| Author | Message | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 71 Registered: 9-2003 |
I didn't attend church for most of my adult life, and only undertook Bible study in the last five years, ... but throughout my life I would have told you that I was a Christian . If you asked me what that meant, I wouldn't have talked about accepting Christ as my savior; I would have told you that I practice the Golden Rule. The GR is my understanding of the "love your neighbor as yourself" part of the Great Commandment. It is what I have in mind, all day every day. I do not see a lot of GR in this forum. I did a search for "golden rule" and found a limited number of hits. I see lots of GR _behavior_ here, but not too much express discussion. Which led me to the following interesting article: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/sociology/articles/Golden%20Rule%20Christianity.pdf It states that Golden Rule Christians are a substantial population in the U.S., who are more interested in doing good in this world, than gaining entry to the next. I thought it was interesting. I think I'm a GR Christian, and I think many of you are more in the evangelist category, per the article. That's why I tend to be less concerned about doctrinal issues like soul sleep; that's a mystery that will be revealed someday. Right now I'm busy trying to love my neighbor, in this world. I invite you to read the article and comment. Thanks, Hoytster | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 307 Registered: 7-2003 |
I just read the article and found it to be an accurate description of two camps that can be found within "Christianity". I place the word "Christianity" in quotations becasue as used in this article it does not necessarily describe a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but an affiliation with any organization or religion that incorporates philosophies or rituals thought to be derived from a common source or tradition (for instance Unitarians are included in the paper's data as well as some "lay liberals" who would question the deity of Christ). So we're loosely talking about a religion or culture as opposed to a personal relationship with the Risen Lord (I would use the latter definition to define Christianity). Having made that distinction, the only other comment I would make is that according to the New Testment, we need both love and truth. If we turn Christianity into a purely intellectual pursuit and fail to love and serve our fellow man, we have fallen far short of The Great Commandment. However, if we exhange the learning and sharing of truth for a "social gospel" that makes Christ optional, then we have fallen far short of the Great Commission. The fact is, the New Testament frequently calls us to do several things: Love one another, study to show ourselves approved rightly dividing the word of truth, contend for the faith against false teachers, and to take the gospel of Jesus to all the World baptizing them in His name. We can't just do one of these things and throw the others over board and still claim to be a true "Christian". If we do so we are only a "Christian" in the sense of one who goes to a certain church, not in the sense of one who truly knows, serves, and follows the Risen Christ. Chris | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 48 Registered: 3-2004 |
I scanned the article and would have to say that Iím pretty much in agreement with Chris. For the most part, even though the article kept protesting it, I would have to say what I see for many Golden Rule Christians is really moral philosophy. Most of us probably do seek to live a life that is characterized by following the Golden Rule, at least most of the time. But Jesus wasnít politically correct. And no doubt the money changers in the temple would certainly never have labeled him as following the Golden Rule. In some respects we have turned our congregations into not much more than social clubs. Iím subscribed to the updates on barna.org. (George Barna is the ìGallup Pollî of the Christian world.) The update that I received today discussed how the ìunchurchedî population is growing rapidly. One statement in the article caught my eye: ìThe only thing the Church can provide that no one else has is a life-changing, practical encounter ñ and on-going relationship ñ with the living God and with people transformed by similar encounters. Until such a connection is made, focusing on features, programs and benefits other than such a life-shaping encounter is more likely to lose ground than to gain it.î Thatís what I want for my life and my church, a life-changing relationship with God. Praise GodÖ | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 216 Registered: 12-2003 |
What an interesting article. I think a few years ago, I would have felt somewhat confused/compelled by it, but now I think I know exactly why I see things differently from the author. The discussion of Golden Rule vs. Evangleical Christians (and also Activist Christians) leaves out one factor that I have come to believe makes all the difference: the new birth. Jesus said to Nicodemus (John 3:3), "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The Golden Rule is, theoretically, available for anyone to embrace. Having a new heart, however, being as Paul says a "slave" to Christ and having the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16) and the resurrection power of God (Romans 8:11) really is only possible when one surrenders oneself to Jesus and accepts the indwelling Holy Spirit's gift of eternity and divine power. Golden Rule living apart from the new birth is really another form of "works" religion. Being born again and transformed by the "renewing of [our] minds" and by a heart of flesh instead of stone will quite naturally result in Golden Rule behavior. The Golden Rule, however, cannot take the place of Jesus in a heart. It cannot make us new people; it cannot impart divine power and inisght and love. It is, after all, inanimate and impersonal; God is a person, and God relates personally to us. Of course, my views depend upon a belief that the Bible is literally telling the truth. As Chris said somewhere else in another context, if one doesn't believe that the Bible is an unwavering ground of reality and faith, this argument won't make sense. Ultimately, though, a belief in a personal relationship with Jesus himself as the center of life is a reality that's confirmed not just by Biblical teaching but by the personal experience of literally meeting Jesus and having him remove one's blinders and bring his heart alive. The reason, I believe, that so many evangelical Christians are passionate about Jesus being the true center of a Christian's life is that they have experienced the freedom of forgiveness and the personal love of God filling their hearts. Their passion arises from love for the Person of Jesus, not merely from intellectual acceptance of doctrine. According to the article, many Golden Rule Christians feel no urgency about worship or regular involvement with the body of Christ apart from "using" church as a good vehicle for good works in the community and the world. This viewpoint, I believe, is not just a personal preference but a distinct result of not risking giving up one's control on one's life for the life-changing power of Jesus. I'll be so bold as to say that I don't believe that a person who has truly surrendered the corners and pockets of his heart to God in favor of finding truth and reality can comfortably stay away from corporate worship for long periods of time. The desire to worship and praise God and to share that love with others who also know it is a powerful motivator. The desire to worship God and to learn about and from him grows from being in love with Jesus. I don't believe that the average Golden Rule Christian (I'm not refering to you, Hoytster!) would say he or she is in love with God or Jesus. To one who is born again, Jesus is not our "example"; he is our Savior and Lord. While there are elements of his being our example, they are certainly not his main "function" in our lives. While I think the article is interesting and very accurate in explaining a large percentage of American "Christians", I don't believe that the fact that they call themselves Christian necessarily means that they are truly Christian. A true Christian lives, like Paul, for Christ and Him crucified. The Golden Rule is a result of the Holy Spirit's work in the heart of a born again Christ-follower. If the Golden Rule is present without the new birth, the result is a "do-it-yourself" goodness, and that is destined to fail. If the new birth precedes the Golden Rule, the result is people who are effacing themselves in the presence of Jesus and allowing the Holy Spirit to direct them. Between the two groups there is quite a difference in power, passion, and vision. The more we surrener to Jesus, the more powerful our lives become while the less control we wield over our circumstances. It's another paradox: we have to lose our lives to find them! Colleen | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 72 Registered: 9-2003 |
Thanks for taking the time to read, and to offer your valuable commentary! Here's another, found by googling ["golden rule christian" adventist]: http://www.revivalsermons.org/sermons/golden_rule.shtml Some lines that I thought useful: >Golden Rule Christians still want to keep some connection with classical Christianity. They want their faith to be grounded in the Bible, but they do not take the Bible literally. They see Scripture as not having so much to do with doctrine as with choices and practice. Golden Rule Christians believe that the Bible is useful as a tool for making one's own life and the life of the world better. >Golden Rule Christians are not interested in developing a system of doctrines. They are more concerned with the development of their personal lives and spirituality. They are concerned with helping others and in making the world a better place to live in. This is a kind of lowñdemand religion. For Golden Rule Christians, the Bible is a place to find interesting stories, but not special and revealed knowledge about the true and living God. >There is nothing wrong with trying to pattern our lives after His as long as we realize that without being born again and being forgiven of our sins we will not be able to see the kingdom of heaven, no matter how nice we treat other people. ------ Interestingly, the article is a long sermon by a SDA and the Sabbath is not mentioned ONCE! The 10 commandments are emphasized several times, though... This issue is interesting to me, because I think that I am a GR Christian, moving in the evangelical direction, as a result of my Bible study, plus this forum. It is also interesting because my son's mother is a 3rd-generation SDA, and her behavior indicates no sign that she has HEARD of the GR. One telling event occurred a few years ago, when she learned that at her lake property, the neighbor's septic system was on her land, and his lot was too small to support a legal septic system. She asked me what she should do. Me: Give the guy an easement, so his house is legal. She: I don't see it that way," she reply, "I think we can squeeze him out, and get the house at a good price. Me: Do you believe in the Golden Rule? She: Of course. Me: So if you were in this guy's position, a single parent raising two daughters, with a crummy house being your main and possibly ONLY asset, then you would want someone to take away your house, just because they COULD?" She: I don't see it that way. She owns that house now. She has not slept in it one night, I believe, about five years after taking ownership. It is far too crummy to meet her high standards. The kids hang out there on nice summer days, swimming in the pond... just as they hung out at their aunt's house 75 feet down the road, before their mother acquired the house. Otherwise, the house is just a great investment, that she got cheap. I spoke to the guy before he left, and he said that he couldn't afford the attorneys, so he just settled, and that she got the house for several 10's of thousands less than he thought was a fair price. An ironic note to this episode was my experience a few years earlier, when a Jewish friend from work told about how his neighbor had built his new garage one foot too close to my friend's property line, so the town was going to force the neighbor to remove the garage. My friend sold the guy a foot-wide strip of land for $1. I thought that was the right, GR thing to do -- and my friend had no Jesus commanding him to love his neighbor. Also, note that in both cases, it was the literal neighbor. Love thy neighbor, unless it advantages you to screw your neighbor -- how could a so-called self-described Christian do that? There are a jillion other examples. I say that the GR is central to my outlook and personality; it is absent from hers. It puts me in mind of the SDA daddy who was admired by the congregation because he had his kids in SDA schools and they were all faithful Sabbath-keepers -- overlooking the fact that he sold street drugs to make the tuition payments. The parents in that SDA church would have been in rage if the guy had sold THEIR children drugs. It's OK to abuse the infidel, however, the non-SDA. Does that sound familiar? A conditional GR? Do unto other SDAs as you would have them do unto you? There is a danger is being righteous, full of the Truth. If you are doctrinally pure, then you can screw your neighbor, safe because you're saved. The Pharisees know all about this. I get your comment about works, Colleen. I was very disappointed when I learned that the several hundred times I've stopped to operate the camera, so two friends can both be in the picture, will not count when I have that chat with St. Peter outside the pearly gates. Even evangelicals agree, however, that we SHOULD do good works, with the caveat that they come FROM our relationship with Christ - they are the fruit, not the justification. What mystifies me is how self-described great Christians can violate the GR without a second thought. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, and your neighbor as yourself." How can it not follow, that we keep the Great Commandment by applying the GR? I believe that even doctrine-centric Christians should practice the GR, because Christ so commanded us. - Hoytster | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 302 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hoyster, i think I understand what you're saying. I too have tried to ask myself how would i have others do unto me, but I struggle to say what does God want me to do in this situation just because I know what I would want done to me in that situation. It's a hard black/white issue. Yes, we are to do unto others, but we also need to seek God's will for our lives. I say that because I have spent years doing unto B as I wish he would do unto me and neglecting whether that was what God really wanted me to do at all. And I keep waiting for B to do unto me...but he is not so inclined because "God" will not allow him. I believe the more someone studies the Bible and draws closer to God in their relationship with Christ, the more they will realize how little they know. I guess that's why the SDA 'blueprint" is so crazy to me. Yes, there are absolutes in scripture ... but there are many more areas subject to God's direction. Greed is at the root of your ex's issue, while also ignoring the golden rule. There is certainly a balance but that balance has to be geared towards our personal relationship with Christ and our seeking his will for our lives. Merely doing unto others for its own sake means others wants what I want. That's not always true either. Does that make any sense?? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 217 Registered: 12-2003 |
