Self-Examination; The Almost Christian

[The Unbeliever]

therefore my question was and remains, when did evil originate?

Ah, I had missed this question earlier. My apologies. I would say that evil originates with deviations from the interests of individuals bound within the maxtrix of sociality. It is the interplay of self-interest and group well-being that defines morality, and harm to either the group or to the individuals who's interests are served by the group constitutes an evil. I would add that this is why utilitarianism permits morally objectionable actions, such as the example of sacrificing a single unwanted individual in order to save another who is valued by the whole community, because it fails to recognize the purpose of society is ultimately to benefit the individuals who operate within it. Any society that turns against its own members other than as an act of preservation against harm to the group/individual well being has lost its purpose.

 

[Webb]

Hi Unbeliever

Inasmuch as I beieve the scripure to be the final authority in matters religious it would appear we have no common ground.

God bless

 

[heymikey80]

That does not tell me much. Could you expand on that for me. If there were no God, tormenting children to death would still be evil. But there could be no sin because of the absence of God. This is my understanding. How do you understand the situation?

Sin is simply "mark-missing". It would be simply too easy to demonstrate that tormenting children to death is missing the mark of the good.

Now, if there were no God I would assert that what you term "evil" I would have to say is not evil, but is indeed deeply offensive to the conduct humans favor, in their sympathies and sensibilities. For instance, numerous children were burned to death in volcanic explosions -- I don't think volcanoes would be considered evil by this deduction.

 

[The Unbeliever]

Inasmuch as I beieve the scripure to be the final authority in matters religious it would appear we have no common ground.

Of course we have common ground. We have many experiences in common. And I never expected you to subscribe to my belief about the origins of evil and sin. My argument was only hypothetical, that if there were no God, that there could still be evil, but no sin. I made no claim about the reality of that hypothetical situation.

 

[The Unbeliever]

Sin is simply "mark-missing". It would be simply too easy to demonstrate that tormenting children to death is missing the mark of the good.

Now, if there were no God I would assert that what you term "evil" I would have to say is not evil, but is indeed deeply offensive to the conduct humans favor, in their sympathies and sensibilities. For instance, numerous children were burned to death in volcanic explosions -- I don't think volcanoes would be considered evil by this deduction.

True, the act would have to be perpetrated (directly or indirectly) by a recognized moral agent. I had assumed it was understood that we were talking about moral agents in this discussion, although it is good of you to point this out and so make it explicit.

I would warn you though that the etymology of a word is not the same as its meaning. I agree that the origins of the word sin do indeed come from a word meaning "to miss the mark", but words have a way of developing beyond their origins. If this were not so, I could be a sinner merely by being a poor archer.

 

[Davies]

And I never expected you to subscribe to my belief about the origins of evil and sin.

Hi Unbeliever,

We can tell you're a man of faith. I was wondering if you came up with the idea of the origins of evil on your own, or did you get them from the writings of men?

- Davies

 

[Davies]

Good evening,

A person can have faith, and yet be an Almost Christian. This isn't talking about the Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, or any other religion claiming to be Christian, but the statement refers to those who profess faith in the essentials of Christianity. I think there is plenty of room for other religions who claim to be Christian though.

"First, The faith of most is but a temporary faith, it endures for a while, and then dies and perisheth; true and saving faith, such as is the faith of God's elect, cannot die; it may fail in the act, but not in the habit; the sap may not be in the branch, but it is always in the root.

Devils and reprobates may believe the truth of the Scripture, and what is written of the dying and suffering of Christ for sinners; but there are but few that can close up themselves in the wounds of Christ, and by his stripes fetch in healing to their own souls.

Fifthly, There is a faith that is without brokenness of heart, that does not avail to melt or soften the heart, and therefore is not true faith; for the least true faith is ever joined with a bending will, and broken heart.

Sixthly, there is a faith that transforms not the heart; faith without fruit, that doth no bring forth the new creature in the soul, but leaves it in a state of sin and death.

This is a faith that makes a man a sound professor, but not a sound believer; he believes the truth, but not as it is in Jesus; for then it would change and transform him into "the likeness of Jesus." He believes that a man must be changed that would be saved, but yet is not savingly changed by believing. Thus while others believe to salvation, he believes to damnation; for "his web shall not become a garment, neither shall he cover himself with his work."-(Isa. lvi. 9.) - Matthew Mead, The Almost Christian...

I found the last Scripture reference in Isaiah 59:6. There is a lot more to this commentary on the subject of false faith, but there is plenty here to use in self-examination. One example of a false faith that I can think of is Dan Barker. For 18 or 19 years, Mr. Barker was a preacher of the Word of God, a soul winner, and yet after so long, he turned atheist. He would claim that he genuinely believed but his faith didn't last. Dan didn't close himself up in the wounds of Christ, as Matthew puts it. Dan was never healed. Dan may have been a sound professor, but he didn't believe the truth as it was in Jesus. If Dan doesn't repent of his sins by the day of his death, then I can say Dan was a believer unto damnation. His webs will not become a garment nor will he cover himself with his works, Isaiah 59:6.

The natural question should come up, 'Do I have a faith like Dan Barker?' This is the same reaction the apostles had at the last supper when Jesus said one of them would betray Him.

Mark 14:19

New King James Version (NKJV)

19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say to Him one by one, “Is it I?†And another said, “Is it I?â€[a]

I think we should be encouraged if we question our faith, because the Holy Spirit will always point us to Jesus where our contentment and rest resides.

- Davies

 

[Yah1]

"First, The faith of most is but a temporary faith, it endures for a while, and then dies and perisheth; true and saving faith, such as is the faith of God's elect, cannot die; it may fail in the act, but not in the habit; the sap may not be in the branch, but it is always in the root.

Well said my friend, and nicely addressed. 1 Peter 1:4

 

[smaller]

Hi Unbeliever,

We can tell you're a man of faith. I was wondering if you came up with the idea of the origins of evil on your own, or did you get them from the writings of men?

- Davies

Unbeliever is actually citing law from the understanding the world court systems use, that of ethics, rather than 'religion.'

I happen to know that arena fairly well having worked within same over the years in contract law.

I respect the fact that our governments use those kinds of systems quite frankly, although the ethics based legal understandings also have their issues. Morality isn't always the measure, as the Dred Scott 'ethics based' determination showed when it ruled slaves as property rather than people.

Ethics based law can result in very immoral determinations.

Nevertheless it is preferable to me rather than the utter and complete whackyness that would be engaged if the system was faith based.

s

 

[Davies]

Unbeliever is actually citing law from the understanding the world court systems use, that of ethics, rather than 'religion.'

I happen to know that arena fairly well having worked within same over the years in contract law.

I respect the fact that our governments use those kinds of systems quite frankly, although the ethics based legal understandings also have their issues. Morality isn't always the measure, as the Dred Scott 'ethics based' determination showed when it ruled slaves as property rather than people.

Ethics based law can result in very immoral determinations.

Nevertheless it is preferable to me rather than the utter and complete whackyness that would be engaged if the system was faith based.

s

smaller,

The whackyness you refer to is an excellent point to highlight and a very good reason why we need a source of law that is not relative, but comes from an outside source other than ourselves in order to know right from wrong. We do see faults in our legal system, but we would say that it's due to the corrupt nature of man.

- Davies

 

[smaller]

smaller,

The whackyness you refer to is an excellent point to highlight and a very good reason why we need a source of law that is not relative, but comes from an outside source other than ourselves in order to know right from wrong. We do see faults in our legal system, but we would say that it's due to the corrupt nature of man.

- Davies

However you want to spin it the very last measure I'd want to see in the worlds governments is any form of christian theocracy, emph. cracy.

 

[Davies]

Good afternoon,

Having the day off of work today, I have time to post/cook some spiritual vegetables. We all must eat our brussel sprouts.

""A man may obey the commands of God, yea, many of the commands of God, and yet be but almost a Christian." ... The young man went far in obedience, :all these have I observed from my youth up," (Mark x. 20.) And yet he was but an hypocrite, for he forsook Christ after all.

Objection. But is it not said, "he that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my father; and I will love him, and manifest myself unto him?"-(John xiv. 12.) And doth not our Lord tell us expressly, "ye are my friends if ye do whatever I command you?" And can a man be a friend of Christ, and be but almost a Christian?

1. There is a partial obedience, a piecemeal religion; when a man obeys God in one command, and not in another; owns him in one duty, and not in another; when a man seems to make conscience of the duties of one table, and not of the duties of another. This is the religion of most.

This obedience is not obedience;... It is said of those in Samaria, that they "feared the Lord, and served their own gods after their own manner," 2. Kings xvii. 23.) And yet in the very next verse it is said, "They feared not the Lord;" so that their fear of the Lord was no fear; in like manner, that obedience to God is no obedience, which is but a partial and piece-meal obedience.

2. A man may obey much; and yet be in his old nature, and if so, then all his obedience in that estate is but a painted sin;... The nature must be renewed, before the command can be rightly obeyed, for "a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit." ...

3. A man may obey the law, and yet have no love to the lawgiver; a carnal heart may do the command of God, but he cannot love God, and therefore cannot do it aright; for love to God is the foundation and spring of all true obedience; every command of God is to be done in love: this the "fulfilling of the law." The apostle saith," Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, (these seem to be acts of the highest obedience,) yet if I have not love, it profits me nothing." - Matthew Mead, The Almost Christian...

Who picks and chooses what he eats at the dinner table? Didn't your parents have to tell you to eat your vegetables? If you didn't have to be told, then there was something wrong with you. How many 'Christians' do you know who like to cherry pick the Scriptures? 'Let's do the things God tells us that we like to do, and the other stuff, well, since I'm no longer under the law anymore, I'm free to disregard it.' Even though the Christian is not under the law, he is not free to violate it.

Are we motivated out of love for God to be obedient to Him? Painted sin, white washed tombs, sin with a mask of righteousness are all products of a good deeds done without love for God. Try to stand on this righteousness before God, and you'll hear, "I never knew you..." It's best to wholly depend on the righteousness of Jesus when standing before God.

After reading Mr. Mead, you may feel like you can't do anything right, then seek the face of Jesus in the Bible. The more you look at His face, the more sanctified you will become, the more you will find yourself obeying God, in spirit and truth.

2 Corinthians 4:6

New King James Version (NKJV)

6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.


- Davies

 

[The Unbeliever]

We can tell you're a man of faith.

Why do you say that?

I was wondering if you came up with the idea of the origins of evil on your own, or did you get them from the writings of men?

Well, since I am a man as well, I don't see there being much of a distinction being made here. Nevertheless, my ideas are a combination of my own thoughts and the writings of men (and women).

 

[heymikey80]

True, the act would have to be perpetrated (directly or indirectly) by a recognized moral agent. I had assumed it was understood that we were talking about moral agents in this discussion, although it is good of you to point this out and so make it explicit.

I would warn you though that the etymology of a word is not the same as its meaning. I agree that the origins of the word sin do indeed come from a word meaning "to miss the mark", but words have a way of developing beyond their origins. If this were not so, I could be a sinner merely by being a poor archer.

If you were presenting yourself as an archer, that would indeed be sinful.

Second, intentionality once again has quite a way to go to determine the presence of "evil". Two reasons. One, we often consider such horrific actions "evil" through neglect, meaning there was no intent, but "there should've been" -- now our sense of morality is claiming that the absence of intent is itself evil. Second, a "tribal" approach to sympathy as if it's ethics, neglects a clear projection. If some being exists of comparably greater nature to us than say, we are to bacteria, then "evil" would be voided by the much greater worth of this greater being -- whether that being were intentionally destroying its bacteria, or if it were simply fighting the disease through its own autoimmune system.

 

[Davies]

Why do you say that?

The reason I said that you're a man of faith is because you said this," And I never expected you to subscribe to my belief about the origins of evil and sin." You have your beliefs. Granted, you're faith is not institutionalized, but everybody has faith in something, if not themselves.

Well, since I am a man as well, I don't see there being much of a distinction being made here. Nevertheless, my ideas are a combination of my own thoughts and the writings of men (and women).

