Liberal theologians and even skeptics claim to revere the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), but that is just because they don’t really understand it. If they read it properly they would hate it.
It portrays Jesus as being very intolerant. He tells the Pharisees how they are doing everything wrong – worship, giving, praying, fasting, behaving, etc.
He upholds every letter and pen stroke of the Old Testament, something they typically abandon first.
He spoke of judgment. He emphatically shows that there are false religions – the very thing that the liberal theologians teach the opposite of. He warns strongly against false teachers – people like them!
It sets an impossibly high standard and demonstrates that we need a Savior to reach God. He raises the bar or shows the real intent behind prohibitions against adultery, murder, etc. and sums up that section by saying, Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).
The problem is that the liberal theologians view it as a checklist, just as they do with Matthew 22:37-40 (“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind . . . Love your neighbor as yourself.”). He didn’t mean for us to respond, “Thanks for the summary, I’ll get right on that!” The proper response is to be convicted that we can never be good enough on our own. You have to be pretty self-righteous not to realize what a joke it would be to claim you followed those passages well enough to merit God’s eternal favor.
When Jesus speaks of those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, He is referring to God’s definition of righteousness, not the made up definitions of the theological Left (abortion rights, “same sex marriage,” etc.).
Jesus says to give to the needy, but He doesn’t teach to take other people’s money at the point of a gun (i.e., taxes) to fund your pet projects.
He teaches not to judge hypocritically (Matthew 7:1-5), but the theological liberals only read the first verse and, ironically enough, use that to judge others for making any judgments.
He teaches of Heaven and Hell, which they often deny.
They completely miss the point of the wise and foolish builder passage at the end of chapter 7. They have heard his words but don’t put them into practice. They actively teach that other religions are valid paths to God.
And so much more!
I’ll close with some excellent comments from Bubba from this post about a false teacher:
These are the most prominent questions that come to mind, in response to Chuck’s [Currie] assertion, “A Christian is a person who hears the Sermon on the Mount and says, ‘Amen.’”
1) In that sermon (Mt 5:3-4), Jesus Christ taught the mourning, spiritually poor are blessed, implying a crucial need for God’s grace. Does Chuck agree that God’s grace is absolutely necessary for us to inherit eternal life?
2) In that sermon (5:11), Jesus taught that we are blessed, not when we’re persecuted for any ol’ reason or even for the sake of broad categories of goodness and righteousness, but for HIS sake. Does Chuck agree that we must stand up, not only for Jesus’ teachings, but for Jesus Himself?
3) In that sermon (5:17-20), Jesus affirmed the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke. Does Chuck defer to Christ on the question of the Bible’s ultimate authority?
4) In that sermon (7:21-23), Jesus is quite clear that not everyone will enter heaven, even going so far as to say that not everyone who calls Him “Lord” will enter heaven. Does Chuck reject universalism in order to conform his beliefs to this teaching?
5) In that passage of this sermon, Jesus is also quite clear on the determining factor of one’s eternal destiny: whether Jesus knows you. Does Chuck agree that Jesus’ knowing you is absolutely crucial for salvation?
And, if the answer is “no” for any of the questions above — if Chuck [Currie] doesn’t say “Amen” to truly every implication of the Sermon, and what it says about its Speaker, about Scripture, and about judgment — do we have Chuck’s blessing in questioning whether he really is a Christian?
. . . I don’t find the Sermon on the Mount to be non-controversial. On the contrary, its rooted in very bold claims about Christ, His book, and His sheep.
I’m reminded of what Reagan said about Marx: “How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
I’m beginning to think that there’s a similar dynamic among theologically conservative Christians and those theological liberals who border on (and often cross into) apostasy.
The theological liberal claims to stand by the Sermon on the Mount, but it’s only the theological conservative who really grasps the sermon’s contents.
P.S. Here’s a good analysis of why the Sermon on the Mount was aimed at disciples and not just anyone. Otherwise, verse 11 wouldn’t make much sense. If you aren’t a follower of Christ then why would someone persecute because of him?
Matthew 5:11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Filed under: Bible | Tagged: Bible, Jesus, liberal, religion, sermon on the mount, theologian
Little is known about Jesus, it is not even certain that he even existed.
Beyond any doubt are the following statements about him:
“There was no virgin birth, no resurrection or transfiguration, and Jesus performed no miracles. He was little more than an itinerant Jewish sage who preached a social gospel using parables and aphorisms.”
These are the findings of a body of experts, who have been looking into the matter for the last 23 years.
A lot is known about Jesus, it’s certain He existed.
Beyond any doubt are the following statements about Him:
You have fallen short of the glory of God, you’ve sinned. You’ve lied, lusted, stolen, hated, and dishonored your parents as we all have. Because of that one day you are going to stand before God on Judgement Day. He’s going to look at you and see all your crimes and open rebellion against the Lord of the Universe and He will see that justice is done because God is Holy, Holy, Holy. Jesus Christ was God. He died on the cross and endured the wrath of God for all your rebellion and crimes because He loved you and wanted you to live. God emptied Himself and endured things worse than you will ever know until you take your first steps into Hell. There is empirical proof of the existance of Jesus. There is a way you can positively and completely prove His existance. You simply have to humble yourself, repent of your sins, and trust in the Savior. Jesus’s existance is more real to me than yours or Neil’s. As for the whole virgin birth, resurrection,etc. God is God, and God can do whatever He wants with what He’s created. If He wants a virgin to give brith, so be it. If He wants a man to return to life so be it. It happens everyday. Men who are dead in sin are resurrected by the power of God to live in Christ.
This is the Testimony of the Almighty who has known this and planned this since before the foundations of the world, since before time began.
“These are the findings of a body of experts, who have been looking into the matter for the last 23 years.”
I wonder, what was their area of expertise. I also wonder if you have looked at the findings of other experts who have reached the opposite conclusion.
Jacob, excellent response.
Jacob said: “Jesus Christ was God. He died on the cross and endured the wrath of God for all your rebellion and crimes because He loved you and wanted you to live.”
Modern man has existed for at least 150.000 years. Are you seriously suggesting that for about 148.00 years everybody went to hell until God/Jesus killed himself temporarily (he didn’t die after all, did he?), so that from then on those people who
1. happened to hear of him and
2. believed in him although the whole thing is quite a tall story
can go to heaven, while the vast majority of mankind who either still have not heard of him or have been brought up in a different religion (and God made them so stubborn that they keep adhering to it) or just use their brains in order to establish that most likely all religions are wrong (let’s face it, the only logical possibilities are that
1. only one of the many religions is right and it is almost unavoidable that most people will believe that the religion they happened to have been brought up in is the real right one
2. they are all wrong, see above).
“Almighty who has known this and planned this since before the foundations of the world, since before time began.”
Did the Almighty also plan things like the tsunami of Christmas 2004 (how well-chosen the date was!) that killed around 200.000 people, many of them good Christians and certainly a number of innocent babies among the victims? Not to forget the agony and suffering of the left-behind relatives.
Some claim that the Almighty is also benevolent, incidents like the one above disprove it. And this is only one of many, many catastrophies that in summing up killed many millions of people. If some people get messages from God, why has no one ever got a message in time before such a devastating event, so that many thousands who believed in bible prophecies and relevation might have been saved? Fact is that natural catastrophies always come unexpected and kill people without making any difference between believers and non-believers – no one gets a chance.
For I am most appalled by claims that in such a disaster God spares a few by making use of miracles. It is definitely not a miracle when – say – a plane crashes, 150 people on board die and one or two survive! What “omnipotent superior being” would do such a vile thing?
And it is a megalomaniac trait of character when people who by mere chance survive such a crash interpret their survial as the will of God because then they etseem themselves better and more worthy than all those that have perished.
“If He wants a virgin to give brith, so be it. …. It happens everyday.” Does it? Can you point to any such event that is not obliterated by mythology. In ancient times lots of people were allegedly born by virgins (Mithras, Horos, Alexander the great, a. s. o.), so Jesus is nothing out of the ordinary.
Besides, as is known beyond any doubt the notion of a virgin birth is due to a translation mistake when the hebrew word “alma”, meaning “young woman” was translated into the Greek Septuaginta by the Greek word “parthenon”, actually meaning “virgin”. And that is by no means the only mistake.
Isaiah was referring to a different birth, he did not predict Jesus. That is why the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. Obviously the “prophecies” did not convince them.
Well, Sunday School Teacher, do you actually tell the children you teach at sunday school that Jesus performed miracles like turning water into wine or resurrectiong dead people who had already begun to smell because of the physical decay of their bodies?
Modern physics and chemistry tell us that such things are impossible, if you believe in the truth of such preposterous claims you will believe anything. Obviously all the miracles were made up at later dates when stories about Jesus passed from mouth to mouth,
No educated person of today can accept the factuality of those miracle stories. They may be understood as allegorical but not as fact. People who take them as real lack a basic understanding of the structure of our universe.
You would be surprised at the number of “educated”
people who do accept those stories.
As to what I tell my students, I tell them that they have to decide for themselves. I tell them to look at the evidence. I tell them not just to believe what somebody tells them (including me), but go to the actual evidence, not what somebody says about it.. I tell them that no one can prove the existence of God to them. Each person has to look for God for himself, the evidence is just there to lead you in the right directions. But, sooner or later, if you seek God in the right places, you will find him, and he will prove to you that he exists.
In the case of all the people who have died, what happens to them is up to God. But I have found him to be just and merciful, and I trust him.
God does not seem to think that death is such a serious thing, I find that comforting. As to the pain and grief of survivors, God can help with that too if they will let him.
I seldom mention it, since It has no real value to anyone else and just makes people think I’m a little off balance (I know, I used to think that about people who said this too). But yes, God has made himself known to me in such a way that I have no doubt of his existence. I don’t know why, I certainly deserve it least of nearly all the people I know.
Oh my, how did I ever miss that clever Reagan quote!?
And it sure fits well with your lesson today.
The sermon on the mount IS beautiful and one should say AMEN, but few truly understand it.
Well written lesson.
Cinnamon, that statement is false, and the rest of your comments are equally false. Nearly all historians — even skeptics — will concede that a real person named Jesus lived (among other facts about the early church).
You appear to have been reading Jesus Seminar materials, which make a mockery of serious thought and study.
There was no translation mistake with the virgin birth. The New Testament is quite clear regarding the claims of the virgin birth. A prophecy that a young woman will have a child is not a big prediction as far as prophecies go.
You assume miracles can’t happen, then dogmatically say they didn’t happen. That doesn’t prove much. The real question is whether Jesus was resurrected and God in flesh. If He was, then the miracles wouldn’t be a surprise.
Check out http://www.risenjesus.com/challenge/frameSet.html or the other apologetics links if you are really interested in some different persectives. I encourage you to make serious inquiry of the orthodox perspective if you really want to know the truth about God. Your “scholars” may have been researching this for 25 years, but the church has been answering objections for 2,000 years. I’m reading “Church History” by Eusebius, written around 300 AD, and it is interesting just how many of these “new” issues were thoroughly responded to back then.
Well. Interesting debate. I really have no intention of adding anything to the fray; only wanted to thank you Neil for this timely insight into what the Sermon really should “say” to us.
Disclosure: I have started meeting with my PW for a few “nouthetic” sessions, and admitted that I basically feel guilty about everything, all the time. I am essentially not a nice person, and I fall far short of the sanctity of the denim-jumper wearing home-school moms with their perfectly applied lipstick, serene composure, and homemade arts and crafts projects. Besides all that, the harder I try to live up to internal, spiritual standards of godliness, the worse I fail and wind up getting cynical.
So what does she assign me as homework? Read Matthew 5-7 (not exegete it) at least 3 times and record anything that stands out to me. Wha…? All that “stands out” to me is how condemned it makes me feel! Although I understand the implication of Jesus’ statements (He is pointing up the need for personal holiness, not moralism and outward conformance), evidently I have still sort of missed the point. I appreciate this:
It sets an impossibly high standard and demonstrates that we need a Savior to reach God.
and:
He didn’t mean for us to respond, “Thanks for the summary, I’ll get right on that!” The proper response is to be convicted that we can never be good enough on our own. You have to be pretty self-righteous not to realize what a joke it would be to claim you followed those passages well enough to merit God’s eternal favor.
Well, duh, right? Anyhow, now I can tell Joan that Matthew 5-7 doesn’t condemn me – it reaffirms what I already know – that I simply aren’t good enough and never will be on my own. Then she’ll probably remind me to rest in the finished work of Christ on the Cross. To which I’ll doubtless reply that God expects our obedience and conformance to His image and we must strive to live out our faith. (And on it will go).
Anyway, good thoughts. Happy New Year! (BTW, when are you going to add me to your blogroll?)
Excellent points, Marie. I know I run through that cycle of thinking often and imagine that others do as well. I appreciate your candor and transparency.
Right now! Seriously, thanks for letting me know it wasn’t there. You have a unique voice and I appreciate your passion for the persecuted church and for the truth. I use Google Reader for accessing my favorite blogs like yours so I neglect the blogroll sometimes.
Modern physics and chemistry tell us that such things are impossible, if you believe in the truth of such preposterous claims you will believe anything. Obviously all the miracles were made up at later dates when stories about Jesus passed from mouth to mouth,
Miracles, by their very definition, go against modern physics and chemistry, or at least our understanding of them. So you saying that you don’t believe in things that contradict science because they contradict science doesn’t really say anything. We believe in the supernatural. Whether or not the supernatural exists is a reasonable debate, but saying the supernatural doesn’t exist since it is supernatural, well, you’re not going to get anywhere with that.
It’s circular reasoning, Chance. The same that is usually said of Christians’ explanations for Biblical truth statements. In fact, I’m surprised Cinnamon didn’t accuse Jacob of using circular reasoning in his initial response.
But indeed, all the points made by Cinnamon are old ones. Even the point about people who lived before the birth of Christ has been addressed. Peter Kreeft gives a good possibility in his book “Handbook of Christian Apologetics”. In summary, Jesus says that if you know Him, you know the Father. So, consequentially, if one knows the Father, one knows Jesus. Certainly there have been OT characters who have had direct communications with the Almighty, such as Moses for example. Hard to suggest that they would not have found salvation. Indeed, the Gospels tell us that a few apostles witnessed a vision of Jesus with Moses and Elijah. Would He waste His time with dead guys who weren’t saved?
“So, consequentially, if one knows the Father, one knows Jesus”
So are you saying one can know the Father without first knowing Jesus? And what about all the people who lived before Yahweh was promoted from a war god to the only god?
Another question: Did any of you consider following your own bible and speaking privately with this Chuck guy before plastering his name all over this blog ?
Or perhaps you don’t consider him a brother. Maybe you’ve decided it’s your prerogative, not God’s, to decide who is saved and who isn’t.
Neil, you certainly seem to know a lot about what other people think. You breezed onto Pharyngula the other day, made some pompous pronouncements about what the atheist worldview is, and then accused the commenters of not being consistent with that worldview (as defined by you). Your blog is full of condemnation of all and sundry who don’t agree with you (and you never fail to describe exactly what it is that these people, and “people like them” believe and what their agenda is). Do you know any of these people? Have you met them, spoken with them, been to their homes? Remember, when you make these judgements (publicly) and then bring others into agreement with you, you bind them; God condemns them on your recommendation. But he’ll use the same measure on you. It’s biblical. Go look it up.
Hi Micky,
I work very hard to properly characterize the views of others, regardless of their worldview. Then I sometimes comment on those views. I appreciate that you mentioned that I note exactly what it is that I’m criticizing. That way, if I have mischaracterized people’s views they are free to correct them.
Yes, I interacted a lot with Chuck Currie before critiquing him and his false teachings. I have firsthand knowledge of what a liar and libeler he is. I pointed this out to him via email and instead of apologizing he repeated the false claims.
Thanks for the Bible tips, but I’m a little more comfortable with the work I’ve done to understand it properly.
cinnamon, read Hebrews 11 sometime soon. The old people who followed God were justified by faith in God. That was the old covenant. God told Isreal, believe in me and follow my commandments and you’re sins will be covered and passed over until they’re paid for in full. People don’t go to Hell because they haven’t heard the gospel, people go to Hell because they are sinners who love their sins. They utterly refuse to walk in the light of their conscience and the Law of God written on their heart.
“Enter through the narrow gate for the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Matthew 7:13-14
The majority of people will go to Hell when they die. Because we have rebelled against the Most High God, and God is so Holy that He will not let any sin go unpunished. There is not a hint of darkness in Him, He is holy, holy, holy. And He is Just. Infinitely more Just than the best of Human judges. His Holy Firey Wrath is kindled against the sinner on account of their crimes and rebellion gave them life and brought them into this world, He wrote His perfect and Holy Laws on their hearts in their conscience, and the first chance they get, they spit in the face of the one who graciously gave them these wonderful gifts and leave Him for death. And because of this we all deserve Hell. God could kill us all right now, and send us to Hell and He would do no one any wrong. The next breath you take is more than any amount of good works could possibly buy you. It is only because of God’s grace that you haven’t fallen into the hands of the Living God, and that is a fearful thing. God does what He wants and He never does anyone wrong. So you talk about the tsunami and the plane, and it reminds me of Luke 13, where these people come to Christ and ask Him, what about these people who Pilate killed and had their blood mixed with the sacrifice they were offering to God, and asked Him about the Tower in Siloam that fell and killed 18 people. They were asking, what about that? Give an account of the Almighty there? Why did this happen? Do you think they were worse sinners than you or anyone else? No, but except you repent, you shall likewise perish. So you look at the tsunami and say, What about that? How can God love and do that? And then you point out that there were Christians who died. I’m happy for them. They’re better off now then they were then. But the point is, God didn’t do them any wrong. But unless you repent you shall likewise perish.
And maybe the people who think that it was a miracle and God’s will that they survived a tragedy think so , not because they think they’re better, but because..oh i don’t know, they did survive? And they DID survive based on God’s Will. And even you or any of us living is a miracle and complete and utter mercy.
I meant that men returning to life happens every day.
As is possible for you to do cinnamon.
I’ll be praying for you.
Jacob
Hugs @ Marie..I have felt this too!
Hold on Neil! Cinnamon makes some valid points! Jacob dug his own hole in saying, “Jesus was God. He died on the cross and endured the wrath of God…” Are you reading the words on the screen?
Jacob speaks as if God is MAN, and He’s not!
To say Jesus is anything less than a MAN means, we have no hope of being able to live in the Spirit. It is to say we will always live in sin and that isn’t supposed to be the case. (Matt. 24)
If we expect non-believers to listen to a word we have to say we cannot contradict ourselves so blatantly! God had nothing to do with the murder of His son, that was all MAN. Just as the tsunami had nothing to do with God, and we cannot blame the Earth for acting in a normal manner.
There were warnings of what was to come. Where were the animals and some of the natives? They escaped, the people that were injured were tied to tourist attractions and most certainly preoccupied when the natural warnings were sent. Hint: Birds
I believe God saved some people, but what did you expect. You teach a baby time and again not to touch a hot stove–are you then going to stand by and watch them do it, just because you said it once already? Can’t blame God cause we were hard headed.
Man is out of compliance with Natural Law the Earth isn’t. She has to make room for new land formations (sea-floor spreading), therefore shifting occurs. Man builds faster than she does and you dare blame her for trying to accommodate us as she was commanded?
No Cinnamon we cannot blame God! We have to thank Him for the grace bestowed by His children that came to the rescue! He sent His son for the children of Israel because they refused to give up their idols.
Jesus, by default became an example to their Gentile brothers, but their love of themselves and material things are destroying the world. They still haven’t listened and are in the grips of idol worship as we speak!
Are there societies of people that love God and live in the Spirit without example? I don’t know, but just in case one has been provided for us. Sure Isaiah was speaking of a different child, but I encourage you to keep reading because he most certainly discusses Jesus in chapter 9. If you read the entire chapter you will find exactly what God has in store for the murderers of His son!
The Jews you speak of will wait for their Messiah forever, because the one they have been taught to look for has Pharasiac ideals. Even Jesus told them they didn’t understand their own prophecies. Don’t get it twisted there are Messianic Jews that believe in Christ, but as with most true-believers, they are swept under the rug and kept from truth seekers.
As for a virgin birth? Its highly possible she was still a virgin, since silly man bases this on the proverbial cherry pop. (Sorry Neil, didn’t know how else to put that.) You will all agree there are instances of this happening without sexual contact (ie. sports-horseback riding).
I have to agree with you Cinnamon in that we need to step away from mythology in order to get to the real deal. SST offers the best advice in keep reading and make up your own mind. God commanded that all shall be revealed!
Jesus is only a beginning, because he is larger than life.
mizclark, I’m confused as to why you say I dug my own whole with my statement of Jesus enduring God’s Wrath. Yes men put Christ on the cross, and men were the reason Christ was on the cross, but while He was on that cross, God’s wrath against men’s sins was poured out on Jesus. God had everything to do with the murder of His Son. It’s like the story of Abraham and Isaac on the mountain. When Abraham took Isaac up on the mountain and laid him on the altar and tied him down, put his hand on his son’s brow and brought that knife up to slay his son, and God stopped his hand and provided the ram. Most people think, what a wonderful end to the story, it’s not the end, it’s the intermission. Many many many years later, God took his son and allowed Him to be put on that cross and slaughtered him. Isaiah 53:10 is speaking of Christ, and it says that it pleased the LORD to crush Him. It please God to crush His Son because He bore our sins on that cross. For He so loved us. Whose fault was it that Christ was on that cross, it was ours. Who put Him up there? We did. But ultimately God was orchestrating it. Christ was not the backup plan, but the main plan. And to claim anything is out of the hands of God is to claim that God is not omnipotent.
Neil, I’m sincerely flattered that you think so highly of what I wrote.
–
If I may be completely frank, I hate to see that this particular comment thread was so quickly derailed by subjects that are, for the most part, more deliberately addressed in other posts at this very blog.
But if this thread is digressing, I too will weigh in.
Cinnamon, if I may say so, your comments display a great deal of ignorance and arrogance, at least about religion in general and Christianity in particular.
You seem completely unaware of the long history of Christian theology and apologetics, in which extremely serious men tackled the problems you have raised, and, in the dark about their proposed solutions, you presume that there exists no persuasive (or even arguably persusive) responses to what you think are insurmountable dilemmas.
The fact of the matter is, there are strong responses to the issues you raise. They are strong enough that they must be answered rather than glibly dismissed. And, we defenders of the faith don’t hide these responses as if they’re esoteric riddles: we broadcast them.
You’ll find answers here and in many of the sites to which Neil links. More than that, C.S. Lewis — the twentieth century’s most inflential and most popular Christian writer — took great pains to address the questions you raise in a manner that was both very thoughtful but also very accessible.
He wrote books — literally, entire books — to answer the questions you raise.
You write that science proves the impossibility of miracles and that, “No educated person of today can accept the factuality of those miracle stories.” Lewis outlined a few key difficulties with the physical materialism that strict atheists assert, and he then argued for both the possibility of miracles and the propriety of Christian miracles in particular, in a book aptly titled Miracles.
(In my opinion, it’s a rather shallow thinker who believes that science disproves the miraculous or even could disprove it. Science assumes that observations are generalizable, but it cannot POSSIBLY prove this assumption. In order to draw any conclusions, science assumes that miracles are impossible — or, at least, very rare — but a scientific attempt to prove that assumption commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.)
You write that disasters like tsunamis “disprove” the benevolence of God, but Lewis wrote a lengthy book tackling the problem of pain, appropriately titled, The Problem of Pain.
(If God is truly all-knowing and infinitely wise, it’s entirely possible that He understands the situation better than we do. There are times when a dog thinks a veterinarian is hurting him, how much wider would the gap be between a limited and fallible human and his unlimited and perfect Creator? Besides, of all faiths Christianity addresses the problem of human suffering most emphatically. It does so not by denying pain as Buddhists do, but first by acknowledging pain while affirming God’s sovereignty (as in the book of Job), and then by affirming God’s own suffering for our sake, in Gethsemane and at Golgotha.)
And, you write that it’s unlikely that only one religion is right and all others are wrong, but Lewis addressed that, too, making the point that all major religions broadly agree on morality, in the book, The Abolition of Man.
(This is one of the central claims of Romans, that we all know the moral law and that we thus have no excuse for being guilty of breaking that law. The world’s religions agree on the moral law in broad strokes — championing honesty, charity, and bravery, for instance — but Christianity offers the clearest image of that law: we shouldn’t just abstain from doing what we wouldn’t like done to us, we should actively do what we would like done; and we should love our neighbors, and that doesn’t include just our friends and relatives but extends even to our enemies. Where the religions disagree is on the reality behind the law: the nature of that reality and our destiny in that reality. Here there is wide divergence of thought because there is probably quite a bit of speculation, but that doesn’t prevent the Creator Himself from providing the answer. One might as well argue that, because there were numerous theories about the identity of Deep Throat, all the theories were wrong, even when the anonymous informer could have stood up and took credit at any time.)
It seems to me that you have not taken anything resembling the full measure of Christianity’s best arguments in response to the issues you raise. A little humility would, therefore, do you a world of good.
Hi Mizclark,
As I’ve mentioned before, Jesus is fully God and fully man. The Bible is quite clear on that subject.
Well then I guess you have answered the question Neil. There is no need for anything but Jesus and to believe he is God.
No need for church or study…only to believe.
Miz…not sure if your statement is sarcasm or not….but you are correct…”No need for church or study…only to believe”…….I beleive the thief on the cross exemplifies that. Sanctification, specifically progressive sanctification, is a worldy life long process and should be sought after by any believer..but the thief never had the opportunity.
I like the way Pastor Eric Mason puts it (as well as many others): I was saved (jusitification) I am being saved (sanctification) and I will be saved (glorification).
Of course we need to attend church and study, though not for salvation. My point is simply that the church was built on the concept that Jesus is God. We settled that a long time ago. The Bible is very clear. Study should make it more clear.
Hi Neil,
I decided to check out your blog a little bit and noticed that you are recently directing most of your ire at liberal christians.
A gentle reminder:
“‘Teacher,’ said John, ‘we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.’ ‘Do not stop him,’ Jesus said. ‘No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.” Mark 10:38-41.
Remember, we are the descendents of John Wesley, Sojournor Truth, Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, Cesar Chavez, the Berrigan Brothers, Clarence Jordan, Oscar Romero–these are all people who preached the gospel (that is, the good news) of justice and liberation. If ever you find yourself in need of a cold cup of water, you are always welcome in our churches.
I guess in a pinch, it isn’t out of line to say that all we need do is believe. The question is, are you in a pinch? If not, then it behooves you to understand as much as possible what it truly means to believe. The Bible tells us what we need to know about the nature of God and WHY we need to believe. It also tells us how to believe on God’s terms rather than on our own.
Hi Anna,
Thanks for visiting and commenting.
If you have evidence of Chuck Currie or other false teachers driving out demons or performing miracles I’d be glad to read about them. What is ironic about your comment is that most of the people I am referring to deny that demons exist or that miracles can even happen.
They also deny the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation, the authority and reliability of the Bible, etc. For them to claim the name of Wesley would be a joke. If Wesley met any of them he’d share the Gospel with them, and rightly so, because they need to hear it.
Here’s a better passage for them: Galatians 1:8-10 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! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Or this one: 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Or any of these about sound doctrine — http://www.4simpsons.com/doctrine_counts.htm . We are commanded to “test everything and hold onto the truth.”
These liberal theologians are not “with us [Jesus and his true followers]” because they deny him on most every important issue — in fact, they generally teach the opposite of what He did.
Cinnamon,
When every one of your comments contains an insult such as, “Did God give you your brain and your ability to reason in order NOT to use it?” then it is clear that your type of discourse is not what I’m after here.
I will make a quick note about your question this question you asked: “Why should God be true and Yahwe/Allah/Krishna/… not be true?” The answer is the evidence. You know, the evidence you think we don’t examine. For example, the evidence points to Jesus dying on the cross. Islam explicitly denies that, based on revelations to one guy 500 years after the fact, whose religion started, spread and continues based on violence (Christianity was persecuted heavily for its first 300 years and the Bible makes it clear that it is not to be spread by violence). I could go on and on — if I thought you were truly interested — and explain how Christianity lines up with the truth and other religions are false. Interestingly, Christianity can explain why there are atheists (Romans 1:18-20 and others) as well as other religions. They are all perverting or denying the truth. But atheism has no rational explanation for Christianity. If materialistic Darwinism is true then that process is responsible for me believing the truth about Jesus. And it would be “irrational” of you to complain about it or to pretend that there are any real morals in the world.
I encourage you to actually read the resources Bubba mentioned. Or read some of the Apologetics links to the right.
Specifically, I really encourage you to try the Stand To Reason site ( http://www.str.org ), and even subscribe to their Podcast for a few weeks . Then ask yourself if Christians really don’t use or encourage reason. The worst case scenario is that you get lots more examples of how we don’t really reason, right?
All the best,
Neil
P.S. Christianity applauds the use of reason — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/07/13/exploring-christianity-part-9-open-mindedness/ .
Cinnammon, When every one of your comments contains an insult
If I may add my 2 cents, just remember pearls and pigs when dealing with people who aren’t interested in actual dialog.
Good point, Chance. I give people a couple tries and then it’s pearl holding / dust shaking time. Besides, I don’t want to polarize them further. I have no idea what Cinnamon’s story is but many times atheists are just people who were wounded in church and are lashing out.
Neil likes to delete everything that is too embarrassing for his agenda. He fears open discussion because his arguments are extremely weak and mostly wrong.
Your scorn others for insulting you and your ilk but you do not hesitate when it comes to insulting reasonable and rational people by upholding your extremely erronous views about the real world.
I can assure you I was not wounded by any church but as growing older and more knowledgable I realized what a load of BS religion is. And with every new posting on your blog I am confirmed.
It is mostly fun to read the rubbish that you produce but sometimes it is boring because your arguments are so weak that even a five-year-old can see through the smoke-screen you try to put up in order to fool people.
Neil said: “Christianity applauds the use of reason ”
That is utter rubbish. Christianity is the antithesis of reason and an insult to our ability to think rationally. The more convinced Christians are of their creed the less they are able to think clearly.
cinnamon
I would suggest that if “Christianity is the antithesis of reason”, you would make more progress by showing us calm reasonable and valid arguments for you point.
I would also suggest that “growing older and more knowledgable” often leads to positions such as yours, but that in fact you just need still more knowledge. Incomplete information often leads to incorrext conclusions.
And I would like to ask you this; “Where do you put your faith?”
Neil likes to delete everything that is too embarrassing for his agenda. He fears open discussion because his arguments are extremely weak and mostly wrong.
Oops, I guess Neil forgot to delete one.
I thought I’d let her go out with another fact-free rant.
I hope the materialistic Darwinists will see the irony in their cries about censorship on blogs, but I don’t think it is very likely. Their comments are there for all to see and, ironically, they obviously don’t meet the guidelines for any rational discourse.
But more importantly, these same people just hear about a movie like Expelled! and go into full attack mode. Yet the critics of the Darwinian philosophy aren’t being rude. They are just doing their jobs and are getting shut down. They lose grants and employment in a systematic way. For them it isn’t having their comments moderated on one little private blog out of millions. It is their livelihood and reputation that are at stake.
Yet Cinnamon & Co. aren’t troubled by what Expelled! exposed at all. Such hypocrisy. Such irrational behavior.
Hi Neil,
thanks so much for the gentle and respectful response, I really do appreciate it.
As far as the verse I quoted, I think the main point is not about miracles and demons. That is the disciples focus of course, but when they bring it to Jesus, He has an entirely different focus. Not only does he tell them not to condemn anyone who performs a miracle in His name, but He also extends the range of “pro-kingdom behaviors”, if you will, all the way down to the smallest kindness (giving a thirsty person a cup of water) and categorizes anyone who would do even the smallest kindness in the name of Jesus as a friend and not an enemy. So, again, I don’t think this verse is limited to people who drive out demons and perform miracles. Whoever is not against us is with us.
Also, it is interesting that you are quoting Paul with the assumption that the gospel you are preaching is the same gospel that he was preaching. Please correct me if I am mistaken but I believe the primary gospel that is being preached in America today is Anselm’s subsitutiary (or satisfaction) atonement theology–a version of the gospel that became primary long after the church had been co-opted by the Roman Empire. It makes sense then, that this theology would be so suited to modern Christianity which finds itself the primary religion of the American Empire.
When Jesus himself made his first public appearance on the theological scene, his opening statement was a reading of Isaiah 61, preaching good news (gospel!) to the poor, freedom for prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed. There is only one place, Matthew 25, where Jesus outlines the difference between those that he does and does not know, and there is no question whatsoever about “beliefs” as it were, only behaviors. The specific behaviors, as I’m sure you know, are feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, hospitality to strangers, clothing to the naked, care to the sick and comfort to those in prison.
If we can agree on that, then surely we are not your enemies simply because we don’t share all of your beliefs?
Hi Anna,
Re. your first paragraph, I’m not convinced at all that these people are proclaiming the real Jesus. They are like the Mormons in that regard.
Paul was pretty specific about his Gospel (1 Cor. 15, among others) and I am confident that I am preaching that while the theological liberals deny virtually all of it.
I am familiar with what Jesus said, but it seems to me that he is talking about spiritual things. I am not aware of one person He released from a physical prison during his ministry, for example. He did offer release for those in bondage to sin and who were spiritually poor or blind.
I do all the Matthew 25 things (prison ministry, etc.) and am glad others help the hungry and poor as well. I don’t say that to boast or to imply that I do them often enough, but I do them all in various ways.
But when “Christians” deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation, for example, they are in direct conflct to a teaching that occurs 100 times directly and indirectly in the NT. That mocks the cross and the blood of the martyrs. At best they are “saved and confused,” and at worst they are false teachers. That is just one of the many views these people hold, so I don’t consider them brothers in Christ. I’m all about the essentials, and this is where I part with the theological liberals.
I would seek to share the Gospel with them as I would anyone else. I don’t know if you share their views or not (hopefully not).
As always, I really appreciate your tone and reasoned dialogue even though we disagree on some things.
Hope your new year is off to a great start!
Peace,
Neil
Hi Neil,
I don’t know any theologically liberal Christians who deny the death and ressurection of Christ. I think what it comes down to is–what exactly does it mean to die “for our sins”? Anselm gives one answer, but it isn’t the only answer. I highly reccomend “The Nonviolent Atonement” by J. Denny Weaver if you haven’t already read it. It offers some alternative interpretations of Paul’s words.
While I agree that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, I disagree that following Jesus is primarily encompassed by intellectual assent (that is, belief in), the doctrine of satisfaction atonement.
For me, one of the primary issues I have with
Anselms’ theory of satisfaction atonement is that it relies on a cosmic system of retributive justice where the way to “right” wrongs is to sufficiently punish them. I do not see that this idea is supported in scripture. The prophets are full of demands for justice and reminders that it is fundamentally justice and mercy that God wants from us, not sacrifice (see Amos 5: 21-24, Hosea 6:6–a passage that Jesus himself quotes–and Micah 6:7-8). The entire book of Job is also a debunking of retributive justice (another book recommendation: “On Job: God talk and the suffering of the innocent” by Gustavo Guttierrez).
Also, Anselm’s satisfaction atonement can function to remove ethics from the equation of salvation as in the spiritualization of the sermon on the mount and the sheep and the goats. From the perspective of the dominant group it makes sense to spiritualize these passages. From the perspective of oppressed groups, it makes sense to take them literally. Jesus was preaching the sermon on the mount to an oppressed group who had been under the thumb of empire for quite some time and so I am inclined to believe that oppressed groups are more likely to have an accurate reading of these verses. So, theologically liberal christians also focus on the “essentials”, we just disagree about what the essentials are.
James 2:18 “… Show me your faith without deeds and I will show you my faith by what I do… You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prositute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, faith without deeds is dead.”
Even C.S. Lewis, a very conservative Christian theologian (who I once adored and whose books I read at least twice each) provides for the possibility of a person being reconciled to God (or Alsan as it were) without having “believed” in him. Remember the Last Battle where the soldier who worshipped Tash finds himself in heaven?
Finally (and perhaps most importantly), I have no doubt that, whether you see it as an “essential” of christianity or not, you do many (if not all) of the things referenced in the Sheep and the Goats parable. In fact, that is my point and my argument for seeing you as a friend and not an enemy.
Anna
I’ve come across plenty who deny the physical resurrection.
Right. They are in conflict with the Bible and historic Christianity. I’m reading Eusebius’ “The Church History” and it is so clear that theological liberals have a different religion altogether. The deity of Christ, the authority of the Bible, the exclusivity of Christ and more are almost always dismissed by theological liberals. Helping people is great, but if they die without Jesus they will spend an eternity in Hell. The theological liberals I have analyzed here are too ignorant or afraid to proclaim the truth that Jesus is the only way.
I’m a big C.S. Lewis fan, yet I think his universalist tendencies were wrong and in conflict with scripture. I have an upcoming post on the whole faith/works thing.
Thanks, and I do appreciate all the good things you do for people in your career and spare time. I have no doubt that you are a real blessing to those you serve.
But I think that the liberal folks make a couple mistakes with Matthew 25. One is not reading it in context with the rest of the Bible. Pagans can do “good deeds” — i.e., visit people in prison — but that doesn’t settle their accounts with God. They are still goats, so to speak. Jesus came to save lost sinners.
And I am continually amazed that theological liberals generally support abortion “rights” (for the mother, not the child) which literally and figuratively destroy the “least of these” and mock God in the process.
In summary, they disagree with Jesus, a lot — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/shouldnt-christians-agree-with-jesus/
And I’m always surprised when the theological liberals think Jesus is just warm-and-fuzzy and anything goes when it comes to sin. Jesus just clarified the law and showed the intent — i.e., lust is like adultery, unrighteous anger is like murder. But they read Jesus and decide that abortion and homosexual behavior are OK. They are going the wrong direction.
That doesn’t make sense to me. For 300 years after its inception (and through today in many parts of the world) becoming a follower of Christ was the quickest way to go from being un-oppressed to being oppressed. If it was all about avoiding oppression Jesus should have said, “Don’t follow me.”
I am inclined to think that those reading the passages in context of their paragraph, chapter, book and the whole Bible are more likely to have a proper understanding of them.
Hi Neil,
In reading your response, I believe that you are starting from Anselm’s satisfaction atonement (e.g. Jesus’ death “settles our accounts with God”) and interpreting everything that Jesus said through that lens. I believe that is a mistake. The parable of the sheep and the goats says absolutely nothing about belief systems. Rather, it says that all the people of all the nations will be separated based on, essentially, their treatment of the poor. Further, in the parables where people are shown mercy, there is no mention of someone else having to take the punishment. God, it seems, is free to be merciful, even in the absence of the torture and death of someone in the sinner’s place. As I mentioned before, the theme of sacrifice in the Bible as discussed in the prophets (particularly Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah) is not that old testament sacrifices were not *enough* to reconcile us to God, but rather that sacrifice is fundamentally not what God requires of us.
When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it was necessary to find a way for Christianity to accomodate oppression and violence (a stunning feat), both of which are essential to the building and maintenance of empire. The Nicene Creed was born out of this need, narrowing the “essentials” of Christianity down to intellectual assent of the divinity and salvific power of Christ and neglecting every single thing he ever said. The modern American “gospel” is the descendent of this process, stripped bare of any requirement to practice justice or mercy on a social scale and promising only personal salvation through assent to a certain set of beliefs.
Watch this: If the building up of the Kingdom is interpreted to mean practicing justice through the liberation of the oppressed, then slavery and colonization would be considered anti-Kingdom. If, on the other hand, the building up of the Kingdom is interpreted to mean “getting more people to believe in Jesus”, unfortunately this is something which is effectively accomplished through slavery and colonization and so, almost by magic, they become pro-Kingdom. Do you see what I mean? This is the genius of Anselm’s theology (though I don’t believe he intended anything so sinister)–it makes violence and oppression not only acceptable but actually desirable for the building up of the Kingdom of God. If we say that, in the sermon on the mount and Isaiah 61, Jesus was only talking about *spiritual* liberation, then there would be no need for Christians to work towards ending physical slavery since even a slave can be spiritually free. Thus the huge division in the 17th century church over whether Christians could own slaves (many people in that time, of course, interpreted the Bible as being pro-slavery and believed that freeing the slaves upset the natural order of things and was, therefore, sinful–incredible!).
Flash forward to 2009, where the most oppressive and militaristic empire in the world does not even blush to call itself a Christian nation. Furthermore, when most Christians critique this claim it is around issues of prayer in schools, abortion, gay marriage, and evolution vs. creation, not around the shameful neglect of our most vulnerable citizens and the ruthless oppression of so many other nations.
In short, liberal christianity (as I practice it) is in conflict with historic christianity (at least since it became able to accomodate empire) but not, I believe, with the Bible. So, you can see, from my perspective (I have to go back to speaking for myself again, as a theologically liberal Christian who affirms the death and resurrection of Jesus), stripping the gospel down to a set of beliefs which so easily accomodate violence and oppression is the true betrayal of the gospel and the thing that truly makes a mockery of the cross.
On oppression: certainly it is true that Christians are oppressed in other countries (this is, of course, true of nearly all religious minorities). However, within countries where Christianity is the dominant religion, people read and understand the Bible differently. Certainly we take everything in context of the chapter, book and the rest of the Bible as well as what we know of the history. At the same time, we must recognize that as we attempt to take all of these contexts into account we are also looking through our own lens which is shaped by the society we live in, the theology we have been taught as well as our statuses of privilege and oppression based on social location (race, class, gender).
Take South Africa, the dominant group (white people) considered themselves Christians, the oppressed group (black people) also considered themselves Christians. The dominant group read the Bible as affirming (or at least being indifferent to) their dominant status. The oppressed group read a theology of liberation and proceeded to end apartheid through non-violent resistance and even to work towards reconciliation using a restorative (rather than retributive) justice model. Theologies of liberation have also sprung up in Latin America among the poorest of the poor, as well as in the USA among African Americans and feminists.
Certainly the gospel is not about avoiding being oppressed personally. On the contrary, it is about opposing and ending oppression (”Is this not the fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?” Isaiah 58:6), a task which nearly always leads to being oppressed and despised personally (”Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets” Luke 6: 22-23.)
p.s. see, I told you I can talk theology all day–sorry for being so long winded
Hi Anna,
Your South Africa example proves my point, not yours. Just because the situation of people influences their reading of the text doesn’t mean that both both (or either) are getting it right. In the same way, just because liberation theology is/was popular in Latin America doesn’t mean it is right.
When you say that the Gospel is about ending opposing and ending oppression you demonstrate that you have missed the point.
Sacrifices were required, but the Israelites did it with wrong motives and that displeased God. Jesus’ sacrifice once for all (who believe) was required. To turn the Bible into liberation theology mocks the cross and misses the point. That means you wouldn’t preach the Gospel in the U.S., except, ironically, to persuade the country to liberate places like, say, Iraq.
I don’t know who Anslem is but I suggest that you broaden your reading list in 2009 and focus more on what the Bible says, in context.
Yes, people who wanted to own slaves misread the Bible to affirm that. So we agree that people can use wrong motives in approaching the text, just as some people have the audacity to read it today and insist that it supports abortion and homosexual behavior. Hard to believe, right?
Wait a minute — surely you were in favor of us liberating the people of Iraq, right? And don’t you support using our military blessings to liberate others as well? That’s what the Gospel is about according to you.
If you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, that is a good start. Now do you believe in his deity? His exclusivity for salvation? The authority of scripture?
But you move way too quickly and make an enormous jump from saying that the message of the orthodox Gospel must be wrong because some may have twisted it to accomodate other sins. You just twist it yourself to accomodate a different set of sins. BTW, Orthodox Christians led the ending of the slave trade and slavery itself.
Liberation theology is nonsense and you should give it up. It makes absolutely no sense in light of the New Testament. Why spread a message that for 300 years would invite oppression and even loss of life? What would you tell someone in India, China or Saudi Arabia if they asked you about God and how to be forgiven? Surely you wouldn’t share the Gospel, as that would almost certainly lead to persecution for them. The Book of Acts and the rest of the NT make no sense in light your worldview.
If you want to fight what you see as specific injustices or misinterpretations of the Bible then good for you. But you have abandoned the central and most important themes in that pursuit and have supported a man-made theology — one which leaves people slaves to sin and permits the oppression and destruction of thousands of human beings per day.
Anna, I hope you don’t mind my joining you and Neil in this discussion.
To be honest, I strongly disagree with some of what you write regarding politics, particularly the slander of the United States as “the most oppressive and militaristic empire in the world.” And, I find some of your political beliefs to be quite outrageous in the hypocrisy they demonstrate:
Furthermore, when most Christians critique this claim it is around issues of prayer in schools, abortion, gay marriage, and evolution vs. creation, not around the shameful neglect of our most vulnerable citizens and the ruthless oppression of so many other nations.
Here, you dismiss as inconsequential the legal sanction of the murder of literally millions of the unborn, but you think you’re on the side of angels when it comes to the “shameful neglect of our most vulnerable citizens.”
–
Beyond these points about your politics is the far more important question of whether your understanding of Scripture makes sense in light of the actual text.
You put a great deal of focus on the parable of the sheep and the goats, suggesting that salvation hinges on good works.
The parable of the sheep and the goats says absolutely nothing about belief systems. Rather, it says that all the people of all the nations will be separated based on, essentially, their treatment of the poor.
The problem is, this isn’t the only thing Jesus Christ ever taught about judgment, so it’s foolish to treat this parable as the only teaching about the subject. In Matthew 7, Christ taught that judgment depends, not on what we do or even whether we know Him, but whether He knows us. And, in John 6, Christ teaches us that eternal life results from “eating His flesh.”
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” – Jn 6:51
And, there is some debate about where Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus ends and John’s commentary begins, but John 3 — with its famous passage in verse 16 — makes clear that salvation comes from believing in Christ. It does certainly appear that 3:15 is Christ’s own words; that Christ Himself taught that “the Son of Man [must] be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.”
–
You suggest that, since the parables involving mercy don’t explicitly involve atonement, God’s mercy doesn’t require it.
God, it seems, is free to be merciful, even in the absence of the torture and death of someone in the sinner’s place.
But, in making this claim, you seem to forget that Jesus prayed that the cup pass over Him, that He prayed to be spared from the cross. And you seem to forget that this request was rejected, that the Father apparently believes the cross is necessary after all.
–
You also write this, which is galling in the teachings of Christ that it overlooks.
The Nicene Creed was born out of this need [to accomodate oppression and violence], narrowing the “essentials” of Christianity down to intellectual assent of the divinity and salvific power of Christ and neglecting every single thing he ever said.
“Before Abraham was, I am.”
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.”
It is appalling to see you suggest that affirming Christ’s divinity and saving power neglects “every single thing he ever said.”
CHRIST TAUGHT HIS OWN DIVINITY, AND HE TAUGHT THAT HE AND HE ALONE SAVES.
–
Ultimately, your position seems to be that those who believe in the substitutionary atonement are placing upon Scripture an artificial “lens” from Anselm that the text itself does not support.
But in doing this, you seem to miss not only what Paul taught — the rejection of salvation by works, and the affirmation that salvation came by the Father’s sending the Son “as an offering for sin” — but also what Christ Himself taught about His own death, in the upper room.
“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” — for what reason? — “for forgiveness of sins.” – Mt 26:28
To be clear, evangelism that is obedient to Christ involves preaching, not coercion. And I believe that discipleship involves working to meet people’s needs and to defend the cause of justice, though of course Christians can — and, in our case, do — disagree strongly on how best to achieve these ends.
But we are not saved by our working for social justice. We’re not saved by works at all.
Instead, we are saved only by faith in Christ, in His death and resurrection, which purchased the forgiveness of our sins and provides the gift of eternal life.
Given time, that faith should result in works, but works are only the fruit of a saving faith. It is still faith alone that saves.
When Jesus himself made his first public appearance on the theological scene, his opening statement was a reading of Isaiah 61, preaching good news (gospel!) to the poor, freedom for prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed.
Awesome! Do you have 1 example of somebody doing those things without knowing who God is?
…in the Bible that is?
Let me explain my previous question.
In the Bible, God worked through people when they had an idea who he was. God told Moses exactly who he was – “I AM WHO I AM” -when he asked him to “free the oppressed.
The reason Peter and 10 other disciples stuck around with Jesus, doing his ministry, which involved doing things for poor people, was because Peter realized that Jesus had the words of life. Not because Jesus was simply a prophet, reincarnation of Elijah or whatever, but because Peter realized Jesus was the source of eternal life. (Luke 9:18-20)
Saul/Paul had a very real encounter with Christ, learning that he was the son of God, before he began his ministry.
The point is, these people couldn’t get involved in God’s work, which involves doing all the things liberals love, without having an understanding of who God was.
Sure, the idea that we have to have doctrine correct to serve God (granted, we disagree and miss out on some points) is a very conservative idea – not a liberal one. But that’s how the Bible is, it contains ideas that sometimes clash with our own ideologies.
Hi all,
well, I knew what I said would offend some people–though I do want to take the opportunity again to thank you for responding to me without mocking or sarcasm, it really speaks highly of you, particularly when you believe me to be so wrong. If it’s any consolation, I also am horrified by many of the things you are saying.
Despite your unfamiliarity with Anselm as a person, you articulate his theology well. I’ve already made my case that substitutiary atonement theology is not biblical, so I won’t make it again here. Again, if you are interested in learning more about this, I recommend “The Nonviolent Atonement”.
As far as “slandering” the United States and using our military “blessings” to “liberate” other countries–it may be that we will just have to wave to each other from across the deep and wide chasm that divides our perceptions of reality. Perhaps one way we are miscommunicating is that you seem to believe there are two ways to liberate: either a spiritual liberation, or a violent struggle for liberation. Jesus taught a third way: non-violent resistance and persistence. We see this played out in the work of Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Cesar Chavez, Dorothy Day, Oscar Romero, the Berrigan Brothers, A.J. Muste and many others (who are less famous but no less courageous) who have stood their ground on behalf of the oppressed in the name of Jesus and even unto death. They cast their lot with the oppressed and were willing to die for their liberation. They were not, however, willing to use violence–this is what sets them apart as followers of Christ and the way of the cross.
If you are unaware of the pattern of the United States of overthrowing democratically elected leaders and installing dictators who are friendly to US economic interests, I suggest you look into the histories of Guatemala (Jacobo Arbenz and the United Fruit Company), El Salvador, Chile (Salvador Allende), Panama and Zaire/Congo (Patrice Lumumba) to start. When the newly installed dictators cease to cooperate with the US, there is then the trotting out of their horrible treatment of the people and the call to use our military “blessings” to “liberate” them via carpet bombing their country, blowing up their water treatment plants, their electrical plants, their hospitals. This is what happened with Sadam Hussein (originally placed in power by the US), the Taliban (originally US supported) Osama Bin Laden (also originally a US ally), Noriega (placed in power by the US) etc. If you are not familiar with the “School of the Americas” (now known as the “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation”), I suggest you look into it. To go back to the basics, surely you are at least aware that we are the only nation ever to drop an atomic bomb on another country? Do you really think this is in keeping with the way of the cross?
Jesus had no patience with any religion that could accomodate oppression (hence his lack of tolerance for the religious leaders of his day). A gospel that accomodates violence and oppression is a false gospel and faith in the absence of a commitment to justice is not only dead but offensive to God.
Hi Chance,
one person who practices the principles of Isaiah 61 who isn’t Christian? I’ll give you two famous ones: Ghandi (Hindu) and Thich Nhat Hanh (Buddhist). They are not, of course, the only ones, just the easiest examples to start with.
Sorry, one last thing:
“Your South Africa example proves my point, not yours. Just because the situation of people influences their reading of the text doesn’t mean that both both (or either) are getting it right.”
In case I didn’t make it clear, I totally agree that both are not getting it right. My point is that the dominant group affirmed the “essentials” as you define them and still felt free to participate in and benefit from apartheid which, I’m sure we can all agree, was a truly hellish system. We must question then whether these “essentials” are truly sufficient to affirm oneself as a follower of Christ. It is your definition of the gospel that states that they are both getting it right since they both affirm the Nicene Creed. It is even possible that the oppressors would be more in line with your interpretation of the gospel since they would agree with you that Jesus is talking about spiritual, rather than physical liberation.
This can be hard to explain–let me know if it isn’t clear and I will give it another try.
Hi Anna,
Thanks for clarifying your views. I just don’t consider your them to be Biblical or Christian with respect to the essentials of the faith. It is a typical man-made religion which turns Jesus into a Gandhi-Christ who just taught some nice platitudes but wasn’t really necessary to reconcile us to God.
I readily concede that just because one holds to the essentials that doesn’t mean they follow Christ perfectly. We are all still sinners in need of a Savior. But under no circumstance do I call Christian those who disagree with and even mock the essentials of the faith.
Your views are wildly inconsistent with reality. Of course non-violent resistance has its merits. But pure pacifism is immoral. If I can protect someone from harm and the only way to do so is with violence, then there is nothing wrong with that.
But to say that Jesus’ primary purpose was to teach non-violent resistance in the face of persecution mocks the cross and all the martyrs up through today. Again, being a Christian back then and in many places today means putting yourself under persecution.
Do you send reverse missionaries to India and other countries hostile to Christianity to tell people not to become Christians? After all, if they don’t need Jesus for their salvation, why become Christians?
If you convert them to Christianity, all they would be doing is putting themselves under oppression so they can learn to overcome oppression non-violently (assuming they survive). Why not eliminate the “middleman” of Christianity and just avoid the oppression completely? Just tell them to follow Gandhi and everything will be OK. That is the logical extension of your worldview.
By the way, my view isn’t that lip service to the essentials makes one a Christian. Ultimately God knows who really trusts in Christ. But if people deliberately reject the essentials and teach the opposite of what the Bible says (e.g., that Jesus is not the only way to salvation) then that isn’t good fruit in my book. The Bible warns at length about false teachers for a reason.
Peace,
Neil
Hi Neil,
Of course I do not expect to convince you via blog conversation to make such a radical shift in world view. It has been a very long (and sometimes very dark) journey for me to come to this place. I recognize that the place I have come to is far from the dominant paradigm and, as such, can be experienced as very threatening and I again commend you on your patience if not your understanding. Nonetheless, you have my pearls (as I have yours) and are now free to examine them, set them aside for later or trample them as you see fit. I would encourage you to continue to examine the fruit of the American military as well as the fruit of those folks that I listed (King, Chavez, Berrigan etc.) and see how they compare.
Grace and Peace to you on your journey and may we all continue to grow in wisdom and understanding.
Anna
Hi Anna,
Thanks for the charitable dialogue. I really appreciate that. You do have a gift for keeping things even tempered while not holding back on what you see as the truth.
I pray that you either have or eventually will repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus as your Savior and that you will faithfully discern and pass along his truths — including his deity and exclusivity, among other things.
Re. King et al vs. the U.S. military — I view that as a false dichotomy. See Romans 13. Governments have a responsibility to protect their people. The U. S. military hasn’t done everything right, but neither did King (e.g., marital faithfulness).
King’s movement did a lot of good in changing hearts and minds, but that wouldn’t have done much to stop the Nazis or the Japanese in WWII.
All the best to you,
Neil
Neil, an excellent introduction to Anselm and his work, Cur Deus Homo?, is found in John Stott’s The Cross of Christ, where Stott argues that the Bible’s four principle metaphors for what happened on the cross — the religious concept of propitiation, the financial concept of redemption, the legal concept of justification, and the personal concept of reconciliation — all inexorably lead to the truth of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice:
…substitution is not a “theory of atonement.” Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself. None of the four images could stand without it. I am not of course saying that it is necessary to understand, let alone articulate, a substitutionary atonement before one can be saved. Yet the responsibility of the Christian teachers, preachers and other witnesses is to seek grace to expound it with clarity and conviction. For the better people understand the glory of the divine substitution, the easier it will be for them to trust in the Substitute.
Those who say that the substitutionary atonement is a concept foreign to Scripture — a lens of Anselm or some other writer — remind me of Mormons who insist that the doctrine of the Trinity was introduced by the influence of Greek philosophy. It begs the questions, is the concept supported by Scripture, and is its support stronger than that of alternative doctrine?
The Bible isn’t a systematic treatise on theology, so it doesn’t clearly mention the word “trinity” and definite it, but it does teach clear truths that can be reconciled only with that concept: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all distinct; each of the three is God; there is only one God.
Likewise, I believe the Bible clearly teaches things that point strongly to a substitutionary atonement, and that no alternative has anything resembling the strength of the support for this concept. If someone disagrees, dismissing the concept as a foreign invention without actually arguing from Scripture for an alternative is to punt the issue: it’s to claim without evidence precisely what needs the most evidence.
–
For what it’s worth, the book that introduced me to John Stott is what revealed to me the truly weighty implications of Matthew 5-7: his commentary, for the Bible Speaks Today series, of the Sermon on the Mount.
–
Anna, you write that Jesus taught a “third-way” approach to liberation through “non-violent resistance and persistence.”
He did no such thing, and I can enumerate some of the reasons why I reject this implication that Christ was a political reformer.
1) The actual passage that I’ve seen cited most frequently by those who taught “non-violent resistance” is “turn the other cheek,” but that instruction was only an example of a much broader instruction:
Do not resist an evildoer.
This instruction in Matthew 5:39 involved four examples: turning the other cheek when someone strikes you, giving someone your shirt when he sues you for your coat, walking two miles if you’re pressed to walk one, and giving to those who ask for alms or loans. Only one of these examples involve the repudiation of violence: the other three involve a repudiation of ANY resistance.
The argument, which is too clever by half, that these teachings were subtle acts of resistance after all, is difficult to argue on its own merits, and is belied by Christ’s own actions, by the actions of the early church, and by the behavior of His and their enemies. More about that in a moment.
2) The other passage I’ve seen cited quite frequently, you cite, that Christ’s first sermon was about — as you put it — “preaching good news (gospel!) to the poor, freedom for prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed.”
Christ didn’t actually free any prisoners or slaves, much less did He put an end to the systems of incarceration and slavery.
We spritualize this passage, arguing that Christ was referencing prisoners to sin and the oppression of sin, because Christ actually did accomplish our release from these spiritual bonds, through His death and resurrection.
By insisting that the passage must not be spiritualized, you teach that Christ promised something He didn’t deliver, and you’re making Him a liar.
3) Jesus Christ Himself claimed that His kingdom is not of this world, and His words and actions support that claim. He didn’t agitate for political revolution, He preached personal repentance (Mt 4:17).
He didn’t present a revolutionary program, He preached sermons about God’s impossibly high moral standards and the means and mode of His forgiveness. (It’s disturbing that some pretend the Sermon on the Mount is a politically rallying cry when so much of its contents is devoted to how to pray, how to fast, and why you should trust God.)
He didn’t engage in what we would now euphemistically call “direct action” against the government, He healed the sick and fed the crowds that followed Him.
Those who would put on Christ the mantle of a political revolutionary are making the exact same mistake the first-century zealots did, in expecting the Messiah to be a political revolutionary who would liberate Israel from Roman rule: the only difference is the specific political program that’s being attached to the Messiah.
4) The church He founded with the disciples He chose didn’t start a political party: they started a church. They continued what Christ did, teaching repentance from sin. While they refused the government’s command to be silent about Christ, just as Daniel refused to worship the king in defiance to God, their work wasn’t focused on political, military, or economic systems. They didn’t argue for some program of political reform. The New Testament doesn’t record the strict pacifism of the later church that forced centurions to quit their day jobs. And they didn’t advocate some state welfare system on the basis of so-called social justice.
Instead, what little they did teach about such things was spiritually revolutionary, not politically revolutionary. Paul taught that we should respect government authorities who derive their authority from God, and slaves should serve their masters as if they were serving Christ. Following this sort of teaching might actually change systems, but only as a side effect of changing hearts.
It’s not “non-violent resistance.” It’s active, overflowing love.
5) Finally, even Christ’s enemies did not credibly argue that He was a political revolutionary. If they could have, they would have.
Sedition was an offense the Romans took very seriously, particularly in the chaotic backwater province in which Jesus taught.
Did the Jewish leaders have a credible case against Jesus? No they did not, which is why they relied on false witnesses. (Mk 14:55-56)
Did the Roman governor believe that there was a credible case against Jesus? No he did not; even when he agreed to put Jesus to death, he could not claim that He was guilty of anything, choosing instead to quite literally wash his hands of the whole affair.
So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” – Mt 27:24
This, um, isn’t the sort of thing you’d expect to see if Pontius Pilate thought that Jesus was some sort of political revolutionary.
For all these reasons, I reject the notion that Jesus taught political liberation through non-violent resistance.
–
And, about that assertion, Anna, there’s one deeply disturbing implication in what you wrote.
Perhaps one way we are miscommunicating is that you seem to believe there are two ways to liberate: either a spiritual liberation, or a violent struggle for liberation. Jesus taught a third way: non-violent resistance and persistence.
You seem to imply that Jesus taught non-violent resistance and persistence as a “third way” instead of spiritual liberation.
Do you really mean to say that Jesus didn’t preach spiritual liberation? That He didn’t preach the forgiveness of sins, and that He didn’t teach that His blood was being shed for the remission of sin?
If you didn’t, it’s still a telling slip.
Bubba, great response as always. Thanks for taking the time to analyze that.
Hi Neil,
there it is in a nutshell: your gospel easily, seamlessly, shamelessly accommodates violence and oppression.
“King’s movement did a lot of good in changing hearts and minds, but that wouldn’t have done much to stop the Nazis or the Japanese in WWII. ”
That is an interesting assertion. Many theorists have said that WWII was really a matter of reaping the violence that was sewn in WWI at the close of which Germany was economically punished (via a retributive justice model) so severely that the incredible poverty there gave way to a desperate and unstable economy where it was easy for a fascist dictator like Hitler to rise to the top and ripe for people to choose a scapegoat (Jewish people). I suppose you are aware that the vast majority of German Churches (with some courageous and notable exceptions who were, incidentally, criticized for “politicizing the gospel”) were on board with the nazi party, having long ago learned to accommodate violence in the service of other ideals. One wonders if following the teachings of Dr. King (and, indeed, Jesus) could have prevented WWII altogether. One also wonders if, when Hitler shipped the first load of Jewish people he was attempting to expel from his country to the US, if the US had accepted them (viewing the commandment to practice hospitality as, well, an actual commandment to accept people who come to your doorstep) rather than shipping them back, things might have gone differently, maybe even to the tune of 6 million lives saved.
And so, you are correct that my understanding of the gospel accommodates diversity, accepts that the stories and understanding that we have of God are culture bound and questions the assertion that white people alone have been handed the keys to the kingdom and that the key to eternal salvation is for all people to adopt our cultural understanding of God (something that has happened when white people were able to invade the land of other people, enslave them and threaten their lives unless they adopted our cultural understanding of God). So is it better to accommodate violence or diversity? Call me warm and fuzzy all you want but I will assert without hesitation that God is offended by plastic explosives buried in roads that would connect a hungry child with food, not by being understood in a different way or called a different name.
So, when you casually dismiss the sermon the mount as simply a way for us to recognize our own sinfulness, not a social code to be really *followed* for goodness sakes, and then wave a few out of context verses in Romans at us as conclusive proof that same sex marriage is the scourge of society well… you will understand when we say that you strain gnats and swallow camels.
Hi Bubba,
you will find many “telling slips” from me. In fact, I am sure that I am everything you suspect me of being and more.
Again, you make Anselm’s case very well. I will reiterate my case against it ever so briefly and then comment on Christianity as a political movement.
First, sacrificial atonement theology relies upon the existence of a cosmic system of retributive justice in which the offended honor of God can only be reconciled by the torture and death of an innocent victim. In other words, wrongs need not be righted, only punished. Jesus and the prophets (and the book of Job, incidentally) repeatedly reject retributive justice, both as a practice in the community and as a model for understanding sin and guilt. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice”, remember?
Second, sacrificial atonement theology functions to remove ethics from the equation of salvation, as Neil summarized so eloquently already.
In terms of a political movement, Jesus’ reading of Isaiah 61 was a recognizable call for a return to the practice of the Jubilee (I’m sure that biblical scholars such as yourselves are familiar with the Jubilee as outlined in Leviticus)–a practice that was both religious (in that it was commanded by God) and political (in that it involved a radical redistribution of wealth). In the tradition of the prophets, the line between prophet and non-violent political revolutionary was hazy at best. In fact, it is hard to come by any prophetic book that is not overtly political. The gospels, when read through the lens of a call to Jubilee read very differently from the gospels read through the lens of sacrificial atonement. The early church practiced not only a religious revival but also an economic alternative to empire. I wonder how you explain how a religious movement that was primarily internal, spiritual and apolitical managed to garner so much wrath from the Roman Empire?
A history of the activity of Hamas in the Gaza Strip that illustrates some of the points I made earlier regarding the role of the US in global violence: http://www.alternet.org/story/116855/
Neil said: I’ll have to take your word for it, as my Internet filter blocked that site as being obscene. I’d read this instead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/a_real_ceasefire_needed_in_gaz.html
Thanks, Bubba. I think I needed that.
If I remember the Old Testament correctly, I don’t think God is too big on either unrestircted tolerance or diversity.
Perhaps because they wouldn’t worship Caesar as Lord?
Anna, I very rarely use the S-word here, but that is just plain stupid. Your “gospel” easily seamlessly, and shamelessly accomodates abortion. You think that isn’t violent? Read this site thoroughly — http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-warning.html
Over 3,000 times per day in the U.S. innocent human beings are crushed and dismembered without anesthetic. And your version of “Christianity” blesses that legal right. Sickening.
Now isn’t that a fun way to debate?
