FA+
Shop
† Love Is Not Tolerant, God Is Love †
12 years ago
General
Take no one at their word, but test everything against what you know to be true: the Bible. Be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11).
Did you hear what the pope said? Perhaps it's old news at this point, but before it's too far gone from recent memory, I wanted to address Pope Francis' recent comments that challenge the way Catholics approach evangelism. Now I'm not Catholic, but that doesn't make me anti-Catholic, and I think there's truth in what the pope said that any Christian should appreciate, regardless of denomination. To paraphrase, he said that the church should be less focused on condemnation of sins and more focused on the proclamation of salvation through Christ. I agree... but don't lose the context. With this statement, liberal-leaning American news outlets had a field day, distorting the pope's message into one of unprecedented tolerance. That's not what he said. I don't mean to belabor the point - you can find transcripts of what he actually said online - but suffice it to say, he isn't leading an assault on the moral authority of Scripture. His point was rooted in the Biblical understanding that God's primary charge to us was to spread His love, through the message of salvation by His Son (1 Peter 3:15, Romans 10:14-17, etc.). But choosing not to harass someone about their sins isn't the same thing as accepting it. We have all sinned, making us unfit to judge (John 8:7), but the purpose of Scripture is to serve as an objective point of reproof for how we ought to live. It's the way that God, the only fit judge, communicates to us what is acceptable and what is not.
"Tolerance" is not in my vocabulary... and it shouldn't be in yours. "Mercy" is. What's the difference? "Tolerance" is an attitude; "mercy" is a gift. God is not tolerant. Ask Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), Nineveh (Jonah), or anyone living in Noah's time (Genesis 7). If God could tolerate sin, then its penalty wouldn't have been eternal separation from Him and Jesus would have died in vain (Romans 6:23). It's a statement on the magnitude of His love that He has chosen to show us such lasting mercy, and it's a disservice to His work on the cross to preach this doctrine of tolerance. I can't count the number of times I've heard or read someone say "I love God but..." or "I know God loves me even though..." Statements like these indicate a profound lack of perspective and understanding. First of all, there ought to be nothing that causes us to say "but" in terms of our commitment to holiness. Anything you're unwilling to give up for God, is your god (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13 [same speech], Revelation 3:15-16, 1 Kings 18:21, etc.). Last I checked, your money / your hobby / your worldly relationship didn't make a legitimate claim to promising you eternal salvation, so if any of these things are keeping you from submitting wholly to God, for your own sake, I encourage you to reevaluate your priorities.
Secondly, a statement like this proves just how poorly we understand the meaning of the word "love." It's an ambiguous term in English, but when we say that we "love" something, we usually mean that we have some sort of special affection for it. That level of affection varies significantly depending on the object of affection; that is to say we "love" our family in a very different sense from how we "love" a television program. Our definition of "love" is meaningless in terms of holiness. Harsh words, I know, but understanding the difference is crucial. I can give mental ascent to the Word of God, I can even preach it, without truly "loving" it (Matthew 7:21-23). Our understanding of what it means to "love" God needs to come from how He defines it, not how it suits us to express it. God says "if you love [Him], you will keep [His] commands" (John 14:15, 1 John 2:4). This is not a conditional statement. He doesn't say "the more commands you keep, the more you love me." He sees it as you either love Him or you don't; you'll obey Him, or you won't (James 2:10-11). When we willfully disobey God, we're telling Him that we think we know better than He does, or that there is something more important in life than Him. It's tantamount to calling God stupid or a liar, because there's really no other excuse for disobedience.
The problem with the doctrine of tolerance is that there is no objective authority. Christians rely on the word of God for that proverbial line in the sand. Without it, who or what dictates what we ought to tolerate? Public nudity? Bestiality? Murder? With no ultimate authority, morality is subjective. If morality is subjective, then all views are, ipso facto, equally valid, and any attempt to impose 'justice' is hypocritical. Ergo, for morality to exist, there must be a moral absolute. That absolute calls Himself YHVH (Yahweh).
What is our obligation to the unsaved? Understanding the importance of obedience to the believer, many are quick to preach it to the unbeliever. The problem isn't the message, it's the foundation. If you tell someone that E=MC^2, the response you'll likely receive is "so what?" Without foundational understanding of how this equation is applied, or why we ought to care, the knowledge is meaningless. This was the point being made by pope Francis. Preaching doctrine, without first explaining to people why they ought to care, is meaningless. If you don't realize that your sins separate you from God, that Christ was God and that His sacrifice was necessary for your salvation, then what is the Bible to you other than a book of arbitrary rules? Even following those rules, without this foundation, would be ultimately meaningless because we are not saved by the law.
