17
Feb
14

Love of Debate or Love of the Truth?


Far too much discussion I’ve seen on blogs recently is little more than pitting one set of traditions against another

I’m beginning to wonder whether people are more interested in theological debate around religion and scripture than in the God revealed through scripture.

What do we love and desire most? Truth or Debate? Truth or Tradition?

If we genuinely desire Truth do we believe that God is able and willing to reveal it?

About these ads

10 Responses to “Love of Debate or Love of the Truth?”


  1. 1 Steve
    February 18, 2014 at 2:26 am

    “If we genuinely desire Truth do we believe that God is able and willing to reveal it?”

    That’s the crux, isn’t it ?

    And of course, if we believe Jesus IS “The Truth,” as He said He IS, the question is if He is able and willing to reveal HIMSELF.

    In Jesus, Steve

    • February 18, 2014 at 7:24 am

      Steve, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that many professing Christians really are NOT interested in the Truth. How else can so many clear foundational truths be missed or purposely denied?

  2. 3 Steve
    February 19, 2014 at 3:39 am

    That’s certainly my perception of American Christianity, brother.

    The scriptural end-result is one of the most frightening verses I know: that the man of lawlessness comes “…with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.” Love of Truth (Who IS Jesus) is the only protection against the enemy, and the destruction he intends for us.

    I find that a very sobering consideration, and pray continually that God will strengthen in me “the love of the truth.”

    In Jesus, Steve

    • 4 Marleen
      February 19, 2014 at 8:33 am

      Those of us in the US do need to pray and look at ourselves. It’s painful looking at our neighbors who claim to be Christian and representative of Christ but deny fact, lack truth, and spread hate and slander and indifference for other people (or certain other people). The lack of love of the truth and of the True God isn’t especially present here, though, it seems to me. Part of the problem here is the push toward “old world” thought in the realms of policy. Consider Russia now claiming their justifications for maltreatments of homosexual or effeminate people are based in how Christian the are as a country or nation of people. This kind of sentiment has been spoken by Putin, Russian Olympians, and their public. This not new, post-soviet. They were brutally conservative in this matter (and others) back when they were purportedly communist and admittedly atheist. [But I'm not only thinking of atheist history.]

    • 5 Marleen
      February 19, 2014 at 8:48 am

      Sheesh. Check out the GOP’s acceptance of Ted Nugent, both past and as of today (including by the supposed very religious presidential hopefuls of 2012, one of them the nominee).

  3. 6 Steve
    February 21, 2014 at 6:00 am

    Hi, Marlene:

    Your mention of the GOP brings in another thought about “love of the truth.”

    “Love of the Truth” requires we accept that “Truth” exists as objective reality (for us, the very Person of Jesus Christ). As such, Truth is a sovereign and “impartial” standard, the same for all, against which all alike are measured. (I take this as part of what it means that Jesus is King/Lord of all).

    The “goalpost-moving” that Tim referred to in another post may apply here. Truth is only IMmovable when it’s taken as objective, impartial and (ESPECIALLY) sovereign. Otherwise, truth is whatever we may individually deem it to be: and every man will do what is right/truth in his own eyes (Deuteronomy 12:8; Judges 17:6 and 21:25). God characterizes that as the way of fools (Proverbs 12:15 and 21:2).

    It’s also what we call “relativism,” when applied (as I’ve been told by Christians !!) in the evasive “you have your truth, and I have mine” refrain.

    It’s one reason, I think, that “factions” (Greek “heresia”) is listed in Galatians 5:20 as a “work of the flesh.” A faction is by definition a group that has it’s OWN proprietary “truth;” the assertion and defense of which gives rise to the “…enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions” also listed in that verse as works of the flesh.

    It seems a good description of American politics (Australian as well, I’m sure): and of Christians who’ve deeply involved themselves in the world’s kingdom and its thoughts-contrary-to-God’s.

    I’m skeptical that Christians who set their hearts on the relativistic “truth” of a political faction, as American Christians have the Republican agenda/attitude/mindset/goals, can do so without turning completely from the One Who says that He Himself is objective and sovereign “the Truth.”

    In Jesus, Steve

    • 7 Marleen
      March 1, 2014 at 2:17 am

      Objective reality. Love. Impartiality. Yes, these are inconsistent with “the party line” (itself inconsistent).

  4. 8 Marleen
    March 1, 2014 at 2:52 am

    Speaking of atheist history [mentioned in the context of communism's conservatism], the earliest believers in Jesus found themselves in the context of Judaism most of all, except not quite fitting in (in the sense of this approved segment of society running a portion of Rome for the conquerors). Perhaps our ongoing problem is a wish to fit in among conquerors and not be mistaken as atheists. Thus the debate as to who should rule.

  5. 9 Marleen
    March 1, 2014 at 3:08 am

    Here, following, is something I wrote last week, before Steve’s last post in this thread. Then I didn’t post it.

    What is actually outstanding about Jesus? Is what’s most important that which we see most visibly in Christians, almost reduced to rejection of gay people and hyper-vigilance for a philosophy of money? When have humans not known heterosexuality and work keep society going or a household enduring? Well, we can observe by reading that there was a point in time when some people in contact with Paul had to be told essentially that there was no point in preferring to “be ‘heavenly’ minded rather than of any earthly relevance [or practicality to themselves].” Soviets knew this basic concept too; they harped about work. It’s not profound.

    Yet royalty has known, as today’s Christians do (if in a less than conscious manner), that what is often really valued is not work or valor per se but money or holdings, and the like, and the power to wield mammon and withhold it for good or for ill at will and whim. Today, this view is so revered the desire is for a new kind of kinghood (but not so-called). In that hope (as if it is a good), Christians argue against government standing in the way of such awe and dependence or beholding. As long as we reference the private sector, all is supposed to be well. Further — more and more is outsourced… contractors are even hired as soldiers.

  6. 10 Marleen
    March 3, 2014 at 6:02 am

    Jesus called people hypocrites quite a few times in his ministry. That wasn’t only concerning what evangelists these days want people to believe — obviously, as he hadn’t died yet — it wasn’t just a theological position or setup for an argument. It was about honesty, being consistent, caring, etc. (having a true heart or not having).

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/178534/exxons-pro-fracking-ceo-suing-stop-fracking-near-his-mansion#

    http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-gop-blocks-bill-to-help-veterans-175802435621


Comments are currently closed.

Blog Stats

  • 27,467 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 170 other followers


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers

%d bloggers like this: