Few Nigerians hear the words "give your life to Christ" anymore. Not because they aren't being said all the time. In fact, they have probably never been uttered less frequently in the history of this country, however, if someone hears something unimportant enough times, they tend to block it out forever. It wasn't always so easy to ignore what preachers had to say, as one man discovered centuries ago. The year was 1520; the place: Germany; his name: Martin Luther; his duty: to change the world by being the great reformer and leading figure in Protestantism. Unfortunately, his ideas were as groundbreaking as they were misunderstood. As a result of this, he coined the term antinomianism in response to warped implications drawn from his views by his friend Agricola (yes, it does sound like a soda).

Antinomianism as understood by Luther was the belief that Christians can live as they please because of Christ's sacrifice and God's forgiveness (sin now, repent later). I will try to address the issue as best I can and will anticipate feedback from people anywhere on the theological spectrum so we can hopefully arrive at a model that solves the problem.

Christians across time have scarcely confronted the threat of antinomianism. This must be because Christianity as they understood had very little inclination toward a moral-free life. My motive here is to approximate that mindset as closely as possible; to propose a feasible, possible mindset they might have had that invalidates antinomian lawlessness.

Prominent theologians' work on the question includes the Apostle Paul's Romans 6, and Martin Luther's Against the Antinomians (important because Luther created the term "antinomianism" here and Protestant ideology has been corrupted so thoroughly that it bears little resemblance with the reformation of Luther's day). My thesis will focus on these two works, their conclusions and a number of Bible verses.

To begin, antinomianism is mostly a threat to our senses of morality and justice. While our belief in objective morality persists regardless of it, it provides serious disincentive for moral living. On the other hand, it challenges our formulaic ideas of temporal and eternal justice. The books of Job and Ecclesiastes make clear that good things do not necessarily happen to good people and bad things do not necessarily happen to bad people. On the antinomian worldview, this is made worse because a cursory prayer to our "Lord and personal Saviour" (the personal part is undoubtedly stupid) and voila, a bad person is now a good person. Otherwise good people (and by that I mean Christians) may be tempted to indulge themselves out of self-interested pragmatism and return to being good later on because Jesus will forgive them if they halfheartedly recite a few lines; therefore allowing them to eat their cake and have it too and then providing them free tickets into heaven for winning the cake eating contest.

As I've already explained elsewhere, the challenge to morality is the most easily discarded. Antinomianism does not invalidate morality any more than the ocean invalidates the existence of dry land. Antinomianism is, in fact, firmly founded on the principles of good and evil. It simply claims that we have license to practice them as we see fit without fear of divine wrath on condition of ending our reconciliatory lies with Amen. It does this to escape eternal justice, but before we deal with eternal justice, we should concern ourselves with justice on earth.

Temporal justice is an important part of Christian belief. It is my opinion that Christian moral ideas (or some corruption of them) underlie every moral argument made in the world today and a good amount of legislation. The topic is so important that I've lost one friend because I didn't believe that good things necessarily happen to good people. On rethinking the event, what I meant to say to my friend was that God does not go out of His way to supernaturally produce good effects for actions carried out by good (and by that, I mean Christian) people. My own belief is that God has sometimes provided ways to succeed as unimportant by-products of His moral law and consequently does not bother with making good people successful (which is what we mean when we talk about "good things" ). Instead, God has entrusted the upholding of that moral law to us. There never was a time that it was the norm for angels to drive by your tent and shoot you, your wife, children and flock for disobeying God. I concede that God has sometimes punished bad people explicitly in the Bible, but most bad people in the good book are simply ignored, unless people decide to punish them for their badness. Delilah, for instance goes scot-free while Haman was hanged on his own gallows. Temporal justice, therefore, is and has always been the job of people like you and I. We are commanded to uphold the moral law and hold those accountable who do not. We already do this by putting criminals in prison and passing the death sentence for those deemed irredeemable, whereas it was done before Christ's time by stoning offenders. We could take it further by making good people successful in society. We have the power to make good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. It has and will always be our responsibility.

The most important challenge antinomianism presents is the subversion of eternal justice or what I like to call sneaking into heaven. Of the countless leaflets I've read detailing how someone was "too late" to accept Christ and died before they could, I've always wondered why they didn't just say a short prayer and they would be seated next to the saints in heaven. This ease of forgiveness is touted as an advantage Christianity has over other faiths, but is just one more example of the bizarro world we live in. If anything, it is supposed to be an established heresy and one of the greatest enemies of the faith. This is what both the Apostle Paul and Luther addressed in their writings.

To be clear what I am addressing is the belief that we can do whatever we like and subsequently do X and be forgiven. In Luther's time, the papacy had declared X to be the paying of indulgences in order to buy your way into heaven. More commonly in our time is the "give your life to Christ" view which entails a simple prayer. X can be any act which when performed will simply allow the actor into heaven. I intend to show that this is not the case and to replace X with Y, a composite action that is biblically supported and does not simply allow anyone into heaven.

"What then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?", asked Paul in beginning the famous chapter. "God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" He seems to be discouraging exploiting an obvious hole in Christian theology, but He is in fact making clear that believers that regress into sin will face damnation like everybody else.

6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6:6 Knowing
this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin
might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

The entire passage is peppered with covert threats concerning the loss of eternal life like the one above. It is in fact this very chapter that the following famous verse is drawn from:

6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The contrasting of sin with death and "gift of God" with eternal life makes it clear that death here refers to damnation. In Paul's view, there is no sneaking into heaven.

What then? Even if we cannot continue to sin without foregoing access to heaven, we haven't been furnished with how we can enter heaven and why we can't sin until our last moments and take Pascal's wager seriously by saying those magic words. The solution to the question of how to enter heaven was answered by Jesus himself in Matthew:

19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 19:17 And he said
unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no
murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou
shalt not bear false witness, 19:19 Honour thy father and thy
mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

But how can this be. The same Jesus whose message predominantly concerned the state of one's heart told the young man that he had to carry out a checklist of tasks to enter heaven? This is because Jesus' message here does not contradict his famous sermon on the mount. In fact, the state of one's heart and the actions one will have to carry out are connected, as Jesus makes clear in Luke:

6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do
not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth
that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his
heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the
heart his mouth speaketh.

This is where Martin Luther comes into play. I've put his views into my own words as "composite action". When one plays with sticks in a certain manner, it is called field hockey. When another rides horses it is called horseback riding. When someone does both of them it is called polo. Not horseback hockey, field riding hockey or hockey riding. Polo is therefore a composite action. Christianity teaches that we are all forgiven and granted God's grace. In a sense, everybody is saved, but that is just a manner of speaking. To accept our salvation we are told to do X, where X is usually just a simple prayer. Jesus' teachings as Martin Luther understood them entailed that to give your life to Christ, you'd have to possess faith (the matters of the heart Jesus often spoke of such as believing you have wronged God through your sin, believing that Jesus is God who gave his life for our salvation and having an internal conviction to abstain from sin). This faith would necessarily manifest works as Jesus explained above and would form the composite action of (Faith + Works); which I posit as Y. With this it is obvious that you can't sin till you are on your death bed and repent because you'd still go to hell because you lack the Faith part of our composite action. Remember that we are using faith in a slightly different context from how it is usually used and the model is both representative of what other Christians seem to believe as well as biblically supported, not to mention that it solves the problem of antinomianism.

Final note: This post is primarily addressed to Wilgrea7, to whom I apologize for its length and rambling. This is the first time I'm using one of my own ideas in response to a challenge to theism. Given the rich two millennia tradition Christianity has, it is all too convenient to borrow from a vast collection of enlightened beliefs from diverse set of individuals. Since this is (mostly) the result of my own thinking I appreciate any attempts at rebutting it. That will only make it stronger. Also, anyone is welcome to chime in. It is my belief that the point of discourse with people of different beliefs is to understand one another. If someone's point cannot be understood it is either because it keeps flying over everyone else's head or it is incomprehensible (i.e., irrational) and cannot be understood as such. Either way, the only way to arrive at truth is to test these ideas against people who do not agree with them. Let the wahala commence.

Great writeup.

There's a lot to unpack here.. I'm running a tight schedule at the moment

But I'll be back soon to deliver a comprehensive response to this

Hello again Mr. Endtimer,

Apologies for the late response. To say I've been busy recently would be an understatement. But i finally have a bit of time to address some of the points here.

First of all, I noticed your defense of Martin Luther's antinomianism, is somewhat contrary to the idea you presented to me during our discussion on morality.

I'll try to explain my point in regards to temporal justice and eternal justice.

If I'm to understand you correctly, in our previous discussion, you said that people today are not being stoned to death, because the sacrifice of Christ has paid for their sins. And even though the penalty still applies, since Christ has paid, they are not to be punished old testament style.

As usual.. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem then became that people could theoretically do anything, and it would be automatically forgiven, courtesy of Christ's sacrifice.

But the idea of any sort of temporal or eternal justice seems to run contrary to it.

I'll try to break this into 2 parts to make it more digestible for interested readers

1) Temporal Justice (justice here on earth)

There were several issues I noticed with the idea of temporal justice you described.

The first is the fact that it has changed over time. You made reference to how back in the day, the penalty for certain crimes would be stoning to death, and how today, we do things like imprisonment instead. I see this as a problem for several reasons.

a) The instructions to stone people in the OT for certain crimes were instructions supposedly given by God himself. If he indeed doesn't change, then the punishments shouldn't too.

You already said so that the punishments of the OT still apply today. But if that's the case, then I don't think making reference to modern-day punishments helps the case of a "temporal justice" intended by God for us to deal with crimes here on earth.

b) The idea of punishing someone who's sins are supposedly washed away is one I find difficult to understand. If Christ's sacrifice indeed paid for every sin, then the evil actions of people have already been absolved by his sacrifice. If anything, you'll be punishing them for thought crime.

Don't get me wrong. They've still very much committed the sin in action. But the consequences of those actions have already been paid for. So the best we can punish them for is the mindset, or in other words, thoughtcrime. But shouldn't that also be covered by Christ's sacrifice?

The other thing I wanted to address was the idea of repentance. I'll address it in my response to eternal justice

2) Eternal Justice (Justice by God himself)

First of all, I'd like to address the issue of "repentance", because I think it's one major point where we may disagree. Now that I think about it, I wish I had addressed it sooner.

So I've noticed that you've made reference to people having to repent and accept Jesus' ways in order to be saved. But I see this as a contradiction to what you said earlier.

If you remember in our discussion about morality, you said the reason we don't go around stoning sabbath-day workers, non-virgins and disobedient children, is because Christ's sacrifice has paid for their sins. But if that's the case, then why repent? What exactly is the point of repentance if the sins have been paid for already?

If repentance is needed to activate this "divine payment", then why don't we punish people who haven't repented yet Old testament style? I believe I asked a similar question in our previous discussion.

From what I've gathered, the idea of temporal and eternal justice, only goes to show that Christ's sacrifice doesn't apply to all, but instead, comes with conditions, which of course I'm not trying to argue against.

But if that is the case once again, then why don't Christians today carry out "justice" against unbelievers as described in the Old testament? Because as far as repentance goes, they're unrepentant, and according to what you said earlier, the old testament rules still apply.

He does not believe that does not live according to his belief. Thomas Fuller.

Endtimer:

The solution to the question of how to enter heaven was answered by Jesus himself in Matthew:

19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 19:17 And he said
unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no
murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou
shalt not bear false witness, 19:19 Honour thy father and thy
mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

I think that you left out a very important part of the context:

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Endtimer:

Also, anyone is welcome to chime in.