Obedience to God is the proof of our salvation (John 14:21-23, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 5:19-23), not the condition for it (John 3:16, Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8-9). Francis identified that many Christians have their priorities backwards: we first ought to preach salvation, but with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), for worldly adherence to the law makes no difference if your eternity is in Hell. Once saved, however, we ought to be open to reproof and likewise respectfully reprove other believers (Proverbs 27:17), so as to pursue holiness and to better fulfill the role that God has for us in His plan of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10).
May we all be open to such reproof, Lord, never spurning the wisdom or reproof of our brothers and sisters in Christ, especially our elders. And may you keep our priorities straight, so that we may focus on you and not the distractions that Satan has laid for us in this world. For we know that nothing tempts us that is not common to man. There is nothing you are unable to overcome for us. Help us to focus on doing that which is of eternal good, and not laying up treasures on Earth. This we pray in the name of your Son, Jesus the Christ. Amen.
ybiC,
Kal
"Tolerance" is not in my vocabulary... and it shouldn't be in yours. "Mercy" is. What's the difference? "Tolerance" is an attitude; "mercy" is a gift. God is not tolerant. Ask Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), Nineveh (Jonah), or anyone living in Noah's time (Genesis 7). If God could tolerate sin, then its penalty wouldn't have been eternal separation from Him and Jesus would have died in vain (Romans 6:23). It's a statement on the magnitude of His love that He has chosen to show us such lasting mercy, and it's a disservice to His work on the cross to preach this doctrine of tolerance. I can't count the number of times I've heard or read someone say "I love God but..." or "I know God loves me even though..." Statements like these indicate a profound lack of perspective and understanding. First of all, there ought to be nothing that causes us to say "but" in terms of our commitment to holiness. Anything you're unwilling to give up for God, is your god (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13 [same speech], Revelation 3:15-16, 1 Kings 18:21, etc.). Last I checked, your money / your hobby / your worldly relationship didn't make a legitimate claim to promising you eternal salvation, so if any of these things are keeping you from submitting wholly to God, for your own sake, I encourage you to reevaluate your priorities.
Secondly, a statement like this proves just how poorly we understand the meaning of the word "love." It's an ambiguous term in English, but when we say that we "love" something, we usually mean that we have some sort of special affection for it. That level of affection varies significantly depending on the object of affection; that is to say we "love" our family in a very different sense from how we "love" a television program. Our definition of "love" is meaningless in terms of holiness. Harsh words, I know, but understanding the difference is crucial. I can give mental ascent to the Word of God, I can even preach it, without truly "loving" it (Matthew 7:21-23). Our understanding of what it means to "love" God needs to come from how He defines it, not how it suits us to express it. God says "if you love [Him], you will keep [His] commands" (John 14:15, 1 John 2:4). This is not a conditional statement. He doesn't say "the more commands you keep, the more you love me." He sees it as you either love Him or you don't; you'll obey Him, or you won't (James 2:10-11). When we willfully disobey God, we're telling Him that we think we know better than He does, or that there is something more important in life than Him. It's tantamount to calling God stupid or a liar, because there's really no other excuse for disobedience.
The problem with the doctrine of tolerance is that there is no objective authority. Christians rely on the word of God for that proverbial line in the sand. Without it, who or what dictates what we ought to tolerate? Public nudity? Bestiality? Murder? With no ultimate authority, morality is subjective. If morality is subjective, then all views are, ipso facto, equally valid, and any attempt to impose 'justice' is hypocritical. Ergo, for morality to exist, there must be a moral absolute. That absolute calls Himself YHVH (Yahweh).
What is our obligation to the unsaved? Understanding the importance of obedience to the believer, many are quick to preach it to the unbeliever. The problem isn't the message, it's the foundation. If you tell someone that E=MC^2, the response you'll likely receive is "so what?" Without foundational understanding of how this equation is applied, or why we ought to care, the knowledge is meaningless. This was the point being made by pope Francis. Preaching doctrine, without first explaining to people why they ought to care, is meaningless. If you don't realize that your sins separate you from God, that Christ was God and that His sacrifice was necessary for your salvation, then what is the Bible to you other than a book of arbitrary rules? Even following those rules, without this foundation, would be ultimately meaningless because we are not saved by the law.
Obedience to God is the proof of our salvation (John 14:21-23, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 5:19-23), not the condition for it (John 3:16, Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8-9). Francis identified that many Christians have their priorities backwards: we first ought to preach salvation, but with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), for worldly adherence to the law makes no difference if your eternity is in Hell. Once saved, however, we ought to be open to reproof and likewise respectfully reprove other believers (Proverbs 27:17), so as to pursue holiness and to better fulfill the role that God has for us in His plan of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10).
