Christians Are Hypocrites
When we speak to unbelievers about Christ, this objection is usually leveled with some force. Christians do not act out what they seem to be claiming to possess. Christians seem judgmental and intolerant on the one hand, but they engage in any behavior they please, no matter how sinful, on the other. If the person has done their homework and they are really angered by this, they will remind you of the crusades, which occurred hundreds of years ago.
I agree, for whatever its worth that Christians do not live up to the standards God has set for humanity. Christians do not keep the Ten Commandments as we should. We lie, we envy, we hate, and often our marriages are in shambles like the rest of the world. So how do we overcome this obstacle? After all, what they say about Christians being hypocrites is actually true!
Here is the answer. The perfect One is Christ not His people. Christians are born into a state of sin and utter depravity, just as the non-Christian (Romans 3:23). We are rebels, we are disobedient, we are man-centered, and we are idol worshippers. There is no difference in terms of our condition as sinful humanity. The difference comes in the Person of Christ. He saves us and cleanses us eternally of our sin. However, that cleansing process is not complete. The Scripture teaches that Christians are New Creatures enrolled in a process called “sanctification,” which is to be made holy.
Consider this verse of Scripture. “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of the Lord” (II Corinthians 7:1, ESV). Here it is clear that Paul is teaching a process of becoming holy. If it is a process then we have not achieved the end yet; that means Christians are still sinners and prone to fail in a myriad of ways. The Apostle Peter is a startling example of a believer failing miserable when he denied Jesus three times. Later however, he was forgiven and restored by the Lord (John 21:15-19).
Thus, the objection is true: Christians are hypocrites, but that objection does not disprove the veracity of Christ’s perfection. He is the One in whom we can find no fault, and He is the One who has given us a new heart and enrolled us in the process of sanctification. To the unbeliever, do not primarily look at Christians to see if Christianity is true, look at Christ. To believers, let us daily be more molded in the image of Christ our Savior, demonstrating His holiness more and more.
I agree, for whatever its worth that Christians do not live up to the standards God has set for humanity. Christians do not keep the Ten Commandments as we should. We lie, we envy, we hate, and often our marriages are in shambles like the rest of the world. So how do we overcome this obstacle? After all, what they say about Christians being hypocrites is actually true!
Here is the answer. The perfect One is Christ not His people. Christians are born into a state of sin and utter depravity, just as the non-Christian (Romans 3:23). We are rebels, we are disobedient, we are man-centered, and we are idol worshippers. There is no difference in terms of our condition as sinful humanity. The difference comes in the Person of Christ. He saves us and cleanses us eternally of our sin. However, that cleansing process is not complete. The Scripture teaches that Christians are New Creatures enrolled in a process called “sanctification,” which is to be made holy.
Consider this verse of Scripture. “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of the Lord” (II Corinthians 7:1, ESV). Here it is clear that Paul is teaching a process of becoming holy. If it is a process then we have not achieved the end yet; that means Christians are still sinners and prone to fail in a myriad of ways. The Apostle Peter is a startling example of a believer failing miserable when he denied Jesus three times. Later however, he was forgiven and restored by the Lord (John 21:15-19).
Thus, the objection is true: Christians are hypocrites, but that objection does not disprove the veracity of Christ’s perfection. He is the One in whom we can find no fault, and He is the One who has given us a new heart and enrolled us in the process of sanctification. To the unbeliever, do not primarily look at Christians to see if Christianity is true, look at Christ. To believers, let us daily be more molded in the image of Christ our Savior, demonstrating His holiness more and more.
15 Comments:
Wouldn't it be difficult for unbelievers to look beyond the Christians and see the veracity of Christ's perfection when the only source of (Christ evidence) is provided by the very same Christians.
I agree that the truth of a statement is not logically affected by the trustworthiness of the speaker. But an individual's willingness to believe it may be.
Therefore, if unbelievers are unwilling to trust hypocrites to bring them the truth, the burden of delivering the truth must come from the source itself (self-evident). It is arguable whether or not the "truth of Jesus" is self-evident... and I don't really want to argue about it.
You seem to be understanding the argument correctly, but not willing to, with an open mind, let Jesus speak for Himself. I encourage all who doubt Him to read the Gospel of John with an unbiased approach, asking yourself, "Who does this man think He is and how does He substantiate his claim."
To be honest, were it not for the untouchable testimony of the Person of Jesus Christ, I would no sooner be a Christian than a Muslim. Whether this truth is "self-evident" or not seems to be beside the point.
Please point out how the above post would make you say that I have a closed mind.
It is truly hard to exaplain, but it seems that many (and I am not assuming this about you personally, just hypothetically and generally) are biased against Jesus from the get-go, and thus read His words looking for holes. By open minded, I mean truly listen to what the man has said and what He accomplished. For example:
1) He performed hundreds of witnessed miracles, the kind that can be verified. Lepers cleansed, blind seeing, and so on.
