Graveyard Exit
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
“Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.
“Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?'
“Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'
“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
“And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”
When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
=======
Matthew 7:13-29
63 comments:
Before anyone gets started, let me remind us to keep to the text. I'm not wanting any further proselytizing goin' on here.
Given the text, we can discuss salvation - entering through the narrow gate - but let's do so in the context of this passage, please.
Thank you.
Given your instructions here, I am wondering what in the world your take on this passage will be. This sounds like instructions from the Savior as to how to know Him and get to Heaven.
Only the redeemed will enter that narrow way.
I share Mom2's curiosity, and I wonder something similar to a question I raised in an earlier thread.
You explained how you reconcile this statement...
"Don't talk to me about pie in the sky by and by. Talk to me about here and now. This seems to me to be one disconnect between traditonal religiosity and biblical text."
...with Christ's command to store treasures in Heaven, by saying that "he was talking about [storing treasures] by our actions here and now."
That is, on second thought, an odd distinction, because it seems to me that most sermons about "pie in the sky by and by" relate the topics of Heaven and Hell to our present state: the preacher calls us to repent of present sins, or to endure the present hardship, or to meet present needs, or to turn immediately to Christ.
But, anyway, Christ here talks about how the broad path leads to a future destruction, that trees that do not bear good fruit will in the future be thrown into the fire, and that "on that day" many who presume to have been Christ's servants will be turned away.
If this isn't "pie in the sky by and by," why isn't it? Is a connection to present actions really what is missing in messages you don't like? Could you give me a concrete example of a message where it's missing?
And let me head Eleutheros off at the pass by noting that I believe good fruit is the evidence of salvation in all but perhaps the rarest of circumstances, but it's not what brings salvation about.
If good fruit isn't present in a nominal Christian's life, and there isn't an obvious explanation why -- and by "obvious" I mean things like a lifetime of complete solitary as a political prisoner, or the vegetative state of a coma -- there is probably reason to at least be worried about the genuineness of his faith to begin with.
(I wonder what El thinks about Luke 23:32-43. What fruit did the thief, who admitted he deserved to be excuted, produce that saved him from the fire? Or did Christ lie when He promised him he would be with Him in Paradise?)
I believe the passage here supports the need for salvation through God's grace -- a transformation, a rebirth as He put it in John 3.
"Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I look at my life, I see a lot of bad fruit. I am, I must conclude, a bad tree so therefore no attempts to produce good fruit will ultimately be successful.
With my own attempts to conform to right living being so worthless, I must therefore trust that God can transform me into a good tree. Genuine gratitude will thus motivate me to produce good fruit, but it is God's work -- His grace, His transforming forgiveness, His new nature through His Holy Spirit -- that provides the raw materials I could never fabricate out of myself.
This part of the Sermon on the Mount would seem to me, (again, in my humble and unenlightened way just taking the simple ordinary meaning of the words) it would seem to me to be the last nail in the coffin for justification by faith alone.
Here in very plain language, very plain indeed, Jesus is saying that the benefits he has been enumerating in the sermon are for those who do his words.
Do. A simple two letter word. Jesus would seem to me to be saying, "What part of do don't you understand?"
1. Traditional religionists agree that the Bible teaches us that "just" believing in Jesus is not enough.
2. They agree further that not even "just" believing that Jesus is the Son of God who was born on earth, lived, died and resurrected three days later is sufficient for salvation - "even the demons believe" the Bible tells us.
3. The further step needed, the religionists say, is making Jesus Lord of our lives.
4. In reality, we here are in agreement thus far, it seems to me. At least speaking for myself, I believe Jesus is the son of God, born, lived, died, lives again.
5. It seems to me, it is coming down to: What does it mean to have "Jesus as Lord of our lives," or to "accept Jesus"?
6. This passage points to those who "will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?'" and point to various religious acts that they thought they were doing in Jesus' name and as an act of faith.
7. Jesus rejects these actions, differentiates between these religious actions and "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them..." [emphasis mine]
8. It seems to some of us then that the key is what one believes Jesus is and isn't saying. Which "words of mine" is Jesus speaking of here?
Mom2 is right that knowing Him personally seems to be the fulcrum on which turns the question of whether those who thought they did His will are turned away.
And again, Christ is clear here that bad trees cannot produce good fruit.
He earlier referred to us as "you, who are evil," so I don't think we can argue that we're good trees and that all we need to do is bear good fruit.
Perhaps Eleutheros ought to explain how it is that thistles produce figs.
Dan, might I ask what you mean by "religionists"?
