We have had some questions asked a coupla posts back that we want to consider further.
These are questions about Christianity and its tenets, so I suspect primarily of interest to Christians, but of course, all are welcome.
One of those questions have to do with Jesus' purpose on earth. It has been stated by some, that the "primary message of the Bible [is] the revelation of God's redeeming grace." In another place, "That was His primary purpose. To find us and save us who are lost in sin." and similar words in other places.
Secondarily (and related, I suppose) the question of what the primary role of Christians is. Again, these same folk have stated, "primary mission of the church, that is, to go and make disciples" or to "win people to Christ" or words to that effect.
These folk have as their "marching orders," the so-called "great commission," Jesus words at the end of Matthew 28. (As you go into the world, make disciples of people, baptizing them and teaching them to obey God's commands).
That's sort of one "side" (although I hesitate to divide us into sides, it helps in this discussion for clarification purposes).
My "side" has stated that we agree, that the bible uses words to suggest that Jesus came to save the lost, to forgive sinners, to do the work needed to give people the chance to experience God's grace and go to heaven (ie, to be saved from their sin). We don't disagree at all with this language.
We then go on to point out that the Bible also says that Jesus came to show us the way to live, to set an example for us, to serve, to give us abundant life, to do the will of God, to destroy the works of the devil, to tell us about God's love, to teach us how to love, etc, etc. In short, we point out that we agree with ALL the passages where Jesus or the apostles give reasons why Jesus came.
We further point out that none of those passages suggest that one or the other of these reasons has primacy, that they are all important. IF we were to point to one teaching that Jesus seems to (or directly) gives some extra priority too is the teaching that the greatest commands are to love God and love people.
As to the work of the church, we begin by stating that the church doesn't "win" ANYONE to Christ. That is the work of God. But most folk would agree with that and their use of "winning people to Christ" is just an expression, so that one we probably agree upon.
Beyond that, we tend to think that (as the Westminster Catechism states) "the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." That our work is to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus. That we are specifically to love and love well. Love our neighbors, our brothers and sisters in Christ, even our enemies. That we are to give a cup of cold water, that we do for and with the least of these, to baptize and disciple folk, etc.
In short, we are to follow all the teachings of Jesus and the only "primacy" of the different teachings is to love.
In other words, we agree on everything, both sides, all the teachings of Jesus (although some of we on the Left think that some on the Right are too quick to spiritualize some of Jesus' teachings and not take literally what ought to be taken literally). Where we disagree is those on the Right feel a need to promote a primary role of Jesus and the Church, whereas we see no biblical support for doing so.
And now, I believe someone is going to try to take a stab at making their case as to why they feel this need to prioritize Jesus' teachings.
And a request: Let's let people's words stand for themselves this time. If you think they mean something other than what they've said, then ask ("So by X, do you mean Y, too?"). Let's avoid this assumptions about what they mean, at least for this thread. Thanks.
126 comments:
"The chief END of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever"
It is impossible to reach that 'Chief End" without being saved.
"That we are specifically to love and love well. Love our neighbors, our brothers and sisters in Christ, even our enemies..."
...which is impossible to do apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which again is only gained by accepting Christ as savior, which also, can only happen if and when the Spirit draws you.
"No man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him..."
As to Christ's primary mission:
"But while [Joseph] thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."
--Matthew 1:20-21
All the rest you speak about, loving and loving well and such, is just icing on the cake. The weightier matter is the restoration of man to fellowship with God.
All of those verses are great... they clearly demonstrate the importance (which is obviously an understatement) of Jesus' death and resurrection.
But they don't say this: "All the rest you speak about, loving and loving well and such, is just icing on the cake" and they don't seem to imply it either.
I guess I'm still confused about the disagreement here. How does my attitude that while yes, there are different messages in the Bible and that these can be more or less important at different times, places, & contexts become something to disagree about so strongly?
This started out, as far as I can tell, because some folks seem to believe that because Dan writes a lot about Christians' work in the world, that implies that he doesn't see the Resurrection as important, or at least not as important as what he writes about. (Is that a correct interpretation of what started this discussion?)
First of all, I don't see how the conclusions follow the claims. Second of all, we all have different gifts:
"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men."
Different kinds of working. Hmmmm....
"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines."
Hardly surprising then, it seems to me, that different folks would focus on different parts of God's Word, according to their gifts. That doesn't mean the other gifts aren't important. In fact, Paul goes on to write, just to clarify his point it seems, that some gifts which seem to have less honor, are made more honorable, etc. Seems to me he's saying that they're all important, and that he's not distinguishing between these gifts.
Why not then celebrate those who have gifts that are different from yours rather than criticizing for not focusing enough on your definition of evangelism?
Alan, about the verses ELAshley cites, you write:
But they don't say this: "All the rest you speak about, loving and loving well and such, is just icing on the cake" and they don't seem to imply it either.
I don't think he or I would argue that Christ's ethical commands are unimportant, just less important than the cross: they are and should always be subordinated to the cross, and in truth we are both enabled and motivated to obey because of the cross.
I guess I'm still confused about the disagreement here. How does my attitude that while yes, there are different messages in the Bible and that these can be more or less important at different times, places, & contexts become something to disagree about so strongly?
If a person believes -- as I do, and as I think others here do -- that the cross is the most important message at all times, then suggestions to the contrary are significant disagreements.
This started out, as far as I can tell, because some folks seem to believe that because Dan writes a lot about Christians' work in the world, that implies that he doesn't see the Resurrection as important, or at least not as important as what he writes about. (Is that a correct interpretation of what started this discussion?)
That's almost right: it's not only that Dan writes a lot about other things, it's that -- seemingly by Dan's own admission (and this is a subject to which I should and will return) -- Dan doesn't mention the cross much at all, if any.
Indeed, it's not logically necessary to conclude that this notable absence is meaningful, but I think there are good reasons to conclude that it just might be meaningful.
You quote Paul's writing about our different gifts and then write:
Hardly surprising then, it seems to me, that different folks would focus on different parts of God's Word, according to their gifts. That doesn't mean the other gifts aren't important. In fact, Paul goes on to write, just to clarify his point it seems, that some gifts which seem to have less honor, are made more honorable, etc. Seems to me he's saying that they're all important, and that he's not distinguishing between these gifts.
Why not then celebrate those who have gifts that are different from yours rather than criticizing for not focusing enough on your definition of evangelism?
It's not just "not focusing on evangelism", what most troubles me is the lack of focus on the cross.
It's one thing to say that the Spirit gives us different gifts to use in service to God and each other, but it doesn't follow that we are to have different ideas about what's most important.
In the same epistle, Paul writes, "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." (I Cor 10:17)
We're united, and what unites us? The one bread of Communion, the observance of Christ's death.
Paul wrote that he boasts in the cross alone, and nowhere does he suggest that it's good for others to boast in other things. Nowhere does he suggest that our different spiritual gifts allow for vastly different priorities when it comes to God's good news.
Hmm....still not getting it. Not that your answer isn't clear, I'm just not seeing the reason for the disagreement.
You wrote: "Alan, about the verses ELAshley cites, you write:
'But they don't say this: "All the rest you speak about, loving and loving well and such, is just icing on the cake" and they don't seem to imply it either.'
I don't think he or I would argue that Christ's ethical commands are unimportant, just less important than the cross..."
I wasn't saying that you all thought anything was unimportant. I was saying that the verses he quoted, and now the ones you quote, only show that the salvation message and "mission" (for lack of a better word) are important, crucially important, but not *more* important than other things he said.
You've admitted that there isn't a verse you can point to that says, "This is the most important thing!" I agree that it might be possible to make the same point by other means, but clearly the lack of such a verse or verses makes your job a lot harder. I think you've definitely got your work cut out for you to prove your point and I think you have to admit that, without such a verse, any evidence you provide is likely to be less convincing, more bound up with matters of interpretation, context, language, and the like.
After all, a great many of Jesus's acts involve BOTH proclamation AND service. Healing and the message delivered at the same time, for example. That might argue for the notion that proclamation and service should always go hand in hand, but it doesn't seem to argue that proclamation is the primary act, and the rest is "icing on the cake."
In other stories, like the healing of the man born blind (One of my very favorite stories, John 9) healing comes first, in fact. It is only quite later in the story, after the man has been interrogated and then comes back, does Jesus ask him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" (Notice that Jesus never mentions the cross, or his impending death or resurrection in that story. I suppose we can assume he might have, but it isn't recorded.)
Again, that story (along with Paul that I quoted earlier) seems to argue for my point of view, that different circumstances, times and places, require different foci. Heal him first, that's what's needed. And then, later, after things have calmed down a bit, the message is delivered. Not that one is more important than the other, but for everything there is a season.
Is it possible to focus too much on the DEATH at the cross rather than the LIFE that the resurrection offers?
Even the angels told Mary Magdalene "here is not here". And Jesus himself did not allow her to "touch" him as he had not yet assended.
This is powerfully symbolic in my eyes. But I do understand the points being made regarding the cross.
"Heal him first, that's what's needed. And then, later, after things have calmed down a bit, the message is delivered. Not that one is more important than the other, but for everything there is a season."
I agree Alan....totally.
If it's okay with you Dan, I just copied most of my comment from Eric's site, with minor editing.
"I believe that the permanent (our souls) has more importance over the temporary( our physical needs). Would people disagree? Not that there is no conflict, but one does have importance over the other, and sometimes you have to minister to the physical to meet the spiritual.
