Hi Crow,
I'll try to get to the other major questions/propositions in your post tonight, but I can already feel I'm getting too tired to go on, so forgive me if I have to bag it till tomorrow at some point.
Originally posted by crowMAW
Also you say that a professing Christian may not be a true Christian. Unfortunately, I cannot find an indicator that allows me to tell the difference between the two. In fact, if I postulate the behavior of a true Christian based on some of what you have written, I would say that a tiny percent of professing Christians are true Christians...I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are far fewer true Christians than atheists in this country.
Another problem with identifying true Christians: who determines those characteristics that identify one? If one says the Bible, then you have the issue of interpretation. There are some Christian sects that say that Catholics are not true Christians because of their particular dogma.
No one other than God has the capacity to tell who is and who isn't a real Christian unerringly, but this doesn't mean that we don't have any clues that will help us in that process.
The fact that there are going to be "false professions" in the Christian community is both biblically and experientially verifiable.
For instance, in his preaching Christ said that it was by their fruits we would be able to distinguish between false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, and true Christians and ministers and that in the final judgment many would come who had called Jesus Lord, and even ministered in His name, and yet that He would declare to them
"I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" He also told us that even the world would be able to distinguish Christians because they loved one another (John 13:36) Paul warned soberly that in Acts 20 wolves would come in to ravage the church from amongst the Ephesian elders, and that they would be distinguished by their preaching of false doctrines that created schism, and that did not accord with the scriptures and which encouraged sinful behavior rather than restraining it.
Space forbids me from listing all the clues that one may discern that the Bible lists as qualities that mark out a false Christian, and certainly all will not be present in every false professor. Amongst them however are, that his teaching is not in accord with the Gospel of Christ Crucified for Sinners, that He doesn't preach that Christ came in the flesh and rose again from the dead, that he loves the world more than Christ, that he loves money, that his teaching encourages licentiousness and immorality, that his profession of faith produces no fruit of good works, that his religion is entirely external and formalistic rather than being of the heart, that his religion is based on a birthright rather than rebirth (being born again). That he is trusting for his salvation in His own works rather than the completed work of Christ.
Examples of false Christians also abound, Judas, Demas, Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus, and so on. In the Old Testament we have even more examples of people who were externally in the Covenant Community but whose hearts remained stoney and unchanged. As the apostle John pointed out regarding apostates:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (1 John 2:19)
Segue into the Hitler discussion. It is clear that Hitler publicly professed to be a Christian. However, I certainly agree that his behavior would lead one to conclude otherwise. It seems to be a recurring problem in many politicians today. They profess to be regenerated Christians, however their unrepentant sinful behavior certainly seems un-Christian even with the meager knowledge of Christ's teachings that I have. And I suppose it makes the sin all the worse since they are obviously lying about being true Christians.
If I can make a comment about the German situation that might help in connecting to what I wrote above.
During the 19th century, the majority of German theologians and philosophers turned against the concept of supernaturalism. For instance, many followed Hegel in denying the possibility of objective revelation and saying that it was via the intellect of man that we find God, and rather than being fixed and unchanging our truth is developing. In the theological schools, the higher critical method took over and the Bible came to be treated as a book of human insights that had many authors and was redacted many times. The Old Testament came to be treated as inferior both ethically, linguistically, and in terms of reliability and this in turn worked hand in hand with rising anti-semitism.
The long term effect of this was that by the beginning of the 20th century the majority of the German church was effectively anti-supernatural and their theology was dominated by rationalism and materialism. They viewed Christianity primarily as a unifying ethical system and the majority taught that heaven was a place we entered by being good. As nationalism increased, Christianity was seen as an aid to fusing the German identity and so served the needs of the culture and the state.
On the other hand, many, particularly after the First World War, embraced philosophies like Nihilism (which was the dominant philosophy in the Nazi party) that advocated that not only was God unknowable, he didn't even exist, and that Christian ethics didn't work and only "shackled" the strong. So amongst the zealous Nazis, you had a fair division between those who were professing Christians, but whose Christianity was essentially a rationalistic anti-supernatural ethical system subject to further development, and those who viewed Christianity as weak, outmoded and only of value as it provided them with "useful idiots." Hitler by his conversation clearly fell into the latter camp. No reasonable definition of Christian, other than one in which a cynical declaration is considered valid can be applied to him. There was only one god in Hitler's universe, and he saw him whenever he combed his hair or brushed his teeth. This emphasis on Hitler as God clearly overwhelmed both camps in the party. He was as clear an example of the small "a" anti-Christ as one is likely to get.
You say that children instinctually lie...but do you also see in children instinctual guilt over inappropriate behavior. Even if the child has not yet been taught that a behavior is inappropriate, the emotion frequently felt after being caught and instructed on a newly discovered unacceptable behavior is shame and guilt.
Yes I sometimes do see the effects of conscience in a young child, and this view actually militates against the idea of man born as a blank slate. This is because the image of God in fallen man is not
entirely obscured. Even the unregenerate is not without a conscience. Christian theology teaches that in the unregenerate, that conscience will be a factor to the degree in which God exercises what is known as common grace.
We both worked together, evangelist with agnostic, to perform good works. Was my action to render aid any less of a good work than that of the evangelist?
The answer to that question depends on the true nature of reality, if there is no God, then your works were equal in their value, and equal in only having reference to the interested party. In fact, by that criteria their value could only be subjective, and determined by how well they served your ends.
But if the biblical worldview represents the true nature of reality, then let me quote a Scottish theologian by the name of Robert Shaw:
"An action may be materially, and yet not formally, good. Prayer, reading and hearing the Word of God, distributing to the poor, are actions materially good; but unless these actions are done by persons who are "accepted in the Beloved," and "created anew in Christ Jesus"–unless they flow from a right principle, are performed in a right manner, and directed to a right end, they are not formally good. Now, unregenerate men may do many things that are good, for the matter of them, because they are things which God commands, and of good use to themselves and others; but, as performed by them, they are destitute of everything that can render an action "good and acceptable in the sight of God." Explicit is the declaration of the Apostle Paul: "They that are in the flesh cannot please God."–Rom. viii. 8. In other words, if there is a God and my chief end is supposed to be to glorify and enjoy him, then it matters little whether my motives for doing good works are the praise of others, feeling good about myself, or fear. Ultimately, I will have missed the mark that alone can give my works
formal value.
Don't think the Pharisees never did something nice for others, they did, but as Christ pointed out their
motives were what made those works of no ultimate value.
Anyway, your last question was possibly the most important, but I've expended all of my reserves of strength already. Let me answer it tomorrow.
Pax,
SEAGOON
