Christian Objectivist

[Mike82ARP]

Your friend has been blogging for 4 months. This thread has been going on for since May 2009. No offense, but your friend is not exactly breaking new ground with his insights, and, so far at least, he has not delivered on the promise of reconciling Rand and Christ, unless coming off as more curmudgeonly than Rand circa 1952 on the subject of gay marriage is his idea of such reconciliation.

Until your friend is willing to write a "blog" reconciling the concept of everlasting torment for non-believers with the Objectivist concept of justice, to name just one example, it would seem the label vapid should be used rather more sparingly.

Perhaps instead he can write a post on how Christ eliminates the law of identity problem which atheists such as George H. Smith (who has participated in this very thread) have long held to be a major stumbling block to speaking intelligently about God. When he does that, I will be the first to applaud him, rather than making fun of his pictures of Hollywood Jesus.

First, the Hollywood Jesus picture was not his making was meant for only for illustrative purposes.

Christian Egoist is not necessarily trying to "reconcile" Rand and Christianity, but he is trying to show (as one who subscribes to much of what Rand taught) that the two have more on common than what one might think after breaking through the superficialities. His blog is meant more for Christians than it is for Objectivists in that he also views self-sacrifice, altruism, mysticism and postmodernity as ideological opponents and seeks to show why these are also anti-Biblical positions. I have to deal with other Christians whose theologies are mystical and altruistic, but I get along with them anyway. However, if asked, I will tell them where I believe they err.

It is pointless to discuss topics like resurrection, hell, etc., with an atheist as one need to grasp the concept of God first. But then it breaks down to at what unproved tenets you begin? Eternality of the universe, big-bang, creation? Everyone picks one and hopefully has rational reasons for believing that. I get along well with atheists as we have many other commonalities

I guess my point is whether Objectivism seeks to gain popularity or remain an insular philosophical club? Can it be a big tent? Was atheism the prime tenet of Rand, or was it things like laissez-faire capitalism, small government, individualism, and reason? People of faith are a huge, untapped source for Objectivism. In your face, straw man objections such as those coming from TOS aren't going to help.

I appreciate the dialogue we can have here.

Please appreciate that the unbreachable obstacle to any sort of cross-over between Christians and Objectivism is not only the metaphysical conflict of existence/non-existence of God, but epistemological, psycho-epistemological and moral. There just can't be any authority over the O'ist egoist's mind (not even Rand herself, ultimately) simply because only his mind can select and integrate its own content. Here is a critical distinction: he not only *won't* accept any authority, he *can't*. It's a cognitive impossibility, a

self-contradiction.

Your comment indicates that you do not understand Christianity, but have accepted a false interpretation foisted upon O’ism.

[Mike82ARP]

Your friend has been blogging for 4 months. This thread has been going on for since May 2009. No offense, but your friend is not exactly breaking new ground with his insights, and, so far at least, he has not delivered on the promise of reconciling Rand and Christ, unless coming off as more curmudgeonly than Rand circa 1952 on the subject of gay marriage is his idea of such reconciliation.

Until your friend is willing to write a "blog" reconciling the concept of everlasting torment for non-believers with the Objectivist concept of justice, to name just one example, it would seem the label vapid should be used rather more sparingly.

Perhaps instead he can write a post on how Christ eliminates the law of identity problem which atheists such as George H. Smith (who has participated in this very thread) have long held to be a major stumbling block to speaking intelligently about God. When he does that, I will be the first to applaud him, rather than making fun of his pictures of Hollywood Jesus.

First, the Hollywood Jesus picture was not his making was meant for only for illustrative purposes.

Christian Egoist is not necessarily trying to "reconcile" Rand and Christianity, but he is trying to show (as one who subscribes to much of what Rand taught) that the two have more on common than what one might think after breaking through the superficialities. His blog is meant more for Christians than it is for Objectivists in that he also views self-sacrifice, altruism, mysticism and postmodernity as ideological opponents and seeks to show why these are also anti-Biblical positions.