I'm not a Christian, but I care about Jesus and what the Bible says. In my understanding of the gospels, Jesus is inviting people to live the best life they can live, by trying with all their hearts to learn to live the way He says to live. I think that's what He wants people to know most of all. I think that the doctrines of Christian churches are hiding that truth from people, and repelling them away from it. I think that the problem goes much deeper than people using the idea of forgiveness as an excuse for living however they want to. It's the whole idea of making the gospel all about salvation and forgiveness in the first place, and substituting that in the place of Him being our Lord, a person for us to serve and obey above all others. I don't mean that there's nothing in His teachings about salvation and forgiveness. I mean that people are substituting those in the place of Him being our Lord, and using them to evade the implications of that and divert attention from it.

Endtimer:

It is my belief that the point of discourse with people of different beliefs is to understand one another.

Endtimer, it’s lonely here for me without you. I thought I found some other people to talk to, but it turned out to be a mirage. Did you stop because of the copying and pasting? I don’t think that’s happening any more.

You’ve completely understood everything this post is about. I’m glad. The Old Testament punishments are still applicable and would have been just to institute if Christ hadn’t died. It’s why modern criminal justice is geared toward rehabilitation because these people have a chance to be saved. They (we all, actually) deserve to die, but we live because there is a chance we might be saved.

Repentance is coming to accept that you’ve been paid for and not insisting on paying your own bill.

You are correct that Christ’s sacrifice is conditioned on our acceptance of it. That’s a large part of the point.

You agree that it makes sense?

Wilgrea7:
2) Eternal Justice (Justice by God himself)

First of all, I'd like to address the issue of "repentance", because I think it's one major point where we may disagree. Now that I think about it, I wish I had addressed it sooner.

So I've noticed that you've made reference to people having to repent and accept Jesus' ways in order to be saved. But I see this as a contradiction to what you said earlier.

If you remember in our discussion about morality, you said the reason we don't go around stoning sabbath-day workers, non-virgins and disobedient children, is because Christ's sacrifice has paid for their sins. But if that's the case, then why repent? What exactly is the point of repentance if the sins have been paid for already?

If repentance is needed to activate this "divine payment", then why don't we punish people who haven't repented yet Old testament style? I believe I asked a similar question in our previous discussion.

From what I've gathered, the idea of temporal and eternal justice, only goes to show that Christ's sacrifice doesn't apply to all, but instead, comes with conditions, which of course I'm not trying to argue against.

But if that is the case once again, then why don't Christians today carry out "justice" against unbelievers as described in the Old testament? Because as far as repentance goes, they're unrepentant, and according to what you said earlier, the old testament rules still apply.

Endtimer:
Few Nigerians hear the words "give your life to Christ" anymore. Not because they aren't being said all the time. In fact, they have probably never been uttered less frequently in the history of this country, however, if someone hears something unimportant enough times, they tend to block it out forever. It wasn't always so easy to ignore what preachers had to say, as one man discovered centuries ago. The year was 1520; the place: Germany; his name: Martin Luther; his duty: to change the world by being the great reformer and leading figure in Protestantism. Unfortunately, his ideas were as groundbreaking as they were misunderstood. As a result of this, he coined the term antinomianism in response to warped implications drawn from his views by his friend Agricola (yes, it does sound like a soda).

Antinomianism as understood by Luther was the belief that Christians can live as they please because of Christ's sacrifice and God's forgiveness (sin now, repent later). I will try to address the issue as best I can and will anticipate feedback from people anywhere on the theological spectrum so we can hopefully arrive at a model that solves the problem.

Christians across time have scarcely confronted the threat of antinomianism. This must be because Christianity as they understood had very little inclination toward a moral-free life. My motive here is to approximate that mindset as closely as possible; to propose a feasible, possible mindset they might have had that invalidates antinomian lawlessness.