May we all be open to such reproof, Lord, never spurning the wisdom or reproof of our brothers and sisters in Christ, especially our elders. And may you keep our priorities straight, so that we may focus on you and not the distractions that Satan has laid for us in this world. For we know that nothing tempts us that is not common to man. There is nothing you are unable to overcome for us. Help us to focus on doing that which is of eternal good, and not laying up treasures on Earth. This we pray in the name of your Son, Jesus the Christ. Amen.
ybiC,
Kal
I thought this was one of the fairer articles I read for anyone who here who wants to read what Pope Francis said.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20.....PDI/story.html
I agree with the second part about what Francis meant though. So many Catholics (and other Christians for that matter) focus on their "culture war" and try to force the entire world into living like they believe you should, even down to passing laws that dictate their beliefs into the secular world. Yet that does no one's soul a favor (even if we assume they're right about what's a sin) because they aren't encouraging people to truly want to live that way. They're only achieving superficial appearance of devoutness. Not true faith.
Your taking away the absolute fact that God is Judge, and that as Judge he will send people into everlasting punishment for their sins, because sin must be punished and that they rebelled against God.
As far as your second point, you seem to be saying that its wrong for Christians to use God's morals, as the standard at which society should be living at. Example: trying to abolish abortion. Its evil pure and simple. Yet your saying its wrong to "force" people to abide by something they don't believe in.
Romans chapter 13 verse 1-4 where Paul addresses our relationship to civil authorities and God's purpose for civil authorities. In this passage it is so simple and clear yet so easily missed. The bible teaches that the government is given by God for the good of people. Romans 13 states that government is to be a "terror against bad conduct" and approve of good conduct. This is God's design. That is one of the primary if not the primary purpose of government. And that is to protect and promote good of people. The government does this by making and enforcing laws. This means government is given by God for the legislation of morality. Governments are given by God to affirm the good and condemn the bad.
So your reasoning that we shouldn't act through government (legally) to pass laws that punish evil, is flat out ridiculous, and not based on Scripture.
Sleet, both your points are way off base. You need to focus on what Scripture says rather than what you think it aught to say.
That's called arguing.
Then again, I also think that eternal punishment for finite sins by deliberately imperfect creations is also morally objectionable, not to mention repugnant.
When you talk about evil, are you also including homosexuality in there? Because there are far more verses talking about why it's wrong to divorce or why women shouldn't have equal rights to men, and yet you don't see many Christians talking about how evil that is in modern day.
I didn't come here to troll, I'm honestly curious about your thoughts on these matters.
So in reality, I am not forcing anything on anyone because regardless if you agree or not with God's absolute morality, his law/morals stand.
I do however find it interesting that society, which says morals are subjective, can say something is morally objectionable when they have no absolute standard to apply it to.
As far as what is evil, I go by what God has said. As far as your specifics like homosexual behavior, divorce, both are evil. As it is written "I hate divorce"The last one I have no idea where you got that from that woman are not as valuable as men because in the kingdom of God all are equal and free. As it is written "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I assume you might be referencing (and might be taking out of context) a Mosiac Law (which we as Christians are not held to) that was written specifically to the nation of Israel. Society laws were their form of government, written specifically to Israel, not to us.
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21)
Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10)
Here are some things done on American soil in the name of Christianity, the Ku Klux Klan burning down black churches, raped women, murder civil rights workers, murdered children and terrorized communities for over a century. Neonazis all acted and continue to act in the name of white christian supremacy. The Army of God carried out deadly attacks on abortion clinics and doctors across the country, The Covenant, The sword and The arm of the Lord targets local police and federal agents. The Bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma city, the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and the successful assassinations of Martin Luther King, John F.Kennedy, John Lennon and Abraham Lincoln all perpetrated by Christians.
So, no, I do not accept your claim that the bible has a superior morality compared to mine. And what is my morality, you may ask? Simple: whatever doesn't deliberately or through willful ignorance hurt another person, is moral. Where did I get this morality from? Simple as well, I got it from empathy for my fellow human being. I feel that many Christians (not just labeling you, I don't know you and don't wish to judge you) have very little empathy for others and only do good things or avoid doing bad things because they fear eternal punishment for it, not because they actually put themselves into the other person's shoes and figure out why what they're doing would hurt them.
Again, I don't agree with God's "absolute morality" because I am not convinced that the stuff in the Bible came from anyone other than savage desert herders. And it shows, look at the most similar religion to Christianity: Islam. They are also absolutely convinced of Allah's morality and will kill you if you disagree. This is why I'm glad that Christianity has essentially been brought into SECULAR morality in that we have made sure you can no longer kill people for the most finite transgressions.