It is pointless to discuss topics like resurrection, hell, etc., with an atheist as one need to grasp the concept of God first. But then it breaks down to at what unproved tenets you begin? Eternality of the universe, big-bang, creation? Everyone picks one and hopefully has rational reasons for believing that. I get along well with atheists as we have many other commonalities

I guess my point is whether Objectivism seeks to gain popularity or remain an insular philosophical club? Can it be a big tent? Was atheism the prime tenet of Rand, or was it things like laissez-faire capitalism, small government, individualism, and reason? People of faith are a huge, untapped source for Objectivism. In your face, straw man objections such as those coming from TOS aren't going to help.

I don't agree with you on the pointlessness factor. You assume a top down method of persuasion/argument, and perhaps underestimate how repulsive the Jonathan Edwards description of God actually is to those not singing in the choir.

The Early Church fathers were, by and large, Universalists, i.e., they believed that Christ died for everybody, not just those who signed onto a dotted line of doctrinal beliefs. Then a couple of generations of organized Church types got involved and won the "interpretation" narrative, to use MSK's lens for looking at social issues. Coincidentally, that narrative helped them control people and build an organization that has lasted 1500 years. Why Christians find it alarming that God would save everybody, as opposed to some, is beyond my ability to comprehend. It is almost as though they would be upset if God dispensed His grace to all.

I actually think "justice" would be among the very best openings in the forest for a person devoted to both Rand and Christ. Nearly everybody has an innate sense of justice, and those who don't are not worth talking to.

To the Christian, it begins with God. It has to begin with God. That’s why an atheist could not appreciate what is probably the most famous sermon ever preached.

I found the blog where you posted about the early church fathers. You should do better research next time.

Here’s what they actually said:

Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2, [110 A.D.]) ''Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him.

Clement of Rome (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D.150]) ''If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest, but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment.''

(Second Clement 8:4) ''So also let us, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil things which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet time for repentance.''

(Second Clement 8:5) ''After we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will belong to us.'' (In other words, Clement is saying that you must make the decision to believe in Christ while you are alive on this earth.)

Justin Martyr (First Apology 12 [150 A.D]) ''No more is it possible for the evil doer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of Fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments.''

Justin Martyr (First Apology of Justin, Chap. VIII [150 A.D.]) ''And we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment, and not only as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. And if anyone say that this is incredible or impossible, this error of ours is one which concerns ourselves only, and no other person, so long as you cannot convict us of any harm.'' (Justin is clear in stating that the punishment is eternal and not for a temporary amount of time.)

Justin Martyr (First Apology of Justin, Chap. XXVIII [150 A.D.]) ''For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold.''

Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies, 4:28:2 [189 A.D]) ''The penalty increases for those who do not believe the word of God and despise his coming. It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomever the Lor shall say,'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,'' they will be damned forever.'' (Notice the reference to Matthew 25:41)

The previous cited from http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/818386-early-church-fathers-did-not-believe.html

And I fully agree with your last comment about justice.

[BaalChatzaf]

Here’s mine. Do you have enough faith to believe in the eternality of matter in spite of recent scientific discoveries?

I'm not a 'faith' type. What recent scientfic discoveries do you have in mind as alleged evidence of matter not being eternal?

What is "alleged" It has been established experimentally that neutrons not in nucleuses decompose. It has also been established experimentally that electrons and positrons turn into energy when they come into contact.

The experiments carry more weight that philosophical suppositions.

Facts rule and Theories (sometimes) serve.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[PDS]

Your friend has been blogging for 4 months. This thread has been going on for since May 2009. No offense, but your friend is not exactly breaking new ground with his insights, and, so far at least, he has not delivered on the promise of reconciling Rand and Christ, unless coming off as more curmudgeonly than Rand circa 1952 on the subject of gay marriage is his idea of such reconciliation.

Until your friend is willing to write a "blog" reconciling the concept of everlasting torment for non-believers with the Objectivist concept of justice, to name just one example, it would seem the label vapid should be used rather more sparingly.