Melissa, I understand what you're saying. The Golden Rule really only makes good sense in the context of knowing Jesus. People who practice the Golden Rule without knowing Christ are, to be sure MUCH MORE pleasant to live with than are those who don't! I suspect, however, that many people who truly try to pattern their lives after the Golden Rule are probably people who are open to knowing what is true. God only knows our hearts; he knows all those who want truth and who will respond to his Spirit. Sometimes it takes years (as many of us know all too well!) for Him to break through our preconceived understandings to look fully into the face of Jesus, and even then there are layers of things we need to surrender to Him as He reveals them. Melissa, your point about not always knowing what God's will is, that the Golden Rule may push us to treat people in ways we maybe shoudn't be pursuing--is a good one. Ultimately the Holy Spirit gives us the mind of Christ. It seems that often God's promptiings include not only treating people as I would wish to be treated, but they often require some (often uncomfortable) surrender on my part. Hoytster, this has been an interesting discussion. Thanks for your openness and for bringing it up! Colleen | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 73 Registered: 9-2003 |
I have printed out your responses, so I can read more thoughtfully. I will respond <better> shortly. In the meanwhile, here's yet another gem from the internet, about the Golden Rule being a salvation issue: ------------------------ As We Do Unto Others, God Will Do Unto Us In terms of each individual's personal salvation, there's another extremely important aspect of the "golden rule" - as we treat others, so God will treat us. "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back." (Luke 6:36-38 RSV) "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume upon the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." (Romans 2:1-5 RSV) ------------------------ That puts me in mind of Matthew 18:23-35, the parable of the unforgiving servant, who did not treat others as he wanted to be treated. The punchline: "So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you donít each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds." That's Jesus talking. What the master of the unforgiving servant did, of course, was deliver the servant to his torturers. Ouch! And, obviously: Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. In other words, treat others the way you want God to treat you. I don't think you can dismiss the Golden Rule as unimportant. I don't think that you can raise it to the level of being a salvation issue, but it's important. Chris, you mentioned that we are charged to carry God's Word to the world. The Golden Rule is a prominent Christian teaching; its prominence is why there are so many GR Christians, per the article. We FAIL to spread God's Word when we fail to apply the Golden Rule in our lives, because then the unchurched, born-once look at us and think "There's another one of those 'Christian' hypocrites." I've actually developed a distaste for the term "Christian" because my son's mother and all of her relatives are oh-so-righteous believers and Bible scholars, tithing and keeping the Sabbath, really terrific self-described Christians... all the while violating the other nine commandments and ESPECIALLY the Great Commandment to love our neighbor as ourself. I think that Golden Rule Christians, defined as believers in Christ who obey his commandment to love our neighbor, are real Christians and do not deserve the quotation marks. Those who quote their Bible and judge / hate / do not forgive their neighbor are just Pharisees. Even the ones who can identify all the TRUE doctrines. Even the ones who claim to be born again, with a personal relationship with Christ. Taking on the sobriquet "Christian" does not make one so, saying "I am born again" does not make it true. I don't want to make a works argument, but by their fruit you shall know them. If they do not display the fruit of the spirit, do they really have it? The reason why I'm being so adamant is that I think that the selfish Christians make it hard for the rest of us to appeal to the lost sheep. And there are a LOT of selfish Christians. When someone tells me they are a Christian, that doesn't tell me much. I want to know what kind. My test does not include whether they subscribe to a particular view about soul sleep or being born again. I want to know whether they treat others as they themselves want to be treated. If not, they are defying Jesus' Great Commandment, and they are giving the rest of us a bad reputation. Just my two cents. - Hoytster | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 305 Registered: 7-2003 |