To answer the question posed in your numbered list of propositions, I ask, are we good trees or bad trees?
If we're already good trees, why did the Son of God become a human to die and be raised again?
If we're bad trees, just how are we supposed to be capable of listening and obeying His command to produce good fruit.
I believe we're thistles and He commands us to produce figs. That first requires His transforming us into fig trees.
Re the figs from thistles...
I have a friend who says she first "met Jesus" at a Mormon youth rally, in spite of the sectarian proselytizing, and subsequently went on to become a very evangelical Christian.
The wind bloweth where it listeth...
"Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?"
What I see here is the proud and the haughty. These were those who were sure they would enter the kingdom. They appear to be shocked. I mean... after all... look at all the spiritual stuff we did for you Jesus. And you're not gonna let us in? Perhaps in all their "doing" they had an ulterior motive to get into heaven.
As Bubba and mom2 have stated, the uniqueness of Christianity (distinguishing it from every false religion of man) is that it based on salvation by a relationship instead of earning it by works. So, when I (Bubba, or mom2) ask questions about your understanding of your sin, the cross, and who Jesus is - it is not for any other reason than for you to have a clear understanding of the truth. For since it is based on a relationship, no one who knows someone will have a doubt whether they actually 'know' them or not. That's what scripture means in that we can 'know' we are saved - because we know Jesus! If I asked you whether you knew your earthly father, you wouldn't answer "I'm not sure" or "I hope so" or "I don't know". You either know him or you don't. The same goes for our Heavenly Father. You can't say you 'know' someone by doing works for them and yet never having met them.
>“Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'
Roger, those who Jesus is talking about here certainly thought they KNEW Him. Obviously they didn't.
Also note:
>'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'
How can Jesus say that those that don't know Him are evildoers?
There is a spiritual insight here that man is incapable of good works outside of a relationship with Him - a relationship with Him which brings the Holy Spirit into their life so the resulting works are works of the Spirit (and not of man). For what can man boast about in regards to his salvation? Nothing of himself - salvation and sanctification are both works of God. We just have to yield to Him (Jesus is 'Lord') and let Him do His will.
Marty said...>Roger, those who Jesus is talking about here certainly thought they KNEW Him. Obviously they didn't.
Marty, it reveals that they were making a case for salvation from what they did. Jesus declares that the standard is a relationship - not works.
Perhaps. But, I still think they considered themselves as "knowing" Jesus.
Bubba asked, "what you mean by "religionists"?"
I mean those who seek salvation through religion rather than through relationship. Those whose faith is in their religion and not in Jesus.
In the context of this passage, it might be a way of differentiating between those in this passage who thought their religious practices were saving them.
I used it earlier to refer to those who are traditionally religious - which is not necessarily a bad thing, to me - but could be. As long as one's faith isn't in that religion.
Bubba also asked, "are we good trees or bad trees?"
In this passage, Jesus says:
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.
So, in this context, it would appear that the bad trees are the one whose fruits aren't good. Jesus follows that statement with this one:
“Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven...
So, "bad" trees might also be those who don't know Jesus, but who know instead their religion and religious practices.
Bubba also asked, "If we're bad trees, just how are we supposed to be capable of listening and obeying His command to produce good fruit."
Again, it would appear in this passage that we are good or bad trees entirely dependent upon whether we hear and act.
"Again, it would appear in this passage that we are good or bad trees entirely dependent upon whether we hear and act."
I question that interpretation, Dan, because Jesus also teaches in this very passage that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and vice versa.
Let me try this another way: was Saul the Pharisee a good tree or a bad tree when he held the coats of those who murdered Christians?
Bad tree, right? But what happened? He heard and acted, so that -- contrary to what Jesus teaches here -- the bad tree suddenly produced good fruit?
Or did Jesus transform the bad tree called Saul into the good tree called Paul?
I don't know of anyone saying one can't transform from a bad tree to a good tree. I'm entirely okay with that notion and I think that is fitting in with this passage. When we're ignoring/disputing Jesus' words - according to this passage - we are a bad tree.
When we embrace Jesus' words - according to this passage - we are a good tree.
How else would one interpret Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. following all this talk about good and bad trees?
"So, when I (Bubba, or mom2) ask questions about your understanding of your sin, the cross, and who Jesus is - it is not for any other reason than for you to have a clear understanding of the truth."
Roger, that statement comes across so arrogant to me. It reminds me of those proud and haughty ones who Jesus tells to go away from Him. He never knew them. I can just see them witnessing to people to get them "saved" so they can tell Jesus on that day what good little boys and girls they've been.
What I hear you saying is this: Look Danny Boy, we don't think you have the truth so we say these things and ask these questions so you will think about this and realize that you don't have the truth and we do.
Whatever happened to just lovin' people because Jesus loves 'em. Caring for them because Jesus does. Sitting with them when they hurt, crying with them when they mourn. Just being so filled up with Jesus that it overflows, but you yourself are not even aware of the impact you are having on others.....humility.....what ever happened to it?
Where were you, Marty, when Eleutheros repeatedly called us snake-oil salesmen? Where were your calls for humility then?
Does he get a pass because he's apparently not a professing Christian? Okay, where were you when -- in the thread on pearls before swine -- Dan implicitly compared us to scribes and Pharisees who neglected the weightier matters of the law?
What's the difference?
Dan, I'm not sure if I can reliably infer an answer to my question, because it appears you leave open an option I hadn't considered.
Here are the options that it appears one could apply in relating Christ's teachings to Paul's conversion:
1) Paul was always a bad tree, even after a supposed conversion, and he always produced bad fruit; this seems implausible to anyone but a person who despises Paul.
2) Paul was always a good tree producing good fruit, which seems implausible given his complicity in religious persecution that culminated in murder.
("Paul was always a bad tree, but after his conversion he produced good fruit" and the reverse are out of bounds per Christ's teaching that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, and vice versa.)
3) Christ transformed Paul from a bad tree to a good tree through grace on Christ's part and faith on Paul's, which is what I affirm.
4) Paul transformed himself from a bad tree to a good tree through obedience, which it appears you affirm.
I would like you to clarify the point. That may mean I missed a possibility, but if it doesn't, and if I'm right you affirm #4, just why did Christ die on the cross?
"Transformation through divine grace" is an end for which the Crucifixion appears to be an appropriate means.
"Transformation through human obedience" is an idea that excludes the necessity of the cross altogether.
Let me be clear that, once transformed, the tree will have to work hard with God to produce good fruit. But I believe that, unless it is transformed, the tree doesn't have the raw materials to produce good fruit.
Note that Christ didn't use here the analogy of a barren fig tree and a plentiful fig tree (though a similar analogy was used in John 15 for a different purpose).
He didn't compare a bad tree to a barren fig tree that didn't happen to produce figs this season, one that could have done otherwise. He compared it to a thistle tree which ain't gonna produce figs, ever.
How is it that thistles could produce figs?
What's the difference? One is implying a lack of salvation, the other isn't.
They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger...But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves....
[emphasis mine]
So when Dan quoted these passages he wasn't possible, conceivably questioning the salvation of those to whom this passage was being applied?
Are we seeing more improbable reading comprehension from ya, Marty?
Hmmm...could be Bubba...I am getting old.
Re: "a nominal Christian's ..."
Can one be nominally be a Christian? Idn't like "nominally" bein' pregnant?
Marty,
Marty said...>What I hear you saying is this:
What you 'hear me saying' is certainly not my heart. It's difficult to convey thoughts via typed words sometimes because of what can be read in. Your inference is not accurate and probably due to poor communication on my part.
But, isn't truth important? Doesn't the enemy use deception and imitation to get people to stray from the truth? That's the nature of spiritual deception. I'm not questioning intent and sincerity - what I'm questioning is what is understood and believed to be true. How do we know what the truth is? We look to scripture. My opinions are not truth. Your opinions are not truth. But God's word is truth! So, we're looking at the Sermon on the Mount - seriously and in depth - in light of what scripture has revealed to us all. If what I, Bubba, or mom2 are doing is formulating doctrine from our own preferences, then please tell us where we are in error. Test it. Search the scriptures. If I'm wrong, I want someone to correct me. If you're wrong, you would want someone to correct you.
Remember, faithful are the wounds of a friend.
Someone knowing the truth over error is immeasurably important. After all, eternity is at stake - as our beliefs in regard to who Jesus is determines our destination.
Marty said...>Whatever happened to just lovin' people because Jesus loves 'em.
When someone talks about Jesus, which Jesus are they talking about?
The Jesus of the Mormons? Or the Jesus of the Branch-Davidians? Or the Jesus of the Church that preaches activities A,B,C are not sins. Or the Jesus of the Church that preaches that activities A,B,C are sins...? etc....
See what I'm saying? Doctrine is important as differences can lead to a different Jesus, a different gospel! (see 2 Cor. 11:1-4)
There can only be one truth of reality.
Bubba:"What fruit did the thief, who admitted he deserved to be excuted, produce that saved him from the fire?"
First, Luke doesn't say he was a thief, he says he was a malefactor (Latin for "evil doer"), and he admits that he is being killed for a capital crime. But what does that tell us? In his day that could have been for not paying his taxes or standing between a Roman soldier and the little old lady the soldier was beating to death, for all we know. He might be like that skier who wipes out in those old ABC Wide World of Sports intros "Agony of Defeat" ... might have been the only mistake the poor skier ever made in his life and it got caught on film and shown over and over before millions! For all we know the malefactor might have been a generous kind person who helped widows and orphans all his life before running afoul of the Roman government.
Bubba:"I believe we're thistles and He commands us to produce figs. "
That's because all your comments reflect that you are reading Jesus' words backwards. Apparently you think He said, "You shall know the fruit by its tree" rather than "You shall know the tree by its fruit."
You are looking at the tree, declaring it to be bad (or be a thistle) and then saying it must follow that no matter how good the fruit looks and tastes, it must needs be declared bad because it came from a bad tree.
Jesus said just the opposite. Look at the fruit, decide first whether the fruit is good or not, and then that will tell you whether or not the tree is good.
We look to Scripture for truth. Ok. I don't think anyone here is looking anywhere else Roger. Yet you continue to proselytize when there is no need.
We look to Scripture for truth. Ok. I don't think anyone here is looking anywhere else Roger. Yet you continue to proselytize when there is no need>
I was of the opinion that people of like mind enjoyed discussion of the scriptures. Why is it disturbing?
No one has all the answers, so healthy discussion is good, or so I thought.
Marty said...>I don't think anyone here is looking anywhere else Roger.
But apparently we're all not able to acknowledge our sin, who Jesus is, what the cross means, and the importance of the resurrection (or if it actually happened!) How can anyone be saved by not realizing and acknowledging those things? Scripture is clear that there is no other way.
"But apparently we're all not able to acknowledge our sin, who Jesus is, what the cross means, and the importance of the resurrection (or if it actually happened!)"
Says who?
"But apparently we're all not able to acknowledge our sin ..."
I think we all can acknowledge our sin, yet disagree on what sin is! Is it the state of overt rebellion before God? Or, the state of being incomplete, confused creations before the Creator? Or, trying and failing to be holy? I think that seeing it the second way is most useful. And it's Scriptural.
"Who Jesus is ..."
Christians have disagreed about that from the very beginning! Is Jesus God? Is he divine? Is he really mainly Son of God or really mainly Son of Man? Christians can be Christians and disagree on it.
"What the cross means ..."
"Substitutionary atonement" is only one way of thinking hard about what the Cross means. Christians, in good faith, have disagreed over what the Mystery of the Cross means since the beginning.
"and the importance of the resurrection (or if it actually happened!)"
YES. Did Jesus's human body resuscitate, or did Jesus the Christ come back in a transcendent way that, itself, is part of the Mystery??
"How can anyone be saved by not realizing and acknowledging those things?"
By trusting in God by trying to follw Jesus, through the life, example and holy acts of Jesus, the Christ, despite of what we don't know, not because of what we think we do know!
"Scripture is clear that there is no other way."
Scripture is clear about nothing save one thing: Salvation comes through Jesus and our faith in Him. Keep all those other doctrinal details out of it.
ER, You say salvation comes through Jesus and our faith in Him. Yes, but I think we ought to know from the Word, who He is and why we believe in Him. I see from your post that if I go with what you said there that I would be confused. I will continue to believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and has the answers.
Marty said...>Says who?
It's all there in various comments through the last few days of posts on this blog.
If you still don't see it, just ask the question publicly to everyone on this blog. Ask everyone to confess something in principle like this: "I'm a sinner, there is absolutely no way I can earn salvation, and Jesus died on the cross for my sins, and rose again - He is who He said He is, He is Lord."
Roger, I think you see what you want to see.
ER, you said all that quite eloquently. Thanks.
Marty said...>Roger, I think you see what you want to see.
Marty,
do you object to any of those things in that confession? Are they not all true?
Did you go back and read through all of the comments from the last few days? (There's a lot - and a lot has been revealed in this ongoing discussion) If you don't believe me and think I'm seeing things, just ask everyone to confess the truths listed in my last post. That way we can clear it up for everyone... for no believer will be ashamed of Jesus Christ - He is their salvation!
Mom2, I'm saying we ARE all confused, which is another way of saying we see through a glass darkly, which should be familiar to you.
