tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1181629083792804253..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Pure religionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83632476455569406762014-04-12T12:45:28.119-04:002014-04-12T12:45:28.119-04:00Cletus Van Damme
"If the commands are out of...Cletus Van Damme<br /><br />"If the commands are out of context, but the message derived from them is still accurate (not ipso facto wrong), then this seems a bit throwaway."<br /><br />Since he can't derive the message from his chosen prooftexts, whether the message is still accurate is the very point at issue. <br /><br />"How many sermons take verses out of context in order to make a broader point that is still true and applicable? Is every sermon that does that to be criticized?"<br /><br />You have a habit of being contrarian for the sake of contrariness. He's a commentator and NT prof. So I hold him to the standards of a trained and seasoned exegete. Sorry if that offends your low standards. <br /><br />And, yes, a sermon ought to be exegetically accurate. <br /><br />"Further, that you say you don't know of any verses which command charity to a specific sub-group outside of community of believers is also not compelling. It would be compelling if you said no verses command charity to *anyone* outside the community, but in our previous discussion I think the farthest you go is just saying it's not off-the-wall to think that, not that you personally are thoroughly convinced or would fault others for not holding to it. It would be rather strange for believers to be commanded (or at least not prohibited) to help those outside the community but then also that such help should exclude widows/orphans."<br /><br />You need to master the rudimentary distinction between what's permissible and what's obligatory. He is arguing that Christians have a duty to extend charity to unbelievers. The question at issue is not whether Christians are allowed to do so, but whether Christians are obliged to do so.<br /><br />You have a bad habit of recasting his arguments, then pretending that my objections were off-the-mark. But, of course, I was responding to him and not to your ex post facto editorializing. <br /><br />"Some false worldviews can still avoid the social maladies you point out while still improving quality of life/flourishing. Not every humanitarian/philanthrophic non-Christian is a die-hard liberal or is fighting for abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality alongside their efforts."<br /><br />World Vision was specifically capitulating to the homosexual lobby.<br /><br />"Do you only provide aid/charity if opportunities for evangelization are directly tied to it? Sure, it's probably nice if you're given the option, but sometimes you don't have that luxury (pressing needs during a natural disaster for example when well-organized secular charities are all ready to go), or the available christian entities are far less effective/efficient in their efforts than non-christian entities."<br /><br />Given the chance, secular charities squeeze out Christians charities. One way is for secular charities to bring Christian charities under their umbrella, then impose anti-Christian conditions. Or to simply co-opt Christian charities by redirecting donors to secular charities. Competition. <br /><br />"Moreover, I am not sure how one can provide aid/charity that is tied to evangelization if believers are only to help those in the community, per the first point above."<br /><br />Which piggybacks on your original mischaracterization. If you can't bring yourself to argue in good faith, your comments will be deleted. I'm not going to waste time on a captious, dishonest disputant. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32527652984638764372014-04-11T20:13:40.439-04:002014-04-11T20:13:40.439-04:00Steve,
"Offhand, I don't know of any Bib...Steve,<br /><br />"Offhand, I don't know of any Bible verses which command charity towards widows and orphans outside the community of faith. Aren't such verses typically directed at Jewish widows (in the OT) and Christian widows (in the NT)? <br />That doesn't mean it's ipso facto wrong to extend charity to needy individuals outside the community of faith. But McKnight is ripping these commands out of context. "<br /><br />If the commands are out of context, but the message derived from them is still accurate (not ipso facto wrong), then this seems a bit throwaway. How many sermons take verses out of context in order to make a broader point that is still true and applicable? Is every sermon that does that to be criticized? <br />Further, that you say you don't know of any verses which command charity to a specific sub-group outside of community of believers is also not compelling. It would be compelling if you said no verses command charity to *anyone* outside the community, but in our previous discussion I think the farthest you go is just saying it's not off-the-wall to think that, not that you personally are thoroughly convinced or would fault others for not holding to it. It would be rather strange for believers to be commanded (or at least not prohibited) to help those outside the community but then also that such help should exclude widows/orphans.<br /><br />"One fringe benefit of evangelizing the lost is to reduce certain social maladies which result from a false worldview. "<br /><br />Some false worldviews can still avoid the social maladies you point out while still improving quality of life/flourishing. Not every humanitarian/philanthrophic non-Christian is a die-hard liberal or is fighting for abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality alongside their efforts.<br /><br />"vii) Likewise, simply providing for the physical needs of the poor, when you refuse to evangelize them, is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. For they are still hellbound. "<br /><br />Do you only provide aid/charity if opportunities for evangelization are directly tied to it? Sure, it's probably nice if you're given the option, but sometimes you don't have that luxury (pressing needs during a natural disaster for example when well-organized secular charities are all ready to go), or the available christian entities are far less effective/efficient in their efforts than non-christian entities.<br />Moreover, I am not sure how one can provide aid/charity that is tied to evangelization if believers are only to help those in the community, per the first point above.Cletus Van Dammehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13749634619890462132noreply@blogger.com