship God (her continuing sin was weakness not wilfulness) - the only thing that needed to happen was for Jesus to reveal that her attitude towards him was acceptable to him - which Jesus does by irresistibly imparting his mercy and grace. So there are no exceptions. No-one comes to God without having FIRST responded to his holiness and justice. And no-one finds the resources with which to offer themselves entirely to God without first accepting themselves to be obligated as a result of encountering God’s holiness and justice and their sin. No-one can be saved without being born again - and no-one can be born again without first dying. THE END

Um no on the age of the earth - just sayin

Does the Bible condone genocide slavery, & misogyny? Probably not 🤷‍♀️.

@rayleneberryman7673

Жыл бұрын

Read Pete Enns “How the Bible Actually Works”

Lol...comparing people walking away from Christianity to dying of the bubonic plague is quite possibly the most asinine comparison I've ever heard.

He is not a reliable teacher.

@herewegokids7

8 ай бұрын

Who?

"rich historic nuanced Christian faith" ☠️ none for me thx I'm good