http://kotaku.com/5588292/hate-church-targets-comic+con
|
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
http://kotaku.com/5588292/hate-church-targets-comic+con
|
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
Replies
"Baptist" is a wide-ranging term, as Independent Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Calvinistic Baptists, Southern Baptists, etc. are all quite different from one another. Westboro really doesn't fit the mold of any of those. Signs and wonders follow those who believe. Westboro's protestors have 'signs' (placards), but no wonders, no miracle-working power. They were held up for ridicule by the San Diego Con attendees who were ready for them. I don't see Moses, Elijah, or anyone anointed of God in the Scriptures holding a 'protest meeting'---they were instruments of the Lord to see judgment meted upon His enemies when such a time came. In Korah's rebellion (Numbers 18) the earth swallowed up those who came against the man of God (Moses). Nothing of the sort happened at the San Diego Con. No, God was not with Westboro. They were made a pathetic spectacle, just as they have already made themselves such in the past.
Does God still judge with awesome power like we've seen in the Bible? Yes. For example, there was a missionary couple, Graham and Gladys Staines, who ministered in Orissa, (northeastern) India since the 1960s, doing much work among lepers (outcasts in the Hindu society) and sharing Christ with them as they cleaned and rebandaged their wounds. In the 1990s a large group of Hindus came at Graham Staines and one of his sons as they were in a jeep and surrounded them, pouring gasoline on the vehicle and burning them alive. Gladys and the daughter were elsewhere, and subsequently continued to minister in the area. This terrible event sent a shockwave throughout the nation, and even India's president condemned this atrocity. Shortly afterwards, a super cyclone struck Orissa in 1999, sending a tidal wave thirty miles inland and dragging hundreds of thousands of Hindus out to sea. Those who remained alive cried out to Gladys Staines and her co-workers, "Your God is killing us! What must we do to have peace with Him?" The Hindus immediately correlated the two events as cause and effect, and they were right. The terrible murders turned into a wonderful opportunity to evangelize that had previously not been so open. Years ago I had dialogued with Gladys about this via email, and own the book BURNED ALIVE that chronicled these events. "Be still, and I will fight for you," says the Lord to His children. We're not called to be a debating/protesting society, but to be salt and light in this sinsick world.
Kind regards in Christ Jesus,
Alec
I understood where you were coming from. I was just demonstrating the problem in nuancing the word "all". The Calvinist position is that the free gift of salvation did not come to all men, but only all the elect (the "L" in TULIP). There are many verses containing the word "all" where the Calvinist must interpret "all" as something other than "all". The Romans 5 verse is significant because to maintain that atonement was not offered for everyone, Calvinism must say the second "all" in verse 18 means something other than every person. But we all agree the first "all" in verse 18 means every person. God would not use the same word twice to mean two very different things in a single verse like this.
If one were to simply read the Timothy verse, he would take it to mean just what it says - that God desires all men be saved (He didn't make hell for man, after all, but for the devil and his angels). The reason to interpret 1 Timothy 2:4 as "all kinds" is because it must be done so in order to preserve a doctrine that one brings to the verse. But the simple reading of the text does not say "all kinds" -- it says "all". In light of the many verses (like Romans 5:18) that cannot be pulled into the "all kinds" category, it becomes more difficult to maintain the "all kinds" interpretation in Timothy.
Sorry if I wasn't more clear before, Sven. Thanks for the chance to clear it up.
God bless--
Lee
I don't believe God has called us to finesse the simplicity out of so many of the words of His Word in order to preserve our pet doctrines (saying this to self as much as anyone). I was taught early on (and I still believe it to be great wisdom) to beware of doctrinal boxes. God is bigger than all of the boxes we try to place Him in. When "all" no longer means "all", and "world" no longer means "world" - we do harm to a person's ability to receive God's Word in simplicity, as children.
Romans 5 contains a series of verses where God over and over again says that sin came into the world by Adam and that salvation came by Christ. Near the end of the series, in verse 18, God's Word says, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon ALL MEN to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification of life."
We know what the first part of the verse is saying -- because "all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" (Rom 3:23). It's not speaking about varieties of men. Understanding God is not the author of confusion, and in keeping with taking scripture at it's simplest wherever possible, we can have confidence God means the same thing in His second use of "all men" as He did in the first. I don't believe He would change the use of the word ("pas" in Grk) in the second half of the same verse.
The bible speaks of both God's sovereignty and of man's free agency. How the two are reconciled is above my understanding, yet I am comforted by the fact that our infinite God is large enough to reconcile the two perfectly. It's a huge mistake (in my opinion) to try to reconcile this issue in 3 dimensions plus time when all it would take would be for God to exist in one additional dimension for us to have zero clue as to how things operate outside the time and space we know. God sees the beginning from the end. Just what does that mean? Anytime we consider eternality, we invariable think about a whole lot of time, when in reality it's not a whole lot of time, but no time. What does it mean for there to be "no time"? Time-less-ness?
