|
Post by crazedshredder on Feb 10, 2011 17:45:02 GMT -5
You hear a lot of Christians saying "I'm lucky I was born in America, because otherwise I never would have found Christ". What is your opinion on this statement?
I believe that if you are predestined to have a relationship with Christ it does not matter where you are born, or even if you have access to a bible because God will find a way into your heart no matter what the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by conner on Feb 10, 2011 17:53:07 GMT -5
So
this is just another Calvinism thread?
|
|
|
Post by crazedshredder on Feb 10, 2011 17:57:22 GMT -5
I'm not really familiar with Calvinism, I try not to focus on labels.
|
|
|
Post by conner on Feb 10, 2011 18:08:08 GMT -5
Simply put
Calvinism = predestination
|
|
|
Post by crazedshredder on Feb 10, 2011 19:43:04 GMT -5
Well, I agree with that part of it.
This thread is just based on something specific that I have seen a lot of Christians discuss. It is not just about predestination either.
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Feb 11, 2011 14:54:56 GMT -5
You hear a lot of Christians saying "I'm lucky I was born in America, because otherwise I never would have found Christ". What is your opinion on this statement? I believe that if you are predestined to have a relationship with Christ it does not matter where you are born, or even if you have access to a bible because God will find a way into your heart no matter what the circumstances. Better to be born in China. In the American churches you have a plethora of problems mostly coming from people who haven't actually invested the time and energy in the Gospel that physical persecution demands. Catholics- Run a high risk of low spiritual development and encouraging a "sin now, confess later" mentality. Also, has a very high risk of disillusioning curious young minds to the Church due to many of its ridiculous policies. Presbyterians- Some factions can have an eerie dedication to predestination that drives people away. Episcopal church- Liberal as liberal gets. Almost Unitarians. Have fun believing in some generic lukewarm skydaddy who issued the ten "I'd rather you not's." Lutherans- Mainline is split between normal believers and Episcopal wannabes. Baptists- Same as above, except the mainline can also be insane. A lot of them do the guilt thing as well as the Catholics. Many are more interested in giving moral guidance than spreading good news. Most churches people view with negative opinions are Baptist. Pentecostals- Many of them are stark-raving-crazy. This is not good for normal people looking in. 7th Day Adventists- Can get a little bit dogmatic with things. Emergent Church- Many are so spacey that logical individuals write them off as hippie-commune gone religious. It goes on and on and on. China has experienced a huge surge in believers. The surge started to slow down once they started picking up denominations. Anybody ever think about that?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Feb 11, 2011 15:08:11 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 11, 2011 20:39:32 GMT -5
I'm glad I wasn't born in Utah.
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Feb 11, 2011 21:16:41 GMT -5
I'm glad I'm Alastair.
|
|
|
Post by conner on Feb 11, 2011 21:26:13 GMT -5
I'm glad you are too, Al.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Feb 13, 2011 20:37:21 GMT -5
I also think some people tend to glorify other places, and say that their view of Christianity is less 'defiled' than others, which is ridiculous. It isn't our culture that makes Christianity radical, it's our nature as humans. To say that China makes better Christians is to say that the "good work" isn't completed by the Spirit, but by our culture or by how "good" your Church/denomination is. So much for sovereignty. The problem "qualitatively" never concerns true Christians. As you said, true Christians are the work of the Spirit. The problem is with nominal Christians--people growing up in the church who think that they are true Christians because they went to church a couple of times, or because they abstractly believe in a 'God' of sorts; yet they have no true commitment to following Christ in life. Over 80 percent (my statistics could be out of date by this point, but it is still absurdly high) of Americans profess to be "Christian" in some manner. Interestingly the number that actively follow Jesus in word and deed seems to be fewer than 8 of 10 that I meet. When people reference "better Christianity" in persecuted countries it is not to say that the people there are better Christians than truly faithful Christians living a life of faith here, but it is to simply say that in a place where professing Christ can literally be fatal, nominal Christianity simply does not exist. No one who does not truly believe will bother professing a name that could get him or her killed because the risk is simply not worth it unless you are truly dedicated. Also, countries undergoing persecution in general tend to be fertile grounds for the gospel message. While many an angry Christian here has forgotten that the gospel is good news because we have mistaken the idea of following Christ for any number of things (generally boiling down to 'you need to be more like me') in a country with severe oppression, the radical, liberating, and joyous news of God for us is readily accepted.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Feb 13, 2011 21:02:40 GMT -5
