Re [asa] Improved view of idolatry

At 08:04 AM 11/7/2007, Michael Roberts wrote:

>I presume Falwell, Kennedy and the Free republic types belong to the
>man centred religion ~ Michael

@@ "Types"?? Any "type" who thinks to himself, "Deep down, I'm
really a good person", is spiritually (and probably emotionally)
immature or doesn't yet (and may never) know Christ.

Now, unlike the PC crowd of shallow, easily offended "thought police"
(secular or otherwise), I have no desire to punish / silence those
who think and say things that are different from what I would think
and/or say. In fact, the more widely and often that the, "Deep down,
I'm really a good person" people expose themselves, the better I like
it. In fact, I even like helping them.

As far as the deceased Falwell and Kennedy go, they aren't here to
defend themselves against those who view themselves as "[fill in the
blank with what you think of when you compare yourself with them]",
they're God's business.

The only time any of the, "Deep down I'm really a good person" people
are any business of mine, is when they attempt to take away my
God-given liberties and refuse to allow me to opt out of the
do-gooder schemes they try to enforce on everyone else ("for their
own good" - of "for the children", of course). If weak-minded people
feel better living together in a nanny state, more power to them -
but they can leave me out of it and just move off to themselves to
set up their commune.

Like C.S Lewis, I'd rather live under robber barons (who take a rest
once in a while) than under omnipotent moral neurotics who inflict
themselves on others day and night as they delude themselves into
thinking they are "doing God's work". Their god is just like they
are - he forces his will on those who tell him to back off and leave
them alone.

Now I'm sure that there are plenty of people who either read or post
articles gathered from far and wide on Free Republic that view
themselves as "basically good people", just like there are
here. Most people just `"naturally" view themselves that
way. (Many are "called" (a general calling), but few have been
given the ability to "hear" (which is what it takes to make the call
"effective")). [Matt.22:14; Acts 9:1-19; 16:14; Romans 8:30, and last
but not least, of course: John 6:44 -- Jesus: "No man can come to me,
except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him
up at the last day."]

And speaking of the deluded types who view themselves as
"reeeeeeeeally good people" (as compared to the rest of the rabble),
I'm sure you'll find many of those people you'd admire listed here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922731/posts

~ Janice

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>Janice Matchett
>To: <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa@calvin.edu
>Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:21 AM
>Subject: 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 Thu Nov 8 11:56:29 2007