# My friend, the fundie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2001, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923 "2001-03-14T08:09:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/61 "2001-03-20T06:23:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pariah \* > this is intriguing to me, and does not detract from the integrity of your statements—merely puzzles me. I’ve always considered myself more apostate than anathema, but, yeah – it is a lousy situation. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If there is one truth, two people who disagree about it can not both be right, can they? > > But you are not simply disagreeing with one person. You are defending a decidedly Catholic position regarding salvific qualifications and/or misconceptions while pointing a finger at an entire body of people which **you** label as Protestant, Fundamentalist, incorrect, etc. because they don’t agree with _you._ Yet these labels do exist, and must therefore have a meaning. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m debating with two Protestant Apologeticists. > > I made no mention of Protestant or otherwise. You want to pin it on me based upon the Catholic church’s label, I cannot stop you. :rolleyes: Do you go to church on Sunday or not? If so, which one? Is it perhaps a Protestant church? > [@](#): > > The dichotomy lies between man’s cry for aid in his _unbelief_ juxtaposed against God’s promise ‘whoever believes shall not perish.’ Why is that so hard to understand? A dichotomy is “a division… into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities.” I don’t understand what this gentleman’s belief that Jesus can heal his son, though he remains incredulous that it can be done has to do with anything – > [@](#): > > You keep throwing ‘original sin’ in there—I’m talking about man’s difficulty in having the simple faith to believe in the veracity of Christ and his promises… Same thing. > [@](#): > > …when belief is all that is required—_belief_ as I have already clarified above, the _action verb_ which **inspires** trust, obedience and continued faith. But if it fails to inspire trust, obedience, and continued faith, can it not be properly called a false belief, and as such not meriting salvation? > [@](#): > > Men **are** too weak to overcome **disbelief** _by themselves_. Agreed. > [@](#): > > Even in the secular world, one cannot simply go from disbelief to belief unless there exists a change in the paradigm, usually through _new evidence._ Drawing THAT conclusion from this verse—far fetched? The man ASKS for HELP. And, taken in context, the culmination of this passage is a confused disciple saying ‘Um, why couldn’t we cast this demon out?’ And Jesus states, ‘This kind can only come out by prayer.’ But what you originally said was: > [@](#): > > Wonder if God knew how _weak_ we were before he sacrificed Himself for us… > > Wonder if the man’s request, “Help me to overcome my unbelief” was honored as a confession of the fallibility of man, and thus attended to by a God Who promised “They will call to me, and I will answer them, and I will be their God.” This implies that man is somehow forgiven for his weaknesses automatically, without the need for true repentance. Which is, apparently, a Protestant belief. Or, they do believe repentance is required, but believe repentance only involves feeling guilty for doing wrong without ever ceasing to do that which is wrong, never turning to be healed, never obeying Jesus’s commandments. But if my prejudices have caused me to misunderstand what your “dichotomy” was meant to imply, I apologize. If you mean instead that man needs God’s help for this transformation to take place, then I agree. But I believe this help is equally accessable to all. > [@](#): > > Man must believe in God . Man cannot believe in God without God’s help. In order for man to ask God for help, He must be open to the possibility of God. If man does not believe in God, how can he ask for help? Why do you presume God will not help you unless you ask? The simple answer to your “dichotomy” is God is not lazily sitting on his rear waiting for you to cry out to him. God is proactive. > [@](#): > > Ask a Catholic—‘Is belief required? Can man believe without God’s help?’ By your definition, I’ll wager you receive a ‘Protestant’ answer. But, perhaps, without the added twist. > [@](#): > > how do you interpret my statement to mean ‘there are no false teachers? These groups you listed teach different paths to salvation. If you draw no distinction among them, how can you possibly discern the narrow way? > [@](#): > > I am talking about denominations. Not false teachers. I do not, when I meet a believer in Christ, say ‘Oh—what denomination are you?’ If you are not wary of false teachers, you are not keeping Jesus’s commandment to “beware of false teachers.” > [@](#): > > I _acknowledge the believer, and I weigh his/her offerings by his actions, by his words, in accord with the teachings of the word and the prompting of the Holy Spirit, whom I trust_ Good idea. > [@](#): > > I judge him by his ‘fruits,’ (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control)—‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ No, no, no. The fruits are their obedience to Jesus’s commandments. The fruits of repentance – whether they are a good tree or a bad tree. > [@](#): > > If their teachings are false, I will know. I trust the Holy Spirit to lead me to test their words against scripture, that which I believe is the measuring rod by which I am to weigh the actions of one who calls themselves ‘Christian.’ But if you do not keep Jesus’s commandments, you don’t have the holy spirit, and it can not guide you. That is why people need God’s help to know what his commandments are, so they might obey them, and then have the holy spirit. Then they can get on with discernment. Don’t put the cart before the horse. > [@](#): > > Your conclusion leads me to believe that you would define a Christian by the denomination of his church—which would be not only unfair, but unscriptural. I believe their are false teachers, false Christs, and false churches – a “church” merely being the group of people lead astray by any of the above. The Scriptures speak of all these things. Simply becase there are false Christs does not mean Christ is divided. > [@](#): > > Another incorrect inference with little relevancy or basis, other than ‘Since he doesn’t acknowledge denominations, he must not care about the truth.’ Though I appreciate there are some denominations are legion but teach the same thing, in so much as different denominations teach different Christs, only one of which can be the true Christ and the rest false, I believe that only one denomination teaches the truth. That doesn’t mean I don’t look at individuals – but someone who doesn’t keep the teachings of a Church are not properly members of that Church (in full commmunion with that Church to borrow a phrase from the Catholics.) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So, you follow his teachings? > > …yes. **Which ones?** And don’t just start in with the summary of the law, as you have said you can not ignore the rest. I don’t mean to give you the 3rd degree, but on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog, ya know? > [@](#): > > I said: > \*I am a follower of Jesus Christ, as much as I am able to be. \* > > > [@](#): > > > > As you are able? Has the Lord put a stumbling stone in your path? What do you mean by this caveat? > > I mean _with all my strength._ Sometimes, however, I am weak. Self-deprecation. Insecurity. Frustration. Common human foibles which distract me from trusting in my Lord for my providence, thus robbing me of peace. In these times, I am still a follower of Christ, but I am not as faithful as I could be, not relying upon him, but upon myself. I understand. > [@](#): > > If you love your Dad, and he tells you to be home by midnight, and you come home at one, do you now cease to love him? Hard to say. I such an offense mortal (Dad kicks you out) or venial (Dad stops talking to you for a while, but if you are the perfect son for a time all is forgiven)? > [@](#): > > To assert that ‘When I sin, I do not love God’ is a bit unrealistic. It depends on the sin. > [@](#): > > This does not mean I do not love God. It means I make mistakes and am accountable for them. But at the end of the day, are you knocking on the door to be let in, and is God saying that he does not know you? > [@](#): > > Sometimes, I want control over my life, rather than denying myself that which is going to give me a brief thrill, or a temporary feeling of power. Sometimes I hate surrendering my will, because I’m a very willful person. It is difficult to give yourself over to the Holy Spirit. > [@](#): > > if you ignore the rest of his teachings which explain what must be done in order to love God and neighbor, and call the two most important commandments a “summary” in order to do so, that is quite dangerous. Then these two commandments become merely empty platitudes. Again—where did I say ‘Ignore the rest?’ Where did I even give this _impression?_ [/quote] Silence can speak volumes. > [@](#): > > Take it at face value And assume everyone that comes to me in sheep’s clothing is a sheep? You can not blame me for being cautious. > [@](#): > > This is a _summary._ No, these are the two greatest commandments, from which the rest hang. Just as the text says. > [@](#): > > Good thing I don’t blindly adhere to empty platitudes. I should hope not. > [@](#): > > Romans 14 speaks of traditions and the condemnation of those _believers_ who worship differently, but continue abiding in Christ—_traditions_ is what we’re speaking of here. we? If we can agree that those who abide in Christ are those same who keep his commandments, then we can agree. Then I hope we can also agree there are those who teach falsely and do not keep his commandments nor abide in Christ. That is what I am speaking of. > [@](#): > > Reliance upon the dogmatism of a church **can** be devastating. … _If I merely follow dogmatism blindly,_ I am ignorant. I do not have a _relationship_ with Christ through second-hand convictions. Merely