Prominent theologians' work on the question includes the Apostle Paul's Romans 6, and Martin Luther's Against the Antinomians (important because Luther created the term "antinomianism" here and Protestant ideology has been corrupted so thoroughly that it bears little resemblance with the reformation of Luther's day). My thesis will focus on these two works, their conclusions and a number of Bible verses.

I'm against antinomianism, but I go much farther than you. I'm saying that the whole idea of Christ paying the price for our sins is false, and not part of His teachings at all. I'm not sure if it's part of Paul's teachings or not, but if it is, I'm disagreeing with him. The idea of Christ paying the price for our sins may or may not be harmful in itself, but in my view it's one of the ways that the gospel of Jesus is being hidden from people, and people being repelled away from learning about it.

ReubenSandwich:


I'm not a Christian, but I care about Jesus and what the Bible says. In my understanding of the gospels, Jesus is inviting people to live the best life they can live, by trying with all their hearts to learn to live the way He says to live. I think that's what He wants people to know most of all. I think that the doctrines of Christian churches are hiding that truth from people, and repelling them away from it. I think that the problem goes much deeper than people using the idea of forgiveness as an excuse for living however they want to. It's the whole idea of making the gospel all about salvation and forgiveness in the first place, and substituting that in the place of Him being our Lord, a person for us to serve and obey above all others. I don't mean that there's nothing in His teachings about salvation and forgiveness. I mean that people are substituting those in the place of Him being our Lord, and using them to evade the implications of that and divert attention from it.

I think you are saying what I have said before. Which is pastors are wrongly emphasizing Christ's death and resurrection over and above His Words.

Whereas, the first part of our salvation comes from The Words!

Endtimer:
Antinomianism as understood by Luther was the belief that Christians can live as they please because of Christ's sacrifice and God's forgiveness (sin now, repent later). I will try to address the issue as best I can and will anticipate feedback from people anywhere on the theological spectrum so we can hopefully arrive at a model that solves the problem.

Christians across time have scarcely confronted the threat of antinomianism. This must be because Christianity as they understood had very little inclination toward a moral-free life. My motive here is to approximate that mindset as closely as possible; to propose a feasible, possible mindset they might have had that invalidates antinomian lawlessness.

Where I am on the theological spectrum is that I don't believe in the reality or existence of anything that anyone can imagine or describe as the creator of the universe, but I think of the world metaphorically as being created by someone, and I call the creator in that metaphor "God," in my thinking and sometimes in my conversations with people.

I see antinomian lawlessness as part of a larger problem, just one of many ways of people ignoring, denying and excusing the harmfulness in what they're doing or what they're promoting.

(later) I want to try to explain more what I'm thinking about the idea of Christ paying the price for our sins. I think that's false, and I don't think that's part of His teachings at all. It might not be harmful in itself. It might even be a helpful way of thinking sometimes. The harm that I see is in substituting that in the place of the true gospel of Jesus, which is all about learning to live the way He says to live. That substitution might be mostly what has made Christianity useful for excusing and camouflaging the worst kinds of cruelty, violence and oppression, all through history. I'm not sure if that started with Paul or not, or if not, when it did start. Maybe when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.

(later) I'm hoping for some interesting conversations between us, so I want to tell you more about my interests. Most of all I'm promoting some practices for helping to improve the world for future generations, and for helping to reduce the damage from the ravages of human nature:
- Helping with the moral and spiritual education of children.
- Learning to be a better friend to more people, a safe, easy, fun and helpful person to talk to for all kinds of people in all kinds of situations.
- Learning to work with neighbors to help make community life in a neighborhood healthier, happier and more loving for every person in it.

In biblical terms, I'm promoting learning to live the way Jesus says to live, which I think is what His gospel is all about, and what He wants people to know about most of all. I see the doctrines, the proselytizing and the politics of today's Christianity as smoke and mirrors hiding that from people and repelling them away from it, substituting a gospel of salvation by self-indoctrination in the place of the true gospel of Jesus, which is all about learning to live the way He says to live. In relation to the topic of this thread, like I said, I see antinomianism as part of that problem, and part of another problem, one of many ways that people make excuses for their harmful attitudes and behavior.