It's good to understand the origins of where someone gets their standards of right and wrong. Though God said we shouldn't worship any other gods, creating our own standard is precisely that. We put ourselves on the throne and say I am God. Off the top of my head, that's a violation of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, and 10th Commandments. The Commandments teach us a lot about ourselves. They also tell us of our great need of salvation and forgiveness.

- Davies

 

[Davies]

Good morning,

A person can be sanctified, and yet, be an Almost Christian. I was thinking that Matthew Mead was being provocative when he expressed this idea, but the reason he said it was because classifies sanctification into two categories, the inward and outward sanctification. If you take his idea of sanctification as a means to understand what he said, then I don't think we should dismiss what he said.

"Many have clean hands, but unclean hearts; they wash the outside of the cup and platter, when all is filthy within: the former without the latter profiteth a man no more than it profited Pilate, who condemned Christ, to wash his hands in the presence of the people; he washed his hands of the blood of CHrist, and yet had a hand in the death of Christ. The Egyptian temples were beautiful on the outside, but within you should find nothing but some Serpent or Crocodile. "He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly." Judas was a saint without, but a sinner within; openly a disciple, but secretly a devil.

Some pretend to inward sanctity without outward; this is the pretence of the open sinner: "though I sometimes drop an idle foolish word, saith he, or though I sometimes swear an oath, yet I think no hurt; I thank God, my heart is as good as the best:" such are like the sinner Moses mentions, that "blessed himself in his heart , saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine own heart, to add drunkenness to thirst."

Some pretend to ourtward sanctity, without inward; such are like the Scribes and Pharisees, who "outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within are full of hypocrisy and iniquity;" fair professors, but foul sinners.

... so the sanctification of both[inward and outward], are essential to the being of the new man. True sanctification begins at the heart, but works out into the life and conversation; and if so, then a man may attain to an outward sanctification, and yet for want of the inward, be no better than almost a Christian." Matthew Mead, The Almost Christian ...

I believe when we are saved, we are justified by the blood of Jesus, testified by the resurrection of Jesus. This is what I would call the initial sanctification of the saint. The rest of our lives are spent being transformed into the image of Jesus; I refer to this as progressive sanctification. This is why we shouldn't judge others, because we don't know their legal status before God, and they may be at the beginning of the sanctification process, no matter how greatly improved there behavior is, or how poor. We should be able to say to ourselves, if our actions are not consistent with our faith, then we need to humble ourselves, confess to the Lord, and seek Him with all our hearts. It could mean we are Almost Christians, or it means we need to grow into the image of Jesus; after all, Moses, David, and Paul were murderers.

Psalm 51:17

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise.



- Davies

 

[Davies]

Good Monday,

"A man may do all, as to external duties and worship, that a true Christian can, and when he hath done all be but almost a Christian."

1. Internal acts of worship are good in themselves; the goodness doth adhere intrinsically to the thing done; a man cannot love God, nor fear God, but it will be imputed to him for a gracious act, and a great part of his holiness.

But external acts of worship, are not denominated good, so much from the matter done, as from the manner of doing them; a man cannot sin in loving and delighting in God, but he may sin in praying and hearing, &c. for want of a due manner.

2. Internal acts of worship put a goodness into external; it is our faith, our love, our fear of God, that makes our duties good.

3. They better he heart, and increase the degree of a man's holiness; external duties do not always do this; a man may pray, and yet his heart never the holier; he may hear the word, and yet his heart never the softer: but the more a man fears God, the wiser he is: the more a man loves God, the holier he is: Love is the perfection of holiness, we shall never be perfect in holiness, until we come to be perfect in love.

4. There is such an excellency in this internal worship, that he who mixes it with his external duties, is a true Christian when he doth least: but without this mixture, he is but almost a Christian that doth most.

Internal acts of worship, joined with outward, sanctify them, and make them accepted of God, though few; external acts of worship, without inward, make them abhorred of God, though they be never so many.

So that although the almost Christian may do all those duties in hypocrisy, which a true Christian doth in sincerity; nay, though in doing external duties, he may out-do the true Christian, as the comet makes a great blaze than the true star:..." Matthew Mead, The Almost Christian...

