I dropped by The Reverend Chuck Currie’s blog to see what The Reverend Chuck Currie had to say. Because, after all, The Reverend Chuck Currie is a reverend. You can tell, because it says so in his blog title.
He is a leader in the United Church of Christ denomination, a group that is apparently not too keen on sound doctrine. This guy just got ordained and he is continuing to preach heresies.
Oddly, his sermon on John 14:6 (Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”) was on a single verse, and his key points were to claim that Jesus was not the only way to the Father, that other religions such as Islam should inform our view of the Gospel, and that the Bible is not accurate or reliable. I downloaded the sermon and quoted a few parts below.
Got that? You are sitting in a United Church of Christ building ready to hear a lesson from the Word of God, only to have the “Reverend” tell you that the Bible is not the Word of God and that Jesus is not the only way to salvation. You can trust what other religions teach you because God apparently revealed himself accurately in them, but He did not reveal himself properly in the Bible. And this guy just graduated from a “Christian” seminary. Check.
Here are some excerpts from his message:
Is John 14:16 (sic) the literal word of God or is it a human reflection that speaks to how the early Christian community understood their faith?
Biblical scholars in mainline seminaries agree that Jesus never spoke the words attributed to him in our reading from this morning.
Looks like someone went scholar-shopping and found just what he was looking for. And don’t you love the patronizing bit about those deluded early Christians who gave their lives for the faith but were just imagining that Jesus really said those things?
The Gospel of John was written some 100 years after the death of Jesus and in no other writing is Jesus said to have made such exclusive claims about the faith. So why after 100 many years have passed since the his death would someone remember things so differently – so starkly differently.
First, the dating for the Gospel of John is much earlier than 100 years after the death of Jesus. Chuck has been corrected on this point but he ignores it.
He also ignores that there are 100 passages stating that Jesus is the only way. He pretends that John 14:6 is the only Bible verse making this claim. He has also determined that the gnostic Gospel of Thomas is more authoritative than the Gospel of John – even though the early church did not even hint at holding that view.
It might be better to read this passage as a statement of faith from the early Christian community, who believed with conviction that Jesus was the way, the truth and the life. I share that conviction today.
No, he doesn’t. If he really thought Jesus was the way then he wouldn’t stand in a pulpit and spread these lies.
But I’m not so arrogant to think that my own understanding of God surprasses all other understandings of God . . . Is it possible that God speaks through Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the world’s other great religions?
Ah, there’s the passive-aggresive tolerance trick. The reverend dogmatically states that Jesus is not the only way, that the Gospel of John was written 100 years after Jesus’ death and contains falsehoods, the Gospel of Thomas is authoritative, the Bible is not, etc. But he’s not going to be arrogant like those who don’t hold those views! How humble.
And no, God does not speak through other world religions. They may contain some truths but that doesn’t mean they are from God. If you took even 10% of the Bible seriously you would never make that claim. Religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt.
Let us resolve as members of the Christian faith to be open to hearing God speak through other voices, and as we preach the Gospel message let our hearts welcome new insights about God from other faithful traditions.
What kind of nonsense is that? He says we are supposed to preach the Gospel, but we’re supposed to let other faithful traditions inform our views. Huh? What Gospel is that? What is the standard of truth now that he has tossed out the Bible?
I would encourage the reverend to meditate on this verse, except that he has probably eliminated from his slim-line Bible already:
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
I say with complete confidence that the gospel (small “g”) that The Reverend Chuck Currie preaches is radically different than the one the Apostle Paul was referring to.
“Reverends” like this mock the cross and the blood of the martyrs. I am glad we live in a country where people have the freedom to preach whatever they like. We even have a name for people who hold these views: Non-Christians.
More here.
Filed under: False teachers
Hi Neil,
This type of preaching is really annoying. I wish I could open his eyes. The entire basis for the meaning of life depends in knowing this: All Religions are not the same. The nature of God, Salvation, and the Afterlife is different in all of them.
St. Paul put it nicely:
There is no one that seeks God. No One that understands him. No one that pleases Him.
-Romans 3 & 8
Just another reason to ask, why bother? Why bother calling yourself a Christian? Why bother preaching Christ? What is the point of donning the Christian mantle if you don’t care to actually believe almost any of the faith? The only conclusion I can come to is that it is all part of the deception that Christ, Peter, and Paul routinely warned would come in the end.
2 Peter 2 is incredibly revealing on this very issue. I won’t repost here, as the chapter is quite long. But pay attention to the language and you should get my point. The one verse I will quote is this…
“They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves…In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.”
May the Lord open the eyes of all, lest they be led astray by this kind of deception.
This doesn’t surprise me. I had a UMC pastor (who happens to be the reason I am a United Methodist in Exile) tell me that the Gospel of John was written during a time of persecution, and that it is very anti-semitic due to those historical circumstances and therefore not reliable.
I’m both surprised and not surprised at this coming from a United Church of Christ minister:
Not surprised because the United Church of Christ could reasonably called a cult, holding doctrines contrary to scripture. So what’s one more heresy.
Surprised because cults tend to keep close rein on their teachers, and because the doctrines of the United Church of Christ tend to be very conservative and restrictive beyond standard Christian Evangelical doctrine.
Sadly, lots of denominations – Methodists included – have teachers like this. Currie was right about some of the “scholars” in mainline seminaries. Many of them are false teachers.
The earliest references to the Gospel of John come from the early church fathers: Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp.
“For every one who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is a devil, and whosoever perverteth the oracles of the Lord (to serve) his own lusts, and saith there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a first-born of Satan.” St. Polycarp wrote his epistle before he had heard of St. Ignatius’ martyrdom [98 and 117AD].”
Polycarp is quoting straight out of 1 John iv. 3.
Definitely not over 100 years after Christ.
Source: newadvent.org
Neil, Here we go again that good ole UCC stuff. I wonder if you previous UCC commenters will show up.
“Biblical scholars in mainline seminaries agree that Jesus never spoke the words attributed to him in our reading from this morning. ”
They do, do they? Hum………well I suppose they should know, weren’t they there? Oops……….they weren’t……..steve
Hi Neil!
Good post. I once talked to another blogger who believed this same thing. It was so frustrating talking to them. In fact, there was no reason to even argue with them. The whole basis was they didn’t think the Bible was accurate and it was only one book in all the books of the world and that you can’t just live your life by one book. If you don’t believe the Bible is accurate or to be followed, you are not a Christian. Getting that point across though–is another story. This particular blogger when I told them they weren’t Christian, told me that I was supposed to be loving because after all that is what the Bible says. Funny, I thought the Bible wasn’t accurate? So its so maddening talking to people like this. They really need their eyes opened to truth.
On another note, my hubby visited your blog today and said he liked it. He said he wished he had time to dedicate to doing stuff like you do. He likes talking politics and apologetics like you do. He’s much better at it than I am, thats for sure. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that he enjoyed it!
Thanks, Michelle, I appreciate that. I’m glad your husband stopped by. Sounds like you two make a great team!
Is it possible that God speaks through Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the world’s other great religions?
Isn’t it more possible that the “speaking” goes the other way – that Hinduism is but one way that people try to find God?
Occam’s razor: Given the choice between two equally competent theories, the simplest one is often correct.
It is much more logical to believe that people use various religions to find a God that they believe exists, rather than God developing mutually contradictory religions to express Himself.
“It is much more logical to believe that people use various religions to find a God that they believe exists, rather than God developing mutually contradictory religions to express Himself.”
Bridget……….Right on the money……….steve
Hi Neil,
It’s nice to see you’ve been working hard putting out the truth while I’ve been gone.
Hope you and your family are having an awesome weekend!
Reverend Chuck said:
…the early Christian community, who believed with conviction that Jesus was the way, the truth and the life. I share that conviction today.
Neil responded:
No, he doesn’t.
And also:
I am glad we live in a country where people have the freedom to preach whatever they like. We even have a name for people who hold these views: Non-Christians.
Do you understand, Neil, how this sort of making claims about others’ faith is a bit off-putting to some? I disagree with you without calling you Not a Christian and without saying, “You don’t believe that Jesus is the Way,” when you have said that you do.
I disagree with Reverend Chuck on some of his points, too, but I just don’t understand the need to make God-like decisions about what others’ think (regardless of what they’ve said) or of whether or not others are Christians.
You remember what Jesus said in Matthew 12?
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
What if Chuck is saved by God’s grace and full of the Holy Spirit? By saying that he is NOT saved, are you speaking against the Holy Spirit and thus blaspheming?
Tread carefully when you make claims about what God does and doesn’t do, who God has and hasn’t saved. That’s all I’m saying. We’re just not omniscient enough to make that sort of claim, seems to me.
Neil, thanks for sharing this great post! This is something that’s been sort of on my mind lately and in fact, the message we heard in church this morning – while not on this particular person – was this same message. The pastor shared numerous clips of false teachers teaching things that are not scriptural. It’s amazing what these people will teach that directly contradicts the word of God and then say that they are Christians!
Hi Dan,
“What if Chuck is saved by God’s grace and full of the Holy Spirit?”
Then I suppose I’d be wrong. Would that be a sin? Would it be a worse sin than denying the essentials and teaching the opposite of historic Christianity? Jesus said we would know them by their fruit. Much of the NT was written to address false teaching.
Words mean things. If people teach the opposite of what the Bible says and celebrate their apostacy then I don’t see the danger in saying that people who don’t hold those views aren’t what people have historically referred to as Christians.
I honestly can’t imagine the Holy Spirit leading people to deny the atonement and the sufficiency and uniqueness of Jesus.
I didn’t see anywhere in what you quoted a denial of the atonement, nor of the “sufficiency and uniqueness of Jesus.” I didn’t listen to the sermon, so I was relying upon your words and his quotes.
I have a problem with willy-nilly rejecting great portions of the Bible and he seemed like he may be more willing to do so than I am. But otherwise, your interpretations of his quotes offered here seem to me to be more YOUR interpretations, than what he has said.
I have no problem with making judgements of folks’ words and actions, but we must do so humbly, seems to me. And I DO have a problem with making assumptions that “because he said X, then we can know that he means A, B and C…” – with putting theology and words in others’ mouths and then demonizing them and saying they’re not Chrisitian based on your interpretation of what they’ve said rather than what they’ve actually said.
Yes, words mean things. As do a twisting of words. Just be sure you’re talking about an individual’s actual words and opinions rather than some “divined” interpretation of them. I have had enough of brothers and sisters doing that to me – telling me what I think because they know better than I do what I think, after all – to know that doing so just sucks and is not of God.
Hi Dan,
Here’s one example: Claiming that other religions offer valid paths to God denies the uniqueness of Jesus.
I encourage you to listen to the sermon yourself and draw your own conclusions.
I was very careful in analyzing what he said and offered him the chance to correct anything he thought I hadn’t properly characterized. I assume he read it because he posted a link to this post on his site.
Perhaps I should have left the “non-Christian” comment out. I do agree that only God knows our hearts. But how off-track do false teachers have to be before you would judge their fruit to be bad?
Denying the essential teachings of Christ would be a definite red flag to me. Jesus said, for instance, that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Those calling for us to act unlovingly towards our neighbors always concern me.
Nowhere, on the other hand, does Jesus seem to treat believing in an atonement or a virgin birth as essentials.
I reckon I view Jesus’ moral teachings as what is the more essential than most of our religious tenets, which are often extrabiblical or marginally biblical. If you’re denying Jesus’ commands to love our enemy or to look out for the least of these, that’s problematic.
If you’re suggesting that God-as-trinity is one way but not necessarily the only way of thinking about God, then that doesn’t worry me nearly so much.
I’m pretty sure God considers the atonement to be an essential. For starters, consider how much of the Gospels are devoted to it.
I’d hesitate to define as “essential” (on behalf of God) that God has not defined as essential.
How much of the Gospels ARE devoted to the thought, by the way? As compared to Love, for instance, or economic matters, or the kingdom of God, which I would hazard to guess would be the top three most important/talked about themes of the Gospels (by volume).
Neil said: Jesus came to save us from our sins. That was his primary purpose.
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Dan,
It is not unloving to accurately and truthfully tell how it is. If there were a wolf in the sheepfold, it would be positively UN-loving NOT to call the wolf a wolf, seek to remove it from the fold, and warn others of its being there.
Who are we called to love? Jesus came for the sick, not those who THOUGHT they were well.
God does indeed reserve final judgment and vengeance to Himself, but He warns us repeatedly throughout His word the need for judging the spirit, trying the spirits, testing the spirits. He warned us of the ubiquity of false teachers. He praised the Bereans who searched out even Paul’s teachings to verify they were in line with the whole of scripture.
When you begin saying “I don’t believe God would…” you immediately begin defining God. The bible defines God as best we shall ever know this side of eternity (thank goodness He’s given us eternity to get to know the rest of it, I for one intend to take all that time just trying…), He does not leave it to us to make our own opinion about Who and What He is.
Of particular interest to you should be the statements this false teacher made regarding the falseness of any of Jesus’ claims of the exclusivity of His message. As you should recall it was not me or Neil or any other than Jesus Himself who said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.” I don’t believe there is any way to mistake the meaning here. In Greek that is a double negative “No” and “Except” which, unlike english, strengthens the statement making it emphatic. “There is no way, none whatsoever, for anyone to get to heaven except through the way I’ve prescribed.” Compare this then to our false teacher and you will not see room for these two very divergent views within Christianity. God is not mocked, God does not make mistakes, God has defined the path to Him, and that is through Jesus. There are indeed nuggets of truth in many ideologies and belief systems, but apart from Jesus and His very precise and VERY exclusive nature as “THE way, THE truth, and THEY life” (another bit of Greek, using the article before the noun is not necessary, and is reserved for cases of emphasis, in this case emphasizing the exclusive nature of these statements even more), we cannot enter heave. And one who teaches otherwise, well Jesus talked about them too: “It were better that a millstone be hung about their neck and they be cast into the depth of the sea”. Our peaceful Lord is slightly upset over that one, eh?
Neil said: Jesus came to save us from our sins. That was his primary purpose.
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Okay, so I asked (when you said that you thought God thought the atonement was an essential because “consider how much of the Gospels are devoted to it.”) how much of the gospels ARE devoted to the “atonement,” and your answer is this verse about Jesus giving his life as a ransom for many. Which is fine.
Neil said: Dan, I’m trying to take you seriously. But when you act like that is the only verse I could come up with that is laughable. I assume you have read the Gospels. Have you noticed how much is devoted to the passion week, the crucifixion and the resurrection?
But I’m guessing (I don’t know this Pastor Chuck or anything, he may well be a nut with whom I disagree or perhaps a nut with whom I agree) that Pastor Chuck probably has no problem with the idea that Jesus came to offer his life. But does that necessarily have to be defined in terms of “atonement”?
Could it be that Jesus left heaven out of love for us and led a life that he knew would lead to the taking of his life (and teaching us to find salvation by accepting God’s grace and following in Jesus’ footsteps)? And the Jewish school of thought that dealt with animal sacrifices is one analogy that we could make for such an action, but not necessarily the only way of thinking about Jesus’ life and death?
Matthew, I agree with you that to say, “I don’t think God would…” or “I think God definitely does…” is nothing more than us making assumptions. But then you go on to say:
“He does not leave it to us to make our own opinion about Who and What He is.”
And I wonder just who it is you do think God leaves it up to make an opinion if not us? We are called to make a decision about who God is and whether or not we will follow God and what sort of God will we follow, right? And since God is not there telling Matthew or Dan or Neil, “When I say ‘Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice,’ it means exactly this…” it is up to us with our limited genius to figure out what all of that means. And, daggone it, sometimes we might just be wrong!
A little humility is all I’m calling for. And that’s all I see in this fella’s quotes that you offered. Again, I don’t have the time right now to listen to his sermon, but if that’s the worst that he said, I’m not writing him off as “not a Christian,” because I, for one, just don’t have the right to do so.
Dan, this isn’t about whether this guy is a Christian. I’ll let God deal with that. It is about whether this “Reverend’s” teaching is remotely close to the truth. And it isn’t. He is a false teacher who trusts other religions more than the Bible – even though he knows less about them than he does about Christianity. Which isn’t much. And it isn’t just about him. This is just an example of the false teachings of liberal theologians.
theobromophile said – “It is much more logical to believe that people use various religions to find a God that they believe exists, rather than God developing mutually contradictory religions to express Himself.”
That is a great comment, theo! And that is exactly how I view ALL religions. People trying to find a way to believe that their life here on earth isn’t “all there is.”
Dan – Please! Your comments are nerve wracking! Look, Neil and others here have a definition for “Christian” that comes from a very authoritative source. The Bible is pretty clear on the definition of a Christian. Neil is just sticking to the rules layed out in the Bible.
Why is so important that you must call yourself a Christian? If your beliefs do not match the teachings of the Bible, then come up with a different name – Christian is taken.
Dan, (or anyone else)
Jesus’s example of love and servitude are very important, and considering them is vital when living a Christian life. Those things should not be overlooked.