You are right in that there are certainly a bunch of people wearing the label but not walking the talk. i have friends who do remodeling and some of their subcontractors, who they try to witness to, have worked with other "christians" and don't get paid on time, don't get jobs promised, etc., so my friends feel an obligation to be especially conscious of their relationships with their subs to break their image of "Christians". It is the "right" thing to do, and certainly in line with the GR. I just get nervous about holding to "one" passage, though you correctly point out the example throughout Christ's ministry, with a seeming disregard for seeking God's will for one's life too. See, if it were me, I would like to have access to my son every day and by that line of thought, I have to allow B access to my son every day, even allowing him to live with me since that's what I would want. So, I think that's why I push back a little. There needs to be balance of seeking God's direction and where none is specifically evident, the GR is great to providing direction. We just can't take the GR to the exclusion of a personal relationship with Christ and trying to discern his will for our lives and what is right. You have great insight Hoytster and ask questions I enjoy thinking about and processing. It's a little like brand names. We call tissue kleenex, though not all tissue is Kleenex brand, we call sodas coke, though we may not be drinking the brand Coke, etc. My company owns Crayola brand and they certainly don't want roseart crayons confused with the real crayola brand crayons, etc. One of the reasons McDonalds became so popular was because people knew what they got whatever one they went into across the country. Christianity, unfortunately, just isn't that consistent. We can't copyright the name to guarantee a specific quality. I know the world doesn't recognize the difference, but that's just how Satan has commonized our terminology. We come up with evangelicals and fundamentalists to try to differentiate ourselves, but there always seems to come along one who spoils the label for all of us. We can only control our actions and try to represent Christ in the best light we can. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 310 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hoyster said: "We FAIL to spread God's Word when we fail to apply the Golden Rule in our lives" Chris: I don't think anyone here would disagree with that statement. Nor do I think anyone here is down playing the significance of following Christ's command in this regard. I'm merely trying to emphasize that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and that love for others and all other good works are the fruit of that salvation. There is no salvation in doing works of love apart from faith in the Jesus of the Bible. If you agree with those statements then we have no argument. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 220 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree. I think the term "Christian" may be more of the problem than "Golden Rule". Christianity has been used and perverted for about 2,000 years. People have been killed in the name of Christianity when in truth Christ had nothing to do with the exterminations. In fact, the confusion over what a "Christian" is has prompted our church to use the term "Christ-follower" instead. I'm not arguing against the Golden Rule. The "Christians" to whom you're referring, Hoytster, are in all probability, not really Christians. They sound as if they have no personal knowledge of Jesus and are probably not born again. To use the name Christian is misusing the word under those circumstances. The Holy Spirit will produce the fruit of the Spirit in true Christ-followers. They will exhibit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, genteleness, and self-control. (Gal. 5:22-23) The Golden Rule will be part of who they are in Christ quite naturally as a result of beng born again. As Chris says above, "There is no salvation in dong works of love apart from faith in the Jesus of the Bible." And the Jesus of the Bible will produce those good works as we surrender to Him. Colleen | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 75 Registered: 2-2003 |
I agree with what you are all saying here. Commentators say the book of 1 John was written because there were people around (possibly the beginnings of the Gnostic heresies) who were claiming to be "Christians" but they were in fact not. He gives three criteria by which the real Christians are to be distinguished from the false, and these come up over and over throughout the book. They are: 1. True Christians love one another (e.g. 1 John 2: 9-11, 3: 14); 2. They do not live a life of continual sin (e.g. 3: 9-10); 3. They believe in Christ (e.g. 5: 11-12). It seems that all three features are considered necessary. You can't say that if you have one, you don't need the others. The Gnostics, on the other hand, considered they were saved by having all the right "knowledge" so how they behaved was not so important. Sounds a bit like the idea, that "if you get your theology perfectly right, it does not matter how you treat people." Just a thought, Adrian | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 74 Registered: 9-2003 |