2) He reached out to sinners. He ate meals with prostitutes and tax collectors, He came to seek and save (literally) the lost. Nobody who is merely interested in self-exaltation and social advancement would have done this.
3) He fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies, many of which He could not have controlled. For exampled, born in Bethlehem, a physical son of David. Plus, read Psalm 22, written hundreds of years before Christ, and see how the crucifixion of Jesus matches the words there. No one could possible have faked all of these fulfilled prophecies.
4) He taught as one who was above the average Rabbi. Often He was asked, "By what authority do you speak these things."
5) He claimed the Temple as His own and cleansed it calling it, "My Father's House." No Jew spoke this way.
6) He changed the litergy of His people from Passover to the Lord's Supper. God Himself had instituted the Lord's Supper, and thus only God could change it, which He did.
Jesus was not merely a good teacher, but He was a profound philosopher, and communicator of the very person of God (Hebrews 1:1-3). Further, He substantiated His claims with witnessed miracles (not the Benny Hinn sort, "Oh, my back hurts").
When a person approaches Jesus in His totality as He is revealed in the gospels, with the open mind that says, "Wow, this man might actually be all that He has claimed," the result is often an encounter with Him, who continues to live and watch our lives from above, and who will return in a literal physical way at some point in the future.
I am not reading Christ's words on this blog. I am reading your words on this blog (or at a minimum, passages you have selected to convey your message).
Thus, I am not finding holes in the word of God on this website, but holes in your logic (regardless of topic).
If it bothers you or you makes you think I am "closed minded" for wanting to speak about religion from a purely logical point of view, I will not post again.
Of course, it does not bother me that you would say anything, after all, discussion is what this blog is all about. I encourage you to post.
I suppose my post was more to entice you to the real Word of God, the Bible. Don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.
I do take issue with your terminology "purely logical point of view." Pure logic assumes you are taking into account all considerations, which I am under the impression that you are not. What if the only way to understand true religion is from a revelation from God? In that scenario to start with our understanding of what we think might can be or what is impossible would be erroneous. It would be highly illogical.
The question naturally arises for me: How does one know for sure the Bible is THAT Revelation. It is a fair and necessary question. Two answers.
1) If the Bible is put to the test it passes. I can't imagine someone giving it a fair reading and coming away saying, "This is not the Word of God." (Of course, that comment comes from my biased perspective.)
2. The Bible tells us that only those who have "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" can understand this revelation and that the Holy Spirit provides that illumination. I Corinthains 2. Therefore, humans are totally dependent upon God is we are to know anything about Him at all.
#2 is a hard pill to swallow - for me, too. It sounds excusive, and indeed it is. But the question is not whether it is a hard pill to swallow or not, but whether it is true or not. I am convinced that it is.
"Pure logic assumes you are taking into account all considerations"
All verifiable considerations.
If the only way for me to understand "true religion" is for a revelation from God... I guess I'll just wait for the revelation.
I actually have read the bible, and I can't imagine a person who would come away saying, "This is the word of God." Just seems like a bunch of nice stories to me (IMHO). Besides, for one to recognize the "word of God", wouldn't one already have to have some understanding of God? Otherwise, how would they recognize the handwriting?
"All verifiable considerations." Of course, we are entering heavily into the realm of epistemology, "How do we know?" In response, we must understand that there is much "evidence" (depends on your definition) for the existence of God, via the many convincing theist arguments available (like those from Plantiga), but the most convincing proof is the Word of God itself. It is "verifiable" (depends on your definition) in as much as any document recording historical facts can be. There are eye-witnesses for example. There are archeological discoveries that support claims in Scripture, for example. There are hundreds of prophecies recorded in the Old Testament, hundreds of years before, that are fulfilled to the T in the New Testament. These, (IMHO) are verifiable, common sense, proofs of the validity of the document.
"I guess I'll just wait for the revelation." -- The revelation has already come in the person of Jesus Christ. Read carefully these words, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son..." (Hebrews 1:1-2).
Jesus is the conduit of the communication of God, which is one reason He is called "the Word" (John 1:1; 14). Furthermore, Jesus is the One who substantiates the Scriptures and confirms to people that they are the written revelation from God. Consider this passage, "If you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for He wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47)
"Besides, for one to recognize the 'word of God', wouldn't one already have to have some understanding of God? Otherwise, how would they recognize the handwriting?" The answer to the question is given above. Jesus has come and revealed who God is and that the Bible is His Word.
Truly, were it not for the person and work of Jesus Christ, I would be an unbeliever. He is the most convincing person I have ever read about or interacted with.
anonymous said...
Besides, for one to recognize the "word of God", wouldn't one already have to have some understanding of God? Otherwise, how would they recognize the handwriting?
I think you are right. But, the fact is that we all do have some understanding of God. As Paul says in Romans 1, "For since the creation of the world god's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
We can know some things about God apart from special revelation through what is called general revelation in nature. We know that God is creator and sustainer, that he is eternal and uncaused, that he is a person, that he is holy and righteous, etc.
But, the fact is that we all do have some understanding of God.
That depends on your definition of God. For this to always be true, God would have to be defined very loosely. Ex: God is nature; God is love; God is everything; etc...
If by God, you mean to say: the Christian God, then I disagree.
anonymous said...
If by God, you mean to say: the Christian God, then I disagree.
Well, you can disagree if you like, but you would be wrong--at least if by "Christian God" you mean the theistic God. We can demonstrate with some pretty powerful arguments that a personal, creator God exists who is eternal, immutable, uncaused, and good. This is not all that Christians believe about God, but these are the core attributes of the Christian God shared by most theists. And the existence of this God rules out the gods of polytheism and pantheism. If you'd like to discuss some of the arugments for God's existence, I would be happy to do so.
A discussion of arguments for God's existence sounds like fun... but first, I am a little confused:
I disagree with your assertion that: "we all do have some understanding of God". By disagreeing with this assertion I am not arguing whether or not God exists. But your argument in saying I'm wrong seems to rely on proving that God does exist. Even if God does exist, I would still disagree with your assertion. "Understanding" has several definitions, but the main idea seems to be: comprehension, knowledge and acceptance. It is certainly possible for something to exist without all people having an understanding of it. Gravity existed long before we had any understanding of it. There is a myriad of things that exist that we still do not understand.
Before exploring proofs for God, could you please explain how I am wrong about this? Are you using the word "understanding" differently that it seems?
anonymous asks...
Before exploring proofs for God, could you please explain how I am wrong about this? Are you using the word "understanding" differently that it seems?
I am using the word "understanding" in the usual way. But, let me clarify. I realize that many people who say they believe in God or a "higher power" have different conceptions of God. Yet I also believe, as Paul teaches in Romans 1, that these (false) conceptions of God are the result of either conscious or unconscious distortion, "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" to turn the truth of God into a lie and worship the creature rather than the creator.
Of course, I cannot prove that this "psychology of unbelief" is true of every person. But, it's not my purpose to do so. What is relevant to our discussion is that critical reflection on the nature of the being who created the universe out of nothing will yield attributes comensurate with the Christian view of God. This was my main (though evidently unclear) point in my last post. This is also why I suggested discussion of arguments for God's existence--for when we establish that the universe and certain features of it were created out of nothing and then go on to ask what properties this being must have in order to accomplish his creating, then we can see that it is indeed the Christian God with whom we have to do (which also, I believe, will bring the suppressed truth we all knew back to the surface).
>> But, the fact is that we all do have some understanding of God.
>> Of course, I cannot prove that this "psychology of unbelief" is true of every person.
These two statements seem contradictory. If you cannot prove an assertion, then it cannot be taken as fact. Maybe it's a theory?
>>Well, you can disagree if you like, but you would be wrong
Still not sure how you came to this conclusion (and to be honest, I dislike being called wrong without apparent reason). All I'm stating is that you cannot prove that all people have an understanding (comprehension, knowledge and acceptance) of the Christian God. Heck, I'm right here.
Proving that God exists is another topic all together. Would you like to stop talking about your understanding theory and move on to discussing your proofs for God?
BTW - I feel kinda bad taking up this whole thread here. If you would like to take this to another location (email or another thread) let me know. Sorry to monopolize your site.
In response to anonymous' last past, let me say I appreciate very much his (?) questions, and I would like to briefly respond for the sake of clarity.
First, I did say that it is a fact that everyone has an understanding of God--but I do not mean that to say that everyone has what could be called an "occurent" understanding of Gdo--for many people, who have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, their knowledge of God may be subconcious and therefore cloudy. But, that subconcious "knowledge" can be brought to the surface and made clearer by some rational reflection.
Of course, in a discussion with those who may disagree, it may not have been helpful for me to say that this is a fact--after all that is, to some extent, what I was trying to establish. I believe it is a fact, but not one that I think I can prove empirically. It is something I take on biblical authority.
In any case, the more important point I was trying to make is that, whether or not people actually do know the nature of God, they at least can come to know some things about him through rational reflection--this is what lead me to bring up the issue of arguments for God's existence.
Anonymous asked if this thread is the right place to discuss this topic. Perhaps not, but I would like to keep it on this blog for the sake of other readers. Tell you what I'll do. I'll start a new thread on "What Can We Know about God apart from Scripture?" and anyone who wants to jump in feel free to do so.
Post a Comment
<< Home