That being said, based on my understanding of the gospel, salvation (pertaining to the permanent, one's soul), is based upon an understanding of what Christ did for us and accepting Him. Knowing and believing that Jesus said "Love your neighbor" is all well and good, but other people have said the same (although not nearly as an effective example as Christ Himself), so I don't think believing in that teaching provides salvation. Understanding (and again, there are varying degrees of understanding between child and theological scholar) that we are not good enough on our own efforts, that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, that brings salvation."
Oops, replace "not that there is no conflict" to "not that there is a conflict."
Q: What did the angel tell Joseph about the approaching birth of the Christ?
Mt 1:21
Q: What did the angel tell the shepherds in announcing His birth?
Lk 2:10-11...
And, if I may continue:
Q: Why did Jesus say he came, when he began his ministry?
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord..." Luke 4
Q: Did Jesus offer any OTHER reasons why he came?
"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Mark 10
"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10
"To the other towns also I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this purpose I have been sent." Luke 4
Q: How about the authors of the Bible, did they offer reasons why Jesus came?
“Since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps” 1 Peter 2
======
We agree that Jesus and the Bible offers many reasons as to why he came. We've already established that. I'm waiting to see why one set of verses should receive priority.
I will say that if we are concerned about seeing the lost saved, it makes a bit of logical sense that them receiving the story of Jesus so they can be saved sounds pretty important. Then again, if a man is starving or children are living in fear for their lives, they are not in a great position to hear or understand the story of Jesus and therefore, again from a logical perspective, it makes sense that these basic needs must be met first.
This would be one reason why we'd be reluctant to place a priority on the teachings, it's a circle: How can they hear if no one tells them? How can they know unless someone shows them? How can they be concerned about God if they're busy trying to stay alive today?
From my point of view, it's all one: One truth, one gospel, one set of good news.
If I may add a bit more, many times it does not have to be an either/or. It's not like we have to spit out so many doctrinal teachings before time runs out or anything like that.
Concerning who Jesus is and what he did, that is important concerning salvation. We can do all the good works we want, but if we don't accept Him, it won't get us to heaven. Unless we tell others what Jesus did and who He is, we may only meet people's physical needs, and not their spiritual.
However, Jesus teachings on morals/ethics tell us how to live out that salvation. We can err too much towards who He is, and not actually live out the life he spelled out for us. However, without salvation, our own good works are just vain effort, and we simply won't be able to do them nearly as effectively. Through salvation, we are empowered to do good works.
So, I would say, good works are not even truly possible unless we have salvation. I believe we can only have salvation by having, if even an inkling, an understanding of the Good News.
I was asked:
For the moment, I do want to ask you, Dan, about one thing...
What evidence do you have that Jesus gives extra priority to this teaching (the Greatest command is love God and love people)?
You are absolutely correct to note that this is Jesus responding to a specific question ("Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the law?"). As such, this is Jesus' teaching about the commandments.
But as some here have hinted at as to why they think the primary purpose of Jesus was to save the lost (ie, because they find it consistently spoken of in the Bible), so too, for Love being the greatest teaching.
Jesus goes on to say that "ALL the Law and the Prophets hang upon these two commandments (love God, love people)." (matt 22, emphasis mine) All the law and ALL that the prophets had to say hang on this teaching of Love.
Further:
"Above all things have fervent love for one another." 1 Pet 4
"Put on then, as God's chosen ones... heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another... And over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection. ~Colossians 3
"owe no one anything except to love one another." ~Romans 13
"Now abide faith, hope and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." ~1 Cor 13
"Follow the way of love" ~1 Cor 14
"so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love..." ~Eph 3
Peter described the process of rebirth as "purifying your souls in obeying the truth through the spirit in sincere love of the brethren." ~1 Peter 1
John states bluntly: "Everyone who loves is born of God." ~1 John 4
Jesus says: "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." ~John 13
....
And I expect that you all know that I could go on a very long time with verse after verse in this vein. Loving God and people is more than "the greatest commandment," it IS the greatest teaching, it seems to many.
In fact, all the world's major religions can agree on this much, if nothing else. The Golden Rule is built in to every major religion out there in some form or the other.
And, if we wish to talk about logical ordering, WHY would we care to see the lost saved or to do unto the least of these if we had not love? So, from a practical point of view, if we agree that seeing the lost saved is important, then it would seem that we need to agree first and foremost to love one another.
If I hate someone, well, I don't really care if they're saved or not, right? If I truly loathe someone, I'd probably rather they rot in hell.
Does that answer the question?
Dan, invoking the sermon in Luke 4 begs the question, was Jesus speaking about the physically poor, blind, and enslaved, or about the spiritually poor, blind, and enslaved. I've argued that He was reference the spiritually poor (in part because He explicitly does so in Matthew 5) and the spiritually blind (because the blind have not recovered their sight, even twenty centuries later). If I'm right, then even this sermon is more about Jesus' saving us -- liberating us from sin -- then it is our following His ethical commands.
"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Mark 10
Giving His life as a ransom is a reference to His death, not His ethical teachings.
"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10
"To the other towns also I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this purpose I have been sent." Luke 4
These also begs the question, is our having life a result of our obeying His ethical commands or His death and resurrection? Is the good news of God's kingdom His law, or His grace?
We agree that Jesus and the Bible offers many reasons as to why he came. We've already established that. I'm waiting to see why one set of verses should receive priority.
It seems to me that, at least arguably, the verses you cite to demonstrate a wide range of the reasons Christ came either still point to His salvation, His death serving as a ransom, or beg the question by not clearly pointing to other reasons such as His ethical teachings.
About love, there is much I can say, but I would like to understand you more clearly first.
I have had a bad habit of saying "some might say" when I really mean "I say." I was called on that a while back (in different circusmtances), and I try not to make anonymous any belief that I personally hold. If something's too incendiary or too tentative for me to claim personally, I try not to introduce it at all.
(I'm still not nearly as consistent about this as I should be.)
I say all this as a way of introducing this comment of yours:
Loving God and people is more than "the greatest commandment," it IS the greatest teaching, it seems to many.
What I would like to know is, do you count yourself among this "many"? If you don't, I don't see why you introduce a position that you don't hold and then try to defend this position by pointing to the universal assent of the world's major religions to the Golden Rule. If you do, I wish you would say so plainly.
Do you personally believe that the command to love God and others is not just God's greatest commandment, but His greatest teaching and revelation to us?
I don't think that I'm amongst those who feel a need to categorize Jesus' teachings, but I certainly think that IF I WERE to categorize them, "Love God/Love People" would be amongst the greatest teachings of Jesus.
The teachings of the Bible certainly dwell on this sufficiently frequently and with sufficient energy/earnestness/power that one can't easily dismiss it.
Is that a fair answer?
invoking the sermon in Luke 4 begs the question, was Jesus speaking about the physically poor, blind, and enslaved, or about the spiritually poor, blind, and enslaved.
Again, I'm of the crew that would think it could be (and is) both/and, not either/or.
Let me try an analogy...
If I were to tell my children the following:
I love you with all my heart and always will.
I want YOU to love each other and ALL others, as best you can.
Look both ways before you cross the street.
If you get in trouble, call me and I will help.
If you get ill and need a kidney or even a heart, I would gladly offer mine.
Brush your teeth at least twice a day.
And I were to ask them, which is the MOST important rule/teaching I gave them, they might say the thing about giving my heart to save them - they might especially say that if they WERE ill and needed saving.
But in truth, the greatest teaching was that I love them. My being willing to offer them my heart to save them is just an example of that love. And all these other teachings are a reflection of my love in one way or the other.
So, I don't know that one could rank these teachings in terms of importance, but if they did, I'd think that we might put "Love" at the top.
Now, if they were getting cavities and needing dental work and it was hurting like hell, then perhaps one might be tempted to say "Brush your teeth" was the greatest teaching. Or perhaps, "if you get in trouble, I will help."
So, to some degree, the importance of the teachings might be dependent upon where one is at in their life's journey, too.
Probably not a perfect analogy, but it's something to think about.
That's actually a great analogy, Dan.
But in truth, the greatest teaching was that I love them. My being willing to offer them my heart to save them is just an example of that love. And all these other teachings are a reflection of my love in one way or the other.
I would say that the greatest teaching isn't that we should love God and each other, but that God already does love us.
It is His love that is central, not our command to love Him. It is, in fact, His love for us that both enables and motivates us to love Him.
Indeed, God commanded us to love Him because He loves us, but there's a risk in putting the cart before the horse: an overemphasis of our ethical commands runs the risk of creating -- in practice if not explicitly in theory -- a religion rooted in human works rather than divine grace.
And, surely, we can agree that some expressions of a father's love for his children are greater than others.
I love you with all my heart and always will.
I want YOU to love each other and ALL others, as best you can.
Look both ways before you cross the street.
If you get in trouble, call me and I will help.
If you get ill and need a kidney or even a heart, I would gladly offer mine.
Brush your teeth at least twice a day.
If the kid has trouble with a math problem in homework, and he calls his dad and his dad helps, that's a good sign his father loves him. If, instead, the kid is an adult who went to Europe against his father's wishes and is in trouble with the law (and deserves to be) and the father gets a lawyer and books the first flight out, that's an even greater sign.
You write, "My being willing to offer them my heart to save them is just an example of that love." I agree, but it's not that all examples are equally important.
And God didn't just offer to give Himself to save you. You and I needed desperately to be saved, and He made good His offer to the fullest.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Jesus did invoke a comparison, saying that laying down one's life is not just an expression of love, but the greatest expression of love: there is no greater love.
And there's no greater love for a man than to lay down his life, how much greater is the love of a Creator who will stoop to become a man and lay down His life?
I truly believe that the greatest teaching of Jesus (and, indeed, the entire Bible) is God's love for us. No doubt about that.
The greatest example of God's love for us is Jesus' death on the cross. No doubt about that, either.
So, I think it ought not to be controversial to see that the cross is central to God's revealed message to man and that it ought to be central to the lives of those He has saved.
Okay.
"Indeed, God commanded us to love Him because He loves us, but there's a risk in putting the cart before the horse: an overemphasis of our ethical commands runs the risk of creating -- in practice if not explicitly in theory -- a religion rooted in human works rather than divine grace."
Yes that is true. No doubt about it.
There are many risks involved in many different aspects. Such as emphasizing the cross so much we could run the risk of creating ...in practice if not in theory...a religion rooted in judgment, guilt, and shame.
There is always a risk. But, God knows the heart and his forgiveness is great.
Are we talking about Christ's GREATEST TEACHING?" or His "PRIMARY PURPOSE IN TAKING ON HUMAN FLESH?"
Whichever. Both. Either.
As I've noted, I don't know that I'm of the party that thinks there's a difference.
For my part, I've been talking about Jesus' teachings and what he said about why he came. Both.
but His primary PURPOSE in taking on mortal flesh is not His greatest TEACHING. Deciding to take on flesh implies a SPECIFIC purpose.
Okay, I understand you think so and I don't know that I necessarily disagree. But I don't know that you've made a case that it is his primary purpose. Just that you think so.
So, logically, there has to have been a very good reason to go through all the trouble of putting on flesh, and simply teaching us all to love one another is not good enough.
Okay, I understand this is what you think. I'm not so sure that I think this is supported by the Bible, but rather it's your interpretation. Which is fine, I don't have a problem with you having that impression about teaching us how to love and live is not good enough.
But I can't understand how anyone can deny that His death and resurrection were not more important in terms of purpose, which any rational read of the Gospels [rational to me anyway] says was the ultimate point of His earthly mission, in HUMAN flesh.
Okay, I understand that is your view. I don't see any biblical nor logical reason to think that his death and resurrection are more important than his life and teachings.
You do. How big a difference is that to you? I'm okay with you thinking that, are you okay with me not thinking that?
Or, asked another way: Why should I accept what you think the Bible is saying over what I think the Bible is saying?
Does John 3:14-18 have NO impact on you? In terms of the position I outlined?
Quoting myself...
"Had Christ died at the BEGINNING of His earthly mission I think you could argue that His primary purpose was to teach us how to love one another."
It's as though Jesus said, 'Hey everyone, I'm here to die for your sins so you can find TOTAL forgiveness from your sins, instead of that messy, imperfect, once-a-year deal of a Temple sacrifice. In the meantime, however, let's learn about how my Father wants you to treat each other, cause it looks like the pharisees have gotten it all wrong.'
...Killing two turtle doves with one STONE, so to speak.... the cornerstone that the builders rejected... anyone who falls upon it will be broken [saved], but everything IT falls upon will be crushed [judged and found wanting unto eternal punishment].
But seriously, does John 3:14-18 have NO impact on you at all?
Do you think that there is a teaching -- or a finite set of teachings -- that is central to the Bible? If so, what is that central teaching or central set?
I apologize if I've been less than clear, I thought I've answered this a few times already.
I believe all of Jesus' teachings are central. I don't know how or why I'd try to categorize one as MORE central than the others.
Each time Jesus or the apostles said, "I came to..." I think what they said is central to why Jesus came. And they said, "I came to..." with many different answers.
I think Jesus came to seek and save the lost, because that is what he said. I think that is central to why he came.
I think Jesus came to give us life and that more abundant, because that is what he said. I think that is central to why he came.
I think Jesus came to show us the way to live, because that is what he said. I think that is central to why he came.
Etc, etc.
Sometimes, in reading the Bible, I think it behooves us to strive for a deeper answer beyond what is there. For instance, with war-making, if we agree that Jesus wants us to love our enemies but have no problem with bombing enemy territory with a nuke, I think we're failing to get to the real meaning of "love your enemies."
I see no compelling reason to sort out Jesus' many answers to why he came. I think he came for all the reasons given and implied.
Dan, I'm still wondering quite what you meant with such a terse response to my comment: "Okay."
I was shooting for "concise," not "terse."
You had said a lot of stuff and concluded with:
So, I think it ought not to be controversial to see that the cross is central to God's revealed message to man and that it ought to be central to the lives of those He has saved.
Okay. I agree. The Cross (Jesus' death and resurrection) IS central and I don't find it especially controversial.
I just don't feel a need or find a reason to say that it is MORE central than any of his other reasons he gave for why he came.
That was neither a yes or a no. You "don't think" you need to categorize, but "if" you did, that teaching would be "amongst" the greatest, and "one can't easily dismiss" the teaching.
If you can answer the question either in a clear affirmative or a clear negative, I would have preferred that.
Fair enough. I think that the Bible and Jesus indicate that the greatest Thing is Love. Jesus' greatest teachings is to teach us that God loves us, we should love God and each other.
As has been noted, though, that is a slightly different question than "What was Jesus' primary reason he came to earth?"
The short answer to THAT question, in its most prime form would also be Love - "because God so loved the world..."
But, as noted already, I don't think that necessarily means any of the other reasons offered in the Bible are "less Central."
(With that, I might not be able to comment again until Monday or Tuesday. Thank you again, Dan, for your substantive answers to my questions, and thank you for starting this new thread. Have a good weekend.)
Fair enough, I reckon (although it's still not a winning answer as to why I should accept your interpretation over my own).
Let me see if I can get to what might be the heart of this apparent difference by first asking for an answer to a previous question: What does the salvation story need to look like to you?
I suspect (because it was how I was taught and I'm quite familiar with it) some would like to see me say that we need...
"to get saved by trusting in Jesus, who died as a sacrifice in our place. This is because God demands a blood sacrifice and apart from a blood sacrifice, no one can be saved. In the past, they offered animal sacrifices for sin which was a partial solution. But because Jesus was a Perfect Man, wholly without sin, HIS death on the cross was able to Pay off the blood debt that God demands, not just one time for one person, but for all times and all people. All one has to do is accept that gift of heaven BY Jesus' death in their place, ask forgiveness for their sins and make Jesus Lord of their life and they can be saved."
Is THAT what is missing from my testimony that you would like to see?
That still raises the question of why the cross is so notably absent from your blog...
So is it okay? I personally find it troubling.
I looked over at Marshall Art's blog since he began sometime last year. As far as I can tell, there are no references to Jesus' death on the cross in any of his postings. Very few mentions of Jesus at all.
Mark, over at Pearls before Swine, mentioned the Easter story on Easter this year and last. Beyond that, there are no mentions of the Easter Story, the cross or resurrection. Very few mentions of Jesus at all.
Eric, over at his place that he began in the middle of last year, has a quote from Reverend Jeremiah Wright where HE references the cross of Jesus. And he has the post where he's responding to this series of posts at my blog, wherein he talks about the cross. He has a reference to the Resurrection in another context (ie, he's not talking about the Resurrection). Then he does have a few other references to the Resurrection, mostly in one particular post.
Eric talks about Jesus more than Mark or Marshall.
Now, that's based on a quick search, so it is possible I'm mistaken, although I don't think so.
For my part, I talk about Jesus fairly frequently but, like Mark, have tended to only mention the Easter story at Easter.
I'm wondering, are all those Christians out there who haven't mentioned the Easter story directly (or only barely mentioned it) in the wrong? Do you find that troubling?
Are bubba and mom2 wrong for not starting a blog so that they CAN mention the Easter story?
(and Bubba, if you don't get back til next week, that's fine. Have yerself a Merry Little weekend.)
Bubba: "For instance, "judgment, guilt, and shame" can become overemphasized if the cross is seen just (or primarily) as an indication of how much God hates sin rather than also as an indication, in equal measure, of how much God loves the sinner."
I've seen this happen Bubba. When it does one becomes judgemental and instead of drawing people to Christ they draw them away. I'm glad you see the point I was trying to make. It also stunts growth and we become bloated babies full of pap.
Bubba: "And it could be said that too much of a focus on the cross could lead to our ignoring our duties to our fellow man, but that can be corrected by remembering that on the cross Christ died, not just for you, but for your neighbor as well."
I agree.
Bubba: "It's not that a focus on the cross needs to be dialed down, it's that the cross needs to properly understood."
I don't have a problem with that. And I wasn't saying that it needed to be "dialed down". Just that we are not going to find Christ there anymore and it is now time to live and follow. So I really don't think you and I are in much of a disagreement.
I am like Dan, however, in that I don't make distinctions. To me it is the sum total of who Christ is from his birth to his indwelling in us. I'ts impossible for me to separate any of it and make one more important than the other.
While I'm waiting some response, let me proceed with some assumptions...
If I may assume that my suggested answer to my previous question (ie, we need to "get saved by trusting in Jesus, who died as a sacrifice in our place. This is because God demands a blood sacrifice..." etc); IF I may assume that is the answer they're looking for and are displeased that they don't find it here, then I have some follow up questions.
How many times in the Bible do we see people being "won for Christ" in that manner in the Bible? How many times did Jesus tell people in order to be saved, they need to believe in his sacrificial offering he would be making for their souls? How many examples are their in the Book of Acts where that is the model?
Here is a brief reminder of what I'd call the "salvation stories" of some people in the Bible and how they were saved:
Peter, James:
As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen.
He said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men."
At once they left their nets and followed him.
James, John:
He walked along from there and saw two other brothers, James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. He called them, and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.
For the apostle Philip, it's the same scenario, Jesus said "Follow me," and he did.
Philip, in turn, went to tell Nathanael...
"We have found the one about whom Moses wrote in the law, and also the prophets, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth."
But Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."
And he did.
The man blind from birth:
Jesus had healed his blindness, the man gets in trouble for it from the pharisees - getting banished from his community and then...
When Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, he found him and said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
[The healed man] answered and said, "Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
Jesus said to him, "You have seen him and the one speaking with you is he."
He said, "I do believe, Lord," and he worshiped him.
Paul:
On his journey... a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"
He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do."
For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank...
So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."
Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus, and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
The Ethiopian Eunuch
Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, "I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?"
Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.
As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?"
I've been thinking and looking, and haven't come across any examples in the Bible where the model is used that I believe Bubba and Eric are looking for.
I wonder, was Jesus wrong for reducing the salvation story down to, "Follow me"?
Was Paul saved because he was chastised, struck blind, then healed?
Was Phillip wrong to "proclaim Jesus" to the Eunuch and then baptize him? Or is it suspected that, as Phillip proclaimed Jesus, he was telling him that Jesus died to pay the blood price God demanded? (This would come closest to possibly fitting that model).
Of course, not having even one example doesn't necessarily make (what I believe to be) their suggested way wrong, it just means we have OTHER examples given in the Bible.
I'd forgotten we have already done this once before.
Well, maybe it's going a little better this time?
It's deja vu all over again! :)
Your quote of the Ethiopian eunuch is incomplete, Dan.
Acts 8:36-38
"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."
Believe what?
Eunuch: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Consider also what the eunuch was reading... Isaiah 53... the suffering of Christ upon the cross. But the Ethiopian said, "I believe that Jesus... is the Son of God." NOT that the cross was paramount. And though we can only speculate as what exactly Philip told/instructed/preached to the Ethiopian, it's not at all unlikely that Philip told the man WHO Jesus was and WHY he died, as described in the scriptures of Isaiah 53.
Interestingly, though not at all surprising to me, the NIV omits Philip's condition of baptism, and the Ethiopian's response... "If thou believest | I believe..."
As for Saul's conversion, it's awfully hard to deny the truth of one's eyes... Jesus stood right before him! It must have been a significant experience for a pharisee to change his mind about who Jesus was. When you see a man you KNOW died on a Roman cross... when you had spent however many months or years since believing that, perhaps, someone had taken the body... only to see the Man standing right in front of Him... PAUL became a believer real quick. Had he brushed off the experience as the product of heat and weariness he would have remained blind the rest of his life. His blindness, the scales on his eyes, is a picture of the unrepentant heart... the heart before belief.
Note also, that Paul didn't get his education in HOW to live as Christ taught until AFTER he was saved....
It would help, Eric, if you could let me know if my presumption was right (you want me to talk about how we need to "get saved by trusting in Jesus, who died as a sacrifice in our place," etc), that the lack of my saying that is part of your problem with my posts?
And what of the fact that Mark and Marshall talk about Jesus and the Resurrection even less than I do? Is that an indicator of troubles with their Christianity or problems with their blog?
Thanks for a lot of open and honest commentary and expurging, Eric. A few notes, if I may...
My problem with your posts is two-fold: the ideological template that shapes them...
This is where I ask that we try not to presume to know the Other enough to assume we know their motives. For what it's worth, my positions are shaped primarily by my Bible studies and logic. NOT by an ideological template.
I'm just not. As I have endlessly noted, I was quite the conservative for the first half of my life. I didn't read Marx, Lenin or Lennon, Huxley, Darwin or any atheists, leftists or commies AT ALL to arrive at my current positions. Back in the day, I DID NOT read hardly anything but the Bible, with a little Dr. Dobson, Leonard Ravenhill and CS Lewis thrown in. I didn't trust "liberal" media or books.
I was simply factually not shaped by ANY agenda other than the Bible and my prayerful understanding of it.
Please do not make these assumptions. We're doing pretty well here about behaving ourselves, let's all strive to keep it up, thanks.
...and the contentious nature of your debate, specifically at my place.
I apologize if I come off contentiously, it is not my intent, but rather, as you have noted, to offer what I think is a correction when I see what I think is a major mistake.
For what it's worth, I've about decided it's better for all of us if I avoid your site and Mark's, and have been striving to do so this last week or so (and only went back recently when you answered a question from here over there).
Having come from where I am ideologically-- by your own admission --I am troubled, deeply troubled, by many of the conclusions you draw from scripture.
Now, see, I have a inkling that this might be significant. I have a hunch that it is exactly because I make claim to having arrived to my current positions by starting from a conservative/traditional viewpoint and then studying the Bible prayerfully that disturbs/unsettles some of my brothers and sisters on the Right.
I have a feeling (just a guess, but it helps explain things) that this is why Neil, Timothy, you and others almost (or plain out and out) don't trust me, some of you all have told me outright that either I'm lying or that I'm fooling myself. And I think it's because it's hard for some to think that I started from the same place they are and arrived at what feels like such a TOTALLY different and opposite place (in their minds).
Is that part of it?
It troubles me that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world and you don't put much store in it; at least, not any more than you do the teaching of Christ.
I'm sorry it troubles you, but please don't misstate my position. I'll thank you greatly to try to avoid that.
It's NOT that I don't put much store in the resurrection. I've never stated anything of the sort. It's that I don't find biblical reasons to think I need to prioritize Jesus' teachings and reasons he gave for coming. There is a big difference.
As to Marshall and Mark, their blogs never claimed to be about anything but what's happening in the news.
I've never claimed to be anything but offering my thoughts for what they're worth. I post mainly as an exercise for myself in writing and thinking.
If anyone else wants to read and/or engage in conversation, that's fine. But I've never stated that this is a religious or theological blog, just a catch-all brain flush sorta blog.
But do you understand how it seems a bit disingenuous that my blog is singled out as troubled because I only mention the Resurrection once or twice a year while other blogs we both visit mention about the same or less than I do, and yet you don't get on their case about shirking on talking about the Resurrection?
Do you see how that might strike some as inconsistent?
Eric, you pointed out a part of the passage from Acts about Phillip...
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I just want to clarify, you and I both believe that merely believing that Jesus is the son of God isn't what saves us, right? One can believe Jesus is the Son of God and still reject Jesus' salvation, right?
So, wouldn't this be another example of someone's salvation story being told without mentioning the atonement of the cross?
True, believing does not save us, but neither can we be saved without believing.
The eunuch was reading Isaiah 53, Dan. It's pretty hard to separate the cross; i.e., the blood atonement, and substitutionary death, from Isaiah 53. I'm sure it can be done, but it would be done disingenuously. Besides which, the passage in Acts gives no reason to believe Philip didn't speak on the blood atonement, and the substitutionary death.
Consider also: WHY was an Ethiopian reading scripture, and why had he come to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast day? Probably because he was a Jew. Why wouldn't Philip connect the dots for a fellow Jew... whatever his skin color? Consider God in this as well! God sent Philip to talk to the Ethiopian. God knew the heart of the Ethiopian, and sent him a teacher.
Skimming through this post, I think there is a lot of common ground, and I do agree that God's love for us is probably the most important teaching. And I do know this, the best way God showed his love is through the cross.
John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
So I would say that God's primary expression of love toward us is through the cross.
Someone said we focus too much on the cross, and I do agree that the resurrection and the cross probably hold equal importance. Personally I don't like the crucifixes that have Jesus on them, because he is not on there anymore. I think it would be neat to have necklaces with a boulder, but I don't think the intent would be clear.
It's pretty hard to separate the cross; i.e., the blood atonement, and substitutionary death, from Isaiah 53. I'm sure it can be done, but it would be done disingenuously.
Can we just say that YOU don't see how Isaiah 53 can be separated from the cross without making presumptions on how or why others might not reach the same conclusion as you do?
Jesus certainly came and suffered in many ways. He WAS despised and we did NOT esteem him. He did bear our griefs and carry our sorrows.
We don't have any special reason to tie this Ethiopian eunuch's salvation to the atonement theory of why Jesus came.
But let's assume that it is, indeed, possible that this salvation may have been linked to the atonement explanation that you'd like me to present more often here.
Let's say that's one instance in the Bible of an actual "winning of a soul" was connected to your prefered model. Does that make the other examples that to my memory, occur most often - "Come, follow me," less valid?
If, on my blog, I am inviting folk to "Come, follow Jesus," as Jesus tended to ask, am I wrong for doing so? Why should I stick to this one model that some evangelicals prefer?
You know that the ONLY time that Jesus was asked directly "what must I do to be saved?," his answer had nothing to do directly with the atonement?
He told him, "sell your stuff, give it to the poor and come, follow me."
If that model is good enough for Jesus, where's the problem?
I agree, Chance, that there is much more common ground than departures. Thanks.
As to Matthew 19:21, what exactly does following Jesus entail?
As to Mark 17:21, what exactly does "take up the cross, and follow me." entail. Take up the cross? Jesus said this BEFORE He took up His own.
As to Luke 25:28, what exactly does "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself," imply?