Perhaps instead he can write a post on how Christ eliminates the law of identity problem which atheists such as George H. Smith (who has participated in this very thread) have long held to be a major stumbling block to speaking intelligently about God. When he does that, I will be the first to applaud him, rather than making fun of his pictures of Hollywood Jesus.

First, the Hollywood Jesus picture was not his making was meant for only for illustrative purposes.

Christian Egoist is not necessarily trying to "reconcile" Rand and Christianity, but he is trying to show (as one who subscribes to much of what Rand taught) that the two have more on common than what one might think after breaking through the superficialities. His blog is meant more for Christians than it is for Objectivists in that he also views self-sacrifice, altruism, mysticism and postmodernity as ideological opponents and seeks to show why these are also anti-Biblical positions.

It is pointless to discuss topics like resurrection, hell, etc., with an atheist as one need to grasp the concept of God first. But then it breaks down to at what unproved tenets you begin? Eternality of the universe, big-bang, creation? Everyone picks one and hopefully has rational reasons for believing that. I get along well with atheists as we have many other commonalities

I guess my point is whether Objectivism seeks to gain popularity or remain an insular philosophical club? Can it be a big tent? Was atheism the prime tenet of Rand, or was it things like laissez-faire capitalism, small government, individualism, and reason? People of faith are a huge, untapped source for Objectivism. In your face, straw man objections such as those coming from TOS aren't going to help.

I don't agree with you on the pointlessness factor. You assume a top down method of persuasion/argument, and perhaps underestimate how repulsive the Jonathan Edwards description of God actually is to those not singing in the choir.

The Early Church fathers were, by and large, Universalists, i.e., they believed that Christ died for everybody, not just those who signed onto a dotted line of doctrinal beliefs. Then a couple of generations of organized Church types got involved and won the "interpretation" narrative, to use MSK's lens for looking at social issues. Coincidentally, that narrative helped them control people and build an organization that has lasted 1500 years. Why Christians find it alarming that God would save everybody, as opposed to some, is beyond my ability to comprehend. It is almost as though they would be upset if God dispensed His grace to all.

I actually think "justice" would be among the very best openings in the forest for a person devoted to both Rand and Christ. Nearly everybody has an innate sense of justice, and those who don't are not worth talking to.

To the Christian, it begins with God. It has to begin with God. That’s why an atheist could not appreciate what is probably the most famous sermon ever preached.

I found the blog where you posted about the early church fathers. You should do better research next time.

Here’s what they actually said:

Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2, [110 A.D.]) ''Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him.

Clement of Rome (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D.150]) ''If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest, but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment.''

(Second Clement 8:4) ''So also let us, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil things which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet time for repentance.''

(Second Clement 8:5) ''After we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will belong to us.'' (In other words, Clement is saying that you must make the decision to believe in Christ while you are alive on this earth.)

Justin Martyr (First Apology 12 [150 A.D]) ''No more is it possible for the evil doer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of Fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments.''

Justin Martyr (First Apology of Justin, Chap. VIII [150 A.D.]) ''And we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment, and not only as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. And if anyone say that this is incredible or impossible, this error of ours is one which concerns ourselves only, and no other person, so long as you cannot convict us of any harm.'' (Justin is clear in stating that the punishment is eternal and not for a temporary amount of time.)

Justin Martyr (First Apology of Justin, Chap. XXVIII [150 A.D.]) ''For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold.''

Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies, 4:28:2 [189 A.D]) ''The penalty increases for those who do not believe the word of God and despise his coming. It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomever the Lor shall say,'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,'' they will be damned forever.'' (Notice the reference to Matthew 25:41)

The previous cited from http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/818386-early-church-fathers-did-not-believe.html

And I fully agree with your last comment about justice.

Mike:

Did you even think about what I said, or did you simply google yourself some sources to support your preconceived notions? If not the latter, why, for instance, did you leave out the views of Origen and Clement of Alexandria? I'm really not interested in rehashing arguments 101 and 201 from the Christian Debate Playbook. There are probably other threads, even here on OL, for that.