Endtimer:
Few Nigerians hear the words "give your life to Christ" anymore. Not because they aren't being said all the time. In fact, they have probably never been uttered less frequently in the history of this country, however, if someone hears something unimportant enough times, they tend to block it out forever. It wasn't always so easy to ignore what preachers had to say, as one man discovered centuries ago. The year was 1520; the place: Germany; his name: Martin Luther; his duty: to change the world by being the great reformer and leading figure in Protestantism. Unfortunately, his ideas were as groundbreaking as they were misunderstood. As a result of this, he coined the term antinomianism in response to warped implications drawn from his views by his friend Agricola (yes, it does sound like a soda).

Antinomianism as understood by Luther was the belief that Christians can live as they please because of Christ's sacrifice and God's forgiveness (sin now, repent later). I will try to address the issue as best I can and will anticipate feedback from people anywhere on the theological spectrum so we can hopefully arrive at a model that solves the problem.

Christians across time have scarcely confronted the threat of antinomianism. This must be because Christianity as they understood had very little inclination toward a moral-free life. My motive here is to approximate that mindset as closely as possible; to propose a feasible, possible mindset they might have had that invalidates antinomian lawlessness.

Prominent theologians' work on the question includes the Apostle Paul's Romans 6, and Martin Luther's Against the Antinomians (important because Luther created the term "antinomianism" here and Protestant ideology has been corrupted so thoroughly that it bears little resemblance with the reformation of Luther's day). My thesis will focus on these two works, their conclusions and a number of Bible verses.

I'm thinking that maybe your purpose is apologetic, to show that all the harm that's been done in the name of Christianity is not true Christianity. I'm not sure how to explain what I'm thinking about that. Something like, if your idea of true Christianity includes the creeds of today's Christian churches, you'll be building your argument on a false foundation. What needs to be promoted is not the creeds and doctrines of today's Christianity, which are hiding the true gospel of Jesus from people and repelling them away from it. What needs to be promoted is the teachings of Jesus about learning to live the way He says to live.

(later) That's how what I'm saying relates to the topic, if your purpose is apologetic, to put the blame for harmful behavior of Christians on antinomianism and say that isn't a part of true Christianity. The problem is the whole belief system of today's Christianity, a gospel of salvation by self-indoctrination, smoke and mirrors hiding the true gospel of Jesus from people, diverting attention from it, repelling people away from it, and designed for people to use it as an excuse for not trying to improve their own attitudes and behavior.

(later) I've seen Christians saying that they don't need to make conscious efforts to improve their attitudes and behavior, because Christ is doing that for them. That looks to me like a popular way of thinking in Bible-believing Christianity. Just by agreeing with some creed or doctrine, and thinking that you've agreed for Christ to rule your life, He will make you into a better person, all by Himself, without any conscious effort on your part to try to improve your attitudes and behavior and the way you live your life. Whether or not that includes belief in some kind of antinomianism is irrelevant. Everything in the beliefs of Christianity today is all about evading personal responsibility for improving your own attitudes and behavior and the way you live your life. Even the forms of Christianity that emphasize good works and social responsibility are diverting attention from that.

(later) I was wondering what is the point of a list of rules being displayed when we're writing posts, because obviously no one is trying to follow them, and nothing is being done to enforce them, but maybe it does have some influence sometimes, on what people say in their posts and how they say it. I review it myself sometimes, to see if I've been forgetting something.

The only thing that ever happens when I use the report button is that the post I reported is hidden from me, which makes it impossible for me to know if anything has been done about it.

This might look like repeating what I’ve already said, but I’m thinking about it in a different way now. It looks to me like you’re arguing against antinomianism because of it being used as an excuse for people doing whatever they want to do. I’m seeing that as part of a larger problem of people ignoring, denying and excusing the harm in what they’re doing and in what they’re promoting, which happens with or without people believing in some kind of antinomianism. The entire belief system of today’s Christianity facilitates that, and facilities people excusing themselves from trying to improve their own attitudes and behavior and the way they lives, learning to live the way Jesus says to live. They can excuse themselves from all that by thinking that all that Jesus is calling for them to do is agree with some doctrine or creed, agree that they are sinners, and agre for Jesus to rule their life, without any efforts of their own to improve their own character and capacities and the way they live their lives. Pointing out that faith without works is dead, and promoting good works and social responsibility, does not solve the problem if “works” does not include people informing themselves about the effects of their attitudes and behavior, and the way they live their life, on all people everywhere, and continually trying to improve them.

We are talking about two distinct, but related matters. Antinomians believe they are Christians yet compromise their morality in the face of even minor disturbances. They do this believing that their salvation is merely contingent on a perfunctory prayer of forgiveness. What you are describing is the overly supernaturalist bent of the modern church. The tendency to outsource all effort to God by permanently placing Him in the place of cosmic butler.

The two are related when we bring that magical supernaturalist thinking into the realm of morality. The ignorant Christian feels free to do as he pleases on the grounds that the Holy Ghost is at work refurbishing his soul and that God is ever at hand, desperate to forgive his sins.

I believe that the problem can be fixed through proper religious education. This would mean abandoning aspects of Christianity that we’ve derived from the culture around us and taking “Sola Scriptura” seriously. It would also compel us to “sort out our faith with fear and trembling”.

ReubenSandwich:
This might look like repeating what I’ve already said, but I’m thinking about it in a different way now. It looks to me like you’re arguing against antinomianism because of it being used as an excuse for people doing whatever they want to do. I’m seeing that as part of a larger problem of people ignoring, denying and excusing the harm in what they’re doing and in what they’re promoting, which happens with or without people believing in some kind of antinomianism. The entire belief system of today’s Christianity facilitates that, and facilities people excusing themselves from trying to improve their own attitudes and behavior and the way they lives, learning to live the way Jesus says to live. They can excuse themselves from all that by thinking that all that Jesus is calling for them to do is agree with some doctrine or creed, agree that they are sinners, and agre for Jesus to rule their life, without any efforts of their own to improve their own character and capacities and the way they live their lives. Pointing out that faith without works is dead, and promoting good works and social responsibility, does not solve the problem if “works” does not include people informing themselves about the effects of their attitudes and behavior, and the way they live their life, on all people everywhere, and continually trying to improve them.

Endtimer:

We are talking about two distinct, but related matters. Antinomians believe they are Christians yet compromise their morality in the face of even minor disturbances. They do this believing that their salvation is merely contingent on a perfunctory prayer of forgiveness. What you are describing is the overly supernaturalist bent of the modern church. The tendency to outsource all effort to God by permanently placing Him in the place of cosmic butler.

The two are related when we bring that magical supernaturalist thinking into the realm of morality. The ignorant Christian feels free to do as he pleases on the grounds that the Holy Ghost is at work refurbishing his soul and that God is ever at hand, desperate to forgive his sins.

I believe that the problem can be fixed through proper religious education. This would mean abandoning aspects of Christianity that we’ve derived from the culture around us and taking “Sola Scriptura” seriously. It would also compel us to “sort out our faith with fear and trembling”.

Wow. Better response than my best hopes! I’ll answer later.

Endtimer:

I believe that the problem can be fixed through proper religious education. This would mean abandoning aspects of Christianity that we’ve derived from the culture around us and taking “Sola Scriptura” seriously. It would also compel us to “sort out our faith with fear and trembling”.

Do you see that happening anywhere? Do you have some ideas about what anyone who wants to can do in their everyday lives to help that happen and be part of it?

One of my ways of thinking about what I'm promoting is people learning to live the way Jesus says to live. In an earlier post, I wrote about some of my ideas for what people can do to practice and promote that. I'll re-post them here:
- Helping with the moral and spiritual education of children.
- Learning to be a better friend to more people, a safe, easy, fun and helpful person to talk to for all kinds of people in all kinds of situations.
- Learning to work with neighbors to help make community life in a neighborhood healthier, happier and more loving for every person in it.

I'll add to that, studying and practicing together, to improve our qualities and capacities for community service. That would inlude studying the scriptures, but also some study guides designed for that purpose.

Endtimer:
We are talking about two distinct, but related matters. Antinomians believe they are Christians yet compromise their morality in the face of even minor disturbances. They do this believing that their salvation is merely contingent on a perfunctory prayer of forgiveness. What you are describing is the overly supernaturalist bent of the modern church. The tendency to outsource all effort to God by permanently placing Him in the place of cosmic butler.

The two are related when we bring that magical supernaturalist thinking into the realm of morality. The ignorant Christian feels free to do as he pleases on the grounds that the Holy Ghost is at work refurbishing his soul and that God is ever at hand, desperate to forgive his sins.

I believe that the problem can be fixed through proper religious education. This would mean abandoning aspects of Christianity that we’ve derived from the culture around us and taking “Sola Scriptura” seriously. It would also compel us to “sort out our faith with fear and trembling”.

What exactly is this relationship between Christianity and mortality? Where exactly is it defined?

Well, what you are talking about is beautiful and complex. I admire your optimism and desire to make the world better. However, I would caution against utopian idealism; the desire for a world that cannot exist. The abandoning of the possible good for the unattainable excellent.

On that note, I think we can only have the kind of world you describe by starting small. Smaller communities of likeminded people would more easily fit in to, and perpetuate the communities you describe. Going from where we are now to there will likely take several lifetimes.

All in all, I guess the best way to create such a world is to start one yourself. At the most basic level, what you are describing is a family. It serves to raise and educate children, practice empathy and love for others, study scripture and a lot more. One family could be the genesis of a community of families aimed at the same purpose. These families become the building block for a society aimed at those same ends. Unfortunately, it is hardly ever that simple. Trying to be an honest man in a city of thieves hardly pays off.

In the end we will have to try a number of methods in the hope that we eventually find one that works. Here's a list:
- Start a family. Family grows over generations founded on your base principles. The downsides are obvious.
- Find a locate a community you believe is already trying to make the world a better place. Join them and do your best.
- Reach out to institutions created for this very purpose (churches, schools, charities). Pick one you feel is actually doing things right and pitch in.

I'm tired and sleepy now, so that's all I got. Let me know if you think of other ideas.

ReubenSandwich:


Do you see that happening anywhere? Do you have some ideas about what anyone who wants to can do in their everyday lives to help that happen and be part of it?

One of my ways of thinking about what I'm promoting is people learning to live the way Jesus says to live. In an earlier post, I wrote about some of my ideas for what people can do to practice and promote that. I'll re-post them here:
- Helping with the moral and spiritual education of children.
- Learning to be a better friend to more people, a safe, easy, fun and helpful person to talk to for all kinds of people in all kinds of situations.
- Learning to work with neighbors to help make community life in a neighborhood healthier, happier and more loving for every person in it.

I'll add to that, studying and practicing together, to improve our qualities and capacities for community service. That would inlude studying the scriptures, but also some study guides designed for that purpose.

Kobojunkie:
What exactly is this relationship between Christianity and mortality? Where exactly is it defined?

I'm talking about how something is only really "good" or "bad" when it is from God. Anything else is just an opinion.

ReubenSandwich:

...

I'd also like to know how you knew those posts were being copied from another forum and reposted here. It is still very strange to me.

Endtimer:

- Start a family. Family grows over generations founded on your base principles. The downsides are obvious.
- Find a locate a community you believe is already trying to make the world a better place. Join them and do your best.
- Reach out to institutions created for this very purpose (churches, schools, charities). Pick one you feel is actually doing things right and pitch in.

That all looks good to me.