Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Faith to see, and to act
Samson was a judge. Don’t think black robes on the bench at your local courthouse; these guys wielded swords, not gavels.
I have always considered the book of Judges—tucked between the glorious conquests of Joshua and the glorious conquests of David—to be unremittingly depressing and of little edification, except of the negative kind. But a recent Sunday’s sermon mentioned the incident in which Samson ripped the gate posts of Gaza out of the ground and carried them off on his back, which the preacher took to be a flamboyant visual aid communicating that God had given the Philistines over to Israel—if they only had the faith to see it, and act on it!
Instead, the attitude of the Israelites throughout their occupation by Philistia was abject defeatism, timidity, fear, and a resignation to powerlessness. They scolded Samson: “Do you not know that the Philistines rule over us? What is this you have done to us?” (Judges 15:11)
I was stunned. Paradigms shifted. Suddenly I saw that the contrast between Samson (a man of faith, for all his philandering) and the Israelites with their low-temperature faith was a contrast between great expectations of God and low expectations of God. Bawdy, bodacious, bad boy Samson was intimate with God, always asking for favor, always expecting it, always receiving it.
What is normal Christianity? Whom do I want as role models? Those sensible Christians who scold that we can’t do this or we can’t do that because don’t-you-know-that-the-Philistines-rule-over-us? Or those who see that God still offers us new conquests—if only we have the faith to see it, and act on it?
back to top56 Comments to “Faith to see, and to act”
I like this post a lot. There are so many conquests– missions to the 1.8 billion Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans who have never heard of Jesus, reclaiming the inner city in America, filling academia with godly believers, fighting the spiritual darkness by conquering the diseases and systems that kill 10 million children every year by hunger & preventable disease, ending sex slavery here and abroad, abortion, etc. I pray that God would keep raising up many of His warriors to address these and that He would make them faithful and true to Him in their whole lives, unlike Samson.
Report comment to moderator
Whew, MLTW, you’re right!
Report comment to moderator
Yes, there are many battlefields in this warfare that has been going on for a long time. One great warrior has been Dr. James Dobson. His Focus on The Family organization has done a fantastic amount of good work for the Lord. Built up by faith and hard work over many years of service to this nation and countless families, Focus on the Family has done an ocean of good work that is so great that it can scarcely even be measured.
Though his detractors are many, they are mostly destroyers who’s actual good works, by comparison, could be put in a thimble.
Report comment to moderator
We actually have a battlefield on this Christian blog with a group of hard-edged, rather barbaric, phillistine trolls who continually belittle serious faith and believers. Many Christian bloggers here shy away from confronting these philistines on the view that we need to be decent, kind, forgiving Christians. This is well meant but a serious error. In this very real and fatal cultural war we are involved in strong minded Christians need to stand up and confront their very real enemies without quarter.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin
Dobson has dedicated his life helping others, to bring sense out of nonsense to millions of people. His fruit is abundunt, there is no doubt that he has worked tirelessly for the LORD spreading the Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt
You state: “Many Christian bloggers here shy away from confronting these philistines on the view that we need to be decent, kind, forgiving Christians. This is well meant but a serious error.” You are absolutely right, it is a serious error, and one that is not supported by the Word of God, no matter how much we are sermonized.
Paul is straightforward in his letter to Timothy;
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Peter Leavitt that “strong minded Christians need to stand up and confront their very real enemies without quarter.” These enemies of the Gospel are preached against throughout the Bible. I think we need to take a page from Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching: they mostly preached against the Pharisees, the legalists, the crazy fundamentalists who “tithed out of their spice rack” as Mark Driscoll puts it, and the circumsizers who added to the Gospel beyond the calling of Christ to follow and obey. So if there’s anyone on this blog who fits that description, we should start by lovingly and gently correcting them.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Victoria. Those verses from Paul’s letter to Timothy are an inspiration. I see no reason why we need to supinely allow the excrescences of the atheists, agnostics, and liberal, ersatz Christians on this Christian blog. If they wish to stir up trouble with evangelical and orthodox Christians, we need to hammer them in return.
You, Joel Mark, Michael Martin are the most steadfast and courageous of the bloggers here. I tend to weary of the struggle and go missing too often due to pressing business matters, though I’m resolved to get more involved in the future. I intend to do this with lacerating arguments that avoid personal attacks and within the bound of WorldMag rules of discussion.
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking
Jesus DID NOT SPEND most of his time preaching against the Pharisee’s and neither did Paul – Jesus preached and taught the way to Eternal Life, he warned everyone to repent of their sins – Paul preached the Gospel, he didn’t spend “mostly” his time preaching against the Pharisees –
I’m not the least impressed with Driscoll (Emergent Church) – he has made statements which clearly prove he has not studied the Word of God, but rather ‘tries’ in his unlearned way to slide untruthful statements to the masses. Here is one of his large faux gems:
Now, lets go straight to Scripture –
Jesus Christ “KNEW NO SIN” – HE was perfect, sinless – HE was GOD the Son – As Jesus pointed out – Jesus made it clear that lusting after a woman was to commit adultery.
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28
Obviously Driscoll doesn’t study 2 Corinthians.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Having sexual desire does not equal lusting, and Jesus was “tempted in every way, just as we are– yet was without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15). If Jesus was tempted in every way just like we are, that means that He was tempted sexually. He never sinned sexually. If He was tempted sexually, that means that He had some desire for sexual relations (I cannot imagine how He would be tempted if there was no desire, just as He certainly must have been tempted to overeat, curse His enemies, etc. and thus had the desire to do those things.) Desire for sexual relations is not sin– to dwell on it, to fantasize, to lust– these are sins. Jesus did not sin, but since He was human like us and tempted like us, surely He had sexual desires that He acted on righteously!
Also, Mark Driscoll has made quite a name for himself slamming the Emergent Church. He specifically called some of their members heretics and proclaimed the doctrines they have been distorting. You may or may not like Driscoll– he is certainly a polarizing figure and he has said many things that he himself regrets. But he has repudiated the Emergent church (listen to his message at the link I posted), and he preaches the Gospel faithfully. He is also considered a friend by many respected pastors like John Piper, Tim Keller, and C.J. Mahaney. He is living out the call that Andree put forth in this blog post by teaching the truth of the Bible (including some controversial things about women submitting to their husbands, the exclusivity of Christ, the sovereignty of God, the doctrine of Hell, etc.) in Seattle, an incredibly lost city.
Um, if you think that Jesus and Paul didn’t constantly preach against legalism and the Pharisees, I would heartily recommend reading Matthew 5-9, Matthew 12, Matthew 15-16, Matthew 22-23, the parallel passages in the other Gospels, the entire book of Galatians, John 8, Philippians 3, and others. Jesus certainly taught the Way and preached life through Him alone, but most of the rebuking was directed at the Pharisees and the legalists. There are an abundance of examples of this in the epistles, as well. We certainly need to call non-Christians to repentance, but we must start with the church and we must root out the pride and legalism that so concerned Christ.
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking – 10
You may not understand it, but Jesus did not desire/lust after women, if HE had, he would have contradicted HIMSELF by saying to lust would be the same as committing adultery “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28 – Lust is the same as desire, you can’t desire something which is sinful without lusting for it.
For Jesus Christ to lusted/desired, HE then could not have “known NO SIN” – If as you say
“ If He was tempted sexually, that means that He had some desire for sexual relations (I cannot imagine how He would be tempted if there was no desire,”
menliketreeswalking, you are doing nothing more than making excuses for Driscoll.
Here are some of the Definitions of LUST : desire, envy, covetousness, longing, yearning, hankering, hunger, thirst, itch These are not traits which Jesus Christ exhibited in any way.
When Jesus rebuked the devil:
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Mathew 4:7
HE was not tempted by what the devil offered HIM, after all HE made every single thing which the devil thought he could give Jesus – Jesus made it clear that he (devil) shalt not tempt the Lord thy God …
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
This is mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand, but since you want to make a big deal out of it, I must reply just this once more. You said: “HE was not tempted.”
The Bible says: “He was tempted in every way, just as we are[...]“
Report comment to moderator
menliketreewalking – 12
Being tempted does not mean that Jesus desired or lusted after women – it’s pure nonsense – You defending Driscol is interesting to say the least.
Report comment to moderator
 
  Another quote by Driscol:
  Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1 Peter 2:22
 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 1 John 3:5
 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16
Three passages of Scripture which put to rest the question – “Could Jesus have Sinned” – Of course Jesus couldn’t sin, HE was GOD manifest in the flesh, HE knew no sin, in HIM is no sin. Again Driscoll hadn’t studied enough to know the answers, that would include 1 Peter, 1 John and 1 Timothy -
Report comment to moderator
you said yourself that Jesus “was not tempted” in comment #11– and now you say that he was. which is it? If he was tempted in every way as we are (like it says), he must have been tempted sexually. So how did sexual temptation come to him? What did He feel when He was tempted sexually?
The bit about whether or not Jesus could have sinned has been totally taken out of context and I think that you misunderstand what was meant by it. I won’t say anything else beyond that.
Mentioning Mark Driscoll was one tiny point out of the original comment, so I’m not sure that we need to keep arguing about him. Anyone that John Piper would choose to speak at multiple conferences has got to be pretty solid. There are plenty of other good, solid pastors and teachers that highly value preaching against legalism like Piper and Keller.
Report comment to moderator
MLTW, what Biblical or other evidence do you have that Jesus was sexually “tempted?” This sounds to me like some typical emergent Christian pap. Victoria’s point was simply that the incarnate Son of God could hardly be tempted in the human way that we understand.
We know that Christ was tempted by Satan in very specific ways in the desert. As far as I know, we have not a scintilla of evidence that He was sexually tempted. We do have a few theories from some modern “enlightened” theologians that Jesus was tempted by Mary Magdalene; however this is mere speculation that has been retailed in a few sensational books and movies.
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking – 15
Make no mistake it’s no small ‘bit’ it’s glaring false doctrine to even suggest that Jesus could have sinned. No I haven’t taken anything out of context, but have IDENTIFIED what Driscoll stated, which is untrue by proving it with Scripture.
One of the main problems with the “Emergent Church” is their flip/flop ‘out of context’ excuse when all turns up-side-down –
Driscoll is no “tiny point” – his doctrine regarding God the Son having any sort of sin in HIS character is heresy and has NO factual foundation.
Citing Piper or anyone else does not dismiss the ’statements’ which Mark Driscoll has made.
Report comment to moderator
Peter: MLTW has referred four times in this thread to the verse in Hebrews that says Jesus “was tempted in every way.”
How could he have been tempted “in every way” and not tempted sexually? And why do you come now to demand the Biblical evidence that has already been repeatedly given, unless you’re just in denial about it?
Report comment to moderator
Christ was tempted externally by Satan but resisted it unequivocally. Victoria’s point is that, however tempted externally, he never sinned in the way that we do often and daily. Hebrews, saying that Christ was tempted in every way says nothing about his internal response to the temptation.
Report comment to moderator
The biblical evidence that I have is from Hebrews 4:14-16 :
“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”
This passage (and Heb. 2:12, which is similar) teaches that Jesus was tempted “in every way, just as we are”– and I can’t see how that couldn’t include sexual temptation. After all, Jesus, while fully God, was also fully man– and, being fully human, I can’t see how His divinity would have made Him immune to sexual temptation (unless that just makes us uncomfortable or something.)
Report comment to moderator
Peter– We agree, then– Christ was tempted externally, but resisted it unequivocally. He did not sin at all, even when He was tempted (and I think it can be inferred from Hebrews that sexual temptation was included.)
Victoria, if you can’t understand the actual point that Driscoll is making (and continue to stick him with the Emergent Church) and don’t want to discuss the original post, then we can’t continue this discussion. I want to respect you as a sister in Christ, and I hope that our conversations in the future are better. Sorry it didn’t go so well this time.
Report comment to moderator
“Could Jesus have Sinned? While systematic theologians have spilled much ink on this point, the precise biblical answer is that we do not know. The Bible never addresses, much less answers, the question. Some will find this disturbing, but the Bible is clear that humility is the first requirement for a good theologian, so that we can be satisfied with what the God of the universe thinks we need to know.”
Mark Driscoll – “Vintage Jesus” – Could Jesus have sinned? – Page 52
The reason Jesus was without sin, HE was not tempted in such a way as to lust after women, which Mark Driscoll has stated – to do so, would mean that Jesus Christ was NOT sinless, that HE was not perfect.
If anyone believes that Jesus was tempted and then LUSTED after women, then they would have to believe that Jesus Christ had contradicted HIMSELF when HE stated:
Report comment to moderator
I’m puzzled as to why some equate desire with lust. They are not interchangeable ideas. James 1:14-15 explains they are not the same. It says we are tempted WHEN our desire drags us away and entices us. So something happens between the desire and lust. James goes on to say that desire “conceives” and then gives birth to sin. When sin grows up, (NASB says “is accomplished”) we experience death. ESV says we are lured and enticed by desire, and again repeats the idea of a conception that gives birth to sin.
There is a pause, in other words, between desire and temptation, and mostly I would say I leap over that space pretty quickly, I’m afraid. Nonetheless it is that space that I think the mature Christian tries to widen in her/his life.
If Christ lived a human life, he experienced desire, but knew how to keep from being dragged away. It does us no good to take Christ’s humanity from him. We were created with desires. The desire to reproduce and to experience physical intimacy would not be left out of Christ, or else what other desires might Christ have been immune to? A desire to eat that second piece pumpkin pie?
Report comment to moderator
If Christ was tempted “in every way, just as we are”, as Hebrews says he was, do we understand that to mean he experienced every single temptation to every particular sin that entices each of us? Overeating? Substance abuse? Neglect of his parents? Withholding taxes owed to Caesar? Scorning or abusing children? And does the concept of “big” and “small” sins play a part here? I have to admit it is uncomfortable for me to think that my Lord could contemplate engaging in some of the sins that lure me. Or may we take it simply as reassurance that he understands every single one of our temptations (including sexual!) more than we can begin to imagine?
Maybe it’s a little bit like when we say to each other in a sincere and heartfelt way, “I feel for you, I see how that must hurt”, even if we have never been in that exact position ourselves. If we humans can, in our better moments, share one another’s burden to that degree, certainly God the Creator can most fully and perfectly show us mercy and give us grace to help us through the agonies of any of our temptations, no matter how strong or how ugly they may appear to us. Maybe that’s one thing we can all agree on.
I think Mark Driscoll has inadvertently led us away from Andree’s post, which I thought was good in itself. I loved – and needed – her reminder that Samson was “always asking for favor, always expecting it, always receiving it.” Kind of like King David….
Report comment to moderator
Sorry the quote below should have been used in post 22
“If you’re tempted to these sorts of things — including sexual sin — some of you say, “Now Mark, Jesus wasn’t sexually tempted.” Well, of course he was — 30 something year old single man who had women who adored him. You don’t think he ever wanted the comfort of a woman? You don’t think he ever got tired of going to bed by himself? You don’t think that he didn’t once want to have intimate relations with a woman? He was tempted.”
Mark Driscoll – “How Human was Jesus?”, October 15th 2006.
Report comment to moderator
Peter – 19
Thank you for making this clear.
Report comment to moderator
Singing Sand,
Thanks for helping us get back on topic. I doubt that Jesus was tempted to every possible kind of temptation (there are certain sins that He probably never could have physically committed.) I think the verse in Hebrews is as broad as it is for a reason. I could sympathize with a friend that is struggling with, say, homosexual desires when I have only struggled with heterosexual desires because the temptation is similar. I can even sympathize with and encourage a friend who struggles with anger even though I very rarely struggle with anger because I know how it feels to have thoughts inside of my head that are wrong and how to fight them with Scripture. But the category of sexual temptation is so broad that I can’t imagine that Jesus never experienced it.
And yeah, Samson may have been a huge screw-up in certain areas (and he suffered the consequences of his sins), but He certainly knew what to expect of our great and powerful God.
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking – 27
YOU WRITE:
“I doubt that Jesus was tempted to every possible kind of temptation (there are certain sins that He probably never could have physically committed.)”
menliketreeswalking, Jesus was none other than GOD the Son, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to sin, HE knew no sin. There is no “probably” to it – Unless you can understand the Holiness of God the Son, and HIS Deity, it will be impossible for you to comprehend Jesus inability to sin.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: The passage that menliketreeswalking has cited several times now clearly says that Jesus did not sin, so your repeated hammering on that is ridculous. No one has said Jesus sinned, so there’s no need for you to insist on it.
But the passage also very clearly says that Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are. You, as a Biblical literalist, don’t get to ignore that. Hebrews says it, without any shades of grey; it’s very plainly stated.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I’ve learned my lesson from these exchanges: No one ever wins and the thread just gets derailed. Let’s not make it any worse than it is.
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking
It doesn’t surprise me that you find comfort from Steveg’s post – predictable to be sure!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #6
Re: 2 Tim 4
As I read and re-read this verse I think of a church I went to in Austin. They gathered to themselves a preacher who taught what they wanted to hear.
And I think of all those who are so quick to embrace speculation about ancient or modern day aliens from other planets visiting the earth. The same crowd that entertains ideas about Big Foot or Loch Ness and what have you are the very same folks who cast aside Jesus and reject his Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavit’s observation in #19 makes a lot of sense to me. This would seem to help in resolving some of the disagreement between Victoria and MLTW.
Where the Bible says that Christ was tempted in every way as we are, perhaps it could mean, as Peter suggests, that He was presented with tempting external circumstances that would ordinarily entice one to sin. In this way, He could have been tempted like we are. According to this view, for example, had He been in David’s place on the palace roof and seen Bathsheba bathing, it could be said that He was tempted. But unlike David, Christ would not even have been drawn into an internal battle where He struggled with His own lust. David however, was drawn into that struggle and quickly succumbed to it.
It would seem improbable that in all His 33 years on this earth that Christ never glimpsed even a partially naked or enticing beautiful woman. So, in this sense, He would then have been tempted as all men are. Yet, He never entertained or struggled with any lustful thoughts after such a glimpse. That makes sense to me.
However, perhaps the pastors among us who have a better knowledge of the Greek words involved in the Heb 4:15 passage can help. Would such a view of “temptation” as Peter suggests be within the meaning of the original wording?
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: I think that’s what MLTW has been saying all along. Victoria just doesn’t get it.
Of course, we must always remember the Two Rules of World Mag Blog.
Rule 1: Victoria is always right.
Rule 2: If Victoria is wrong, see Rule 1.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner – 32
Yes there are churches which have tossed the truth under the pew, and there are pastor’s who will preach what they know people want to hear. There’s another serious problem, which has always existed but today it’s become far more noticeable, and that is the wolves who come into our midst – who subvert the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it smoothes out the sins, making them appear ‘not so harmful’ not so sinful -
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin – 33
YOU WROTE: “According to this view, for example, had He been in David’s place on the palace roof and seen Bathsheba bathing, it could be said that He was tempted. But unlike David, Christ would not even have been drawn into an internal battle where He struggled with His own lust. David however, was drawn into that struggle and quickly succumbed to it.”
I agree Michael, your explanation is good. If David had not allowed his temptation to germinate into lust, had he turned away, he would not have sent his servants to fetch Bathsheba and he would not have sinned.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, your remark about the two rules of World Mag Blog is a cheap shot. First, Victoria far from claims to be always right. Second, bloggers here don’t hesitate to question her and when approached decently Victoria will engage in discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Peter: Do you ever smile, or laugh, about anything?
Victoria almost never admits to being wrong, and even when the person she’s debating with presents ample evidence, or explains where there’s been a misunderstanding, she sticks with her first impression.
It’s a fact. My “two rules” formulation is a gently humorous way of pointing it out.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Peter, I appreciate your support. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. We enjoyed ourselves, so much to be thankful for. Three prayers were answered this past week, the last one an early morning phone call on Thanksgiving day, we are so blessed.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
I have apologized many times for misunderstandings on this blog, perhaps you missed them.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – 3 prayers answered in 1 week! Praise God! He is so faithful.
Report comment to moderator
Karen – Thank you – the other two have been on-going for some time. We were thrilled to have such a blessing from GOD Almighty.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve only had two interactions with Victoria here on WMB, and neither has been particularly positive– not to be annoying, but I would certainly appreciate an example (preferably a link) of an apology she gave for a misunderstanding, as that would probably help me to have better interactions in the future. You don’t have to if you don’t want to, though.
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking
Welcome to blogging with Victoria. From my experience with Victoria, she loves to misunderstand, and pursue that misunderstanding with ENDLESS arguing, throwing in tons of scripture that do not relate to the point. She will ask you to prove your point. Then when you prove it she will deny that you proved it and claim you are distorting scripture. Don’t waste your time with her shallow argumentation. You may tend to think, as I have in the past; “I’ll share some obvious scripture with her and she will realize her falacy.” From my experience, she rejects correction straight from the Word. Once in a while she will make some good comments but when she gets on the attack her ability to hear what is said, and follow it logically goes out the window. Sorry for the grief you are experiencing. It really ruins the point of the original article and simple one another dialogue.
Report comment to moderator
If I may speak on Victoria’s behalf – I too have been involved in spirited arguments with Victoria. In one argument, we took it “off-board” and came to a personal understanding with each other. Her blogging persona is hard hitting, and she does meticulous research, but I have rarely seen anyone give her the benefit of the doubt. I now enjoy a personal off board friendship with Victoria, and I find her to be quite a nice person and I have enjoyed our personal interaction and friendship. And no, we do not alway see eye to eye, and I don’t always agree with her. On the blog, you choose your battles.
Report comment to moderator
thanks, Klasko. I have no doubt that Victoria is a great person in real life and we could be great friends at church or something. Here at WMB, though, things seem to be a little more difficult… I think I might choose my battles more carefully in the future so as to make this blog better for everyone.
Report comment to moderator
Tima – 44
If you want to go back to the TOPIC “Only those who obey” you or anyone else can read exactly what was said. Here is the link.
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/09/20/%e2%80%9conly-those-who-obey-%e2%80%a6%e2%80%9d/
You made more than one comment which you were never able to prove, one of which was: “All the translators translate with a bias that distorts God’s revelation.” That was in post 19.
In post 14 you made this statement: “Believers spend billions of $ across this country to be sure they are not “giving up on the habit of meeting”. They use it to buy cathedrals to hold hundreds of people, lined up in pews to hear the word from a hired expert in one-way communication, not “one another” communication. The exact opposit of what God asked for. The passivity, legargy, perpetual dependency, and self-centeredness that this switch produces in 90% of believers is tragic indeed.”
Tima you make accusations as you did in post 14 and 19 that are not true. You assume you know the hearts of those who attend Evangelical Churches, who love the LORD with all their heart, your statistics of 90% are just yours, they aren’t GOD’s, nor do you or anyone else have knowledge of what you accuse in post 14 – in making your other pronouncement in post 19 your error as to the authentic translations without proof are glaring.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
We actually have a battlefield on this Christian blog with a group of hard-edged, rather barbaric, phillistine trolls who continually belittle serious faith and believers. Many Christian bloggers here shy away from confronting these philistines on the view that we need to be decent, kind, forgiving Christians. This is well meant but a serious error. In this very real and fatal cultural war we are involved in strong minded Christians need to stand up and confront their very real enemies without quarter.
Posting messages on an online forum is not the same as “fighting a battle,” and people who have the same “fight or flight” emotions and reactions in their endocrine systems are confused.
On top of that, without engaging in the type of “brainwashing” and personality destruction that Orwell portrayed so grimly in 1984, it is very difficult to change people’s minds and beliefs by “battling” them.
If you can’t actually hit a person whose messages you don’t like, and if hitting them is unlikely to change their mind anyway, I return to my theme that many people here have very little idea of why they are posting and participating in these discussion forums.
Of course, you can prove my point by “striking back at me” with a threatening or “combative” message. That certainly brings a lot of people to Christ or belief in conservative political beliefs. (Why the two are so tightly wrapped around each other is mystifying to me, by the way.)
Report comment to moderator
I don’t want to be rude, but I really do want to give Victoria the benefit of the doubt like Klasko says– any examples of previous apologies for misunderstandings on here? (especially misunderstandings with people not of the same specific views e.g. MM, PL, etc.)
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking 43 and 50
It appears you are questioning my statement in TWO different posts which you have made, (43 and now 50) when I said in post #40, “I have apologized many times for misunderstandings on this blog, perhaps you missed them.”
It’s clear you are accusing me of being untruthful – if you were not, then you wouldn’t continue this child like request -
Report comment to moderator
eek, never mind. Sorry I asked.
Report comment to moderator
menliketreeswalking – 53
Somehow I hoped you would ‘get it’ –
Are you still in High School? -
Report comment to moderator
I find it helpful to be reminded by Andree’ that intimacy with God produces “great expectations of God” while hearts that are “far from” Him produce “low expectations of God.”
It is also helpful to remember that it was weak and faithless Judeans who handed Samson over to the enemy (Jud 15:12), just as there are Christians today who satisfy their lust for recognition and find greater (intellectual?) satisfaction in attacking fellow comrades on the battlefield than in engaging the enemy.
I wonder if those who so strenuously spar with words here on the blog (who are fiercely devoted to proving that they “have the faith to SEE”) are as passionate with their walk and ACT ON IT? Are their lives (more important than their words) proof that they have great expectations of God, or do they have low expectations of God?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Nope, I’m actually a medical student… and I doubt that I’ll ever “get it” to your satisfaction.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!