That said, your enthusiasm for the eternal torment of some souls and not others is truly contagious. Next time, throw in some Tertullian and we will really whip the crowds into shape: "At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness…" Not exactly turning the other cheek, is it? When I think of Orthodox Christian view of justice, one of the first thoughts that comes to mind is the image of dear ole' Granny roasting in hell for the next 50,000+ years because she wasn't able to muster enough "faith" to sign onto the doctrines found in the NIcene Creed, with Church Father Tertullian cheering on the torments. You might think it a cheap tactic to play the "Grandma card" in this context, but it is not. Everybody has a dead Grandma, but not everybody has the chops to discuss the eternal existence of matter, or why there is something rather than nothing. Jesus didn't raise the issue of quantum mechanics or astrophysics in the Sermon on the Mount. He did, however, describe the Kingdom of Heaven. What does that mean? What did he mean when Jesus said it?

In my opinion (and recalling the title of this thread) this area of dialogue is the challenge that Christians have in trying to speak with (not at) Objectivish-types. I say this not because I am trying to win an argument with you, but from personal experience. Most honest people simply cannot get past the injustice of eternal torment.

So here is the big question: is a belief in universal salvation itself a belief that disqualifies one from salvation?

Bearing in mind the Objectivist virtue of independence and its relation to the virtue of justice, and having discerned that you are very intelligent Christian man who has lived an interesting life, I am looking for your answer to this last question, not your pastor's or Jonathan Edward's.

No googling or consulting of the Playbook allowed.

[Xray]

To the Christian, it begins with God. It has to begin with God.

But wouldn't the possibility of a common ground between Christianity and Objectivism already end here for an Objectivist?

For isn't the Christian premise "It has to begin with God" diametrically opposed to Objectivism's rejecting as irrational the belief in a god?

[Xray]

It has been established experimentally that neutrons not in nucleuses decompose. It has also been established experimentally that electrons and positrons turn into energy when they come into contact.

The experiments carry more weight that philosophical suppositions.

Facts rule and Theories (sometimes) serve.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Matter can be transformed into energy - what is your point?

[anthony]

Please appreciate that the unbreachable obstacle to any sort of cross-over between Christians and Objectivism is not only the metaphysical conflict of existence/non-existence of God, but epistemological, psycho-epistemological and moral. There just can't be any authority over the O'ist egoist's mind (not even Rand herself, ultimately) simply because only his mind can select and integrate its own content. Here is a critical distinction: he not only *won't* accept any authority, he *can't*. It's a cognitive impossibility, a

self-contradiction.

Your comment indicates that you do not understand Christianity, but have accepted a false interpretation foisted upon O’ism.

Yeah, got to admit 6 years of C of E boarding school didn't improve my understanding.

(Not sure I recall, but I don't think I ever did pass Divinity exams.)

"Foisted"? No, you aren't getting my point. O'ists don't take anything as assumed (even

Objectivism.)

Anyhow, this God who is not an absolute authority over man's mind and soul, I certainly

don't understand. What have I misinterpreted?

[Mike82ARP]

@PDS

"Did you even think about what I said, or did you simply google yourself some sources to support your preconceived notions?"

I have no preconceived notions. My conclusions are based on 27 years of reading the BIble, studying theology and attending classes from seminary professors.

"If not the latter, why, for instance, did you leave out the views of Origen and Clement of Alexandria? I'm really not interested in rehashing arguments 101 and 201 from the Christian Debate Playbook."

Here is what Rand describes as the “stolen concept”. Right? Anyway, why do you choose only those who ideas support yours? The early father were at a major disadvantage since the canon of scripture had not been assembled. Their incomplete theologies are interesting, but not authoritative in any church that I’m familiar with.

"That said, your enthusiasm for the eternal torment of some souls and not others is truly contagious."

Where pray tell did I express enthusiasm" for eternal torment? The reality of hell is clear in Scripture. It doesn’t matter whether I like it or not. It’s there...Deal with it... or choose not to.

"Most honest people simply cannot get past the injustice of eternal torment.”

“Honest people”? “Injustice”? Based on who or what?

"So here is the big question: is a belief in universal salvation itself a belief that disqualifies one from salvation?”

Ahem... no. Were did you get that idea?

[Mike82ARP]

To the Christian, it begins with God. It has to begin with God.

But wouldn't the possibility of a common ground between Christianity and Objectivism already end here for an Objectivist?

For isn't the Christian premise "It has to begin with God" diametrically opposed to Objectivism's rejecting as irrational the belief in a god?

Common ground: Laissez faire capitalism, reason, limited government, individualism, rational self interest.

[Mike82ARP]

Please appreciate that the unbreachable obstacle to any sort of cross-over between Christians and Objectivism is not only the metaphysical conflict of existence/non-existence of God, but epistemological, psycho-epistemological and moral. There just can't be any authority over the O'ist egoist's mind (not even Rand herself, ultimately) simply because only his mind can select and integrate its own content. Here is a critical distinction: he not only *won't* accept any authority, he *can't*. It's a cognitive impossibility, a

self-contradiction.

Your comment indicates that you do not understand Christianity, but have accepted a false interpretation foisted upon O’ism.

Yeah, got to admit 6 years of C of E boarding school didn't improve my understanding.

(Not sure I recall, but I don't think I ever did pass Divinity exams.)

"Foisted"? No, you aren't getting my point. O'ists don't take anything as assumed (even

Objectivism. )

Anyhow, this God who is not an absolute authority over man's mind and soul, I certainly

don't understand. What have I misinterpreted?

This is what I was referring to. You wrote, "There just can't be any authority over the O'ist egoist's mind (not even Rand herself, ultimately) simply because only his mind can select and integrate its own content."

This seems to imply that God has authority over our minds. Was I mistaken?

[Xray]

To the Christian, it begins with God. It has to begin with God.

But wouldn't the possibility of a common ground between Christianity and Objectivism already end here for an Objectivist?

For isn't the Christian premise "It has to begin with God" diametrically opposed to Objectivism's rejecting as irrational the belief in a god?

Common ground: Laissez faire capitalism, reason, limited government, individualism, rational self interest.

But doesn't the Objecivist philosophy reject the belief in a god as irrational, i. e. as 'anti-reason'? That would eliminate 'reason' as common ground.

Also, I don't quite see why being a Christian would imply an endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism (?).

I know quite a few Christians who think of laissez-faire capitalism as detrimental.

[tmj]

And as to limited government , Jesus' statement about 'render to Cesaer that which is.." hasn't that idea been used to demonstrate that there are to be rulers of men as part of God's plan for life on earth. What xtian principles are there to limit that authority?

[Mike82ARP]

To the Christian, it begins with God. It has to begin with God.

But wouldn't the possibility of a common ground between Christianity and Objectivism already end here for an Objectivist?

For isn't the Christian premise "It has to begin with God" diametrically opposed to Objectivism's rejecting as irrational the belief in a god?

Common ground: Laissez faire capitalism, reason, limited government, individualism, rational self interest.

But doesn't the Objecivist philosophy reject the belief in a god as irrational, i. e. as 'anti-reason'? That would eliminate 'reason' as common ground.

Also, I don't quite see why being a Christian would imply an endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism (?).

I know quite a few Christians who think of laissez-faire capitalism as detrimental.

1. Belief in God is not irrational. It may not fit into a materialistic worldview, but it is not irrational.

2. Why would a Christian not support laissez faire capitalism? I’m sure some Christians who subscribe to altruism (which is unbiblical in my opinion) might believe that. Have you ever asked what is the basis for that belief from a Biblical perspective? I’d love to hear their answers.

[Mike82ARP]

And as to limited government , Jesus' statement about 'render to Cesaer that which is.." hasn't that idea been used to demonstrate that there are to be rulers of men as part of God's plan for life on earth. What xtian principles are there to limit that authority?

That’s a good question. First, look at the context of this.