Golden Rule continued (forgive my obsession): Yet another web-find, this one a letter from a Methodist, apparently referencing the United Methodist Church's continued controversy over the treatment of homosexuals. The author writes of "protogees of Paul" who thought that violation of the Golden Rule was the ONLY sin. Anyone here know about that? I've never heard that suggested before. The author's use of "Jewish Christians" is a nice short-hand for those legalistic folks, I think. - Hoytster 10/26/00 Letter to the Editor, via FAX 770/465-0685 Our UM church is floundering in a contentious confusion, but for which a remedy is readily at hand in Romans 14. (The reader should also to be mindful of Matthew 7:12, Romans 13:8-10, Acts 15, and Galatians). The early church contained two diverse elements: the Gentile Christians, protegees of Paul, found sin only in violations of the Golden Rule, while the Jewish Christians, who agreed in the importance of this Rule, insisted that it be supplemented by additional regulations which could not be derived from the Golden Rule, e.g., meat could not be eaten until the blood had been drained. This division has resurfaced today. The Gentile Christian means anyone bound only by the Golden Rule. The Jewish Christian is any Christian who accepts any externally imposed law (be it through scripture, church, or personal and direct revelation), e.g., it is a sin to engage in a homosexual act. The reconciliation is simple, namely holy living is to be considered as conduct in accordance with the Golden Rule, and clean living will be conduct in accordance with any supplemental regulations. While all Christians, Jewish and Gentile, are to seek to be holy, only the Jewish Christian need be clean. But the Gentile Christians are not to flout their freedom by doing in front of Jewish Christians that which the latter hold to be unclean. Our Discipline must be amended to reflect this scriptural solution. We should not encourage the Jewish United Methodists to sin through committing an act unclean in their eyes, nor force the Gentile United Methodists to surrender their freedom in Christ. Sincerely, [Name omitted by Hoytster in case the writer would rather not have his name appear here] | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 313 Registered: 7-2003 |
This writer is rather badly misinformed. Nearly all of the NT data that identifies the act of homosexuality as an innapproriate behaviour for Christians comes directly from Paul himself. To state that the proteges of Paul would not have viewed this as sin in simply in error and cannot be supported from scripture. Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 314 Registered: 7-2003 |
I have one other thought that might be of some value in this discussion. The Golden Rule, as popularly stated, is not found in the Bible and is subtley different than what Jesus said. Here's what Jesus actually said: 28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, ``What commandment is the foremost of all?'' 29 Jesus answered, ``The foremost is, `HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' 31 ``The second is this, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these.'' Mark 12:28-31 (NASB) Loving your neighbor as yourself is subtley different than "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you". How so? Suppose you don't really enjoy it when you hear someone talking about Budda or Hindu Gods. Does this mean that you should therefore avoid annoying others by discussing Jesus? The "GR" might suggest so to some, but the commands of Christ would dictate that if we truly love others we will tell them about the one true God and the only way to salvation. What's more, the commands of Christ would dictate that we do the right thing, the TRULY loving thing, even when it might be painful to us or others (consider disciplining children or punishing societal offenders/criminals). My point is, the loving thing and Godly thing to do is sometimes somewhat different than what we ourselves would like. So our decisions and actions must be informed by the Word of God and the Spirit of God rather than our own preferences, likes or dislikes. I agree with the basic idea that, rightly understood, the "GR" is more or less a simple restatement of the command of Christ. However, to rightly understand it, we need to to know what Christ actualy commanded and how scripture has instructed us to carry out those commands. Chris | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 75 Registered: 9-2003 |
I didn't take homosexuality as the writer's subject; he mentioned it as an illustration. In a similar note by the same author, he gave a different example, i.e. something other than homosexuality. I guess I placed too much emphasis on the homosexuality aspect in my poast. Rather, his point was that the Golden Rule was so central to the "Gentile Christians" that its violation was the ONLY sin they cared about. That seems a bit too concise. The last half of the Great Commandment can be understood as the Golden Rule, but that still leaves the first half, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. I guess you could argue that we love God when we love our neighbor. The first half of the Great Commandment calls for a direct relationship with God, however, not just neighborly behavior. Doesn't it? - Hoytster | ||
| Ladylittle Registered user Username: Ladylittle Post Number: 8 Registered: 4-2004 |