As to Luke 18:22, what does "come, follow me" imply and entail.
You have demonstrated a penchant for looking only on the surface. Nothing wrong with looking at the surface, but if that's all you look at, you're missing out.
If everyone one of the above incidences of men asking Christ "what must I do" spoke only of following me, I might be inclined to believe that all He meant was to be like Jesus was; loving, teaching, feeding and healing the masses. But Mark 17:21 says "take up the cross." The Apostles all followed Christ, and they followed Him in death... they took up the cross, all but John who alone of the 12 died of old age.
Jesus makes clear, that to follow Him is to become an enemy of the world; to be despised and persecuted. If the world is our friend, then we are doing something very wrong.
We are to be loving. But we are not to compromise the Gospel. The world hates the Gospel.
Then we are agreed? It is okay to say, "Come, follow Jesus"? That is an acceptable form of sharing the good news?
Not unless you add, "take up the cross"....
You can't do one without the other.
Just because three such scenes do not reference "take up the cross" does not mean the three that do not bear more weight than the one that does?
You can't discard one verse simply because others do not mention a specific phrase. There is no doctrinal balance by which we are to determine what does and does not have more validity. We are to follow Christ, in ALL respects; to include taking up the cross.
Because there is no doctrinal balance by which we are to determine what does and does not have more validity, I do not argue that the teachings of Christ carry less validity. But I DO argue that the Cross was Jesus' primary mission on earth... the teachings of Christ are equally important, but secondary as to purpose. The teachings of Christ are pointless without the cross, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that followed. For without the Holy Spirit, NO ONE can follow the teachings of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that empowers us to live the life that Christ instructed us to live.
And even WITH the Holy Spirit, we still fail. Which is why we need the Cross.
Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.
Without the shed blood of Jesus Christ we cannot follow him.
Without the shed blood of Christ we are lost, albeit nonetheless instructed to do and live what cannot be lived WITHOUT the cross, and the shed blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God; who is God incarnate.
So yes, "come follow me" will suffice... so long as "take up the cross" is included.
So, are you saying that anytime somebody out there is preaching, teaching, singing about Jesus, if they invite folk to "Come, Follow Jesus" but don't say, "Pick up your cross," the invitation's no good?
Why the specificity?
I mean, I'm sure you don't mean one has to physically utter the words, "Pick up your cross" in order to satisfy you, right? How many variations are acceptable?
Is "Come, follow Jesus, wherever that may lead" acceptable? Or does it must need include SOME reference to dying, resurrection and/or blood atonement?
And again, I'd have to get back to, what possible biblical mandate do you have for this?
Or, put another way, why wasn't Jesus wrong when he expressed it this way (ie, simply, "Come, follow me")?
Treating the command to follow Christ as the simplest, least complicated form of the good news isn't just an oversimplification. It is, in no small degree, a perversion of the good news.
wow. I would disagree.
You noted some examples from Acts of sermons, some of which used the atonement model of describing Jesus. Acts 2, for instance, did just this.
Acts 3, on the other hand, never referred to atonement-style model, although it did refer to Jesus' death.
Its central message I'd suggest comes here:
"And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all."
And here:
"Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord..."
Similarly, Acts 10, 13 and 17 mention the death and resurrection, but do not specifically talk about it in atoning terms.
But okay, so these passages all mention the resurrection. I don't disagree. None of them say that talking about Jesus' role exclusively in terms of atonement (which your passages don't do) is vital or NOT using atonement language is wrong.
And so I return to my question: Why? If there's not a place or places in the bible that tells us that the atonement is the Primary reason Jesus came and failing to talk about it in those terms is wrong, why should I accept your take on the question and abandon what I think the Bible says?
Accept it or don't accept it, Dan. You'll do what suits you whatever I or Bubba would like. But the preponderance of evidence points to the atonement... the BLOOD atonement. For the Church owes it's very existence to the blood atonement.
Specifically:
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
--Acts 20:28
In context and a broader view of what's at stake:
"Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."
--Acts 20:26-30
Ezekiel was warned of God to warn the wicked or be guilty of their blood.
The warning in verses 26 to 30 speak of ALL the counsel of God.. ALL. Which, in context, includes God's purchase of the Church with HIS OWN BLOOD.
Ergo: Blood Atonement.
Accept it nor not Dan. But in closing, and my final word on this discussion, refusing to accept what is blatantly plain only shows people who CAN see the truth in this that you appear to be counted among the flock who was spared not the depredations of heretics, and drawn away by perversions.
I know that sounds harsh. I know that sounds evil and mean spirited, but in my spirit I am neither attacking you, nor taking pleasure in the harsh language I must at present use. Nor am I attacking the works that Jeff Street does to alleviate the suffering of those less fortunate. These are good works... good Christian works. But they mean nothing if the very people you seek to help are not presented with ALL the counsel of God, to include the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without the Blood Atonement everyone Jeff Street or Beth Haven Community Church feeds and clothes will die in their sins and spend eternity in hell. "Come, follow me" is fine, as long as it includes the means by which Grace is made free to any and all who seek it.... the Blood Atonement.
I am genuinely worried for you. Not that you don't believe everything I do, but because you appear to place so little emphasis on the shed blood of Christ, in that without it NO ONE is saved, therefore making the Cross central to the entire purpose of Jesus, which includes the teachings you so adore-- And I don't say that mockingly. The teachings of Christ are wonderful, but ultimately pointless without the Blood Atonement.
Peace be with you all. Especially you, Dan.
I'm finished with this one.
Wow.
And so, dear friends we come to the end of another episode of Right Wing Demagoguery Today. Join us next time when the topic will be some other issue on which we must either agree with them or we shall surely burn. Tune in, won't you? Same time, same channel. LOL
No, my position is that the Bible says what it says, that Jesus teaches what he teaches and it's all good.
Your position seems to be that, in theory, the cross is at best equally as important as everything else Jesus did and taught. In practice, Jesus' death and resurrection keep getting left on the cutting-room floor for you
I simply don't minimize the cross. I have a post above about King and his death, I've had posts about others who die for the cause of Christ (Romero, for instance), I reference Jesus' life and that it led to his death at times, these are ALL references to how following Jesus is a matter of taking up the cross and that it may well lead to the cross, as it did for King, as it did for Romero, as it did for Jesus.
My only point is and has been that all of what Jesus talked about and taught is good and that the Bible does not have a place where it talks about one part of that being "More central" than the other. It is all of one cloth.
Jesus came teaching what he taught. He taught us how to live, he lived, showing us an example of how to live, because of how he lived, he ended up being killed by the powers that be that found his message threatening to the status quo.
It is all one. I am not disagreeing with y'all, you are disagreeing with me in a way for which I find no biblical support. You and Eric have explained your position (that part of Jesus' message and life is "more central" than others) and why you think the Bible hints at this and that's fine. You haven't convinced me.
I hope that's fine with you, but if not, so be it.
Where in the Bible does it explicitly say that that's what He did? Where does it say that "Follow me" is an instance of the message of salvation?
That's how it seems to me. Jesus met Peter et al and invited them to follow him. It is in following Jesus that we make our life as followers of Jesus. You don't think that's an example of a salvation story? That's fine, don't.
I'm not saying that this is the one and one and only way of interpreting it (and those who don't interpret it thusly are wrong and possibly lost or in danger of leading others astray), I'm saying it's how I interpret it.
And that seems to me to be the difference tween you and me.
"No, your simplest version of the Gospel ignores grace entirely and focuses on God's law and man's works: "Follow me.""
Wow. I see grace on every page of this blog. Strange how two people can read the same words and understand them so differently.
Dan, you seem to concede that there isn't a passage that explicitly requires your interpretation, so I do think it's clear that you demand a much higher standard for ELAshley and me than you do for yourself.
You seem to believe that all of what Jesus taught is good, important, and indispensible...
My only point is and has been that all of what Jesus talked about and taught is good and that the Bible does not have a place where it talks about one part of that being "More central" than the other. It is all of one cloth.
...and yet you think that a single command of His -- "Follow me" -- is a sufficient summary of the good news. This seems inconsistent.
It seems to me that the position that all of His teachings are equally important would preclude such an emphasis on one command: that position would instead require the good news to be nothing less than the sharing of all four Gospels and the words of Christ that the Epistles occasionally record -- and perhaps more. If literally everything Jesus said is equally important, then the things Jesus taught and did that weren't recorded are as important as what was recorded, and we have a cripplingly incomplete picture of who Jesus is and what He taught.
Your invoking "Follow me" as the simplest possible expression of the Gospel belies the position that it's all equally important.
And, in the end, you DO CLEARLY MINIMIZE the cross of Christ by comparing it to the crosses that others have carried.
(Note that Jesus said to pick up your cross, not His.)
I simply don't minimize the cross. I have a post above about King and his death, I've had posts about others who die for the cause of Christ (Romero, for instance), I reference Jesus' life and that it led to his death at times, these are ALL references to how following Jesus is a matter of taking up the cross and that it may well lead to the cross, as it did for King, as it did for Romero, as it did for Jesus.
Here, Jesus is just one of many martyrs, maybe a uniquely inspirational martry, but there's nothing about His being our Savior. The cross inspires, in this view, but it doesn't justify.
Jesus came teaching what he taught. He taught us how to live, he lived, showing us an example of how to live, because of how he lived, he ended up being killed by the powers that be that found his message threatening to the status quo.
