Distinguishing Mountains from Molehills

[joshuabgood]

Also a well said from me....MattY.

[Sudsy]

Does not make sense to me. The Book also says to love your enemies, not just love your neighbors.
How does it make sense that murdering someone “in heart” puts one in danger of hell fire, name calling, yet literally murdering someone, is okay? “What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.”
How do we get here in our thinking?

Here again the idea of loving your enemies, does this apply to going to war against another country or was this text speaking about our day to day relationships with those in our immediate contacts ? An enemy, I believe this text is referring to, are those who see us as their enemy and not that we view others as our enemies. We are to love everyone regardless of how they treat us or how they live. Yes, even Trump should never be my enemy, only satan himself. Thats how I understand this.

You will likely not agree but I have heard the argument go something like - Christians can participate in war as long as they are not hating others but rather defending the innocent. We often see people surrendering during war and they are treated quite decently while captive. I would think Christians would definitely support this. So some would say they have no hatred at all toward toward those they might end up killing but it is necessary to defend those who cannot defend themselves. But hatred toward another is murdering them in our heart which is always wrong.

We are to believe that as long as I am wearing certain color of clothing, and my enemy is also wearing certain special clothing, some sort of magic happens that makes killing each other acceptable to God. And we don’t hate them, we just kill them in love. Very odd how we think that clothing choices don’t ever matter, that only the heart matters, unless we wear the magic uniforms. And not only do, but if we are wearing the magic clothes, and we drop a bomb on a militant, the civilian we just killed as collateral damage suddenly do not could as murder either. And then we decide that the CIA officer who isn’t wearing a uniform, can also get a pass on assassinating a civilian target because it’s just too complicated to say it isn’t.

I don't see where the clothing worn has anything to do with this. I have not heard that argument about killing others 'in love' (certainly not love for them) but rather it is sometimes necessary for the greater good and the greater good is often an area of disagreement.

How about just not killing people? Seems pretty simple.

Yes, it does seem pretty simple on the surface but when people could not defend themselves and were taken over and abused and often killed anyway by the aggressor this 'simple' solution has a questionable result. Where would we be today if Hitler, for example, was not stopped ? Where might we be if Putin is not stopped ? Doesn't appear quite that simple to me.

So, how far will non-resistant believers go to take their stance ? Are they going to say that any Christian who was involved in wars by their country and killed someone will go to hell ? Is this an issue of their salvation or not ?

What Jesus did say quite clearly, I believe, is that God looks on our heart and we can be killing people, be murderers, end up in hell fire by our thoughts and words toward one another. This, to me, is a more serious thought and would be a 'mountain' issue. And since it is highly unlikely that I will ever have a need to chose whether or not to physically kill someone, this, at this point, would be a 'molehill' issue.

[RZehr]

But hatred toward another is murdering them in our heart which is always wrong.

Hatred is always wrong, because it is murdering them in our heart. But literal, physical, murder is sometimes not wrong.

What a strange and confusing thing indeed.

[Ernie]

Liberals deny the existence of any first-tier issues, and make everything a third-tier issue; the result is doctrinal ambiguity. Fundamentalists tend toward the opposite error, and make every disagreement a first-tier issue.

My dad used to say that followers of Jesus and liberals appear very similar in their positions, but world's apart in their understanding of God and what he wants of his followers. Think socialism, caring for the poor, and in this case, not taking hard stances on first-tier issues.

[Ken]

Trying to move away from the discussion of nonresistance and the Trinity, and back to the four categories in my original post. Fundamentalists and liberals tend toward opposite errors. Liberals deny the existence of any first-tier issues, and make everything a third-tier issue; the result is doctrinal ambiguity. Fundamentalists tend toward the opposite error, and make every disagreement a first-tier issue. Thus eschatology, for example, is made an essential - you have to believe in the pre-tribulation rapture. And then there's, of course, the antinomian approach, which puts only a few things (like faith) in tier one, and relegates everything to no importance - denying the existence of tiers two and three.

I think "only a few salvation issues matter", and "everything that's important must be essential" are just two sides of the same coin - because everything that matters must be essential, they just disagree on how much. I think we should abandon the "coin" and be able to discuss a wide range of issues across denominational boundaries without calling each other heretics or unbelievers (this has brought reproach to Christ in church history). This means we should pursue truth for the sake of obedience, love for Christ and His word, love for fellow believers, the health of the church, and so on. We should practice love and humility toward our fellow believers who think differently, without saying that our differences don't matter.

I think you are wrong about this and your categories are flawed. And it isn't that liberals deny the existence of first-tier issues but that they disagree about what they are.

You are categorizing dogma into first and second tier issues. But I would argue that dogma itself isn't a first tier issue, commandments are. Let's look at two of what you identify as first-tier issues. The Trinity and God the creator of all things. Jesus never mentions the Trinity anywhere in the Bible, nor does he ever suggest that belief in the Trinity is a salvation issue. Likewise with belief in God being the creator of all things. Nowhere in the New Testament (that I am aware of) is belief in that particular dogma identified as a salvation issue. It is part of the larger Christian belief system to be sure. But there is no teaching anywhere that someone who might question that particular dogma is unsaved.

By contrast, take a commandment that you mention nowhere and that is God's command to care for creation. It first appears in Genesis 2 in the Garden of Eden and then later in Genesis 9 with God's covenant with NOAA where God states that he will demand an accounting from every living animal and establish a covenant with every living creature on earth. That is pretty explicit. We are to care for every species in creation. It is an actual covenant. Many liberals might identify creation care (environmentalism) as a first tier covenant issue. Whereas conservatives might tend to ignore it, especially in their dismissal of human effects on the environment such as human-caused climate change.

[ohio jones]

I regard involvement in wars for a believer to be something that is between them and God.

I agree, that sounds like something that would come between them and God.

[barnhart]

But hatred toward another is murdering them in our heart which is always wrong.

Hatred is always wrong, because it is murdering them in our heart. But literal, physical, murder is sometimes not wrong.

What a strange and confusing thing indeed.

I would guess the logic is the State has authority from God to absolve murder, but wouldn't it also have the authority to absolve hate as well?

[Josh]

But hatred toward another is murdering them in our heart which is always wrong.

Hatred is always wrong, because it is murdering them in our heart. But literal, physical, murder is sometimes not wrong.

What a strange and confusing thing indeed.

I would guess the logic is the State has authority from God to absolve murder, but wouldn't it also have the authority to absolve hate as well?

Generally speaking, to get people fired up to go to war, first the people are stirred up to hatred of the “enemy”. The idea wartime killing happens with hatred is a tad absurd.

[MattY]

I'm going to put my faith and trust in Jesus and what He did to save me from my sins. To trust in some man's interpretation of the scriptures that adds to what salvation requires gets us into all kinds of determinations of who is saved and who isn't. I will settle for what Paul says is 'of first importance' and 'the Gospel that saves us'. When one believes this in an acceptable way to God, and are born again, we are saved. Period.

One of the problems that often occurs in the more strict groups of Christians is that they are not satisfied that the way of salvation is a way that Jesus provided for us to accept as a gift and not as something we must earn through religious practises. There is no doubt in my mind that when a person accepts this gift, their life changes as the Holy Spirit comes to live within. However, I also believe Christians are not perfect and our judgments of other's salvation can be very wrong. God knows those who are His, we don't. Some who are living very religious lives may turn out to not know God in a saving way at all. Jesus talked about some of these who, at judgment day, would come spouting off about their religious acts and Jesus said that He never knew them. Did they fool other believers ? My guess is they did and this continues to happen today.

Regardless of what others think about one's salvation, what you and God know to be the truth is all that matters in the end. So are you saved ?

Sudsy, I appreciate that you said when someone becomes a Christian, "their life changes as the Holy Spirit comes to live within." I also appreciate your emphasis on salvation as a gift. But I think your comments here and elsewhere in this thread tend to blur everything besides the essentials into unimportant things, and that's an error I'd like to avoid, which is the purpose of this post.

I agree with RZehr's comments about what makes sense in your posts and what doesn't. Whether it's your enemy, or someone else's enemy (i.e. doing violence in defense of someone else, which is one way military and law enforcement killing is defended), I think loving someone and killing him at the same time seems absurd; if he isn't your enemy, he's still your neighbor. "Do good to those who hate you." I think nonlethally restraining a lethal threat (like taking someone down and sitting on him) until the police arrive is probably defensible; that may be really be good for them. But I don't see how killing them and doing good to them is compatible.

[MattY]

Trying to move away from the discussion of nonresistance and the Trinity, and back to the four categories in my original post. Fundamentalists and liberals tend toward opposite errors. Liberals deny the existence of any first-tier issues, and make everything a third-tier issue; the result is doctrinal ambiguity. Fundamentalists tend toward the opposite error, and make every disagreement a first-tier issue. Thus eschatology, for example, is made an essential - you have to believe in the pre-tribulation rapture. And then there's, of course, the antinomian approach, which puts only a few things (like faith) in tier one, and relegates everything to no importance - denying the existence of tiers two and three.

I think "only a few salvation issues matter", and "everything that's important must be essential" are just two sides of the same coin - because everything that matters must be essential, they just disagree on how much. I think we should abandon the "coin" and be able to discuss a wide range of issues across denominational boundaries without calling each other heretics or unbelievers (this has brought reproach to Christ in church history). This means we should pursue truth for the sake of obedience, love for Christ and His word, love for fellow believers, the health of the church, and so on. We should practice love and humility toward our fellow believers who think differently, without saying that our differences don't matter.

I think you are wrong about this and your categories are flawed. And it isn't that liberals deny the existence of first-tier issues but that they disagree about what they are.

You are categorizing dogma into first and second tier issues. But I would argue that dogma itself isn't a first tier issue, commandments are. Let's look at two of what you identify as first-tier issues. The Trinity and God the creator of all things. Jesus never mentions the Trinity anywhere in the Bible, nor does he ever suggest that belief in the Trinity is a salvation issue. Likewise with belief in God being the creator of all things. Nowhere in the New Testament (that I am aware of) is belief in that particular dogma identified as a salvation issue. It is part of the larger Christian belief system to be sure. But there is no teaching anywhere that someone who might question that particular dogma is unsaved.

By contrast, take a commandment that you mention nowhere and that is God's command to care for creation. It first appears in Genesis 2 in the Garden of Eden and then later in Genesis 9 with God's covenant with NOAA where God states that he will demand an accounting from every living animal and establish a covenant with every living creature on earth. That is pretty explicit. We are to care for every species in creation. It is an actual covenant. Many liberals might identify creation care (environmentalism) as a first tier covenant issue. Whereas conservatives might tend to ignore it, especially in their dismissal of human effects on the environment such as human-caused climate change.

Ken, it's been said that men are from Mars, and women are from Venus. But if I'm on Mars, you might as well be on Titan.

Christians should take care of creation and be good stewards, but show me where environmentalism is mentioned as an essential part of the Gospel in the NT? Taking care of the environment can be done by all humans - it's a charge given to all humans - and it's advocated by people from all sorts of religions. There's nothing distinctively Christian about it. It doesn't belong in a first-tier list of explicitly Christian doctrines that separate Christians from non-Christians.

Your view that all doctrine is a third-tier issue is itself a doctrine that you've elevated pretty highly. Christians have been concerned about correct doctrine from the very beginning; that's why we have early examples of creeds even in the New Testament, and the formation of the rule of faith in the second century, excluding those who believe otherwise from the true faith. Christianity would have become a mishmash of Gnosticism, Arianism, antinomianism, Marcionosm, the Ebionites, etc. if they didn't care about true doctrine. In fact, liberal theology today contains all sorts of those same heresies (such as feminist theologians who like the Gnostic writings); they've just blatantly thrown off all of church history, not to mention the infallible Scripture.