Mk 12:13 "And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.14And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,^c but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius^d and let me look at it.”16And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him."

So we see that this is a specious question and was an attempt to depict Jesus as either an enemy of the state or an enemy of the temple. He gave a rather ingenious answer.

He meant that we are subject to pay taxes to the ruling authorities, but we owe no religious allegiance to them.

Christian principles would not allow one to sin if the state were to demand that.

Romans 13 also provides information on the role of the government.

[tmj]

And as to limited government , Jesus' statement about 'render to Cesaer that which is.." hasn't that idea been used to demonstrate that there are to be rulers of men as part of God's plan for life on earth. What xtian principles are there to limit that authority?

That’s a good question. First, look at the context of this.

Mk 12:13 "And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.14And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,^c but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius^d and let me look at it.”16And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him."

So we see that this is a specious question and was an attempt to depict Jesus as either an enemy of the state or an enemy of the temple. He gave a rather ingenious answer.

He meant that we are subject to pay taxes to the ruling authorities, but we owe no religious allegiance to them.

Christian principles would not allow one to sin if the state were to demand that.

Romans 13 also provides information on the role of the government.

Romans 13

New International Version (NIV)

Submission to Governing Authorities

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

This is the part I was speaking to, I had the wrong quote in mind about the coin in the temple(which was a really good answer contextually imo). There is nothing in the above passage that allows men to use reason to question authority. God's servants are his , they know what is right do not question, obey, is what I get from that. Am I misapprehending the meaning of the passage? I do not see any limiting of the authority over men by reason.

[Mike82ARP]

@tmj "This is the part I was speaking to, I had the wrong quote in mind about the coin in the temple(which was a really good answer contextually imo). There is nothing in the above passage that allows men to use reason to question authority. God's servants are his , they know what is right do not question, obey, is what I get from that. Am I misapprehending the meaning of the passage? I do not see any limiting of the authority over men by reason. "

I’m note sure where you’re coming from when you ask about reason being used. How is man able to determine what action to take without using his reasoning ability?

In Acts 17 and 18 there are numerous references to Paul “reasoning with the Jews and Greeks at the Synagogue”. He also goes to Athens where at the Aeropagus, he reasons with the philosophers for days, even quoting the philosophers, Epimenides and Aratus during his discussion. Paul was the best student of the renown Jewish Pharisee, Gamaliel.

Blind obedience or gullibility is not commended. In fact, skepticism is what is commended. In Acts 17:11 it states, "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

So it seems to me that reason is being used in Paul's exhortation to “do what is right” in light of the edicts of the authorities. Or, if you already know something is right, do you have to use reason to decide to do what is right?

[BaalChatzaf]

. Paul was the best student of the renown Jewish Pharisee, Gamaliel.

Any orthodox Jew would tell you that Paul was an -apakoros- and a total flunk out from the Yeshiva.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike82ARP]

. Paul was the best student of the renown Jewish Pharisee, Gamaliel.

Any orthodox Jew would tell you that Paul as -apakoros- and a total flunk out from the Yeshiva.

Ba'al Chatzaf

LOL!!!

[tmj]

@tmj "This is the part I was speaking to, I had the wrong quote in mind about the coin in the temple(which was a really good answer contextually imo). There is nothing in the above passage that allows men to use reason to question authority. God's servants are his , they know what is right do not question, obey, is what I get from that. Am I misapprehending the meaning of the passage? I do not see any limiting of the authority over men by reason. "

I’m note sure where you’re coming from when you ask about reason being used. How is man able to determine what action to take without using his reasoning ability?

In Acts 17 and 18 there are numerous references to Paul “reasoning with the Jews and Greeks at the Synagogue”. He also goes to Athens where at the Aeropagus, he reasons with the philosophers for days, even quoting the philosophers, Epimenides and Aratus during his discussion. Paul was the best student of the renown Jewish Pharisee, Gamaliel.

Blind obedience or gullibility is not commended. In fact, skepticism is what is commended. In Acts 17:11 it states, "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

So it seems to me that reason is being used in Paul's exhortation to “do what is right” in light of the edicts of the authorities. Or, if you already know something is right, do you have to use reason to decide to do what is right?

The test of the veracity of what he told them , was to check the scriptures, they turned to an argument from authority.

Perhaps an overly simplified version of my understanding of xtainity is : god told the jews how to live (the commandments, convenant) and they were punished if they failed to heed, Christ came and taught that there was a different way to heed the word( as example casting of stones) I do not see how either position adherence to the old testament and /or acceptance of the new , is anything other deferring to the principle of an argument from authority. To me the moral system is given and one either follows it or face the consequenes, how or when do 'modern' xtians incorporate reason with morality(regardless if some principles may coincide with principles that can be reached exclusively by mans reason)?

How can reason be common ground, if it isn't fundamental in one worldview but is in the other?

[PDS]

@PDS

"Did you even think about what I said, or did you simply google yourself some sources to support your preconceived notions?"

I have no preconceived notions. My conclusions are based on 27 years of reading the BIble, studying theology and attending classes from seminary professors.

"If not the latter, why, for instance, did you leave out the views of Origen and Clement of Alexandria? I'm really not interested in rehashing arguments 101 and 201 from the Christian Debate Playbook."

Here is what Rand describes as the “stolen concept”. Right? Anyway, why do you choose only those who ideas support yours? The early father were at a major disadvantage since the canon of scripture had not been assembled. Their incomplete theologies are interesting, but not authoritative in any church that I’m familiar with.

"That said, your enthusiasm for the eternal torment of some souls and not others is truly contagious."

Where pray tell did I express enthusiasm" for eternal torment? The reality of hell is clear in Scripture. It doesn’t matter whether I like it or not. It’s there...Deal with it... or choose not to.

"Most honest people simply cannot get past the injustice of eternal torment.”

“Honest people”? “Injustice”? Based on who or what?

"So here is the big question: is a belief in universal salvation itself a belief that disqualifies one from salvation?”

Ahem... no. Were did you get that idea?

Regarding the last question, I did not mean infer by the question that this was necessarily your position.

By honest people, i mean people who have the courage of their convictions. If Christians actually believed in the hell most of them profess to believe in, they would be leading very different lives. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the average Christian actually believed that Granny was going to roast in hell, then they would spend a lot less time on say, hydroponic gardening, and more on evangelical outreach.

Do you really have confusion about what I mean by injustice? If so, I mean this: it would not be just for God to predestine some to be saved, and others not to be, and then punish the latter eternally. That's as simple as I can state it.

Perhaps God is more loving than you think He is. Perhaps He is more just than you think He is too.

[caroljane]

The reality of hell is in Scripture, yes, but so is almost everything else, and I don't know about modern theology (or ancient theology come to that). But I have heard a few sermons on it and in Anglicanism at least, my impression is that the kingdom of hell, like the kingdom of heaven, is within us.

[Mike82ARP]

I view reason as an epistemological tool of the mind rather than a metaphysical concept. Am I wrong on this??

Given that reason is a tool, one would use reason to evaluate something. In the case of The Bereans, they used reason in assessing Paul's teaching against a reasonable authority (about 1300 years of meticulously preserved written history).

Do you have any authority you ultimately come to face? And how did you conclude that reason fundamental? Did you use reason to assess reason as primary?

Matybe two questions here. Sorry.

[Mike82ARP]

The reality of hell is in Scripture, yes, but so is almost everything else, and I don't know about modern theology (or ancient theology come to that). But I have heard a few sermons on it and in Anglicanism at least, my impression is that the kingdom of hell, like the kingdom of heaven, is within us.

If a Christian said to me what you wrote "that the kingdom of hell, like the kingdom of heaven, is within us”, I would consider that person a “mystical, new age” Christian.

[tmj]

I view reason as an epistemological tool of the mind rather than a metaphysical concept. Am I wrong on this??