There is nothing here about Jesus' claim that no one takes His life from Him, that He sets it down of His own accord. Nothing here about His claim that He lays down His life for His sheep. Nothing here about His institution of the Lord's Supper, in which His body and blood institute a new covenant in which sins are forgiven.
(And you dare say that you think everything Jesus taught is important.)
Do you believe that Jesus' death and resurrection provided us with the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life? If you do, why do these things NEVER seem to come up?
Even now, when you write about the cross, you do so only as if Jesus was martyred by the religious and political leadership -- like Martin Luther King -- and not that He died for our sins, like no one else in history.
For what it's worth, Marty, I was only referring to the idea that Jesus' command of "Follow me" when I mentioned a lack of grace.
I stand by that. The good news is what God has done for us, not what He expects from us. The command to follow Jesus doesn't presume God's grace, His forgiveness of sin and gift of eternal life.
His call didn't save Judas, and it didn't transform Peter. It was an encounter with the risen Christ and the forgiveness He offers that turned Peter from a coward into the pillar of faith that we find in Acts.
"Do you believe that Jesus' death and resurrection provided us with the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life? "
Wow. Just ... wow.
Good lord, why don't these people go get their own blogs?!?! ROFL
I do have a blog, Alan.
Excellent. And I hope you're following your own advice over there. Doesn't look like it to me. I just did a word search on the first page and didn't find the word "cross" mentioned once. tsk, tsk, tsk. ;)
Bubba, you better get right on that! :)
Alan, I did two searches...one "Blood Atonement"...nada...nothing.
Second: "Savior Jesus Christ"...4 posts.
What was that Jesus said about a log or a mote?
Ahem.
Alan, as I wrote to Dan earlier, "my concern isn't just the fact that [he seems] to admit that [his] blog rarely even mentions the Crucifixion. My concern stems from several things."
After mentioning the odd fact that praise for nature doesn't seem precluded by his blog's format, I added, "the concern is not just about what [Dan happens] to blog about."
I listed other factors:
- When Dan contributed his thoughts about what makes a good church, Jesus' ethical teachings were mentioned more than once, His death and resurrection not at all.
- When Dan was asked for the essential message of the Gospel, "Jesus' Way" and a wholesome community were mentioned, but not the cross or the forgiveness of sin or the gift of eternal life.
- Then, Dan offered what he thinks is perhaps the most simplified version of the good news being communicated: Jesus' command of "Follow me", which makes no mention of His death and resurrection and the forgiveness and eternal life that they provide.
I can now add more to that list. To the degree that Dan does write about the cross, he seems to emphasize the cross only as an example of martyrdom rather than the means of salvation. He even attributes the cross to the schemings of the leadership of the status quo, rather than the deliberate plan of a loving God.
The issue is about much more than how many hits a word search generates against a person's blog; for what it's worth, it's you and Dan who keep harping on that "bean-counting."
It's about the substantive, substantial disagreement behind all these indications that Dan's beliefs, particularly about who Jesus is and what He did, may be seriously deficient compared to small-o orthodoxy.
He seems to recognize that there is a significant disagreement between us...
Treating the command to follow Christ as the simplest, least complicated form of the good news isn't just an oversimplification. It is, in no small degree, a perversion of the good news.
"wow. I would disagree."
...so you're just digressing, Alan.
I'm not sure whether it's deliberate, but to some degree I don't really care. I just wish that your contributions to this discussion would be more substantive.
"I just wish that your contributions to this discussion would be more substantive."
Already did that. I gave my point of view several times. I can only repeat myself so many times before even I get sick of reading it. LOL
"it's you and Dan who keep harping on that "bean-counting.""
Actually, if you do a word search, you'll notice I only mentioned the phrase "bean-counting" once. That doesn't seem like "harping" to me. ;)
If you have nothing more of substance to add, I for one would prefer that you not try to derail what I think is a fairly serious discussion.
It's rude.
I asked a couple questions, and despite Alan's digression, they were serious questions to which I would appreciate an answer.
Dan:
Do you believe that Jesus' death and resurrection provided us with the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life? If you do, why do these things NEVER seem to come up?
I ask the first question, not to disparage your beliefs, but to make sure I clearly understand them. In an attempt to meet your earlier request, I'm making no assumption that the answer would be yes, particularly when it's not clear what you've written could justify that assumption.
The second question is, to me, a logical consequence of the first. I'm not simply asking why it doesn't come up in the day-to-day context of this blog and its (still less-than-clear) format. I'm asking why it didn't come up in your answer to what makes a good church, in your answer to what's essential to the Gospel, and in your formulation of the simplest version of the Gospel message. I'm asking why you frame the cross of Christ as an instance of martyrdom but to fail to mention it as the means of salvation, and why you attribute the cause of Jesus' death to the conspiracy of the first-century powers-that-be and not the plan and providence of a loving God.
If you didn't believe that the cross of Christ purchased our forgiveness, I'm honestly not sure how any of these things that you've written would be the slightest bit different.
That would make both of you, at worst, liars... or simply mistaken, because I just did a word search on my blog for "cross" and found several posts that make more than passing mention of the cross. Far more than does Dan's blog.
"I for one would prefer that you not try to derail what I think is a fairly serious discussion."
And when you get your own blog you get to call the shots. :)
As it is, I'm happy to respond when one of you has something substantive to say. You present no evidence either historical or Biblical for your point of view. (You present "evidence", but it does not support your claims.) And in the mean time, after all this, you ask ridiculous questions like, "Do you believe that Jesus' death and resurrection provided us with the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life?"
Oh if you don't like my comments Bubba, there's nothing that says you have to respond to them.
ELAshley wrote, "That would make both of you, at worst, liars... or simply mistaken, because I just did a word search on my blog for "cross"
If you had actually read what I wrote, "I just did a word search on the first page " By first page, I meant the page I'm directed to when I click on your blogger profile. The first post at the top is something about Alan Keyes, the last post is titled "speaking of fakers". On THAT page there is nothing about the "cross", at least according to Safari's word search feature.
Which of those words was too big for ya there, buddy? LOL "FIRST PAGE", perhaps? Before you go calling people liars perhaps you should make sure that you have actually read what they wrote. ;) So perhaps your statement was at best mistaken or at worst moronic. ;)
Winking smiley or no, someone who questions ELAshley's literacy should learn the difference between "calling the shots" and expressing one's wish that a person's admittedly insubstantial comments not be made during an otherwise serious discussion. :)
Alan, if you would like to argue that my evidence doesn't support my claims, rather than merely claim that it does, I would find that argument quite interesting. If not, I will duly note that you and I both apparently agree that your comments are best ignored.
"someone who questions ELAshley's literacy should learn the difference between "calling the shots" and expressing one's wish that a person's admittedly insubstantial comments not be made during an otherwise serious discussion. :)"
And I'll duly note that you apparently have no problem with him calling me a liar, even though the evidence is clear that he is wrong. Or can you admit that I was right?
Once again, you folks started the ad hominem attacks, and now you've got your knickers in a twist about where the discussion is going.
My point was simple: If we agree with everything you say about Christ's mission on Earth, except for your notion that part of that mission is always more important than every other part (and state so often enough on our blogs), then we "appear to be counted among the flock who was spared not the depredations of heretics, and drawn away by perversions."
Feh. In other words, agree with your interpretation or we're heretics.
"Alan, if you would like to argue that my evidence doesn't support my claims, rather than merely claim that it does"
Already did. See my comments above and in the previous thread. None of which did you refute.
Just for clarity...
ELAshley, I went to your blog "Pearls and Lodestones". In the upper left-hand corner I typed "blood atonement", then clicked on search blog. Nothing came up. Then I typed in "savior jesus christ". Four posts came up.
Perhaps there is a better way to search your blog?
There is a blogger tool bar at the top of everyones blog that allows passersby to search the blog or the web. It should be noted however that any search you perform will not search comments. I've been known to use it on occasion. So Alan, if literacy has any merit in your eyes you might have thought to search the entire blog rather than the top page. I went there, & it looks like ELAshley posts frequently, why would anything stay onthe top page for very long? & did you notice the date of the Alan Keys post?
I don't have a stake in this argument one way or the other. I'm not a Christian. But what is the point of the bible if not the whole passion thing and easter morning? none, seems to me.
Sorry for butting in, I just got tired of some of the accusations that get thown around here, & not just this post alone. Thanks. I'll go back to lurking now.
J. Harris P.
Alan, I said "at worst, liars... but now that you mention it, you DID say, "the top page," so at the very least you were merely sloppy and/or lazy.
Apologies, I could have handled that better.
I've had about enough, as fun as all this is.
I'll try to address a few remaining questions, comments, though.
It was stated:
And, in the end, you DO CLEARLY MINIMIZE the cross of Christ by comparing it to the crosses that others have carried.
(Note that Jesus said to pick up your cross, not His.)
Do you suspect that when Reverend King and Archbishop Romero laid down their lives for peace and justice, for their people and their savior, do you think they were doing it for kicks and NOT as part of following Christ?
Do you think that what they did was NOT following Christ??
Shame on you, if so. Damn.
When I talk about these kinds of lives, those kinds of actions, I AM talking about taking up the cross and following Jesus. What else would I possibly be talking about? Some political cause? Some regional fighting?
No, I'm talking about, "Greater love hath no one than to lay down their life for a friend." I'm talking about "For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps."
I am talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all God's glory and grace.
I'd hope that all Christians would recognize that as such.
I hate to see ELAshley go, but I certainly understand his decision and share his frustration. At some point, there will be nothing more for me to say as well.