I don't think anything else you said contradicts what I said. But, if you insist on that kind of certainty, it's something besides faith, and if you insist that the Bible, which *does* have all the answers necessary to help us toward a right relationship with God through Christ -- if you get close to considering it anything MORE than inspired writing, say, infallible -- here we go, :-) -- that is, perfect, when Jesus Himself is said to have denied that even HE was good, because only God in heaven is good, then you're treading very close to worshiping the Bible itself, which is a form of idolatry.
Roger, there is only one confession, in my opinion, that any Christian should be "required" to believe:
"I have decided to follow Jesus."
Just about everything else -- even the form of the resurrection -- is debatable.
Re: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many."
What if this is relative? In some parts, fundamentalism IS the "broad" way. Lots of sheep follow individuals, churches and certain strains of doctrine without much thought, but out of tradition and local history.
Mom2, re: "I notice here that the do that is approved is the will of His Father. Just doing is not the clue. How do we really know His will without knowing Him?"
Isn't the following the heart of God's will? It's solid OT as well as NT:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself."
I think Jesus was saying that all that fancy-schmancy casting out of devils, and prophesying and big-church construction and marketing and all other "mighty deeds," if accomplished without love of God and neighbor, are parlor tricks, and worse, that mean nothing.
A point I'd hope we could all agree upon. Amen.
This has all been very interesting.
Edgar Cayce, the renown mystic who himself started in the rather fundamentalist Christian Church (Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone), said that the Sermon on the Mount was Christianity's Declaration of Independence and the 5th chapter of Matthew was its Constitution.
I reckon that's about right. When Jesus proclaimed our freedom and independence, it was from the ritual and mumbo-jumbo of Judaism. It's gone. We're free. There were no strings attached. No meeting Jesus (TM), accepting Jesus as personal savior (TM), nor any of the extra-Biblical jargon with which modern fundamentalism is plagued.
All that business about God being so super-hyper holy and we can never be reconciled to Him was done away with.
Modern fundamentalism is a reversion to the old Jewish entanglement in mystic symbols and sort of cosmic game of Simon Says: "I think I will be kind to those people...." "No, sorry, doesn't count, you didn't say Simon Says, er, I mean, Jesus Says.."
It is a rejection of the the freedom from all that which Jesus came to give.
The big questions still remain...
The suggestions on here as to what these passages mean by some do not address why Jesus had to come, and die on the cross. If it's a matter of us obeying teaching, couldn't the OT prophets or John the Baptist delivered this message?
John 15:5
"I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing."
And there's still more...
Why did Jesus talk about repentance? Repentance from what? What did He mean by 'born again'? How do thistles produce figs? How do we explain the transformation of Saul to Paul? Is Jesus Lord? What does that mean?
When Jesus proclaimed our freedom and independence, it was from the ritual and mumbo-jumbo of Judaism. It's gone. We're free.
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
There were no strings attached. No meeting Jesus (TM), accepting Jesus as personal savior (TM), nor any of the extra-Biblical jargon with which modern fundamentalism is plagued.
"And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness'."
All that business about God being so super-hyper holy and we can never be reconciled to Him was done away with.
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
[Pray,] "`And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.'"
"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"
[Note that Christianity doesn't teach that we cannot be reconciled to a holy God, but that we can only be reconciled because of what He has done.]
Eleutheros, you make assertions about the Sermon on the Mount that may sound nice and high-minded, but they bear little relation to the actual contents of that Sermon, to say nothing of its context in Scripture.
I really wish that, if you must cling to your heretical beliefs, you would stop trying to distort Scripture to justify them.
I also really wish that Dan and Michael would care enough about the true heart of the Christian message -- the manger, the cross, and the empty tomb -- to challenge those beliefs despite their obvious admiration for your simple, folky ways and your apparent intellectual knowledge of Scripture.
But it's obvious neither's going to happen anytime soon.
You're right that Jesus came to bring freedom, but it's freedom from sin, not freedom from the "mumbo-jumbo" of Judeo-Christian theology. It's freedom in Him, not ultimately freedom from Him: we are freed from all other things and freed to become what we were always created to be by living a life of servanthood to Him.
And, it's freedom that only He can bring, not by teaching us to live like farmers, but by giving His life for us.
Perhaps someone else can make this clear to those here who reject all this and those who agree intellectually but subordinate it to His ethical teachings. I don't think it's gonna be me.
"I also really wish that Dan and Michael would care enough about the true heart of the Christian message... to challenge those beliefs"
As I've said before, it's because I think Eleutheros comes closer to getting it right than the religionists. I do disagree with him on some matters and he most certainly disagrees with me at times, but I'm of the mind that the manger, the cross, the resurrection are part of the story, but that the heart of the Gospel, as Jesus defined it, was Love God, Love God's Creation.
God Almighty became a man with all the limitations that entails; the Word became flesh; Christ initiated a new covenant on the cross, with His sinless body and His precious blood; and on the third day He rose; He has risen and is risen; He is alive and will reign forever.
That is only "part of the story"?
That's ridiculous. The heart of the Gospel is the literal "good news" itself, not that we're commanded to love (and we are), but that God loves us so much that He gave us Son so that we would not perish but have everlasting life.
I do not believe, Dan, that anyone can truly and fully believe in the Incarnation and the Crucifixion and the Resurrection and ultimately refuse to make that belief the center of his existence. The cognitive dissonance in holding that it's simultaneously true but not central is too great.
At some point something must give: either the weight of the truth of the central theological claims of Christianity will assert their primacy, or the man who diminishes the importance of those claims will ultimately deny them altogether.
Maybe he'll start by advancing improbable interpretations of Scriptural passages that assert the primacy of God's grace, then he'll ignore the books those passages came from as being too Jewish or too Pauline, and finally he'll assert that the Incarnation and Resurrection are legends artificially added to the life of a good teacher who was sadly killed by crucifixion: we need only to focus on the two great commandments, and we'll have the Kingdom of Heaven right here on Earth.
I suspect which direction you're heading; I hope I'm wrong. Either way, I appreciate your finally saying quite plainly what I thought could be reasonably inferred:
You believe that the duty of our love for God is more important the fact of God's love for us.
That speaks for itself.
"You believe that the duty of our love for God is more important the fact of God's love for us."
Except, of course, that I didn't say that. God's love for us is the greatest thing in the world - that a God! could care about me? Wow!
And so that God coming to be with us and show us the Ways that we have such a hard time with, again - wow! Even knowing what suffering and pain that would lead God through, God sent God's own Self to be right here with us physically, as God is always with us in Spirit.
All of this is humbling and awe-inspiring. And so, believing that Love is the ultimate Gift, is it surprising that I find Love to be the ultimate response?
I am not especially hung up on the details of Jesus birthing, dying, living again does not mean that I don't think it's central to God's message.
But Jesus focused much more on his message to us on the practical - our practical every day response to God. What you do for the least, the Greatest Commandment, Hear my words and act on them, good news to the poor, freedom for the captive, the Day of Jubilee!...
You'll forgive me, I hope, if I choose to focus on Jesus' actual words rather than the traditions of men?
Boy, I disagree with a bunch of what Bubba wrote -- not saying I don't believe it. I *am* saying that such details are, indeed, part of the story, th eother part being what Dan is talking about.
Someone put it like this: What Jesus said and the example He gave for how his followers are to ACT -- that's more important than what people have said about Jesus and they have said about what His life, death and resurrection MEAN, even the Gospel writers (I mean beyond the whole shebang being the mysterious mechanics of God's bridging the chasm between Himself and His Creation.)
Dan, I've been clear that faithful obedience is the inevitable (or nearly inevitable) response to God's grace. I believe that God's love for all of us ought to motivate us to love Him and each other.
You write:
I am not especially hung up on the details of Jesus birthing, dying, living again does not mean that I don't think it's central to God's message.
No, but writing this does: "I'm of the mind that the manger, the cross, the resurrection are part of the story, but that the heart of the Gospel, as Jesus defined it, was Love God, Love God's Creation."
The fact of God's love for us, or the duty of our love for God: only one can be central. I think you've made clear your choice, now going so far as to suggest that Jesus knew crucifixion was the unavoidable consequence of His teaching rather than the central reason He came in the first place.
You'll forgive me, I hope, if I choose to focus on Jesus' actual words rather than the traditions of men?
Never mind Jesus' own words in the upper room: "this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."
No, never mind that; you seem eager to reduce the writings of both the Prophets and the Apostles to mere "traditions of men."
If that seems like a harsh assessment of what your write, answer simply, are what Isaiah, John, Peter, and Paul wrote about the meaning of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection authoritative or not?
If they are authoritative, they're not mere "traditions of men."
If they're not authoritative, well, I believe it's safe to say that we're seeing what I predicted: a willful disregard for parts of Scripture you find inconvenient.
ER, you write about "what people have said about Jesus and [what] they have said about what His life, death and resurrection MEAN."
You include in that group of people even the authoritative writings of the Gospels and (presumably) the Epistles.
You say that what they assert is less important than the teachings and the example of Jesus, but if what they assert is true, I don't see how anything can be of greater importance.