Actually, “my” Gospel is the same one that Jesus, Paul and the rest of the NT writers taught. I can see that you have made up your own because the real one wasn’t to your liking, but let’s not make idiotic statements about what mine supposedly encourages.
I only read the first part of your Germany paragraph. I’m sure we could both make up all sorts of scenarios that fit each of our respective Gospels that could have prevented that, but of course that speculation changes nothing about what the Bible teaches.
You have really slipped backwards today, Anna. Your false dichotomies do nothing to advance the conversation. The Bible provides for authorities to govern people and punish violence. The Gospel I preach is all about diversity: Anyone who repents and believes in Jesus gets saved. That’s the Good News! It is the ultimate in diversity. I’ll share the Gospel with anyone in any category you can imagine. But your false gospel tells them they don’t need to be saved and that they aren’t really sinners. What lies!
I never said we shouldn’t follow what Jesus said. If He is our Lord and Savior then of course we’d want to do what He says AND see the world the way He does. But first things first! If you think that trying to obey the rules will win God over such that He’ll just have to have Anna with him in Heaven then you’re missing the point on multiple levels.
Actually, I will take your about Romans comment as more proof of your pagan beliefs. I’ve analyzed Romans a couple times and you are welcome to point out where I got the analysis wrong — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/romans-1-and-natural-desires-functions/
and http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/07/08/romans-1-and-temple-prostitutes/ and http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/problems-with-pro-gay-theology/
The Bible couldn’t be more clear on the point that homosexual behavior is a sin. But as usual, you miss the obvious parts of the Bible and create things that aren’t there. We call that “making God in our your own image.”
100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
That’s my assertion, and I can back it up. Your only option is to create straw man arguments about me saying it is the “scourge of society.” But that is easier than debating what is in the text, right? Even if you lose that argument you fall back on the canard that we over-emphasize it. But I don’t play that game. The liberal theologians brought up the whole topic and we orthodox folks are just responding to your false teachings. If you think it isn’t a big deal, then quit trying to change church policies to support “same sex marriage.”
Here’s a must-read by Charles Krauthammer about Hamas and Israel — http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/a_real_ceasefire_needed_in_gaz.html
Hi Sunday School Teacher,
you raise an interesting point–God as depicted in the Old Testament narrative of the Kings is, as you say, not “too big” on tolerance (by which I assume you mean living in peace with other cultures and belief systems?) or diversity and has little to say about peace or justice. On the other hand, God as depicted in the narratives of the prophets condemns the building up of Empire and demands peace and justice, repeatedly expressing a preference for mercy and right action above adherence to religious obligations.
Maybe that sums it up well–conservative christianity preaches a theology of kings and liberal christianity preaches a theology of prophets.
That doesn’t sum it up at all. Orthodox Christianity preaches a real, Biblical Gospel and liberal Christianity preaches a false one. Please stop with the tired sloganeering and use some real, live Bible verses in context.
Yikes, Neil. Like I said before, I love theology but your tone is too nasty for me to be able to reasonably respond. Especially when you have told me that you are not even willing to read what I have written. This is what I mean about an unwillingness to wrestle with scripture without becoming angry and hurling accusations about the other person being a “pagan”. I probably should have left it on a positive note yesterday. My apologies for continuing the discussion to the point of offending you so deeply.
grace and peace to you,
Anna
“liberal Christianity preaches a false one.”
Its amazing that Anna W thinks we shouldnt be offended by other Christians spouting false doctrines.
??? I’m not sure why you are going the passive-aggressive route. Among other things, you claim that the Gospel I spread “easily, seamlessly, shamelessly accommodates violence and oppression” and then accuse me of being nasty when I call you on that absurd assertion? That doesn’t compute. Could it be that you are just avoiding answering your support for abortion and why you don’t send out reverse missionaries, among other things?
I read the first part of what you wrote on Germany and scanned the rest. I just went back and couldn’t find a single Bible verse, so I don’t see how one could equate that with me not being willing to wrestle with scripture. I’m always glad to go to scripture. It is the final court of abritration, so to speak. Remember, I’m the one who is confident that the original writings were inspired by God and will gladly defer to it (provided that you read it properly and in context).
Disagreements are fine if you can do so without the passive-aggressiveness.
Regards,
Neil
Anna, first of all, you wrote to Neil that your understanding of the gospel “questions the assertion that white people alone have been handed the keys to the kingdom.”
SINCE NO ONE HERE HAS MADE THIS ASSERTION, you are hardly in a position to criticize others for their nasty tone.
If you mean to say that we are wrong to believe that the Bible is uniquely authoritative since it was written by Jewish men, well, your complaint isn’t with us. It’s with Jesus, who you claim to serve and whose gospel you claim to preach.
Jesus affirmed the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke. If you think the document’s human authors weren’t sufficiently diverse in terms of ethnicity, take it up with Him.
–
Now, if someone asked me whether I denied that Christ taught spiritual liberation, that He preached the forgiveness of sins, and that He taught that His blood was being shed for the remission of sin, I would have corrected them, quickly and in the strongest possible terms, because I affirm those things.
It seems to me that you really don’t. If I misunderstand your position, I would appreciate a clarification.
And if I do correctly grasp your position, it seems to me that the chasm between your belief system and mine is so wide that at least one of is outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
–
About the substitutionary atonement, you write:
First, sacrificial atonement theology relies upon the existence of a cosmic system of retributive justice in which the offended honor of God can only be reconciled by the torture and death of an innocent victim.
This seems to misunderstand atonement on at least two points.
1) There is another way for justice to be satisfied: the death and condemnation of the sinner. The Bible is quite, quite clear about the “wages” of sin, and Jesus repeatedly taught about the terrible reality of Hell.
2) Jesus wasn’t forced to die in our place. The Bible is clear that the Father sent Him to die, but it’s equally clear that He chose to come to die. Because Jesus — fully God and fully man — lived a sinless life, He could take our place and die for our sins. The death of a man was necessary for God’s justice to be satisfied; since that man is God Incarnate, perfect and sinless, God could satisfy His justice while simultaneously provide us with mercy.
In other words, wrongs need not be righted, only punished. Jesus and the prophets (and the book of Job, incidentally) repeatedly reject retributive justice, both as a practice in the community and as a model for understanding sin and guilt. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice”, remember?
The Book of Job doesn’t reject retributive justice altogether. It rejects the idea of karma, that every bad thing that befalls a person is the result of his immorality.
And, Christ didn’t reject retributive justice, either: He simply taught that the purpose of the church He established is to be a conduit of God’s grace and not His justice. He excluded wrath from the work of the church, but not from God’s work altogether.
Hence, his repeated teachings about His role as the final judge.
Anna, you’ve gone out of your way to emphasize the parable of the sheep and the goats, but now you seem to want to ignore altogether the retributive punishment doled out to the goats, by Christ Himself.
Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” – Mt 25:41, 46
If that ain’t retribution, what is it?
–
You write, further:
Second, sacrificial atonement theology functions to remove ethics from the equation of salvation, as Neil summarized so eloquently already.
Thank God it does. That’s why it’s good news.
Every other religion on earth teaches salvation of some kind by good works of some kind. It is only the gospel of Jesus Christ that offers a truly free gift of forgiveness: salvation by God’s grace alone, which we appropriate through faith alone, and which was provided by Christ alone — specifically, by His sinless life, His death for our sins, and His resurrection.
–
Finally, about the gospel and politics, you suggest that the mere existence of Christian persecution implies its political character: “I wonder how you explain how a religious movement that was primarily internal, spiritual and apolitical managed to garner so much wrath from the Roman Empire.”
I will reiterate that Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the blood of a man HE KNEW was innocent of sedition and every other crime. I continue to wonder how you deal with the many points I made to argue that the Bible is clear that the Gospel isn’t primarily political. I wonder, because you haven’t addressed a single point.
Instead, you emphasize the call to Jubilee.
In terms of a political movement, Jesus’ reading of Isaiah 61 was a recognizable call for a return to the practice of the Jubilee… The gospels, when read through the lens of a call to Jubilee read very differently from the gospels read through the lens of sacrificial atonement.
I’m sure it does. The question is, is your lens remotely valid.
(Another question is, do you believe that we should have a theocratic government, because the Old Testament didn’t separate what you call “wealth redistribution” from the essentially religious character of the nation of ancient Israel. I bet you don’t, but I admit the question’s a bit of a digression.)
You write that Jesus’ sermon “was a recognizable call for a return to the practice of the Jubilee.”
It most certainly was not, as clearly demonstrated by what happened after the reading.
And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” – Lk 4:20-21, emphasis mine
He didn’t “call” the people to reinstitute the Jubilee.
JESUS CLAIMED THAT THE PASSAGE HAS BEEN FULFILLED.
Jesus acted as if He has brought liberation Himself, not as if He was simply calling for others to bring it about through persistent non-violent political action.
Taking the accuracy of the Gospel narratives as a given, there are only two alternatives:
1) Either Christ did bring about our liberation — that is, our liberation from the condemnation of our sin, through the blood He shed for its remission.
2) Or, Christ lied.
Those are your options.
A couple other things I missed.
First, I want to be clear that Christian faith does indeed involve ethics. A saving faith should, in most circumstances, lead to good works, but it’s the faith that saves, not the works.
Second, I didn’t answer why I thought the Roman empire persecuted the early church.
I believe that it’s not necessary to conclude that the reason was politics: the theology was offensive enough to them.
In fact, I know a couple self-professed Christians who not only find trouble accepting the claim that God sent His Son to die for our sins, they reject the claims as not only false but appalling. I’m sure you know people like that, too.
http://www.jonahhouse.org/Scapegoating.htm
this is my last contribution–may it be a blessing.
Anna