Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry

There are only two religions when they're boiled down to their essence:

One religion is the "man-centered" religion embraced by those who
view themselves as "basically" good. Given enough time and having
these "basically good" people in charge of everyone's lives, utopia
on earth is possible. Only those who have this view of themselves
would even DARE to think that God approves of their direct or
indirect efforts to impose their immature religious conscience on
others. (C.S. Lewis' "omnipotent moral busibodies")

The other religion is the God-centered religion embraced by
teachable, but scattered individuals whom God has set apart to know
that they are merely lowly beggars who ONLY by his grace were able to
find bread, and are given the privilege of leading other beggars to
it. Gratefulness and thankfulness is the hallmark of these
individuals - they aren't envious of what others have in the least.

Reflecting God's attitude, they have no desire to control people's
lives and would NEVER presume to impose their will on anyone. Unlike
those who view themselves as "basically good", they don't "covet power".

It's easy to know which religion is embraced by whom (and what they
will attempt to do if they obtain enough p*liti cal power) just by
looking at how they view themselves.

~ Janice

At 11:03 AM 11/5/2007, George Murphy wrote:
>Don -
>
>It's true that human beings are "basically good" in that they are
>God's creatures even as sinners. In that sense Augustine could say
>that even the devil is good as far as his mere existence is
>concerned. The idea that sin has made humans fundamentally evil -
>that original sin is the "substance" of fallen human nature, was
>rejected by Article I of the Formula of Concord.
>
>But the fact that that extreme view has to be rejected as heretical
>doesn't mean that the opposite extreme - that people are "basically
>good" in the popular sense that they can by their own powers do what
>is pleasing to God - has to be accepted. & there is quite general
>biblical witness that human beings are not "basically good" in that
>sense: That is the whole point that Paul makes in that section of
>Romans (1:18 - 3:20) which began this discussion - a section which
>concludes with a catena of OT texts to the effect that "There is no
>one who is righteous, not even one."
>
>While it's true that all people "are created by God," it is
>manifestly false that they all "live in his fellowship." We are not
>from birth children of God, as the NT uses the term, but children of
>wrath - Ephesians 2:3.
>
>Shalom
>George
><http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>Don Winterstein
>To: <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa ;
><mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>Janice Matchett
>Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:42 AM
>Subject: Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry
>
>This sounds like sweeping accusation based on what?
>
>A major reason the conventional Christian view of idolatry is
>unacceptable IMO is partly because it makes sweeping accusations
>based on no info and partly because things often cited as idols are
>to some degree necessary for human life. For example, there is a
>sense in which all Christians should think of themselves as
>"basically good people." They are created by God and live in his
>fellowship. What's bad about that? God surely does not want his
>people to go around with totally negative images of
>themselves. This is not biblically justifiable. What image of
>himself generally did David have, do you suppose? Or Christ's
>apostles after Pentecost? The conventional view of idolatry IMO
>tends to hang multiple guilt trips on everybody all the time, and
>that's wrong.
>
>Don
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>Janice Matchett
>To: <mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>Don Winterstein ;
><mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa
>Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:43 PM
>Subject: Re: [asa] Improved view of idolatry
>
>At 08:49 AM 11/4/2007, Don Winterstein wrote:
>
>>Luther: "...To have a god is to have something in which the heart
>>entirely trusts."
>>Murphy: "What is really fundamental is where we put our ultimate trust...."
>>
>>By these standards there is probably little or no idolatry among
>>God-believers in America: Very few of them, if asked, would claim
>>that their ultimate trust is in their wealth or in anything or
>>anyone but God. .."
>
>
>@ What they would claim is beside the point. Probably the majority
>of them also think that they are "basically" good people - that
>alone makes them idolaters.
>
>There are only two choices and that's why - boiled down to their
>essence - there are really only two religions.
>
>~ Janice
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 5 12:21:30 2007