The claims are of the infinitely miraculous, an infinite God becoming finite man. The results are of an eternal importance, the offer of everlasting life.
Some of the commands Christ gave make sense only in light of those claims: why else are we blessed if we're persecuted for Jesus' sake in particular? All the commands become obvious in light of those claims; loving God is the natural response to grace. And obedience to those commands to the degree that a holy God requires is only possible through the new nature that God gives us through the cross.
God's love for us and our duty to love Him are not equal and identical parts of the Gospel story: the latter depends on the former. The former, if true, must necessarily be central.
Having realized that we're both repeating ourselves, restating almost verbatim what we wrote when I believe we first encountered each other...
You: "I just think that we spend an awful lot of energy worrying about extra- or marginally biblical ideals and fail to come to grips with the meat of the gospel: Love God, Love Others."
Me: "The greatest thing of all -- the central truth of the Bible, of our lives, of the entire universe -- is what God has done for us, not what we are to do in obedience to Him or even in gratitude for that gift."
...this might be a good point to wish you well and take my leave of you.
I stand by my belief that holding the doctrine of God's grace to be true but secondary to some other belief is unstable and ultimately untenable. As it appears that you're already downgrading the authority of Scriptural passages you find inconvenient, I suspect the way you will end up resolving the tension of your current position is to abandon the historicity of the Resurrection.
I do pray that I'm wrong.
Peace to you. You're welcome here anytime, even if we disagree.
Especially if we disagree. I appreciate hearing from those who disagree with me.
Boy, this is just snarky: "it appears that you're already downgrading the authority of Scriptural passages you find inconvenient ..."
Convenience has nothing to do with it. Saying Scripture is authoritative is one thing. Calling it inerrant and infallible, if that's what you're doing, is a form of idolatry. Peace.
Very briefly, ER, I would apologize for that comment, but I don't see any other way of putting it. If downgrading the authority of certain passages has nothing to do with convenience, what does it involve? I imagine the answer is one's convictions, but convictions based on what? By what standard do you determine that this passage of the Bible must be heeded but this passage can be ignored?
An answer I've seen a couple of times -- Jesus Himself -- begs the question, since it's the Bible that gives us the clearest picture of what Jesus said, what He did, who He is, and what it all means.
It's not clear why other candidates -- tradition, church decrees, the tomfoolery of the Jesus Seminar -- ought to be standards by which we judge the Bible, so I suspect that upholding them as standards comes down to a personal choice.
And if the standard by which you measure Scripture is yourself -- your decision to give something else primacy, your conscience, or your personal theories about God -- then saying you're downgrading passages out of convenience is horribly blunt and possibly even snarky, but I don't see how it's inaccurate...
...unlike your smear that inerrancy is idolatry. Is it truly impossible for an omnipotent God to inspire and guide men He selected to write documents that are perfect revelations of Who He is? I believe God's omnipotence is limited to that which isn't an intrisic contradiction, and I don't see how Biblical inerrancy applies.
You can disagree with the principle without saying untrue things about those who hold to it.
Dan, thanks for the open invite. I might take you up on it.
There is one more reason, by the way, that I believe the core of the Gospel message is the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection: God could use intermediaries to communicate the command to love Him and your neighbors. As point of fact, He did, as the commands were originally revealed in the Old Testament, in Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18.
(In this way, the commands Jesus gives are "old news.")
But while God could foreshadow the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Crucifixion through His prophets, and while He could explain their meaning through His Apostles, the acts could only be accomplished by God Almighty Himself.
It's another reason I believe those events are absolutely essential and primary.
I've probably talked enough, though. Take care -- you and everyone else, here -- and have a great Christmas.
"If downgrading the authority of certain passages has nothing to do with convenience, what does it involve?"
It has to do with faithfully interpreting the Bible and we all do it. We downgrade the command not to eat shrimp based upon a fuller understanding of God as revealed in the NT.
We downgrade the command to kill those who commit adultery in the OT for the same reason. In this case, it has nothing at all to do with convenience.
Now there are times when folk DO downgrade the authority of scripture for reasons of convenience. It IS inconvenient to love our enemies and it feels safer (to some) to kill them and those around them instead.
It IS inconvenient to live within our means in a manner respectful of God's creation. If we can live high on the hog at others' expense, well, that's a pretty temptation.
And doubtless, I may at times want to find verses to mean something incorrectly out of convenience. But I don't know that anyone here has pointed out an instance of that. Feel free to, should you come upon that sort of convenience-seeking in my testimony.
And a happy holiday to you, as well.