Hmmm, you find it frustrating when you go to someone else's where they agree with you 95% of the way on a particular topic, then berate them for not agreeing with you that final 5% (even though you can offer no Bible verses to support your position, only verses that YOU THINK support your position IF WE INTERPRET IT THE WAY YOU DO), and after the denigration of their position and the failure to provide a biblical argument that this other person can agree with and they insist on prayerfully keeping the Bible as they understand it, you find all that frustrating?
Well, let me apologize for finding your position not biblical. Does that help?
You seem to believe that all of what Jesus taught is good, important, and indispensible...
...and yet you think that a single command of His -- "Follow me" -- is a sufficient summary of the good news. This seems inconsistent.
Well, I said that I believe ALL the teachings and claims of Jesus as they are presented. I did not say that it is a summary of the Good News. I said that's how Jesus invited people to follow him.
I have said that if you want me to tell you what I think the WHOLE of the teachings of Jesus is, I would point to the WHOLE of Jesus' teachings. I think they are all important and of one cloth.
I have said oftentimes that I think we are saved by God's Grace, through faith in Jesus. That is orthodox Christian teaching.
I have not said that "follow me" is a full and complete summary of the Gospel. You can tell because those words aren't in anything that I've written.
Finally, bubba has asked:
Do you believe that Jesus' death and resurrection provided us with the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life? If you do, why do these things NEVER seem to come up?
The atonement idea of Jesus' death is a biblical thought. There is biblical support for thinking in terms of atonement. I don't deny that.
In light of the people towards whom those passages are generally directed (Jewish folk - a people who are quite familiar with the notion of atonement, which is, after all, a much more prominently Old Testament teaching - that is, the word "atonement" appears 80 times in the Bible, exclusively in the OT), in light of that, it makes sense that atonement sorts of language was used to express the good news. "Atonement" meant something to the Jews.
On the other hand, when Paul talked to the Athenians in Acts (ie, Not Jews), he didn't use atonement language at all. He mentioned Jesus' being raised from the dead at the end of his sermon, but not in terms of atonement, but rather, more as an evidence of His Godly nature.
So, yes, the Bible uses atonement sorts of languages at times to describe Jesus death. I recognize that. The Bible also uses other imagery to describe Jesus' death and resurrection, such as as a manner of demonstrating God's deep love for us in sending one who is right here with us in all our suffering and joy, pain and laughter.
I recognize all the imagery and think it all has its place. Again, I find it all good.
Again, I don't find biblical support for suggesting that one imagery is the Only acceptable imagery.
J. Harris said:
I don't have a stake in this argument one way or the other. I'm not a Christian. But what is the point of the bible if not the whole passion thing and easter morning? none, seems to me.
Welcome to Payne Hollow J.
You are welcome to think that the whole of the Bible is for nothing if you wish. I think the whole of the Bible tells a grand story, made up of a series of stories. And the point of that story/those stories is love.
God loves us. We ought love one another. God loves us so thoroughly that God became one with us, joined in solidarity with us in our brokenness and fear, our weaknesses and our strengths. And we see a way to live in those stories.
A way that makes sense. That is whole and healthy and good.
That's why it makes sense to me, the whole thing, the creation, the failures of our ancestors and ourselves, the life of Jesus, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
But that's me.
"Apologies, I could have handled that better."
Well, a backhanded apology -- I'm not a liar, just lazy and sloppy -- is better than none at all, I guess. LOL
At least you got an apology Alan. He said "liars" so I assumed I was the other liar.
Oh well, I forgive you ELAshley.
Dan, I too have had about enough, but I would like a clearer answer to my question, since you ask that people's words be allowed to stand on their own.
I asked, Do you believe that Jesus' death and resurrection provided us with the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life?
There is nothing in your response that clearly states or even unambiguously implies an answer, either of "yes, I do" or "no, I don't."
You write that you "don't deny" that there is "biblical support for thinking in terms of atonement," but that doesn't imply that you engage in such thinking, much less that you think atonement is actually true.
You write that atonement "meant something to the Jews," but that doesn't imply that it means something to you.
You repeatedly invoke atonment as mere imagery, which strongly suggests that you don't affirm a belief that Jesus' death actually and literally did result in the forgiveness of sin. It's not an airtight and inexorable implication of what you wrote, but it is the simplest explanation for what you wrote: why else write that the atonement meant something for the Jews if not to leave unstated that it means nothing to you personally?
Your writing suggests, but does not unambiguously state, that we disagree strongly on whether the atonment is literally true. For as much as we do agree, this would be a serious disagreement, and it would beg all sorts of questions: Do you believe that sin really exists, do you believe that we are truly guilty of sin, and do you believe that we cannot address that guilt on our own and that we thus need God's salvation? And if you do agree that we really, truly need God to save us from sin, how in the world do you think that was accomplished if not by the death of Jesus Christ?
The chasm between those who believe that Christ's atonement for sin is real, and those who think it mere imagery, is -- in my opinion -- as great as the chasm between those who disagree on the historicity of Christ's physical, bodily resurrection. Any consensus on other areas would not minimize the seriousness of the disagreement on this point.
But your reply only strongly suggests a disagreement; it doesn't make that disagreement plain and clear.
This is a serious issue, and you've taken great pains both to request that people not jump to undue conclusions and to point out when you think undue conclusions have been drawn. This is why it's so frustrating that a clear answer has not yet been given, and why I'm taking the time to ask the question again, and to ask for a clear response.
I am not asking whether the atonement is the only thing that the cross accomplished: truth be told, I agree that it also demonstrates God's solidarity with mankind, but it is crucially important whether the actual forgiveness of sin is one of the things Christ's death accomplished.
Dan, I ask this again, in a slightly reworded fashion, with a focus on forgivness and not the combination of forgiveness and eternal life:
Yes or no: do you believe that a result of Jesus' death was the true, real, actual, and literal forgiveness of sin?
An oversight, Marty. Apologies to you as well.
Apology accepted.
You know what this seems like to many? It's like this:
I went to Eric's and Marshall's websites and did you know that they never once came out in opposition to genocide! Not once. The word was never even mentioned at Marshall's and only mentioned in passing ONCE at Eric's!!
Now, I'm sure that if I asked them about it, they'd give some passing agreement that, "Yes, I'm opposed to genocide," blah, blah, blah! But in the end, they DO CLEARLY MINIMIZE how wrong genocide is by not talking about it. One must almost suspect that they out and out support genocide.
======
THAT'S what this seems like.
Never mind that I happen to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, the son of God. Never mind that I'm orthodox in that I believe we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. Never mind that I agree with you that ALL of Jesus' teachings are important and not to be neglected. Never mind that I think that one way of looking at what happened at the cross was the forgiveness of sin by Jesus' sacrifice. Never mind that there is no biblical support for the position that the only TRUE way to perceive the resurrection is that Jesus' life was PRIMARILY about being a blood sacrifice for a God that demands a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us, and if you don't believe that to be the PRIMARY (far and away) most central teaching of Jesus, then you are suspect... Never mind all of that, if I can't get you to say the words that I want you to say, then you CLEARLY MINIMIZE the teachings of Jesus and his resurrection.
Bah, humbug on that! I'll not jump through any man's hoops to please them.
Thanks just the same.
How many licks does it take to get the to Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?
95
You have your answer Bubba... WE have our answer. It's about what I expected, but it's nice to finally have it out in the open. I actually never thought we'd drag it out of him since Dan... yes you Dan!... is the slipperiest debater I've ever encountered.
That's a compliment Dan, no allusions or puns intended, you are a Master of Debate, and I commend you.
Part of the issue/the problem, Eric, Bubba, and why it seems like I was giving a slippery answers to you, is the same problem in the larger community of our church, nation and world. We tend to frame things differently.
And so, from my point of view, I was not trying to be slippery, I was answering what to me was an oddly-asked question in a way that makes sense. Each time I answered, I was answering in a way that to my way of thinking was forthright and clear.
This last question:
"Yes or no: do you believe that a result of Jesus' death was the true, real, actual, and literal forgiveness of sin?"
Is not a clear question. To me. Yes, Maybe. Or no, perhaps. WHAT DO YOU MEAN by the question, is what I was trying to get at.
Jesus' life and death, one might say, have as a result, the forgiveness of our sins. In that Jesus' life and death were all a part of God reaching out to us in Love to offer us by Grace eternal life. It's all part of God's desire that none perish.
So, in that regards, the answer is Yes.
BUT, if you mean, do I think that the ATONEMENT model (which says that God demands a blood sacrifice in order to forgive sins) is the ONLY TRUE WAY of looking at what the Bible has to say about salvation, then the answer is NO, I don't think that to be true.
So I gave as clear an answer to the question as I could with what I knew. And, to me, it is an answer I have repeated over and over and over in this last week. I don't know how I can be more clear. IF you mean, did God, by Jesus' life and death and all that led up to it and by God's own design, DID GOD offer forgiveness of sin, Yes.
Just as you all give what, to me, seem like odd non-answers (or sometimes, just plain non-answers) when I ask questions that seem to me to be direct. IS IT ALWAYS WRONG, for instance, to target and kill civilians? I have had the hardest time getting yes or no answers to that question from y'all.
"Do you understand that this is like - to us - me going to Eric's blog and making the claim that he seems to advocate genocide, based on his not standing against genocide sufficiently frequently?" No answer.
"Do you understand that THAT is NOT what I said? And I didn't say it because I don't think it?" No answer.