Also, please don't give me anything about morality being always subjective. First of all, not all atheists believe in that. Second of all, if they do, it's subjective to the person that you're committing an act on, not based on YOUR opinion.
There's a serious problem with God as well. If he's omnipotent, he knows the future. Thus, there can't be any free will if he knows all of your future choices. He also created hell. If he knows your choices and you don't choose him, you're going to hell, according to Christians. Thus, God created many people specifically knowing that they'd be ultimately tortured in hell for eternity. So, creating beings with emotions and then torturing them forever for something you know they will do? That sounds like a broken system to me, more evidence that this backward logic was created by primitive man in the desert who wanted to control their fellow primitive people with fear.
Your religion is one based solely on FEAR. It is the ultimate abusive relationship, a contradictory nightmare of existential dread and suffering with no way out, no enlightenment, no encouragement for improving the world because all stock is put on the unprovable afterlife.
Finally, you're talking about laws that Christians are not held to, so how do you know that homosexuality isn't one of them? You seem to pick and choose a lot of verses that are comfortable to you, but you can't really do that. If the Bible has a lot of stuff in there that you can't agree with, why do you listen to any of it? I have personally found it to make a lot more sense to just essentially chuck out the whole thing.
Please prove that homosexuality is evil without using the bible. The bible is not proof for anything. Also, as a homosexual and a human being, I am rather offended by that attitude that we're somehow broken or incomplete or doing the wrong thing by LOVING another person, just because they're a certain gender. I can definitely prove that the bible talks down against females, take a look at verses like these:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/s.....ns_rights.html (please don't ignore this site just because it's an atheist resource)
Where the problem comes in is that those who do not, how do I say this... "fit the norm"... insist that we TOLERATE them. Well, I tolerate them. I put up with them, I don't harangue them, I just do my thing and pray for them and if they choose to talk to me about it, I try to witness to them and lead them in the Christian direction. That's when we butt heads. That's when they start calling me intolerant. And that's when I realize they meant accepting, not tolerant. They love to use the word tolerance, but what they mean is that they want you to blindly accept them and their choices and give up any prior convictions and feelings to the negative. If you don't, not only do you become intolerant, but you often get labeled as "-phobic" of their choice of lifestyle.
In summary, Christians should be tolerant, I think, but we should not be accepting....
Does that make sense?
Although I will say that I understand what the author of this journal is saying when they say God is not tolerant and that is true in the sense that He does not tolerate sin. He puts up with all kinds of crap from us, that's for sure! haha I agree with you there! But he also sent his son to die for us so when He sees us He sees perfection. He sees the life Christ lived in our place so that He can tolerate us and forgive us. There's no sin there to punish. Praise God for that! :D
The reason He cannot tolerate sin is because it goes against his character, or his attributes namely justice. Sin cannot go unpunished because that would be unjust. One of my favorite illustrations for this point would be, say somebody kills another person. They end up in court, like they should, so that we can mete out justice. The judge says, "You have several offenses for human traffic, drug cartels, and man slaughter, but you know I'm feeling generous today so I'm just going to let you go."
If this happened there would be an uproar! People would cry out "that's not right!" That's how God feels about sin, so he cannot tolerate it.
Sorry for writing a book haha I'm sure you already understand all that... but really I agree with what you have said. People toss around the term tolerance like it's nothing. If you simply disagree with someone they will flip out and label you as a close-minded, hypocritical, intolerant scum of society.
We should be tolerant, respectfully disagreeing, and showing love. But not accepting or giving the green light to any type of sin.
Well said, my friend. :)
I love what the Pope is doing by shifting focus towards love and mercy. It is frustrating how people might take it the wrong way or distort it. However, I do think it's great in general because it's opening up avenues for conversation and potentially reconciliation, where previously they've felt so burned that they'd rather just not put up with the Church at all.
In today's left-winged media and establishment, they are preaching tolerance for everything... and using "mental health conditions" to even excuse a lot of people for what they do. In the last 20 years, I have seen this mindset expand exponentially, and it's really upsetting. Showing God to the world is a tricky thing, if you wish for others to warm up to His truths and state of being that should be feared. Like Carrie Underwood's song "Blown Away", it shall be soon when God's fullness will be shown to all the Earth... people need to wake up and seek God while they can. God loves all people, but He doesn't forgo punishment when He's had enough and fed up with the condition of things.
thank you so much for posting this message, it brings hope and boldness to my heart.
No disrespect. But I do feel that these ideals were written at a much pettier time in history, only to be interpreted by a man who wholeheartedly follows those writings.
Not even man can fully comprehend how or what Yaweh (God's actual name) is.