Re: "By what standard do you determine that this passage of the Bible must be heeded but this passage can be ignored?"
"The Bible" is not "a" thing to be taken or denied as a whole! *THAT* is the superstition behind the otherswise baseless beloief that "it" is "God's Word." It CONTAINS God's Word. To confuse it with the very Logos is a form of idolatry, in my opinion.
To wit: "documents that are perfect revelations of Who He is ..."
There is NOTHING perfect in this world. Again, even Jesus asked someone "why callest me good? There is none except God in heaven." So, to insist that "the" Bible is perfect revelation is contrary to "the" Bible itself.
I'll stop. I've been where ya are. And the Lord delivered me.
Pas!
I agree with ER, but let me add, re: "By what standard do you determine that this passage of the Bible must be heeded but this passage can be ignored?"
The standard we all use, our own reason. Yes, we'll ask God for wisdom to understand, for revelation by God's spirit. Yes, we'll interpret within the context of the whole Bible, but ultimately, it IS you and I listening to God and reason to sort things out, and unfortunately, we are fallible.
No matter how infinite, powerful and perfect God is, we are still finite, impotent and imperfect (in our modern understanding) in composition. That is one major problem with the concept of an infallible Bible - even if it were infallible, it is being read by fallible humans.
For that reason alone, I'd think a little humility is in order. Which is not to argue against holding firm convictions, but doing so with the realization that we are not God nor do we always understand God infallibly.
I'd think this to be an obvious point.
There is a methodology that is rapidly, and unfortunately, taking the place of he scientific method (in it's most rigid sense). That is, rather than view the data to see what conclusion it begs, we are now in a mode of reasoning where we come to a conclusion and then seen what data there is to support it.
For religionists this is old hat, been going on for centuries and continues to this day unabated and I see it with flying colors in this discussion on Dan's blog.
Some years ago I had two friends who at about the same time told me they had found the real and ultimate truth about the Bible by doing nothing at all but reading the Bible, sos you could tell it was genuine.
One had read the Bible under the urging of an elder of the Christian Church whose theology is very similar to what Bubba and Roger espouse sans the 'sola fide'. I asked him if he did not feel as if the elder had an undue influence on HOW he read the Bible and he said, no, he had just said read these parts.
The other friend, of about the same age and circumstances, had discovered Easter Orthodoxy, read the Bible, and sure enough found out independently and on his own (and by his account, not unduly influenced by the priest) that Orthodoxy was the true Christianity.
The two systems, Protestant Campbellites and Eastern Orthodoxy, could not be more different.
Yes, I'd agree with Dan that we must use our reason, but, alas, being human that also mixes with our culture, biases, and preferences. In the end we believe pretty much as we want to believe.
The big difference I've seen between the hard line evangelicals and most others participating in this discussion is the degree to which the former are so cock sure and inflexible that they are right.
What Mark Twain wrote fits, thinks I, "It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what do know fir sure that ain't so."
Wasn't it Mark Twain that also said...
"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
Now THAT, Roger, is a cogent and apropos response.
Roger followed the prior comment with a comment from a conversation we were having at his site and, as it really had nothing to do with the topic at hand, I deleted it.
Feel free to go to Roger's place and see the discussion on OT Law (not really what's being discussed here).
To further clarify, here's the link...
Why Jesus? Why the cross?
It addresses why Jesus came, why He had to die on the cross, what grace is, and the connection between Jesus and the OT law.
And what Roger means is that, "it clarifies why Roger thinks Jesus came, why He had to die on the cross, what grace is, etc."
Dan said...>And what Roger means is that, "it clarifies why Roger thinks Jesus came, why He had to die on the cross, what grace is, etc."
Really, you think I'm smart enough to come up with that on my own? Thanks for the compliment, but no man would fashion a salvation plan built on grace. Instead, man would (and does) choose to look for a way to work up to God by good works. The message of Christ and Christmas is that God loves us so much that He came down to us.
I'm just not sure "punishment" is the right word for God's response to sin, if one sees sin as failure to live up to an impossible standard!
Furthermore, my main gripe about people who who insist that God, and they, "hate the sin but love the sinner" is that I think God is GRIEVED by sin, rather than HATES it!
Another gripe is that God is God, but we, being failed humans, are INCAPABLE of hating sin yet loving the sinner mainly because the two are inseparable except by God Himself.
And I'll buy the following, but not all the doctrinal -- and cultural and habitual -- baggage that I think some people bring with it.
"The message of Christ and Christmas is that God loves us so much that He came down to us."
Post a Comment