Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Nevertheless I shall attempt to revise my question again; What is the proper basis for true Christian faith?

In a previous explanation, I attempted to define what I meant by certain terms. I neglected to define “faith”.

Faith, in the Christian sense, is a twofold proposition. Simply put, it is belief and trust. It is first, a belief in the truth of Christianity (or Christ), and secondly it is trust in the work of Christ. The demons reportedly have the first part of this, which is belief in God (or Christ). In order to have saving faith, you must also have trust in Christ.

In view of this, I will attest that I struggle with both parts of this, but mostly with the first aspect. I struggle with the second primarily because of the first.

So let me revise my question a bit.

What is the proper biblical approach to arriving at an assurance that Christianity is true?

In wording my question this way, I assume that there is a rational approach that is biblical, of course… you may challenge that if you wish.

I also assume that you must first come to an assurance that Christianity is true in order to trust in it’s truth claims. I also realize that this method, or approach, can be challenged. I’m also asking in part whether this approach is correct. Is this the correct biblical approach, or is it, as I think Lesslie Newbigin seems to suggest, that in order to come to an assurance of the truth of Christianity, one must first trust unprovable (by finite imperfect beings at least) assumptions or beliefs, and simultaneously act upon them, in order to know the truth of them?

I think two slogans of some early Christians are worth contemplating…

St. Augustine used this as his slogan: Credo ut intelligam. (I believe in order that I may understand.)

St. Anselm put it this way: Fides quaerens intellectum. (Faith seeking understanding.)

I think I shall post this in tomorrow’s whirled views…

Report comment to moderator

Using your words: Somebody’s evil use of authority has put you (a free moral agent) in a situation where somebody is shooting back at you because you are there shooting at them without justification.

Report comment to moderator

Frank: Excuse me, but I think that it is completely, entirely and glaringly obvious.

Using your words: Somebody’s evil use of authority has put you (a free moral agent) in a situation where somebody is shooting back at you because you are there shooting at them justification.

Scenario A: A corrupt police officer compels a subordinate to participate with him in a bank robbery. In the course of the robbery, a bank guard fires at the robbers. The subordinate returns fire, killing the guard. Is he guilty of murder? Or, since he “is shooting at someone who is shooting back him, just because someone’s evil use of authority has put him there in the first place,” is only the corrupt superior culpable?

Scenario B: America is invaded by another country without just cause. American soldiers and civilians shoot back at the invaders. Now explain to me, why aren’t members of the invading force guilty of murder for the deaths of any Americans they kill?

Oh, that’s right, Romans 13:1 — they were subjecting themselves to the higher powers!

It seems to me that your overbroad misapplication of Romans 13:1 negates the prosecutions of German war criminals at Nuremberg. (You remember, the guys who were “only following orders”?)

So, which is it, pentamom?

Does Romans 13:1 require citizens and soldiers to submit themselves to the higher powers, always and in every circumsatnce?

Or, was the judgment at Nuremberg — that “I was only following orders” does not absolve an individual from responsibility for their criminal acts — just?

I am not an anarchist. I believe Romans 13:1. But I also believe that the whole counsel of Scripture teaches us that there are times when, in order to obey God, we must disobey the powers that be.

And in the context of this thread, I’m discussing two possible scenarios when a Christian’s conscience could compel him to disobey “the powers that be” in order to obey God:

1) Conscription: The Christian bears God’s image and inscription, not Caesar’s. Which is to say, we belong to God, not Caesar. Thus, in order to obey Christ’s command to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render unto God the things that are God’s,” a Christian could very well make the argment that his life is not Caesar’s, and that he is not available to Caesar to kill for him.

2) Conscientious Objection to Unjust War: When a nation’s military is used for what a person’s conscience convinces him is an unjust war, he ought to refuse to fight in it. Killing others — most notably, non-combatants — in an unjust war constitutes unjust killing, and a person who opposes unjust killing should obey God (”Do no murder”) rather than Caesar (”kill our enemies”).

Incidentally, I’m still mulling ovver your questions at (130) and (141) re. the apparent lack of advice to newly-believing Roman soldiers to leave the soldiery. I hope to reply to them shortly.

Grace and peace …

Report comment to moderator

Necessary War

The only good to be found
in the necessary war,
is in the end to that war,

Justice won’t be
in the means of men
that is madness,

Only in the realm of peace,
at a necessary high frequency
of consciousness,
where true conscience still dwells,
can platonic virtue be considered,

For war, per se,
is low-vibratory fear,
a constructed human abomination
spitting poison in the face of love,
fueled by all forms of desperation
and ill-conceived rationales,

Protect yourself, dear sons of God,
from the malice of the world,
but don’t become the enemy
you seek protection from,

Rather, find strength and solace
in atonement with the White Throne
that dictates the ultimate judgment
of compassion
for both friend and foe.

Gordon Neumann
2/18/2007

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator