LGBT and Christian Persecution

[Josh]

I have already laid out what I think the good news is. In its essence it is that "Jesus is King."

Yet in the Epistles it's clear the good news is a lot more than that, such as the hope and belief in the resurrection. There is more to Christianity than just "Jesus is King". I think we should obey the Bible, not just follow what our own opinions are on what we think "following Jesus" means.

[Josh]

I am not sure I see a distinction between being a follower of Jesus (teachings and life) and being a follower of Jesus. Being baptized symbolizes the commitment to follow Jesus. That is why the Anabaptists were rebaptized.

The call to be baptised actually started before Jesus, with John the Baptist. Those people who repented and were baptised were people who wanted to sincerely follow God. Following Jesus is good, but ultimately it is also about following God, loving God, fearing God, and obeying God too. I think we need the Holy Ghost in order to do those things. There seems to be an odd de-emphasis on the triune God here and over-emphasis on one person of the godhead.

[joshuabgood]

I am not sure I see a distinction between being a follower of Jesus (teachings and life) and being a follower of Jesus. Being baptized symbolizes the commitment to follow Jesus. That is why the Anabaptists were rebaptized.

The call to be baptised actually started before Jesus, with John the Baptist. Those people who repented and were baptised were people who wanted to sincerely follow God. Following Jesus is good, but ultimately it is also about following God, loving God, fearing God, and obeying God too. I think we need the Holy Ghost in order to do those things. There seems to be an odd de-emphasis on the triune God here and over-emphasis on one person of the godhead.

I don't see a distinction between following Jesus and following God. Jesus is God revealed. If you have seen him you have seen the Father. The spirit of Jesus is sent as a comforter per John.

[Josh]

I am not sure I see a distinction between being a follower of Jesus (teachings and life) and being a follower of Jesus. Being baptized symbolizes the commitment to follow Jesus. That is why the Anabaptists were rebaptized.

The call to be baptised actually started before Jesus, with John the Baptist. Those people who repented and were baptised were people who wanted to sincerely follow God. Following Jesus is good, but ultimately it is also about following God, loving God, fearing God, and obeying God too. I think we need the Holy Ghost in order to do those things. There seems to be an odd de-emphasis on the triune God here and over-emphasis on one person of the godhead.

I don't see a distinction between following Jesus and following God. Jesus is God revealed. If you have seen him you have seen the Father. The spirit of Jesus is sent as a comforter per John.

Hold it right there - the "spirit of Jesus", or the Holy Spirit, that is, the Spirit of God?

I do see a distinction between God the Son and God the Father. Otherwise, they would be the same thing. And God the Spirit is not the same thing either.

[joshuabgood]

I have already laid out what I think the good news is. In its essence it is that "Jesus is King."

Yet in the Epistles it's clear the good news is a lot more than that, such as the hope and belief in the resurrection. There is more to Christianity than just "Jesus is King". I think we should obey the Bible, not just follow what our own opinions are on what we think "following Jesus" means.

The hope of the resurrection of the dead is a benefit of the good news, but not the good news proper. Jesus preached the good news but he hadn't even died or resurrected yet. So clearly it something beyond that.

[joshuabgood]

The call to be baptised actually started before Jesus, with John the Baptist. Those people who repented and were baptised were people who wanted to sincerely follow God. Following Jesus is good, but ultimately it is also about following God, loving God, fearing God, and obeying God too. I think we need the Holy Ghost in order to do those things. There seems to be an odd de-emphasis on the triune God here and over-emphasis on one person of the godhead.

I don't see a distinction between following Jesus and following God. Jesus is God revealed. If you have seen him you have seen the Father. The spirit of Jesus is sent as a comforter per John.

Hold it right there - the "spirit of Jesus", or the Holy Spirit, that is, the Spirit of God?

I do see a distinction between God the Son and God the Father. Otherwise, they would be the same thing. And God the Spirit is not the same thing either.

Jesus is God in the flesh. The spirit represents the spirit of God and...Jesus is God in the flesh. I don't see any issue with equating the spirit of Jesus with spirit of God or vice versa. The incarnation of God and then the indwelling of his spirit are of course mystery at a certain level, but I wouldn't needlessly separate them.

[joshuabgood]

I am not sure I see a distinction between being a follower of Jesus (teachings and life) and being a follower of Jesus. Being baptized symbolizes the commitment to follow Jesus. That is why the Anabaptists were rebaptized.

The call to be baptised actually started before Jesus, with John the Baptist. Those people who repented and were baptised were people who wanted to sincerely follow God. Following Jesus is good, but ultimately it is also about following God, loving God, fearing God, and obeying God too. I think we need the Holy Ghost in order to do those things. There seems to be an odd de-emphasis on the triune God here and over-emphasis on one person of the godhead.

Well we are monotheists. Jesus is God in the flesh. By him we know what God is like. The spirit is his present indwelling instantiated in us. That is all. As for the word trinity, I don't think you'll find a lot about that in the scriptures. (I am not denying the idea...but I am pushing back on a multiple personality God).

[Josh]

Jesus is God in the flesh. The spirit represents the spirit of God and...Jesus is God in the flesh. I don't see any issue with equating the spirit of Jesus with spirit of God or vice versa. The incarnation of God and then the indwelling of his spirit are of course mystery at a certain level, but I wouldn't needlessly separate them.

Well we are monotheists. Jesus is God in the flesh. By him we know what God is like. The spirit is his present indwelling instantiated in us. That is all. As for the word trinity, I don't think you'll find a lot about that in the scriptures. (I am not denying the idea...but I am pushing back on a multiple personality God).

This is essentially Oneness Pentecostalism, and whilst I find a lot of fellowship with them, I fundamentally disagree on their christology on this point (often called "Modalism" or "Sabellianism").

The Trinity is a mystery, but many Christians who came before me confirmed it as true, whether Catholics, Orthodox, or Anabaptists. In order to follow Jesus and get to know him, I have to accept that mystery of who he is. That includes accepting orthodox christology (which I think is rather plain in scripture). Many grave problems emerge once one starts to reject foundational doctrines like this.

[Dan Z]

I suspect Gary and I share the same hermeneutic in #2 position - the main difference is that I am willing to call "foul" when governments act outside of their ordination...and Gary leaves the refereeing up to God.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit more today and something occurred to me that Josh touched on in the next post. What all does calling "foul" on government include?

What good does it do for Kingdom Christians to constantly be on the alert for governments all over the world doing things outside of their ordination and then making public statements about it. Statements that in many ways mirror political statements of those systems opposed to what the "wrong" side is doing, such as what is happening in Ukraine. Statements that, IMO, have the potential to stoke even more resentment and turmoil in an already chaotic and hateful world. If someone can point me to teachings of Jesus or the Apostles or examples in the NT that promote this idea of calling "foul" on governments, I will certainly rethink where I'm at on this.

Gary, as always, I appreciate both your position and your questions. We're really not far off from each other.

Perhaps I should say what I mean by "crying foul" on Governments and why it matters.

First, as you may know, I do not vote, I'm a conscientious objector, and by Christian vocation, I will not hold political or coercive power. I'm not a politically involved person, and am generally content to let governments do their thing - but I do try to be an informed observer. As I've mentioned before, I adhere to the historical Anabaptist position of not bearing the sword (as per the teaching of Christ and his Apostles), but also recognizing that God ordains governments to do so provisionally to keep order in a fallen world "outside of the perfection of Christ." I believe ultimately in the rule and reign of Christ and His peaceable Kingdom, and the way of Christ guides my life and witness. I believe that in the end, Christ and His transcendent kingdom of peace and justice will reign supreme - both spiritually and physically on this earth and in heaven - as he puts all power under his feet (and ends the need for secular authority). I also believe Christ-followers are called by Jesus to be salt and light in a bitter and dark world, and this calling is not just evangelistic (spiritualized), but is physically and ethically part of how the Kingdom is witnessed and advanced.

All of this colors what I will and will not say to those in authority.

For example, I won't advocate in support of war or the use of violence, and I work hard to avoid conforming to secular political ideologies. I can't speak to all the wrong in the world, but when confronted with a wrong, I will act and use my voice to speak up on behalf of the oppressed as my Lord has done, including rebuking obvious abuses of power that cause gratuitous pain and suffering - be they individual, corporate, or governmental. I do so not to inflame or to encourage retribution, but to show empathy with the downtrodden, to bear prophetic witness to the teachings of Christ, and to season the World with the ethics of the Kingdom.

Abortion is bad...sex trafficking and exploitation are bad...slavery is bad...destroying lives and livelihoods via an invasion is bad...I believe all of these things grieve the heart of God...and I think we should say so.

[joshuabgood]

Jesus is God in the flesh. The spirit represents the spirit of God and...Jesus is God in the flesh. I don't see any issue with equating the spirit of Jesus with spirit of God or vice versa. The incarnation of God and then the indwelling of his spirit are of course mystery at a certain level, but I wouldn't needlessly separate them.

Well we are monotheists. Jesus is God in the flesh. By him we know what God is like. The spirit is his present indwelling instantiated in us. That is all. As for the word trinity, I don't think you'll find a lot about that in the scriptures. (I am not denying the idea...but I am pushing back on a multiple personality God).

This is essentially Oneness Pentecostalism, and whilst I find a lot of fellowship with them, I fundamentally disagree on their christology on this point (often called "Modalism" or "Sabellianism").

The Trinity is a mystery, but many Christians who came before me confirmed it as true, whether Catholics, Orthodox, or Anabaptists. In order to follow Jesus and get to know him, I have to accept that mystery of who he is. That includes accepting orthodox christology (which I think is rather plain in scripture). Many grave problems emerge once one starts to reject foundational doctrines like this.

I do affirm God as the trinity, father son and spirit, just to be clear. But I don't think they are different in kind. We do believe in one God.