going through the motions does not grant me enlightenment of purpose—_which YOU affirmed earlier._ Going through the motions does grant you enlightenment. If you keep Jesus’s commandments, he will send the Holy Spirit to you, and he will teach you all things. But then the problem is, especially for those who listen to false teachers, is they may believe they keep the commandments and thus think that they have the Holy Spirit when they do not. All they have really done is hardened their hearts. > [@](#): > > Teaching people to be _imitators_ rather than encouraging them to become _believers_ is heinous. Unless, you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who has spoken through the prophets. Who, to answer your question, I believe exists. I am a deist in the triune tradition. > [@](#): > > Do we agree in a triune God, **jmullaney**? If so, you do agree that Christ the man was not the totality of God, but the personhood of God—who, in his time on earth, prayed to God the Father, not praying to himself, or to the Holy Spirit? Er, I guess so. > [@](#): > > The _personhood_ of God, Jesus Christ was separated from God the Father. And it is absolutely scriptural. […] > > > [@](#): > > > > “About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”–which means, “My God, my God, why have you **forsaken** me?” Jesus was singing a song. This is Psalm 22. The gospels do not agree on what Jesus’s final words were – the accounts given by the Roman soldiers who crucified him differ. Has it occured to you that the same people who crucified him may have been lying, but their lie bit them back as it were? > [@](#): > > But God did _not_ kill his son. ‘Death had no hold over him.’ He gave him over to sin, allowing that separation to occur, _knowing full well he would not remain separated from him._ Death had no hold over him, hence he was not given over to sin. Jesus never acted against God. > [@](#): > > Hardly heresy. A bit of a stretch – though, considering no one has any idea what his final words were, or what song he was singing when he gave up the ghost, or whether he was at the beginning or end of Psalm 22. > [@](#): > > Why did Christ ask that the cup be taken from him, if no fear of separation? He knew he’d live again. He knew God’s will was good—after all, you said it yourself, he was God. I do not believe Jesus had psychic powers. I don’t believe he knew the future – that he would be resurrected – in a way that occludes his example of faith. As such, he did not know whether his mission was completed in God’s eyes, so only wished that God’s will be done. > [@](#): > > Jesus took on the sins of humanity. In this context, I don’t agree with that statement. > [@](#): > > God, the Father, can have no part of sin. Nor can God, the Son, nor can God, the Spirit. > [@](#): > > God is without sin.[ Exactly. > [@](#): > > “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” \* 2 Cor. 5:21\* Which can just as easily be translated as: “God made him who had no sin to be a sin offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” \* 2 Cor. 5:21\*” To quote a [commentary](http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/comm_read/985096263.html) to back me up: > [@](#): > > Jesus was treated by the Father as if He were a sinner on the cross; but sin was extrinsic to Jesus, not intrinsic (as it is with us). It is important to notice that Christ was made sin, not a sinner; because even His becoming sin was a righteous act of love But I’m not sure I entirely agree with this either. > [@](#): > > Christ became that perfect lamb, taking on the sin of the world—but in order to do so, he needed to _experience_ that sin He certaintly experienced the sins of the world with every whip, insult, thorn, and nail. > [@](#): > > If he were to simply abolish sin without taking it upon himself, there would be no need for sacrifice! Jesus did not “abolish sin.” People still sin. According to Jesus, the purpose of his sacrifice was to show that he loved the Father. > [@](#): > > He took on the sin, and in doing so God the Son, became, in those moments, separated from God the Father. He was an offering for sin. Can we agree on that? > [@](#): > > I have already sufficiently refuted your assertion that my heretical ‘theory’ has **no** scriptural basis. There’s plenty. The basis for this idea is weak, and the verses you cited are open to interpretation. > [@](#): > > I don’t know your past, but I perceive your wariness—and it is entirely valid in a time when some of the worst grievances to Christianity lies not on liberal message boards, but within the very church who would call itself ‘Christian.’ Thanks for understanding. **RE: ADDENDUM** Yes, those basics are very nice. But they leave completely undefined what sin is, what repentance is, what belief means, etc. It makes no mention of Jesus’s commandments. As such, it sounds good but it is devoid of meaning. Great for ecumenism, of course (excepting Catholics and Orthodox and Free Spirits do not regard the scriptures as a sole authority!!) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923.md?page=3)