I believe that if you are predestined to have a relationship with Christ it does not matter where you are born, or even if you have access to a bible because God will find a way into your heart no matter what the circumstances. In regards to statement about being born in America as to elsewhere and finding Jesus, this statement makes sense (if you grant the presuppositions of modern Calvinism). I would, however, warn against such language because when we talk like that we often wander into the dangerous territory of making it "about us." Note the tone, "Where I'm born does not matter because God predestined me so he'll find me somehow." Whereas the sovereignty of God is supposed to be the prerequisite for predestination and thus the concept is about God, we make it about us and "us being predestined" which automatically devolves into confrontational language of "us vs. them" wherein we the elect are juxtaposed over and against "them" the reprobate. Election is a valid theological position when talking about God and his business. It is only valid when talking about humans, if used in an explanatory sense (after the manner of Calvin). If I make it about me being elect, then I've negated the purpose, which is the sovereignty of God. Besides, as God is the only one outside of time and God is the one electing, here inside of time we cannot know anybody's state of election (or lack thereof) until they follow through with the "P" (perseverance of the saints). Properly understood this does not mean that once I pray a prayer I'm set and I must be elect. Quite to the contrary it means that the true saints of the elect are the ones that persevere to the end (i.e. you will know them by their fruits). This is not the ones who did enough good deeds or anything like that to make a works based salvation. Rather, it is a simple statement that God's true elect will persevere until the end. So until the end none can know who is among the elect, and even then only God knows the heart. That train of thought also enables a dangerous theology rampant amongst the laity within Calvinistic denominations where people are lulled to complacency because, "If God's predestined them (or it if you're talking about an event rather than an individual) then nothing I can try to say or do will make a difference." This is remarkably close to the destructive "cheap grace" that Bonhoeffer was talking about in Discipleship. Also Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin would all in tandem crap a pile of bricks if people went down either of these theological (miss)paths. This was long, and potentially could come across as harsh. I do not intend to be so, and I don't wish to offend you or anyone else here on these boards. My concern is that there are a lot of Calvinists with misconceptions of Calvinism that result in dangerous ideas (the same is true for Arminians). I am not accusing you of any of the bad theology I just mentioned, I am just admonishing you as a brother in Christ to be careful because of the possible implications of your wording. Again sorry if this seemed long or harsh.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Feb 15, 2011 11:15:51 GMT -5
which automatically devolves into confrontational language of "us vs. them" wherein we the elect are juxtaposed over and against "them" the reprobate. But isn't that language, to some extent, biblical? The whole friendship with the world is enmity with God thing. I know it isn't exactly what you were talking about, but to some extent it is. Ooh! I'm reading that book. I've kind off stopped reading it though, because it's quite a difficult book, in the sense that the writing style etc. is quite difficult. What I read of it though, I liked a lot.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Feb 17, 2011 11:40:57 GMT -5
which automatically devolves into confrontational language of "us vs. them" wherein we the elect are juxtaposed over and against "them" the reprobate. But isn't that language, to some extent, biblical? The whole friendship with the world is enmity with God thing. I know it isn't exactly what you were talking about, but to some extent it is. Ooh! I'm reading that book. I've kind off stopped reading it though, because it's quite a difficult book, in the sense that the writing style etc. is quite difficult. What I read of it though, I liked a lot. In response to the first statement, I would say yes and no. "Enmity with the world" is with the worldly forces, the powers for evil that be, and the general fallen-ness of creation's current state. This affects people, but we are called by Jesus to love these people, even our enemies (i.e. the good Samaritan). Also, with the "us vs. them" mentality I should clarify. There is and should be a distinction made between the "us" (Christians in the NT or the nation of Israel in the OT) and the "them" (those outside of the these categories. What I was arguing against was the idea of "us against them" rather than simply "us as distinct from them" In most passages YHWH calls his people of Israel to be his people, holy and set apart," and then states something to the effect of "So that my name may be glorified before the nations." The distinction exists; we are not the world, we are to be distinct from it, not befriend it. However, the point of this is so that in this distinction God may be seen, known, and acknowledged as such by all the nations of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Feb 19, 2011 21:38:42 GMT -5
You hear a lot of Christians saying "I'm lucky I was born in America, because otherwise I never would have found Christ". What is your opinion on this statement? I believe that if you are predestined to have a relationship with Christ it does not matter where you are born, or even if you have access to a bible because God will find a way into your heart no matter what the circumstances. If one is born in North Korea, it's more than likely the person will be a Kim Jung Il worshiper. If one is born in Saudi Arabia, it's likely the person will be a Muslim. If one is born in Europe, it's likely the person will be some flavor of Atheist. The United States no longer encourages Christianity, but in many families there is still a strong remnant of Judeo-Christian values which facilitates people raised with that value system to accept Christianity. That's not a hard and fast rule as there are many exceptions (such as China). There are also some unlikely places where Christianity spreads like wild fire. But still, one's beliefs are usually powerfully influenced by the culture one lives in.
|
|