What this says to me is that you can look at anyone, especially the Christian, and not really know if a man is saved or not (in the case of the unbeliever, perhaps God will save them at a later time). But when you look at yourself, you should be able to know whether you do something for the love of God or for alternate motives. Am I trying to obey God to be right with Him? Am I obeying God in hopes that He will be merciful to me? Am I doing things to look good in front of others? I'm afraid that we are guilty of judging others not only because they do things that are wrong, but we judge others because they do things that are right. What does Paul have to say about this?

1 Corinthians 4:1-5

New King James Version (NKJV)

Stewards of the Mysteries of God

4 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court.[a] In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.

- Davies

 

[The Unbeliever]

If you were presenting yourself as an archer, that would indeed be sinful.

And yet it is not called a sin in the Bible, nor is there anything to suggest that it ought to be considered such. How is that possible?

Second, intentionality once again has quite a way to go to determine the presence of "evil". Two reasons. One, we often consider such horrific actions "evil" through neglect, meaning there was no intent, but "there should've been" -- now our sense of morality is claiming that the absence of intent is itself evil. Second, a "tribal" approach to sympathy as if it's ethics, neglects a clear projection. If some being exists of comparably greater nature to us than say, we are to bacteria, then "evil" would be voided by the much greater worth of this greater being -- whether that being were intentionally destroying its bacteria, or if it were simply fighting the disease through its own autoimmune system.

I never mentioned intentionality. I have no idea what you are arguing against. Sorry.

 

[The Unbeliever]

The reason I said that you're a man of faith is because you said this," And I never expected you to subscribe to my belief about the origins of evil and sin." You have your beliefs. Granted, you're faith is not institutionalized, but everybody has faith in something, if not themselves.

Not all beliefs require faith. Those two should not be confused.

It's good to understand the origins of where someone gets their standards of right and wrong. Though God said we shouldn't worship any other gods, creating our own standard is precisely that. We put ourselves on the throne and say I am God. Off the top of my head, that's a violation of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, and 10th Commandments. The Commandments teach us a lot about ourselves. They also tell us of our great need of salvation and forgiveness.

I don't have much of a choice if there is no God. Having my own standard was not my first preference. It was forced upon me after I was unable to sustain my belief in God.

 

[Davies]

Good morning,

The Almost Christian cannot delight in God. We have billions of people in the world that profess to believe in a deity, but because they don't know Jesus Christ, they cannot delight in God.

""Delight in God, ariseth from a suitableness between the faculty and the object; but nothing more unsuitable than God and a carnal heart."

Delight arises from the having what we desire, and from enjoying what we have: how then can he delight in God, that neither enjoys, nor hath, nor truly desires God?

Delight in God is one of the highest exercises of grace; and therefore how can he delight in God, that hath no grace?

Why then should any saint of God be discouraged, when he hears how far the almost Christian may go in the way to heaven; whereas he that is the weakest true believer, that hath the least true grace, goes farther than he, for he believes in, and loves God.

Should the almost Christian do less, as to matter of external duties yet if he had but the least true faith, the least sincerity of love to Christ, he would surely be saved; and should the true Christian do ten times more duties than he doth, yet, had he not faith in Christ, and love to Christ, he would surely be rejected.

O therefore, let not any weak believer be discouraged, though hypocrites may out-do them, and go beyond them in duty; for all their duties are done in hypocrisy; but your faith and love to God in duties, is a proof of your sincerity.

... The professor rests in his duties, and so is but almost a Christian; but you must be sure to rest upon the Lord Christ; this is the way to be altogether Christians; for , if ye believe, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Matthew Mead, The Almost Christian...

I think this passage shows an excellent relationship between faith and works. I'm sure there are many people in the world that would put me to shame by a showing of the good deeds compared to mine, but if I do my good deeds out of faith and love to God, then my little is counted as having done more than they. It seems strange because a self-righteous person can do a lot of good deeds in the world, but God is not pleased by them because those deeds are not done in faith. If a person does a good deed by faith in Jesus, I think God is pleased with this, though a person is still not justified by his good deeds. Only the righteousness of Jesus can justify a person before God.

John 15:5

New King James Version (NKJV)

5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.


- Davies