Many people will say things like, “Jesus was a great teacher, but . . .” Here are comments that typify this theme from a previous post on this blog:
“there’s plenty in the Bible that I disagree with. However, none of it is directly attributed to Jesus in the New Testament-his teachings seem entirely reasonable and well-founded.”
—
In short, I admire the teachings of Jesus, but can’t accept other sections of the Bible as reasonable or rational guidance. And, when I consider Jesus’s teachings on love, compassion and non-judgement, I find it far likelier that he would not have condemned homosexuality the way the Old Testament does.
But are they really considering all of Jesus’ teachings? Among other things that offend our 21st century pluralistic sensibilities, many of his lessons included:
His divinity
John 8:58-59 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
The authority of the Old Testament
Matthew 5:17-18 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Hell
Matthew 23:33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
Also see the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
His exclusivity
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
His prudishness – He was not only against adultery and divorce, but lust as well
Matthew 5:27-28 You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
His judgmental nature and intolerance
Matthew 5:29-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
John 5:22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
John 7:24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
Good works won’t earn you salvation. You need to trust in him.
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 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
John 5:24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
Also see the Liar, Lunatic or Lord ”trilemma” posed by C.S. Lewis
You can shut him [Jesus] up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
When people make the “good teacher” claim I take it at face value. I encourage them to read all of what Jesus taught and offer to answer any questions they may have. I also encourage them to read along on the Bible Study Blog or get involved with a study of their own. I trust that if they get involved with the Word then God will take care of it from there.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hat tip: Bubba
Filed under: Apologetics, Bible, Christian worldview, Favorites | Tagged: Bible, God, intolerance, Jesus, judgment
Hi Neil,
Another excellent and well reasoned defense of Christ. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the very things you speak of. It’s as if they say that to appease the true believer, not realizing what Jesus has really said.
I equate it to those who say that the God of the OT is different to the God of the NT. To that I respond, “you have never really read the NT.”
Blessings
But what part of all of this is necessary for Salvation? Must we believe that Jesus is divine? Must we believe in a literal 6 day creation? Must we believe only in heterosexual marriage? What about the inerrancy of the Word?
Maybe I’m becoming more liberal, but I don’t see any of the above as a requirement for Salvation.
Once a person is saved, he should move towards a more complete knowledge of Christ and that implies an understanding of God’s Word. As we grow in Christ, the things above will become obvious. When we stop growing, we don’t lose our salvation (we didn’t earn it to begin with).
Randy, I certainly would say that you better believe that Jesus is divine! if He isn’t, what good is He? Who are you believing in, and what is this being doing for you? If Jesus isn’t divine, then he’s another false god and why bother with that? I’ll leave wiggle-room for 6-day creation. Inerrancy, heterosexual marriage only-well if you get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you like and/or agree with, then you probably aren’t truly submitted to God and you probably aren’t really saved. I leave wiggle-room on the creation idea because that by itself is not going to convince you of your need for a Savior and Who that Savior is. Inerrancy is necessary, or you won’t know the Who, What, Why. However, I strongly feel that once you have truly “bowed the knee” to God, the 6-day thing will be utterly transparent and you will understand why.
4simpsons-Found your blog through the Tony Rose blog. Love what you’re doing here!
Randy,
Those earlier questions are good ones that require more than a simple yes/no answer. Perhaps you can start with 1Corinthians15?
But on the last comment, how would you understand John 15 in the context of Christians who stop growing and their salvation? Could it be possible that when we stop growing we risk our own salvation? I am thinking here specifically of verse 6 in the context of the early passage.
Neil, ….. non-judgement
I’m sure this perception is the favorite part of Jesus’ teachings for many of these “non-believers” anyway…..steve
Duane,
Do you believe you can lose your salvation? I don’t, but I know some Christians do believe that. I won’t say that they aren’t Christians.
Let me play Devil’s advocate (at the risk of using that term), suppose a man accepts Christ as his savior, does that make him a Christian? What if he never grows from that point? He may not have fully understood the divinity of Christ, he only knows that he’s a sinner and that Christ died for his sins. He asks forgiveness and asks Christ/HolySpirit to come in.
Maybe he dies at that point or maybe he lives, but doesn’t grow. Is he a Christian?
I know many that will say that if he doesn’t grow he wasn’t save to begin with. It makes it difficult to know. You and I can ask the question, is Neil saved? (sorry to pick on you Neil). We really don’t know. We know his writings and you may even know him, but can you really know if he’s saved? What about Billy Graham? Mother Theresa? Bill Clinton (don’t go there – it’ll start a new argument).
My point is this, all that is necessary for salvation is to accept the fact that you’re a sinner. Jesus died for your sins and he wants you to accept that. Once done, you’re saved for life.
The rest of this is good stuff, but not required for salvation.
What always fascinates me about the apologist taking such an uncompromising stance is how can they know?
Your narrow view of the Bible is as laced with cherry picking from the perspective of Fred Phelps say, as that of COE vicar is from yours.
It would indeed be interesting to get yourself and a 1st century “christian” in the same room, then we’d see the fur fly:-)
Hi Randy,
I enjoy thinking about these things.
I wasn’t taking a theological stand or anything. I was simply asking out of interest?
I know for example, that the thief on the cross accepted Christ and obviously never “grew”. In saying that he hardly had time now did he? Was he saved? Absolutely! Our Lord made that clear.
But for those of us who are not dying today, I think it is fair to suggest that growth is expected tomorrow. Further, our Lord basically says that growth is impossible without Him.
So therefore, can we conclude that non-growth affects our salvation? Well I am not making individual judgements about who is or is not saved. I would never. We are to preach Christ crucified to all because none of us knows who the Father has set aside for His Son.
But, perhaps this can be seen as a personal warning to all of us. How else shall we consider it when our Lord says “…such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” What does He mean? Is this just a turn of phrase? I could be misreading the context so I’m open to suggestions.
To answer your first question more directly though; “Can you lose your salvation?” Well of course you can… if you stop trusting in the one that secures it.
Now, either non-growth is a path that leads to this lack of trust, or simply evidence that you stopped trusting long before? And I’m still thinking about that.
Brain, can you elaborate on your comments? I don’t quite follow. Every verse above was written by a first century Christian. Where do you think we’d disagree? And how do you “know” what they believed?
Neil, on December 16th, 2007 at 3:28 pm Said:
Brain, can you elaborate on your comments? I don’t quite follow. Every verse above was written by a first century Christian. Where do you think we’d disagree? And how do you “know” what they believed?
Every verse may have been written by a 1st century “xian” (though there is some debate even about that), but a 21st century xian is doing the interpreting. I am sure you are aware that the council of Nicea excluded entire libraries of material from the heavily edited work of politicised fiction you call the Bible?
Thus you would have been having spirited … geddit … spirited arguments about the trinity for one thing, the treatment of backsliders for another and don’t get me started on transubstantiation!!! Although, I’ll grant you, it’s hardly necessary to go back to the 1st century to get into a fist fight over that latter point:-)
Brian, if your point is that some people disagreed then on church doctrines and that some people disagree now, I would concede that. And I would also add, “So what?” Much of the NT letters were written to correct false doctrine so it wasn’t like the early church glossed over the existence of it.
Re. politicized fiction – looks like someone has been reading too much DaVinci Code! Seriously, spare me the errors of saying the NT books were edited. Were some books excluded? Yes, and for good reasons. But the books that are there went through a rigorous copying process such that we can be sure of what they originally said.
P.S. Just because a document is capable of being misinterpreted doesn’t mean it is incapable of being interpreted properly.
P.S. Just because a document is capable of being misinterpreted doesn’t mean it is incapable of being interpreted properly.
Sure of course. However, absent an objective standard to make such a judgement who decides what is the correct intepretation?
How can you even be certain that the “correct” doctrines and documents were included? Assuming they did, why are there tens of thousands of different christian sects, and why are you certain (if you are) that your particular version is the right one? Surely God could have done a better job of communication?
How about using the same standards one uses to read any document, such as reading in context, letting the clear explain the unclear, considering the author, the type of literature, the original audience, etc.?
There are some Bible study tips on this page: http://www.4simpsons.com/The%20Bble.htm
One doesn’t have to agree on every little thing to be a Christian. How you baptize, how often you have communion, what songs you sing, etc. aren’t salvation issues. But there are certain essentials that you can’t miss.
For example, the Bible teaches at least 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation. That large quantity isn’t what makes it true, but it does mean that it is a view that Christians should hold and that there shouldn’t be any debate about it.
If you think saying something 100 times isn’t clear enough to qualify as good communication, then I’ll concede that your standards are higher than God’s. Then again, maybe the problem is with people who don’t want to know the truth and deliberately distort it.
Yes, I think that really is the problem. I am sure that in Scientology guides, the existance of Thetans is mentioned many, many times. That is also good communication, and according to your standards, puts it beyond debate…..
Neil said: Steve, please read carefully. This is your last chance if you plan to comment here. If you are another person who “misunderstands” things on purpose then I have no time for you. If you are honestly mistaken then I’ll take some time.
I specifically said that saying something 100 times doesn’t make it true, but that if the Bible says something 100 times then it is true that that is what the Bible teaches.
So in the case of Scientology, if it mentions the Thetans many, many times that doesn’t make the Thetans true (whatever they are). But it does make it true that Scientology teaches that the Thetans are true.
Do you see the distinction? I wasn’t using the “100 times” example as a proof point of Christianity, but as a proof point that it is a clear and essential teaching of Christianity.
One doesn’t have to agree on every little thing to be a Christian.
This is just depressingly disingenous, and you are the enlightened vangaurd?
It’s not the little things that christians disagree on, it’s the big the things. Like the exact mechanism of salvation, transubstantion and the divinity of Jesus. The major divisions politely ignore each other, but at the level of doctrinal detail considered each other mutually doomed.
As for the tens of thousands of subdivisions among the protestant sects? C’mon, you are only kidding yourself here.
Neil said: Perhaps if you studied the Bible you wouldn’t say those things. Check out Romans 14, for example (e.g., Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.). The Bible acknowledges that there will be areas of disagreement and how we should deal with them. Go figure. But it is quite clear on the essentials.
If “denominations” don’t think Jesus is divine, then we have a name for them: Non-Christians. That is a major issue.
The “tens of thousands” of denominations thing is a big exaggeration. You might want to research that assertion a bit more. Even if you are right, having different worship and organizational preferences doesn’t invalidate the Bible by any stretch.
Neil, you say “Do you see the distinction? I wasn’t using the “100 times” example as a proof point of Christianity, but as a proof point that it is a clear and essential teaching of Christianity.” and yes, I agree. But before, you said there should be no debate on it – why? If this is shown to be wrong, surely there must be some corrections to be made and that would involve debate, wouldn’t it?
Mike, I’m not sure I follow. People can debate Christianity all they like vs. other religions. I’m just saying that it is an oxymoron to be a Christian who doesn’t think Jesus is the only way.
“I specifically said that saying something 100 times doesn’t make it true, but that if the Bible says something 100 times then it is true that that is what the Bible teaches.”
You point was that it was not a matter of debate. Well, I think that things should always be a matter of debate. A particular point should always be open to discussion and debate; repetition does not enhance the truth of a statement.
Neil said: I know that, Steve. I’m the one that mentioned that multiple times. I tried to give you a chance but you are either deliberately misunderstanding me or incapable of it. Either way, let’s save us both some time.
And your notion about it being up to debate is a bit odd. Seems like you’d just use that as more “See, they don’t agree on anything” ammo.
If “denominations” don’t think Jesus is divine, then we have a name for them: Non-Christians. That is a major issue.
Actually this is no longer true. Both the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Mormons reject the divinity of Jesus. They represent tens of millions of christians world wide.
This division may be an issue for you, but the taxonomy is pretty clear. These guys are in your box.
Your reaction merely illustrates the problem graphically.
Neil said: Wow, you know even less about Christianity than I thought. Mormons, by their own definition, aren’t Christian (check their history). JW’s are a cult as well.
You are on moderation now, so your comments may not appear for a while.
Neil, things are written in the spirit of the times. Slavery, for example, was pretty much accepted in Jesus’ time (slaves were also, I’ll accept, going to heaven if they followed Jesus) .
Belief in resurrection and other motifs like it were also endemic in the Roman world, given that world included Egypt. Indeed, Hell could be said to have come from Hellenic mythology…and I believe many Lavantine people were heavily Hellenic.
So, my point is that what Jesus is said to have said might just be given to us via these other layers. Maybe Jesus is the way, but what is that way? Who told us and what was added by that person? We don’t actually have anything Jesus himself said, do we? And I read that Jesus’ own brother did not fully agree with the way things were going under Paul.
Mormons, according to their website, do follow Jesus. Check it out http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=735b862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=true
Even their church is called the Church of Jesus Christ (and Latter Day Saints) – brackets are mine…
Not your Christianity, but another form of Christianity nevertheless.
Anyway, that’s nothing to do with my questions
Neil said: Hi Mike – yes, they do follow “Jesus.” It just isn’t the Jesus of the Bible.
“Neil said: Hi Mike – yes, they do follow “Jesus.” It just isn’t the Jesus of the Bible.”
How do you know? You read your scriptures, the Mormons read theirs. By what criteria do you judge your scriptures as the true ones?
Neil said: At this point I wasn’t saying their view was wrong (though it is). I was just pointing out that if you study how they describe Jesus vs. how Christians do they are radically different (eternal God vs. created being, among other things).
You sure about that? Looking at teh website, there sure seems to be a lot of Biblical references. Same ones that the apostles used and indeed mentions the apostles too.
But that is a digression…though, in a way, it illustrates the point I’m on about regarding Jesus’ teaching.
Hi Mike,
Yes, they refer to the Bible and Jesus. I’ve talked to Mormons quite a bit. But they don’t believe He is the eternal God, among other things.
But still THAT Jesus, eh? So it is the Jesus of the Bible.
As it is, they can still be called Christians (followers of the Christ) but they are not as you – Christians that believe the divinity of Jesus.
Why is their view any more wrong that your view? You said it is. Isn’t that just a difference of opinion?
See why debate is needed – helps iron out all these little niggling points…
It isn’t debate, but education. They say they believe the Bible but the really believe the book of Mormon, which contradicts the Bible.
See ya.
Well, I’ll have to have a read of that one – Mormons pop around quite often.
Education, eh? Who is educating?
Who is educating?
Errr, ignore the 2nd post – computer glitch (maybe a wee bit of operator glitchiness too…)
Duane,
You answered my question “Can you lose your salvation?” with “Well of course you can… if you stop trusting in the one that secures it.”
It’s nice to know we agree on a lot of things, but unfortunately, this is something we’ll have to disagree on. I probably would have to work to find the references, but I’m in the “once saved, always saved” camp.
This post has gotten way off topic, maybe we can convince Neil to post on the “lost salvation” topic another time…
Good idea, Randy. Maybe I’ll touch on that some time. I’m in the once saved, always saved camp as well. I think that may make me a “bad Methodist” but I’ll take that risk. I know of several verses but would welcome any guest-bloggers who want to tackle it!
Neil said: Wow, you know even less about Christianity than I thought. Mormons, by their own definition, aren’t Christian (check their history). JW’s are a cult as well.
As I pointed out in the post you removed, this is nonsense.
http://www.uri.org/Christian_Family_Tree.html
Both the Mormons and JW are considered part of the christian “family” by both internal and external observers. You are very poorly informed on this score, and apparently so unwilling to have your error pointed out, that you removed the post.
Sad to see an otherwise intelligent human reduced to such coping mechanisms. I hope you snap out of it one day. All the best:-)
Neil said: Brian, it is only fitting that you leave with an ad hom. Rather predictable, I suppose.
I’ve never heard of uri.org or why they are the last word on orthodox Christianity. Mormons and JWs are cults. I will encourage anyone who cares to research Joseph Smith’s original claims on Mormonism where he said the original church had left the earth. So whatever we are, he insisted that Mormons were not.
Interesting “discussions”
Re: Mormons, it is obvious from a cursory bit of research that they would consider themselves Christians, but they consider the rest of the Church apostate. They also believe they they will be come Gods. They do not have an explanation for the 3000+ significant changes in the BOM (supposedly translated letter for letter by J. Smith with the help of 2 magic stones and angels). They can call themselves what ever they want but they diverge significantly from an historic understanding of Christianity.
Re. JW’s they believe that Jesus was created not the creator. They are free to believe what they want but it is not cosistant with what has been accepted as Christianity historically.
There might be some good arguements for athiesm, but y’all aren’t making any of them here.
Finally, would anyone care to comment on what I am seeing as a divide between Athism, and not believing in God. It seems as though there is a sort of “Athiest worldview” , and there are people who don’t believe in God, but who don’t buy the whole package.
As an outsider, whatever someone believes doctrinally is neither here nor there – you believe in Christ, you’re a Christian….which, I guess, is what the title of this thread suggests, eh? As for churches considering others apostate, I thought all churches thought the competition was apostate. This view caused no end of problems in England in the 17th century
Go check out the Dawkins site, just see how much agreement you see there. Sopmetimes it’s like a debate on doctrine between a Presbetarian, a Sunni and a Catholic, with an Orthodox Jew thrown in.
Craig – the divide you see is because we are human – heck, look at the different ways one gets in a belief in God! Athiests are no different – just don’t believe in a god. We’re human, not robots
I can’t speak for all churches, but charges of apostacy are usually tied to essentials such as the divinity of Jesus, the authority of scripture, etc.
Neil, it makes churches sound like the Mafia – once in, always in…or you’re an apostate!
Mike,
First, my point was not to downplay the divisions between groupls who call themselves Christian. I am simply pointing out that in the case of the Mormons it is they who have excluded the rest of Christiandom, not necessarily the other way around. Also that the JW’s divirge from what the preponderence of Christians have accepted at some very basic levels. They are free to beleive what they want, but they do not fit under the biggest of big tent Christianity.
As to my second point, while I am sure that there is a diversity of views among athiests, it seems as though there is a significant divide. There seem to be (for lack of a better term) “big A “Athiests who feel that is is necessary to remove any other belief system from the public sphere by any means possible. (inevitably that seems to mean force). These people also seem to be saying that Athiesm is a complete, coherent philosophy or worldview. I would contrast that with what I would call “small a” athiests. These are people who seem to feel that their lack of belief in God is one more option on a broad spectrum, and seem to be willing to live and let live. I am particularly intrested in the “big A” Athiests, because their historical record seems to be something that would not be attractive to the average person.
I really appreciate the opportunity to ask you these questions, enjoy Christmas.