I'll leave you with one more comment regarding the Calvinism issue; I am commanded by my Lord to love my enemies, yet the sovereignty-only position says God hates those very same enemies. I have no good in me, save that which God has placed in me. I am crucified with Christ, and it is He who now lives in me by faith (Gal 2:20).
That being the case, with what love am I to love my enemy, then? Am I being called to be _more_ loving than Jesus? Or isn't it true that the only reason I can ever love my enemy is because it's the very love of Christ that is living through me that is loving that enemy?
I feel for the person who cannot with confidence tell someone about the love of Christ, and that Jesus died for him. It's like being made into a beautiful horn (or shofar) and then sticking a cork in the out-end.
Lastly, there is much error to the left in what is called the church today; with the likes of "Your Best Life Now" kinds of theology. The remedy is not to react by veering off to the right with the "God hates ____" kind of despicable behavior. We aren't to go off to the left or the right - and the only way not to do that is to focus on Jesus -- Him alone.
Prov 19:22 What is desired in a man is kindness, and a poor man is better than a liar.
God bless --
Lee
It might be worth noting that in various interviews I've read, the Westboro group describe themselves as "Hyper-Calvinists" (albeit a version of it that most other self-described Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists I know of would disassociate themselves from). That may help explain why the group seems so completely indifferent as to whether their tactics are in any way an effective means of communicating the Gospel.
The Bible does say that God wills all to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4-6. The reformed position here is that by 'all', the author means 'all types of men', since the Greek 'all' (transliterated pas) can mean an array of individuals or individuals of various types (so sayeth Strong's, here). God does will all to be saved, insomuch that God wills peoples of various social classes, nationalities, and so on, to be saved. So already my interpretation of the text, when exclusively looking at the sentence itself, is valid given the allowed definitions of all via Strong's; context, however, shows that my interpretation is more likely to be the right one. The immediate context shows that Paul has just got done exhorting the church to pray for all men, and then goes on and talks of kings and others in authority. Given that 'all' means 'individuals of various types', it makes sense to validate this prayer for kings on the grounds that God will not only save those in lowlier conditions, in a certain social group. Further, if God wills that all are to be saved, then all should be saved. For who has resisteth His will (Romans 9:19)? Does He not do all things according to His will (Ephesians 1:11)?
You also say that God so loved the world, and that the world means "each and every single individual". This is far too a contentious passage to just say offhandedly and expect me to believe it. In no instance in the Bible or in everyday use in English have I ever known 'world' (kosmos) to necessarily mean "each and every single individual". Al Gore may love the world, but loving the world, and loving every single individual, Democrat and Republican alike, are conceptually two different things to the modern mind. And as far as the ancient mind is concerned, we know that the word kosmos (again, via Strong's) was used to refer to the Gentiles in general, the righteous, the Universe, and worldly affairs. None of those Strong definitions necessitate "each and every single individual"; not even 'the Universe', for loving the Universe is logically and conceptually different from loving everyone who lives within it. It would need to be shown to me that this word can encompass 'each and every single individual' and that that definition is best used in John 3:16.
You argue that "'that whosoever believeth in him' means individual humans have the right to choose to accept God's grace or not." The words do not require that at all. People believing in something is not the same as having a right to believe it, or the capacity to choose to believe it of their own accord. There are many actions that people commit that they have no right to, and there are many things people do that could have only been done with the aid of another. Why should believing be any different?
Buzz Dixon said:
I disagree. Their picket signs at soldiers' funerals with slogans like "Thank God for dead soldiers", "9-11: Gift from God", and "Thank God for IEDs" show a gleefulness in the misery of others that is not found in scripture, which declares "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?" (Ez. 18:23)
I agree with Buzz on this -- the Westboro group crosses the line from merely condemning sin to actually celebrating the deaths of those whom they label as sinners.
Romans 9:13 "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" is citing Malachi 1:2,3 which speaks of two people groups by their fathers' names, not the individuals. You won't find that statement in Genesis. We need to exegete correctly and by the Holy Ghost. In type, God is speaking today of two people groups: those who are spiritual Jews, circumcised of heart, born again in Messiah Y'shua (Jesus Christ), and those who are the children of wrath who have done despite to His grace, and who have rejected the way of salvation. He knows already knows the outcome of who shall choose to be in which group (yes, we have free will within the Divinely predestined plan).
Alec
If anyone is a daily reminder to me of how desperately in need of Christ I am, and how gracious God is, and indeed how loving He is, it is this group of backward Kansans who make up stupid music video parodies and picket irrelevant things like comic conventions and boring rock bands. They have made poignant and pertinent what one million televangelists, liberal theologians, and megachurch pastors have made vacuous and vapid in a period of over fifty years or so.
Just my thoughts..
Buzz Dixon said:
Buzz Dixon said:
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
of 14 Next