However, it is His death on the cross and His resurrection that separates Him from the pack. Otherwise, He would just be yet another kind person, and would be indistinguishable in many ways from Ghandi, Mother Teresa, etc… Yes, it is important that Jesus spoke truth to power, helped the sick and needy, etc… but at the same time, we have other examples as well. (I know you know these things, I am just illustrating why the atonement of Christ is so essential). God didn’t send Jesus just to show us an example how to live. Yes, that is one of the things. But the primary purpose of Christ’s mission on earth is to point out that we can never be good enough. Our kindness to the poor and our striving to avoid sin are like filthy rags. Without considering the atonement, Jesus’s story is just another tale about how we have to be good people in order to please God.
I can’t have a relationship with God/Christ by following His example. I can only have a relationship by realizing that I’ll never be good enough, but that’s okay, because Jesus was.
Also Dan,
Concerning Neil and others giving definitions of who is and isn’t a Christian, I see where you are coming from. We don’t want to be too exclusionary. And I think as long as we don’t make claims that Jesus doesn’t make, we can avoid that. Now, I haven’t read every single statement said about who separates Christians from non-Christians.
At the same time, several verses urge us to contend for the faith. Jude 1 and 2 Peter 2 speak several times about the need to contend for the faith. If we see someone who claims to be a Christian but teaches doctrine contrary to essentials of the faith (yes, I realize it can be a blurry line at times), but I think we are supposed to call them out.
There are parts of the gospel that is accommodating to many aspects of the worlds philosophy, but many parts aren’t. Sometimes people will have to be offended.
Neil said:
“Dan, this isn’t about whether this guy is a Christian. I’ll let God deal with that.
But you haven’t. You suggest pretty unequivocally in your post that this fella is no Christian. He says he is. You offer no words of his where he contradicts Christianity or Christ’s teachings, only that he reads the Bible differently than you.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but as I’ve said, I’ve had this kind of attack directed towards me (“Dan’s not a Christian and he hates the Bible,” “But I am a Christian – I am a follower of Christ, a lover of the Bible and one who takes it all quite seriously…”, “No, you’re not. I’ve just pointed out that you’re not, because you hate the Bible…” “But I DON’T hate the Bible, I love the Bible…” “Not really, or you wouldn’t say the things you say…”, etc, etc) that I find it disconcerting whomever it’s directed towards.
If some of my more progressive brothers were to say, “Neil’s not a Christian, he hates the teachings of Jesus!”, I’d defend you, as well. I’d say that you have never said that you hate the teachings of Jesus – just the opposite – it’s just that you might interpret some parts differently. But that is different than rejecting Jesus.
I assume you have read the Gospels. Have you noticed how much is devoted to the passion week, the crucifixion and the resurrection?
Yes, I’ve glanced over the Gospels a time or two. Probably since you were in diapers. And I did notice that whole part about the crucifixion and resurrection. I even noticed a few places where it used some language that seemed to frame all of that in terms of an atoning sacrificing.
And I noticed it described as setting an example for us. And I’ve seen it couched in terms of living God’s Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. And it’s all good imagery. Some of it more meaningful to me than other parts, but all good stuff.
Mark said:
“Why is so important that you must call yourself a Christian? If your beliefs do not match the teachings of the Bible, then come up with a different name – Christian is taken.”
Because I AM a Christian, a follower of the risen Christ. As this Reverend Chuck may be, for all I’ve read here.
My beliefs DO match the teachings of the Bible (or at least that is a goal towards which I strive). And it is out of love for my Christ, for Christ’s Church and for the Bible that I ask for humility when it comes to liberally denouncing those with whom you disagree as Not Christian.
If you have a problem with a teaching, then cite the exact teaching and give your reasons why you think it’s a bad teaching. I have no problem whatsoever with correction (it is, after all, why I’ve taken the time to write here) and do think doing so is a loving thing to do.
I just ask that we correct one another based on what the other has actually said rather than saying “This person stands for X and X is wrong,” when the person hasn’t said “X” at all. That’s all I’m saying.
Wow Dan. I would pray for you, but I am not a Christan. I’m not even religous. So it wouldn’t help.
I read Neil because he applies a consistent logic to his arguments and firm in his beliefs, yet listens to other points of view. When forming a reply, he continues to use consistency and further applies very good logic. I admire that…
It is obvious to me, however, that you are having trouble with the consistency in your posts. It seems you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. I think you need to review what you’ve said in the past and decide what you really believe.
Help me out, brother Mark. Where does my inconsistency lie?
I am a Christian, saved by God’s grace. I love the Bible and desire to apply God’s teachings to my life.
One of those teachings is “Do not wrongly criticize others.” By all means, deal with problems when you think someone is teaching something incorrectly. But deal with what they’re actually saying, not some strawman interpretation of what YOU think they’re saying.
That is in a nutshell, what I’ve said. Help me out and tell me where my inconsistency is and I’d appreciate it sincerely.
“I reckon I view Jesus’ moral teachings as what is the more essential than most of our religious tenets, which are often extrabiblical or marginally biblical. If you’re denying Jesus’ commands to love our enemy or to look out for the least of these, that’s problematic.”
Again, Dan, I’m curious what you think about this point. Do you think it is enough to simply believe Jesus’s moral teachings? Do you think someone would have to believe somewhat in His divine nature, or the fact that He died for our sins.
For me, there are plenty of non-Christians that believe in His moral teachings, and if I want someone that tells me to be kind to others, I have other examples as well.
Also, Christ’s example is important, but the best way to imitate His example is to believe in his divine nature and His ability to help us.
(Again, I know you know these things, I’m just curious if you think believing in His moral teachings is enough to be a Christian).
Chance, you are one of the kindest people I’ve had the privilege with which to disagree occasionally. Thank you for asking your questions so politely.
“Do you think it is enough to simply believe Jesus’s moral teachings? Do you think someone would have to believe somewhat in His divine nature, or the fact that He died for our sins.”
I am amazingly orthodox in many ways, my apparent contrariness nothwithstanding. I think it wise and biblical to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus died for our sins, that Jesus rose from the dead.
I believe it within the teachings of the Bible and Christianity to think that we are sinners in need of salvation, that we have access to God’s salvation not by our works but by God’s grace. That salvation is a gift given to those who agree that Jesus and his teachings are the Way, who repent for when we’ve not been in that Way and to set our face and gird our loins to follow in Jesus’ steps.
I believe that God as Trinity is a somewhat logical and acceptable way to think of God, that the evidence we have indicate that Mary was a virgin, that God is creator of the world. I don’t have a problem with the notion of atonement as one way of looking at what Jesus has done for us in his coming.
I am just humble enough to realize that knowledge does not begin and end with me, but with God; to think it wise not to try to cage God, for God is not a tame God; to read the many and diverse stories in the Bible and read how Jesus said that it is the one who followed the father’s direction, not the one who SAID he’d follow the father’s direction, who was doing the following.
Does that answer your question?
See here’s the root of the issue. In today’s culture we assume everything is about us and for us. “Jesus came for us.” “Jesus died for us.” “God loves us.”
These are correct, but they are not the reason and the goal of each of the actions we’d attribute as proving them. God calls Himself a Selfish God. He exists for His Glory.
First question in the Westminster Catechism:
What is the chief end of man?
Answer: To Glorify God and praise Him forever.
Jesus came to show God’s Glory to the masses, the inherent superiority of God’s way over any way the world can come up with.
Jesus died to Atone for out sins. To make payment in place of our own. This allows God to keep His Glory while also maintaining His desire for our bringing Glory to Him.
God desires that we bring Glory to him.
It is not about us. It is not up to us. You can decide whether or not you WANT to Glorify God, but you cannot choose whether you WILL Glorify God. Everyone and Everything Glorifies God with it’s very existence because He made it, designed it, set it in it’s way, directed it’s existence, and defined it’s final end.
I know this is a slippery slope to predestination and many will take this much further than I intend or define, but so be it. Just consider this, those who are either rabidly for or against predestination. If I, as a scientist studying the ability of mice to run a maze, know that the mouse will eventually find the cheese, will that actually change the nature of the decisions the mouse must make to reach the cheese? I believe in predestination in that God, being omnipotent and outside of our constricting dimension of time, knows how we will make each decision and how our lives will end up.
The point is, Jesus did indeed come and live and teach and die for us. But it wasn’t so we could be nice to each other. It was so that we, being freed from the binding eternal consequences of our sin choices, are able to Glorify God with our lives here on earth and forever in heaven.
Further, Dan, you mention “progressive brothers” in that latest comment and I must ask: What about “old-time religion” or classical Christianity as defined in the Bible needs “progressing”?