Given that reason is a tool, one would use reason to evaluate something. In the case of The Bereans, they used reason in assessing Paul's teaching against a reasonable authority (about 1300 years of meticulously preserved written history).

Do you have any authority you ultimately come to face? And how did you conclude that reason fundamental? Did you use reason to assess reason as primary?

Matybe two questions here. Sorry.

I see reason as a faculty and pretty much synonymous with mind, so in this sense it could be metaphysical. I see logic as more the epistemologic tool. Reason is the means by which we gain knowledge of reality. The authority or arbiter of 'truth' is reality, not sure what you mean by ultimately in this context. I (we) face the arbiter of truth constantly, we are never out of its 'sphere of influence'. We are never outside of reality. To remain in conceptual awareness of reality, one must use reason constantly , to think means to use the faculty of reason , what things or actions can we do without using reason?

[Mike82ARP]

@PDS

"Did you even think about what I said, or did you simply google yourself some sources to support your preconceived notions?"

I have no preconceived notions. My conclusions are based on 27 years of reading the BIble, studying theology and attending classes from seminary professors.

"If not the latter, why, for instance, did you leave out the views of Origen and Clement of Alexandria? I'm really not interested in rehashing arguments 101 and 201 from the Christian Debate Playbook."

Here is what Rand describes as the “stolen concept”. Right? Anyway, why do you choose only those who ideas support yours? The early father were at a major disadvantage since the canon of scripture had not been assembled. Their incomplete theologies are interesting, but not authoritative in any church that I’m familiar with.

"That said, your enthusiasm for the eternal torment of some souls and not others is truly contagious."

Where pray tell did I express enthusiasm" for eternal torment? The reality of hell is clear in Scripture. It doesn’t matter whether I like it or not. It’s there...Deal with it... or choose not to.

"Most honest people simply cannot get past the injustice of eternal torment.”

“Honest people”? “Injustice”? Based on who or what?

"So here is the big question: is a belief in universal salvation itself a belief that disqualifies one from salvation?”

Ahem... no. Were did you get that idea?

Regarding the last question, I did not mean infer by the question that this was necessarily your position.

By honest people, i mean people who have the courage of their convictions. If Christians actually believed in the hell most of them profess to believe in, they would be leading very different lives. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the average Christian actually believed that Granny was going to roast in hell, then they would spend a lot less time on say, hydroponic gardening, and more on evangelical outreach.

Do you really have confusion about what I mean by injustice? If so, I mean this: it would not be just for God to predestine some to be saved, and others not to be, and then punish the latter eternally. That's as simple as I can state it.

Perhaps God is more loving than you think He is. Perhaps He is more just than you think He is too.

"By honest people, i mean people who have the courage of their convictions. If Christians actually believed in the hell most of them profess to believe in, they would be leading very different lives."

That’s a pretty observant comment. By Christians”, do you mean some, many, most, or all? I’d say “many" from my perspective. Whether they actually are Christians is another story. Claiming to be one doesn’t necessarily mean you are one. Many people get caught up in the emotionality of a sermon or tent meeting, but a few months later are back to their previous lives.

"Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the average Christian actually believed that Granny was going to roast in hell, then they would spend a lot less time on say, hydroponic gardening, and more on evangelical outreach."

You don’t know how much time I spend utilizing by gifts, do you? Not all are called or have the skills for evangelism. There’s a passage in Ephesians which notes we are parts of the body, each with a different purpose. Most folks in my church walk the walk. I can’t say that is true for everyone.

"Do you really have confusion about what I mean by injustice? If so, I mean this: it would not be just for God to predestine some to be saved, and others not to be, and then punish the latter eternally. That's as simple as I can state it."

Your objection is dealt with in many places in the Bible. The potter and the clay analogy is frequently used. Does the clay have the right to complain to the potter, “Why did you make me this way?”

Your final comment about predestination. It seems you at least have it figured out. The simplest way I would put it is, people go to hell not for not believing, but for being sinners. If one never sins, he has no need for Jesus.

Would I have done it this way? Probably not, but I’m not God.