Hi Chris! I agree that the basic idea of GR 'Christians' is ill founded. The verse I think they are quoting though is Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." My husband has used this verse to point out that when we are changed by Christ, what we want, and therefore what we do for others, will be different that what we would want and choose without Christ. Just a thought! Mary | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 315 Registered: 7-2003 |
LadyLittle, I stand corrected. I believe you are right that Matt. 7:12 is actually the basis of the GR. I would further say I was very wrong in saying the "GR" as popularly stated is not found in the Bible. Clearly it is found in Matt. 7:12 almost verbativm. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and for providing the much needed factual correction and education. I would agree with your husband that the GR must be conditioned through our relationship with Christ (and by the commands He and His apostles gave the church). Hoyster, my apologies for the incorrect statement above. And yes, I definately agree with you that The first half of the Great Commandment calls for a direct relationship with God, not just neighborly behavior. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 225 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hoytser, I also agree. The first half of the Great Commandment calls for a direct relationship with God, not just neighborly behavior. The Golden Rule as Jesus stated it in Matthew 7:12 is a summary statement of appropriate motivation, and Jesus followed it with his comments about the narow gate which few find. The principle in the Golden Rule, as Mary stated, really doesn't make sense outside a relationship with Jesus. What we want for ourselves really does change with the new birth, and likewise our understanding of loving behavior changes. The article you shared above, Hoytster, bothers me partly because it assumes the Gentile Christians followed the Golden Rule while Jewish Christians were free to observe their traditions. I would disagree that the Gentiles followed the Golden Rule; they followed Jesus. Romans 7 discusses that sin took advantage of the commandments and deceived us, causing us to sin more than without the commandment. When you think about the very first commandment, Do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and think about the serpent's temptation of Eve, you realize that Satan's success came in causing Eve to analyze and explain God's command. The serpent planted the seed that God's command could be analyzed and evaluated according to one's own observation and intellectual prowess. The result was that Eve took her eyes off God, obeying his command because she loved, trusted, and knew him, and focussed instead on the commandment. The minute she focussed on the commandment, she could poke holes in it. For example, she didn't really die--except she did. It was good for food--it tasted and looked good. She did know the difference after eating between good and evil. Yes, she analyzed the command and figured out that it didn't make logical sense--and she was deceived into sin. To say that the Gentile Christians followed only the Golden Rule is to make the same mistake. If they had followed the Golden Rule, they could have come up with many behaviors (as the church in Corinth actually did) that were contrary to God's expectations. The Corinthian church permitted immorality including a member sleeping with his father's wife and being proud of the person doing so--yet that behavior could be seen as following the Golden Rule. Paul soundly rebuked the Corithians for their behavior and called them to live godly lives. The Golden Rule is not truly our standard--it is, as I mentioned, a summary statement of loving motive, but it's not our standard. If it were, we would deceive ourselves into allowing all manner of sinful indulgence. Jesus is our standard, and the Gentile church followed Jesus as Paul introduced and explained him. Jesus fulfilled the law and replaced it as the standard of behavior. Further, the Jewish Christian also followed Jesus as their standard. While they often persisted in their traditions, the law no longer dictated their standard of living. In fact, when Peter fell under the influence of the Judaizers and refused to eat with the Gentile believers, Paul rebuked him, and Peter responded to the rebuke. The Golden Rule, apparently, has replaced the law in many people's minds as the standard of Christian living. Again I question whether those who put forth the the Golden Rule as "a" or "the" standard really know Jesus or understand the gospel and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Praise God for the Holy Spirit! Colleen | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 86 Registered: 9-2003 |
I let this go, out of confusion and even more discomfort, but... I'm ba-a-a-a-ck!  I reached a bizarre conclusion, then had it confirmed in a conversation last weekend with a born-and-raise-now-former SDA. I asked her if the Golden Rule was taught in her Adventist church and school. "Never came up," she said, after some thought. That explains so much, esp. about my son's mother. A sample size of 1 is hardly valid, however, so I ask y'all... WERE you taught the Golden Rule in your SDA institutions? - Hoytster |