I would be sorely tempted, in following the command to try the spirits and be wary of false teachers, to lump many and most of the “progressive” teachers of the Bible into the camp of “non-christian” without feeling any too judgmental. Christian means “Christ person” not “kinda like Christ, but maybe a little softer person” or “think Christ was a nice guy person”.
Put another way, I believe in many orthodox tenets, I just question those tenets (virgin birth, “inerrant” bible, trinity) as being essentials of the faith. There is nothing in the Bible calling for us to believe any of the above, but rather the emphasis is consistently on orthopraxy – faithfully loving the least of these, our enemies, our neighbors
Matthew asked:
“Dan, you mention “progressive brothers” in that latest comment and I must ask: What about “old-time religion” or classical Christianity as defined in the Bible needs “progressing”?”
Not a thing. Christianity as talked of in the Bible is plenty progressive as it is.
But sometimes the modern church could use a bit of that progressivism as demonstrated by the Early Church.
Progressive:
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
For God so loved us, that God gave God’s only begotten son, to improve our lives, to give us a chance to reform and follow in those beloved steps making progress towards better conditions for the least of these, that God’s kingdom may come, and that God’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Radical stuff, that.
If you question the Bible, you question its Author. If you question the Author, why do you still choose to believe in (your re-definition of) Him? I don’t really see a point to your belief Dan?
You seem to subscribe to a religion which gives you comfort without cost, rest without requirement. It is true that Jesus’ Yoke is easy and His Burden is light. But He requires we deny ourselves, pick up our crosses and follow Him. He states the way is Strait (that is not “straight” as in without curve or bend, but “Strait” as in difficult and hazardous).
While your goals and your definition of your religion are happy and positive, they are not realistic and they are not Christian, not by my standards, but as defined in the Bible.
You don’t really have the choice which parts of the Bible you believe are accurate or not.
You do have the choice to accept them completely or reject them completely.
I do urge you to examine the historical record and see if you can find the basis for trusting the whole of scripture as being the inerrant word of a Glorious God with a grand plan.
Matthew said:
“You seem to subscribe to a religion which gives you comfort without cost, rest without requirement…
While your goals and your definition of your religion are happy and positive, they are not realistic and they are not Christian…”
Again, I’ll sincerely ask you to do me a favor and point out where I’ve indicated that I subscribe to a religion which gives comfort without cost? I’ll honestly hope that you could tell me which goals and definition of “my religion” are not realistic nor Christian?
To be clear (because evidently I’ve communicated poorly, for which I apologize), I believe that Jesus is the son of God who came and lived a model life, telling us specifically to follow in His steps. And when we do that, when we love our enemies, when we identify with the least of these and join in solidarity with them, when we share without reservations our all with the community of Christ, when we follow in these steps, we are promised that we will be persecuted, that we may forfeit our lives.
Where in that have I got it wrong (as I got all of that in honest and prayerful study of the Bible)? Teach me so that I may repent, if I have something wrong in all of that.
To further clarify, I am a sinner saved by God’s grace. I’ve accepted Jesus as Lord of my life, which means I’ve agreed with his Way and am, by God’s grace, following in His steps.
What aspect of that is wrong? Which hoop have I failed to jump through in order to be saved enough for your tastes? (And while that may sound angry, it’s just a joke, no offense taken thus far).
I am entirely sincere in saying that I’d appreciate it if I have something wrong in my theology, that you’d help a brother out and point it out. In reading what you’ve said, it sounds as if you think I believe things I don’t, and so maybe it’s just a misunderstanding. You let me know.
“For God so loved us, that God gave God’s only begotten son, to improve our lives, to give us a chance to reform and follow in those beloved steps making progress towards better conditions for the least of these, that God’s kingdom may come, and that God’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Dan it seems you took some editorial privilege with John 3:16.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
John’s words focus not on worldly conditions but on the eternal perspective. It seems you are more interested in making this world into heaven, as opposed to looking toward Christ’s imminent return. I guess this is an example of what happens when sermons on social justice are placed before sound doctrine and an eternal perspective.
The things of this world shall pass one day for all of us, and no matter how well fed we may be- whether by religious and non-religious charities alike- we will all be left before the judgment seat of Christ either with our name written in the book of life and clothed in his righteousness or subject to God’s perfect and just judgment. At that point no charitable acts will be good enough to save us, moreover, those we acted charitably towards won’t be saved by their status as victims in modern society. They can only be saved if our charitable acts are given along with the gospel.
Sadly, having attended some “social justice” churches in our area, most of their charitable acts are given devoid of the gospel. People in these churches, and many others sadly, hide the gospel as if it were offensive and they were ashamed of their Lord and savior. Charity is important in this world, but too many have put the charity cart far before the horse of offering the gospel to a world in need.
Dan, most of this isn’t directed at you (as I don’t know about you to apply them to you)- I have a few other folks in mind. My comment about you naturally led into this monologue.
“Does that answer your question?”
I think so. Thanks. I’ve just heard from many that Jesus is simply a model citizen to follow, and that ramifications following from His divine nature are not that important. I think we agree pretty well concerning who He is, I was just wondering on how essential you thought that was in determining if someone does indeed have a relationship. I think we agree on this point. I think where non-Christians miss it is that having a relationship with Christ empowers us to follow His example.
As far as judging who is and isn’t a Christian, I do believe it is a fine line. We don’t want to call anyone who disagrees with our particular set of believes a heretic. At the same time, we should be weary of enemies from within. I haven’t checked out Currie’s stuff enough to know if he is indeed a Christian, but the multiple paths to God doctrine concerns me because it teaches others that they don’t need Christ.
“Chance, you are one of the kindest people I’ve had the privilege with which to disagree occasionally. Thank you for asking your questions so politely.”
Aw, shucks, you are too kind. Now I’m going to let you and Matthew duke it out in a cage match.
Total T said:
“John’s words focus not on worldly conditions but on the eternal perspective. It seems you are more interested in making this world into heaven, as opposed to looking toward Christ’s imminent return. I guess this is an example of what happens when sermons on social justice are placed before sound doctrine and an eternal perspective.”
John’s words in John 3:16 are a bit heavenly focused. And that’s a good thing. Jesus (as quoted by Matthew and Luke) in their Gospels focus quite a bit on the here and now. “God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.”
And that’s a good thing, too. I’m not saying there’s much wrong with being heavenly minded. But if that’s all there is to a person’s faith, then they’re only practicing some 1/10th of what the Bible has to say (I just grabbed that 1/10th out of the air, but I’d reckon there’s as much in the Bible – and likely a good bit more – dealing with how we are to be living here and now than there is in the sweet by and by.
You think?
Thanks for all the comments, folks.
Dan, I won’t try to reply to everything but in general I’ll say this: The Bible has a lot to say about the importance of sound doctrine and Jesus spent much of his time correcting false teachings (“You have heard that it was said . . . but I tell you that . . .”).
So I think I have a pretty solid case for considering topics like the atonement and the exclusivity of Christ to be essentials and that the credentials of pastors who deny those are fair game to question.
You seem to think I’m not being humble and that I could be misunderstanding literally hundreds of verses that seemed clear to me and a bunch of other Christians throughout history. Perhaps you are right, but I doubt it.
On the other hand, you seem quite certain that my questioning of Currie’s orthodoxy is a bad thing and certainly a greater sin than he has committed by considering other religions to have greater value than the Gospel of John, for example. I’m not sensing a lot of “I could be wrong, but . . .” from you on that one.
I agree that we need a balance of Heavenly and earthly perspectives. But in 2 Cor 4:18 Paul did say, “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
The atonement was not some metaphor to make us want to sacrifice for others. It was a real and required event to pay the price for our countless and serious sins against a perfect and Holy God. It was done willingly by a perfect and all-sufficient Savior. Those who claim to be Christians should not hold the view that it was just one of many options to choose to get back to God.
Why I’d Rather Be An Orthodox Jew Than UCoC In One Verse.
Wow. A lot of comments.
Neil, seems like a lot of wasted effort trying to explain Rev. Chuck’s errors. Who does he think wrote the Gospel of John? If he thinks it wasn’t written until 100AD, and if he thinks John wrote it and if he thinks John walked with Jesus, he must’ve been one old dude.
I think it was Dan who said earlier “Is it possible that God speaks through Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the world’s other great religions?” (sorry if I mis-attributed the quote). This is one place where I might disagree with be conservative friends. I would answer that with a “yes, but”. I like to remember that God told us that ALL creation points to Him. So it’s possible for someone to look at these other religions and realize that God is bigger than there religion. So a Muslim could grow up and come to the conclusion that Allah doesn’t have all of the answers and start looking for more. Once looking, he would realize that only Jesus Christ can answer the other questions he has.
Randy
If you really love your neighbor, how can you let him follow what you believe to be a false teacher without saying anything.
Your neighbor ultimately has to decide for himself, but if you love him, I don’t think you would withhold your belief from him just because you might hurt his feelings.
A lot more than hurt feelings rest on the decision of which teacher you follow.
I think some of y’all are really misunderstanding my position, so I’ll try one more time.
SST said:
“If you really love your neighbor, how can you let him follow what you believe to be a false teacher without saying anything.
…I don’t think you would withhold your belief from him just because you might hurt his feelings.”
I’ve said repeatedly that by all means we should correct one another if a brother or sister is wrong. I think some here think that so-called “liberal” Christians are concerned about feelings and emotions and not fidelity to faith or logic, but that is certainly not the case in anything that I’ve said here.
What I’m advising against is the simple act of bearing false witness.
Wherein, Reverend A says, “I think we can find a lot of God’s truth in many places.” and commenter B says, “What?! You think that Islam is equally valid to Christianity?!! You think zoroastrianism is ALSO “a” way to God??!! Blasphemy!”
In this scenario, Reverend A never said anything about Islam or zoroastrianism being equivalent to Christianity. Commenter B is bearing false witness against what Reverend A has said and is demonizing Reverend A for a position that he hasn’t even stated!
All I’m saying is that bearing false witness is, well, it’s breaking one of the Big Ten, if nothing else, and it doesn’t behoove we Christians to behave in such a manner.
Correct, yes. Bear false witness, no.
Neil said:
“The Bible has a lot to say about the importance of sound doctrine and Jesus spent much of his time correcting false teachings (”You have heard that it was said . . . but I tell you that . . .”).”
Amen and amen! I agree that Jesus spent a heckuva lotta time dealing with false teachings. And those teachings he was dealing with were in regards to how we should live. Orthopraxy.
“You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you, turn the other cheek!”
“You have heard it said, ‘don’t make false vows,’ but I tell you, don’t swear at all.”
“You have heard it said, ‘hate your enemies,’ but I tell you, Love your enemies!”
“Don’t worry!”
“Don’t hoard stuff!”
“Beware the trappings of wealth!”
Bam! Bam! Bam! Over and over, Jesus teaches us what’s important. What’s essential. And it has to deal with living out what Jesus felt to be THE most important teachings: Love God. Love people.
And so while I think there’s some good reasons for believing much of what passes for orthodoxy in today’s churches, it pales in comparison to how we follow in Jesus’ steps. That’s the essentials, seems to me. Those things that Jesus himself told us was essential.
If Jesus ever said, “you have heard it said, ‘eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die,’ but I tell you, believe that my mom was virgin and believe in the atoning power of my blood – THAT’s what’s important!!” then I’d be more inclined to hold those teachings as essential as Jesus’ other teachings. But he didn’t.
Dan, the comment above the previous one is an interesting hypothetical, but I assume you aren’t accusing me of bearing false witness. I listened to Chuck’s whole sermon (ick) and have read much of what he has written. Feel free to correct me if I mischaracterized anything (that’s the same thing I asked Chuck to do), but don’t bear false witness about me bearing false witness.
You were doing ok there for a while in the last comment. But you tip your hand when you only consider the red letters to be authoritative. It is all his Word. You minimize the atoning power of his blood and that is a serious thing.
I’m not suggesting that you aren’t a Christian because you said that. I’m just saying that is a ridiculous thing for a Christian to say.
Without the cross you’d have a lot of good practical living tips from God, but you’d be dead in your sins. If we love Jesus we should try to do those things, but if you think it is attainable you are missing the point. He was also highlighting how we have no hope of doing all those things on our own. He raised the bar on what the Pharisees thought were sins.
Remember, Jesus’ messages were mostly there in the OT. He was just pointing to what He had already revealed and how they had misunderstood and misapplied it. For example, He said, “love your neighbor as yourself” in Leviticus 19. Oh, wait – those were just ceremonial laws, right? I guess those don’t count (kidding).
That’s what I’ve been trying to say, Neil. Maybe bearing false witness is too strong, but based on the quotes from Chuck you’ve offered, what you’ve said has struck me as a twisting of his words and opinions.
Chuck said:
“the early Christian community, who believed with conviction that Jesus was the way, the truth and the life. I share that conviction today.”
You said, plainly:
No, he doesn’t.
And I see no place where you offered any reason that makes sense to me as to why you’d say that he doesn’t mean what he said he means.
What I’m hearing you say is, “He doesn’t believe the Bible is fully God’s Word and he is open to finding truth in other religions, therefore, he DOESN’T believe Jesus is The Way, even if he says he does.” If that’s what you’re saying, then you seem to be twisting his words. I see no reason (based on the quotes you offered) to believe that he isn’t entirely sincere when he says he thinks Jesus is The Way.
Dan, I stand behind my words. You can’t say Jesus is THE way and NOT THE way at the same time and be accurate about it. That is postmodern thought at its worst.
And when you say:
“But you tip your hand when you only consider the red letters to be authoritative. It is all his Word.”
It is not a true stating of what I believe. I’m sure it’s because of miscommunication on my part, but you’re offering up in that statement above as “What Dan believes” something that I don’t believe.
I didn’t say that I only consider the red letters to be authoritative. I love the entire Bible (as I’ve repeatedly said), I love the teachings of the OT and the NT. God’s Word is there for teaching and convicting. I don’t know how else I can say it more clearly.
What I’ve tried to say is that I don’t think all parts are equally valid and applicable and understandable to us today. Jesus makes some things pretty clear. THE most important commands are to love God and Love people. That’s clear. We are to have concern for the least of these, Jesus makes that quite clear.
And you are absolutely correct, these are just amplifications and repetitions of what is taught in the OT.
It can be easy to have miscommunications. You and I just experienced one just now. I thought I’d made myself quite clear and yet you thought I was saying something I had no intention of saying.
So, sometimes when we have miscommunications, we may – unknowingly even – bear false witness or otherwise misrepresent others’ thoughts. So, for all of us, we should correct wrong teachings when we hear them, but we should be clear that we’re not misrepresenting people when we do so.
Dan, I’ll be glad to put your comments down as miscommunications. It sure looked to me like you were taking Jesus’ words seriously on some things but minimizing the Bible’s teachings on the atonement.
Dan, you keep asking for proof that Rev. C is preaching something besides the gospel. And Neil here keeps saying it’s all there on Rev. C’s site and in the sermon. Why don’t you just go listen in all the time we’ve had today following this discussion?
You may find that Neil was being accurate and just in his appraisal of Rev. C, you may find you still believe he wasn’t.
I will admit that I have not read or listened to the sermon yet, in my job I can handle transcripts, but it’s hard to deal with audio.
But as you keep asking for proof and keep arguing that we withhold judgment unless absolutely sure, why don’t you just go have a listen?
Ok, just finished listening to the sermon. The “sermon” is only 10 minutes long, and yes, Neil did not do it a disservice characterizing it as he did.
Hey, at least he keeps his sermons short!
Like you, listening to transcripts is not something I can easily do. Usually, when people are outraged by something that someone has said, they quote the most outrageous bits. I assume that’s what Neil has done here. If there’s another line that is a teaching Neil would like to critique, then he could post it if he wanted to.
In general, my point is just as I had just said with Neil in my last comment: He took something that I had said and changed the meaning, criticizing me for something that I don’t even believe. I see wayyy too much of that in church circles.
In fact, I was still sorta hoping that you might respond to my question earlier about what you claimed of me:
“You seem to subscribe to a religion which gives you comfort without cost, rest without requirement…
While your goals and your definition of your religion are happy and positive, they are not realistic and they are not Christian…”
Do you not think it a bearing of false witness or a bit slanderous to toss something out there like that about a fellow Christian? I asked you, if those charges were fair, to please help me and tell me where I said something to indicate anything approaching these charges.
If I have said such, you’d be doing me a favor in addressing it. I can repent, apologize and we’ll all be the better for it.
BUT, I suspect that, like Neil, you have (perhaps unintentionally) mischaracterized my views, in which case, it would seem the Christian thing for you to apologize for doing so.
These charges that people lob out there and then just leave are what I have problems with. Not that you’ve “hurt my feelings” or anything like that (I’d have to actually know you to care what you think, ya know), but when Christians throw out unsupported accusations and slander, they hurt the church.
As James said:
The tongue is also a fire. It exists among our members as a world of malice, defiling the whole body and setting the entire course of our lives on fire, itself set on fire by Gehenna.
If you want to critique someone, back it up with facts. Otherwise, don’t critique and apologize if you should mischaracterize someone’s position.
Peace.
Dan
Sorry for replying late, but my internet connection died most of yesterday due to storms.
You asked for help in determining where your inconsistencies lie. Here you go. These statements were made by you, just on this thread.
“I have a problem with willy-nilly rejecting great portions of the Bible…”
“Denying the essential teachings of Christ would be a definite [bad thing]”
“I reckon I view Jesus’ moral teachings as what is the more essential than most of our religious tenets, which are often extrabiblical or marginally biblical.”
“I’d hesitate to define as “essential” (on behalf of God) that God has not defined as essential.”
umm – OK. These statements definitely conflict with each other. So do YOU define what is essential (moral teachings) or do you not? IF God has defined what is essential, then why would you pick the moral teachings over the rest?
Then, again in this very thread, there are these little gems:
“But I’m guessing … that Pastor Chuck probably has no problem with the idea that Jesus came to offer his life. But does that necessarily have to be defined in terms of “atonement”?
“Yes, I’ve glanced over the Gospels a time or two. Probably since you were in diapers. And I did notice that whole part about the crucifixion and resurrection. I even noticed a few places where it used some language that seemed to frame all of that in terms of an atoning sacrificing.”
ahem! Note the differing view on atonement there? I do
And yet again on this thread, this:
“I believe that God as Trinity is a somewhat logical and acceptable way to think of God, that the evidence we have indicate that Mary was a virgin, that God is creator of the world.”
“I believe in many orthodox tenets, I just question those tenets (virgin birth, “inerrant” bible, trinity) as being essentials of the faith. There is nothing in the Bible calling for us to believe any of the above…”
Wow. Just – wow.
Finally, this:
“If Jesus ever said, “you have heard it said, ‘eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die,’ but I tell you, believe that my mom was virgin and believe in the atoning power of my blood – THAT’s what’s important!!” then I’d be more inclined to hold those teachings as essential as Jesus’ other teachings”
It seems you are taking from the Bible only what is comfortable for you to take. In the process, you are getting confused as to which parts you actually believe.
This is just from one conversation. Consistency in your statements would help. Some of your points in other posts I absolutely loved. But now I’m not sure you meant any of it…
Now do you see why it’s hard to follow your points?
Dan Said: “I disagree with Reverend Chuck on some of his points, too, but I just don’t understand the need to make God-like decisions about what others’ think (regardless of what they’ve said) or of whether or not others are Christians.”
and later in that same comment:
“What if Chuck is saved by God’s grace and full of the Holy Spirit? By saying that he is NOT saved, are you speaking against the Holy Spirit and thus blaspheming?
Tread carefully when you make claims about what God does and doesn’t do, who God has and hasn’t saved. That’s all I’m saying. We’re just not omniscient enough to make that sort of claim, seems to me.”
It is not a “God-like” decision that, once we’ve examined a mans words and works and we see that his words and his actions do not align with the Bible, we then make a statement and take actions to correct him or to warn others of his err.
Look for the many instances in the NT where false teachers are warned agaisnt by name, where rebellious are named and God is entreated to remove His protection from them that they might suffer discipline here and repent rather than suffer eternal punishment apart from God.
We are further warned throughout the scriptures, both OT and NT to judge the spirits, to test them against God’s standard.
There is a surfeit of evidence which compells me to conclude that we are indeed to be aware of others spiritual condition, correct and counsel those who are in the wrong, witness to those who are lost, and support and encourage those who are in Christ.
We are called to be both wise as serpents and harmless as doves. We do not indeed harm the person to confront him with the truth. The truth often hurts, but not all hurt is harm.
Chuck is indeed teaching a false doctrine. The summary of his ten minute sermon is that while he has chosen the particular path of Christianity as his personal means of being a good person (he does not, to my recollection, mention the end reward of any religion) he does not expect to hold his own views to be the absolute truth. He begins the sermon quoting the prayer given before the US Senate recently by a Hindu teacher, and while I would agree that the American Family Association did little to advance the cause of Christ with their interruptions of the hindu teacher during his prayer, I disagree with the rest of his talk. Rev Chuck does not believe Jesus is the only way to God. Therefore he denies the concrete statement made by Jesus “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me”.
Neil mentioned this in the original article nearly ad nauseum:
“Here are some excerpts from his message:
Is John 14:16 (sic) the literal word of God or is it a human reflection that speaks to how the early Christian community understood their faith?
Biblical scholars in mainline seminaries agree that Jesus never spoke the words attributed to him in our reading from this morning.
Looks like someone went scholar-shopping and found just what he was looking for. And don’t you love the patronizing bit about those deluded early Christians who gave their lives for the faith but were just imagining that Jesus really said those things?
The Gospel of John was written some 100 years after the death of Jesus and in no other writing is Jesus said to have made such exclusive claims about the faith. So why after 100 many years have passed since the his death would someone remember things so differently – so starkly differently.
First, the dating for the Gospel of John is much earlier than 100 years after the death of Jesus. Chuck has been corrected on this point but he ignores it.
He also ignores that there are 100 passages stating that Jesus is the only way. He pretends that John 14:6 is the only Bible verse making this claim. He has also determined that the gnostic Gospel of Thomas is more authoritative than the Gospel of John – even though the early church did not even hint at holding that view.”
By denying the supremacy of Christ you deny the efficacy of His sacrifice. There is no room to quibble here. If Christ is not the only way, there is no other way which teaches that a God-man came and lived among us sinlessly and laid down His own life to pay our sin debt before a just and loving God, therefore God accepting anyone who sincerely believes in any other “acceptable” way does not necessarily need to accept the atonement offered on the cross. If Christ is not the only way, why did He die at all?
Rev. Chuck does, by implication, deny the necessity of the atonement. This is false doctrine, therefore we are completely justified in calling into question the veracity of his faith. As you point out, we do indeed need to be careful when making such serious claims. But observing the evidence, the standards of care are met, and it is not a false claim.
As you also said, words do indeed mean things. Chuck may have spoken flippantly, or he may have chosen his words with care. Either way, what passed his lips is religious pluralism born from moral relativism, both ideas contrary to scripture, not just “orthodoxy” or “classic Christian teaching”.
Jesus taught a paradox. His gospel is both inclusive and exclusive. Inclusive in that all are welcome, all may come, all are actually required to make a decision sometime in their lives. Exclusive in that His is the only decision offered. If you choose another way, you’ve said no to the atonement. You’ve denied the forgiveness and cleansing of your sin. And when you stand before God in judgement, He will see only your sin, and in His holiness He is not able, by His very nature, to allow you into fellowship with Him. You did not seek that fellowship in life, you will not be allowed that fellowship in death.
Dan, you then state that:
“Denying the essential teachings of Christ would be a definite red flag to me.”
We have exhaustively shown you the facts which show unequivically that Rev. Chuck is denying the essential teachings of Christ.
You continue:
“Jesus said, for instance, that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Those calling for us to act unlovingly towards our neighbors always concern me.”
Would you agree that to deliberately lead your neighbors down a false path is an act of UN-love?
But then you allow the slightest bit of revision of what was actually said. I do not know if this was intentional, your own interpretation, of merely oversight, but I must bring this to your attention:
Jesus did not say that the greatest commandments are to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.
In Matthew 22:37-40 He says:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
The first and great commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. The second is like it, but it is still the second. A true love of God will grow and nurture in us a true love of our neighbor, but it is still the second commandment.
You then go on and state that of particular importance to you is the act of being unloving towards our neighbors. I agree that this is a bad thing. Jesus indeed devotes much of His ministry here on earth to loving people very practically, meeting their physical needs, and very eternally, meeting their spiritual needs.
I would argue though, that had He been primarily interested in their physical condition He would have been very different from what He was in reality. A Jesus primarily interested in people’s physical wellbeing would have been a warrior and a king. He would have called the legions of heaven to throw out the Roman oppressors, chasing them all the way back to Rome as He took over the land as a benevolent God-Dictator. He would have opened a free clinic where He would have healed all who came to Him. He would not have accepted death on a cross because He could accomplish more physical good by remaining alive.
Jesus did none of these things. Instead He preached a stumbling block and a hinderance. He taught a division of hatred between father and son. He did not once speak against the Roman conquerors, instead commending in highest terms the Roman Centurion as being a man of greatest faith, and He taught physical and spiritual support of the leadership in tithes and praying for the leaders. He then gave Himself up to be the payment, the atonement for our sins. This is the crux of the Bible. The atonement stands at the end and the beginning. All history prior to it pointed towards it and all time since has looked back towards it. Without the atonement there would be no purpose to God’s plan. No reason for our lives, and no hope for our future.
What is the point of Jesus’ moral teachings unless we are storing up rewards in Heaven by doing them? All ethics and morality boils down to “Might Makes Right” unless you assume that God is the Might and that He defines the Right by His very being.
Later you state:
“And the Jewish school of thought that dealt with animal sacrifices is one analogy that we could make for such an action, but not necessarily the only way of thinking about Jesus’ life and death?”
This is not just the “Jewish school of thought” though. God defined this as the way things were to illustrate to us His need for justice. Someone must pay the price for sin. All the animals that were sacrificed were merely types, icons, images of the ultimate sacrifice made by Jesus. The whole of scripture tells of out inability to be good enough contrasted with God’s extreme standard of perfection. The atonement is by implication throughout the Bible, the primary doctrine. And atonement can only happen by the shedding of the blood of one who is innocent, who has not sinned AT ALL.
In answer to your comment regarding your age superiority relative to some discussing with you, I would remind you of Peter’s comments in Acts 10:
“Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
The first phrase there is alternatively translated “God is no respector of persons”.
Your age does not give you any inherent superiority, but instead is a measure of the time God has given you to know more about Him. How you’ve used that time is your responsibility and is not to be used as a bludgeon to dodge valid questions.
This last quote of yours is the primary reason for my statement that you do not hold a correct view of Christ;s work, God’s nature, and the Christian walk:
“For God so loved us, that God gave God’s only begotten son, to improve our lives, to give us a chance to reform and follow in those beloved steps making progress towards better conditions for the least of these, that God’s kingdom may come, and that God’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
You get the first phrase right, and the second, but the third is wrong and it only goes downhill from there, all while sounding very good and nice.
God does indeed love us, that is a popular one. We all like a lovey-dovey God.
The second one trips a few up, but it’s still palatable for most. Jesus did indeed walk this earth, and many say He was a good man, a teacher who was misunderstood. They say He wanted us to get along, to love each other like God loves us. The old man upstairs just wants everybody to get along.
This is where your gospel goes wrong Dan. We do not get along with everybody because God loves us. We live at peace with all men with as much as is in us because we hope to save some with our witness and because it is God’s nature, love is, and because it brings glory to God when we go beyond out own small selves to show others their value in the eyes of God.
God sent Jesus, not so that we’d get along. He’d already told us how to do that in the Old Testament. He sent Jesus to show all those people who were getting along already that there was a greater purpose to their following God’s law. To show that while they knew they couldn’t do it on their own, God was aware of their shortcomings and was offering Himself as payment for their sins. We work towards better conditions for everybody in order to show them Christs love and care. I don’t care for people’s physical condition as much as I care for their spiritual condition, but I know that one very powerful way to show someone how much I care for them is to do something physical for them. Do not confuse the purpose with the evidence. Physical care is only evidence, it is not and never is the purpose.
God’s kingdom will not be ushered in by a swell of peace here on earth. We are explicitly told in Revelation that wars and fightings and strife and death and suffering will bring the end of this world and the birth of the next.
Dan, you do need to go back to the Bible and search out those things of what you speak. You do need to go and listen to Rev. Chucks sermon if you wish to continue to contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way. But I’m sure that having done that I for one will welcome any discussion with you. You have a good mind. I pray for your heart.
Wow. There’s a lot there, Matthew and Mark (where’s your buddies, Luke and John?). I hesitate to go much further because this is not my blog. Suffice to say that, while I may need to make myself more clear, you all are not representing what I’ve said, but rather your interpretation of what I said.
First, Mark, this:
OK. These statements definitely conflict with each other. So do YOU define what is essential (moral teachings) or do you not?
At least, Mark, with your statements, I can see where some confusion might come in. But confusion is not the same as you being correct that my views are conflicting and therefore not consistent.
On the one hand, God is the ultimate arbiter. God says what is right and what is wrong. What is essential and what is not.
In that sense, no, I do not define what is essential, rather, God does.
BUT, having said that, since I do not KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt what God thinks is essential and not, it is up to me, to you, to each of us to work that out the best we can with our flawed little brains.
Yes, certainly, we can agree that the Bible is a source of God’s Word. But whose interpretation of the Bible shall we rely upon? I read the Bible sincerely and with a desire to seek God’s ways and I find that it’d be ridiculous to assume that the world was created in six literal days (for example). Others read the Bible sincerely and come to the exact opposite conclusion on that topic.
Clearly, one of us is wrong. We are flawed human beings and will not always correctly discern God’s will.
So, in one sense, God is THE final arbiter in defining what is essential. But, on the other hand, WE have the responsibility for figuring out the best we can exactly what God’s Word says on any given topic.
So, I see no real inconsistency there. Right?
Or here you say:
It seems you are taking from the Bible only what is comfortable for you to take. In the process, you are getting confused as to which parts you actually believe.
Not at all. I believe in pacifism. That is not a comfortable position to take. It has caused me to take at least one punch in my life and deal with it non-violently. I believe in living simply. While I find a great deal of beauty and joy in that, at the same time, it’s not always a comfortable life.
No, I am trying to discern God’s Will from the Bible and it’s not always a comfortable walk. Comfort is not a deciding factor in my interpretations and I don’t believe you can point to any places where I’ve indicated such with what I’ve said. You didn’t hear, you just offered that opinion unsupported.
And this is what I’m getting at. We need to listen to what people are saying as at least a starting point. If there is some inconsistency, point it out.
But an inconsistency would look like this:
Dan: “I think we ought to get rid of all cars and just ride bicycles, to be better stewards of God’s creation.”
Gus: “But I notice that you own ten cars, three of which are hummers!”
Dan: “Well, I mean, OTHERS should get around on bicycles. I have my reasons for needing those ten cars…”
THAT would be an inconsistency. But this:
Dan: “For God so loved us, that God gave God’s only begotten son, to improve our lives, to give us a chance to reform and follow in those beloved steps…”
Gus: “We’d all like God to be just lovey-dovey, but there’s more to God than that!”
In that case, Dan didn’t say anything AT ALL to suggest that Dan thinks God is “only” lovey-dovey (whatever that might mean). Rather, it is an attempt (I’m sure unintended) to suggest that Dan thinks of God in ways that are childish and not representing the full nature of God. But Dan didn’t say that.
Discuss inconsistencies, by all means. Mark, I think you asking a question to clarify what I mean by WHO defines what is essential and not is fine. But, to hear something that makes you think that the other person is being inconsistent or saying X about God and then accuse the person based on what you THINK they’re saying rather than what they ARE saying, is just jumping to unsupported conclusions.
Matthew, I appreciate the thought that went in to what you’ve written, but honestly, you’re not representing what I believe. At all. And it’s certainly not what I’ve said.
If you’d like to continue this at any point in the future – with me or anyone else you disagree with – wouldn’t it make sense to say:
Dan, you said this, “For God so loved us, that God gave God’s only begotten son, to improve our lives, to give us a chance to reform and follow in those beloved steps…” and TO ME, that sounds like you’re saying that God is a milquetoast weinie God who is only concerned about making us feel good. Is that what you’re trying to say??
I feel I must take some responsibility for people not understanding me and for that, I apologize for a lack of clarity.
But I’m not sure how to work around this problem where I say, A, B and C and someone else accuses me of saying X, Y and Oldsmobile!
My best idea for how to deal with this problem, is to do what I just said: Quote the offending statement, ask a clarifying question or just explain what you think the Other is saying and say, “if that’s what you’re saying, I disagree because of …”
“Dan, when you say you think Hitler is a hero, I think that’s nuts! He was a horrible villain.”
Saying that when Dan just said, “Hitler is a hero.” would make sense. Saying that when Dan just said, “Hitler’s rise to power was at least partially due to the Versailles Treaty…” is at best confusing and at worst, slander.
Ya dig?
Dan
Again. Wow – just wow. I cannot make myself any more clear than I just did. If you can’t understand my prior post, then it is beyond my abilities to communicate with you. I’m sorry for that. In the future, I will be contributing to conversations, but I will not be reading or responding to your contributions as it will only frustrate me. Maybe I’m taking the easy way out, but that is my perogerative…
????!
Okay. Peace.
(I can’t help myself…I didn’t SAY I couldn’t understand your prior post…I understood it fine, but whatever).
Peace out, y’all!
Dan, I want to say “Huh”, but I don’t want you to repeat that again.
I’m still dizzy from the last time. Have a good evening, Dan.
After visiting the Rev’s blog, I have had enough. I have already made some comments on that site that illustrate the worst in me.
Yes, I’ve sworn off it for now as well. I can only take so much of that nonsense.
Re, “You don’t really have the choice which parts of the Bible you believe are accurate or not.”
Oh yes. I do, as a Christian — especially under Christian liberty.
Re, “You do have the choice to accept them completely or reject them completely.”
Yawn. False dichotomy.
Re, “I do urge you to examine the historical record and see if you can find the basis for trusting the whole of scripture as being the inerrant word of a Glorious God with a grand plan.”
The historical record as a whole is silent on matters of faith.
Even the record of Christian faith itself presents options for how to deal with Scriptures — starting, more or less, with the councils in the 300-400s. Event those whose positions were voted out of the church, and whose Scriptures were denied accoptance into the Canon, showed up at the councils as professing, believing, following Christians.
And the doors were slammed shut, in the name of orthodoxy, which is anoher manmade idol! (Sorry Neil. Just MHO.)
Much as they are today, in the name of the prevailing doctrines of the age, which, to me, seem to be the real “broad” way.
My position: Can open! Grace everywhere!
And your authority for that position would be _____? I’m a big fan of grace, but I have Biblical reasons for it. I’m not sure how you arrive at such dogmatic conclusions using your Dalmatian Theology.
Neil, the point is that we ALL have to interpret the Bible. It isn’t handed to us with every point 100% explained in words that 100% of us agree with 100% of the time.
You agree that not every line is to be taken literally.
Therefore, we must use our own human logic and God-given reasoning to sort through the wheat and the chaff. And sometimes we get it wrong. And that’s the way it is. That’s the reality. We see through a glass darkly.
By using terms like “dalmation theology” and some of your other comments, it seems you’re suggesting that you take the Bible as it is obviously intended to be taken 100% of the time and we’re rejecting the Bible.
Your comment on dalmation theology:
They don’t refer to it as such, but many Christians teach a message of Dalmatian theology, whereby the Bible is only inspired in spots and they are inspired to spot the spots.
“Inspired” is a tricky word. Some of us prefer to look at it in terms of, “How should we take this particular passage? THAT particular passage?” It’s not so much a matter that I reject the Bible (or parts of it) as uninspired, I just don’t think of it in those terms.
Rather, I think of it in rather practical terms of “What is this passage saying and how does it apply to my life today?”
So, I read the passage where Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and think of it as hyperbole (as do you, I believe).
I look at the passages where it talks about Jubilee Laws and Sabbath Laws and realize that those specific laws were directed to a particular people at a particular time and perhaps we ought not apply those directly to us, BUT they do indicate God’s concern for the poor, for the marginalized, for the foreigner, for the environment, etc… and THAT should be taken seriously.
I look at passages where it talks about God ordering genocidal, horrifying acts and compare it to the whole of the Bible and specifically Jesus’ teachings and say, “well, they don’t both seem able to be an accurate representation of God. So, I’m not sure about the passages where genocide or rape is ordered by God, but I AM sure that God doesn’t want me to do that sort of thing, so I won’t.”
Just because I or you reject the OT call to kill “men who lay with men,” or disrespectful children or to take captive virgins of the enemy and force them to be our wives, does not mean we reject the Bible in toto, but rather that we apply our God-given reason to sorting out these sometimes confusing passages.
You do it. I do it. ER does it. Billy Graham does it.
There are not two groups of people – those who take the Bible literally and those who don’t. There are simply all of us who take the Bible as God’s Word and have to sort through it.
Dan, I agreed with a lot of what you said – even though I don’t think it addressed my Dalmatian Theology points.
But “all of us” do not take the Bible as God’s Word. That is the whole point of the Dalmatian Theology piece. If some don’t think it is all God’s Word, they are entitled to their opinions. I just ask why they think some portions are and some are not. They must have some kind of criteria to determine what is / isn’t his Word. Seems like a fair question.
But you lost me when you got to the canard about taking the Bible literally or not. I’ve never said that and I get tired of correcting those who put those words in my mouth. Some people misunderstand things accidentally and some misunderstand them on purpose.
“By using terms like “dalmation theology” and some of your other comments, it seems you’re suggesting that you take the Bible as it is obviously intended to be taken 100% of the time and we’re rejecting the Bible.”
That isn’t how I defined it at all. Please read the post and critique that if you like.
There are simply all of us who take the Bible as God’s Word and have to sort through it.>
I wonder if that could be more of a case of: (all included) I like that part of your Word, Lord but Holy Spirit don’t convict me about those parts I don’t like. If we surrender our wills to the Lord and allow the Holy Spirit to be our teacher, I think we would not have quite so many differing views or at least our attitudes would be better. All the fruits of the Spirit would be more plentiful.
The problem, Neil, is language such as “inerrancy” or even “God’s Word,” What do those mean?
How about this – here’s my understanding of our difference:
I think you’re comfortable saying that the Bible is all God’s Word, but not all to be taken literally. Some passages in the Bible – where it commands us to kill disrespectful children or forcibly take wives from the orphans of the people we’ve killed, for instance – ARE God’s Word, but we ought not take that as literally applicable to us.
In order to do that, you must say that SOME of God’s Word is not God’s Word for us to apply to our lives.
Others don’t think that passages where God calls for genocide or rape ought to be considered as “God’s Word,” but rather as part of the Bible that does not literally apply to us. Either the authors got it wrong, or it’s a mystery why the Bible says that, or something, but that is NOT God’s Word. And so they don’t think it ought to be taken literally, either.
So that is why I bring up the “literal” point – neither group thinks it ought to be taken literally and that it all needs to be rightly interpreted. They feel comfortable in the “rightly interpreting” process saying “Genocide is not part of God’s Word and ought not be taken literally” whereas you feel comfortable saying “These descriptions that sound like genocide are within the purview of what God can choose to do being God and therefore IS God’s Word, too, but ought not be taken as literally applying to us.”
Or, conversely, I think you are VERY uncomfortable saying that ANY of the Bible is to be called, “not God’s Word,” and others are VERY uncomfortable calling parts of the Bible that suggest God orders genocide or rape, “God’s Word.” But both positions arrive to their conclusion out of deep respect for God and the Bible. (Them saying that it’s disrespectful to God and God’s Word to suggest that God orders genocide, you saying that it’s disrespectful to God and God’s Word to suggest that any part of the bible is not God’s Word.)
So, in practical terms, we all agree in reading the Bible that we ought not come to the conclusion that rape or genocide is of God. So, I’m not sure that I see that large a difference, although I’m sure you do.
I’m getting dizzy again, Dan.
“In order to do that, you must say that SOME of God’s Word is not God’s Word for us to apply to our lives.”
You changed the subject midstream. Claiming the Bible is God’s Word in no way says we must apply all of it to our lives all the time. It includes many examples of sin and its consequences, for example. It has elements that were for the Israelite theocracy and not necessarily for our time and place.
I’m just saying it is all in the Bible for a reason, but every section isn’t there for the same reason.
I don’t think God is in Heaven saying, “Whoa, I really, really wish they wouldn’t have put that in there!”
If you think some of it doesn’t belong, then I call that Dalmatian Theology, and rightly so. All I ask is that you provide the edited “Dan Trabue” Bible so I can know what God really wanted there (kidding). You get bonus points for explaining why your edited version is superior to the current model.
In the meantime, I’ll continue to wrestle with all of it and seek to have a proper understanding – but all the time with faith grounded upon reason that God can and did provide us with his trustworthy Word.
See, I don’t think we really disagree so much except for some terminology.
“If you think some of it doesn’t belong, then I call that Dalmatian Theology, and rightly so.”
Myself, I’m not prepared to jettison any of the words from the Bible. I just think they have to be rightly interpreted, as do you. Which, in the case of God commanding genocide or rape (for instance), means that we need to interpret those passages as not being representative of God’s will for us.
I know some, like Jefferson, have literally or figuratively removed words from the Bible saying they don’t belong. But I don’t know many folk who’d go that far. (Well, I don’t personally know any folk who’d go that far…)
“First, the dating for the Gospel of John is much earlier than 100 years after the death of Jesus. Chuck has been corrected on this point but he ignores it.”
I happen to be one of the people who corrected him on his blunder. Unfortunately, he cares more for his peculiar doctrines than he does the vast wealth of knowledge contained in the study of textual criticism.
Would you buy a car from a salesman who knew so little about the cars he was selling as Chuck knows about the writings of the New Testament in the original Greek? Of course not.
Taking his word on the matter is akin to intellectual suicide.
[...] many false teachers are either cowardly, ignorant or deceptive in denying the exclusivity of Jesus. They try to [...]
[...] Huh? I thought that all religions are equally valid paths to God and that we have as much to learn from them as they do from us. At least that’s what false teachers like Chuck Currie say ( I analyzed his “sermon” here). [...]