I try to answer the best I can but sometimes, it depends on what you MEAN by your question.
Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.
Well, Dan, my friend, looks like you've slidden down that slippery slope straight to the fire and brimstone.
Dan:
"Do you understand that this is like - to us - me going to Eric's blog and making the claim that he seems to advocate genocide, based on his not standing against genocide sufficiently frequently?" No answer.
I don't believe you actually asked that question before.
"Do you understand that THAT is NOT what I said? And I didn't say it because I don't think it?" No answer.
I don't believe you have asked that question before, either.
In both instances, I stand to be corrected.
If my question was unclear, you should have asked for a clarification rather than (first) giving a clear answer of "no" and (now) giving an answer of "yes, maybe" or "no, perhaps."
I don't think my question was at all unclear: is the forgiveness of sin among the results of Jesus' death? That doesn't imply anything about the atonement as a detailed theory about the mechanism, about how His death provides forgiveness, only that His death provides forgiveness.
About the atonement, however, you keep denying that it's the "ONLY TRUE WAY" to look at the Crucifixion, but it seems like you don't just deny that it's exclusively true: you seem to deny that it's literally true in the first place.
Hence, your writing that the atonment "meant something" to the Jews, implying that it means nothing to you. Hence, your writing that it "made sense" in that ancient culture, implying that it doesn't make sense now.
Those statments do not suggest that you think the atonement is simply one of multiple true explanations of how the cross provides our salvation: they suggest that you deny that the explanation's true to begin with, that they were instead only useful to first-century Jews.
One major problem with this is your claim to take seriously all of Jesus' teachings. When He instituted the Lord's Supper, JESUS HIMSELF used atonement language, that His blood is the blood of a new covenant that was shed for the forgiveness of sin.
My yes-no question was not concerned with the atonement in particular, only the doctrine that Christ's death provided the forgiveness of sin, regardless of the mechanism. But your approach to the atonement as an explanation of that mechanism is nonetheless very troubling.
If I understand you correctly, Dan, you do believe that one result of Christ's death is the forgiveness of sin, but you do not believe that the atonement is the one true theory about the mechanism of how Christ's death resulted in the forgiveness of sin.
Okay. What are the other theories that the Bible suggests?
In appealing to the story of the rich man and Jesus, your point (incorrect as I believe it to be) was not to offer another theory about the mechanism for how Christ's death provided our forgiveness.
It was to offer another path to forgiveness altogether, our obedience rather than Christ's death.
It didn't seem like you pointed to another way to understand how Christ's death provides our salvation: you pointed to an altogether alternative path to salvation.
Yea! I'm the 100th commenter again. What do I get this time?
oops never mind. Bubba beat me to it. Shoot.
Too bad, Marty. You would have DOUBLED what you got last time! But keep playing.
Bubba said:
It was to offer another path to forgiveness altogether, our obedience rather than Christ's death.
Last time: I believe that there is ONE way to salvation: God's Grace. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
And bubba said:
In appealing to the story of the rich man and Jesus, your point (incorrect as I believe it to be) was not to offer another theory about the mechanism for how Christ's death provided our forgiveness.
MY POINT was that this is what Jesus literally said. "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
That was my point; to point to what Jesus said.
Believe what you will.
Okay, THIS is the last one, in an attempt to further clarify.
Bubba said:
Those statments do not suggest that you think the atonement is simply one of multiple true explanations of how the cross provides our salvation.
I don't think the cross provides salvation. I think God provides our salvation. By God's grace. We are saved by grace through faith. That's what I think the Bible teaches. As well as Baptists, Methodists, most evangelicals, anabaptists, etc.
That's clear as mud, Dan.
In that summary, you don't mention Jesus Christ's death: by doing so, are you suggesting that His death is not the means by which God saves us through His grace? Or is not necessarily the means by which God saves us?
Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ's death on the cross is the means by which salvation is provided, but that fact is just minutiae even though the Lord's Supper commemorates His death?
Or are you suggesting that His death had nothing to do with our salvation, even though it's clear (from Gethsemane) that it was God's will that the cross could not be avoided?
In all that you write, you leave the important thing unsaid.
"I think God provides our salvation. By God's grace. We are saved by grace through faith."
I agree, but this says nothing about how -- or even whether -- you think Christ's death fits into the equation.
This isn't the first time you've left the important thing unsaid. To pick just one example, you wrote that atonement "meant something to the Jews" but left unsaid whether it also means something to you. Since I was asking what you believe and not what the Jews believed, this omission is important.
I don't know how else to ask this, but I will try again:
What do you believe is the relationship, if any, between our salvation and the death of Jesus Christ?
On the story of the rich man and Jesus, you write:
MY POINT was that this is what Jesus literally said. "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
That was my point; to point to what Jesus said.
Jesus also literally said -- in the same passage, as recorded in all three synoptic gospels -- that only God is good. In answer to the question of who can be saved, Jesus asserted that what is impossible with mortals, is possible with God.
If your point is to highlight what Jesus said, one would think that everything He said in the context of that encounter (and in the Upper Room, and in the Garden) would be important.
You're taking Jesus' comment out of the context of His other comments -- even those in the immediate context -- to suggest that Jesus preached salvation by works when that context obliterates the suggestion.
You weren't just pointing out what He said, you were invoking it to make a point, and I believe the context proves your point was invalid.
It might be helpful to clarify that I believe God's grace alone saves, and that Christ's death alone saves.
How I reconcile these two beliefs is by noting that they answer two different questions.
Why does God save us? His grace, His unconditional love.
But how does God save us? The death of His Son Jesus Christ.
Grace is the reason God saves us, and Christ's death on the cross is the means of that salvation.
(Atonement answers a third question: why is Christ's death an effective means of salvation? If Christ's death is the means, the atonement is the mechanism: it explains why the means are effective.)
I can offer an analogy.
If you were in a serious bike accident and were bleeding internally, and your brother drives you to the hospital and saved your life, his love for you is why he saved you, but his actual driving you to the hospital is how he saved you.
So, we both agree that we are saved because God loves us: His grace saves us.
But what has God done in order to save us? All questions of the mechanism aside, I believe the Bible is clear that it's the death of His Son that saves us.
I would appreciate it if you made it clear whether you agree or disagree.
To be clear, I don't agree with this sentiment:
I think God, in all God's glory, can forgive us and offer us salvation any way God chooses.
That may be true in terms of God's omnipotence, but most certainly NOT in terms of God's perfect righteousness and holiness.
God is holy and just, so any means by which we are saved must be consistent with His holiness and justice. Rather than preferring one over the other, His mercy and His justice must be reconciled.
But even supposing that God could have chosen another way to provide for our forgiveness, the question isn't, what could He have done, but what has He done?
How did God provide forgiveness? How else but through Christ's death?
okay, since you seem so earnest in your questioning...
You can ask it a million times and my answer will remain: We are saved by God's Grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
WHY are we saved? Because God loves us.
HOW are we saved? By faith in Jesus (and by that, I don't mean merely believing that he was the son of God who died and rose again, but by believing in who Jesus was and what he taught us).
We are saved by God's Grace THRU faith in Jesus. Ask me a million times and in a million different ways and I expect my answer will remain boringly the same.
But how about you? How do you think we are saved - I mean the actual physical process?
Do you think that God magically sopped up all the perfect blood that Jesus shed in dying and God saved it and then, each time a sould "accepts Christ" God comes into the baptistry and sprinkles a minute drop of that magic blood on the person's head and thereby washes away the black sin in their lives with that red blood?
What's that? You don't think salvation is an actual physical process?
Do you suspect that, like me, when a person agrees that they need God and asks God for forgiveness and "makes Jesus the Lord of their Life" that God just forgives them and they are Right with God? "All their sins are warshed away, they've been redeemed?"
Just like that?
That's what I think. God loves us and wishes to save us by God's grace and will, when we accept/believe/trust/have faith in Jesus and His Way.
Dan, I also asked, what do you believe is the relationship, if any, between our salvation and the death of Jesus Christ?
Your answer suggests that your answer would be, there is no relationship between the two. Is that correct?
HOW are we saved? By faith in Jesus (and by that, I don't mean merely believing that he was the son of God who died and rose again, but by believing in who Jesus was and what he taught us).
Believing everything He taught us, Dan?
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
I'm not sure I appreciate the tone in which you ask about my beliefs and opinions regarding the atonement, and I find the tone quite shocking since you once expressed an opinion that would suggest something resembling respect for those who believe the atonement.
("I recognize all the imagery and think it all has its place. Again, I find it all good.")
Nevertheless, my theory is simply this: for God to be holy, sin cannot go unpunished, and the punishment is death and separation from God.
Jesus suffered the punishment of sin so I would not have to. He suffered the penalty of my unrighteousness so that I could enjoy the blessings of His righteousness.
What about you, Dan? How do you explain how believing in who Jesus is and what He taught results in the forgiveness of our sins? Do those sins go unpunished? If they are not punished, how can you say that God is just, or do you abandon that little doctrine? If they are punished, who's punished for those sins, and how?
It certainly seems like you think sin goes unpunished:
Do you suspect that, like me, when a person agrees that they need God and asks God for forgiveness and "makes Jesus the Lord of their Life" that God just forgives them and they are Right with God? "All their sins are warshed away, they've been redeemed?"
No, I don't believe that God "just" forgives us: He has borne the penalty of our sin for us. He makes us right with Himself without abandoning His perfect and holy justice.
My belief accounts for the gravity of sin and for God's righteous wrath against us for our decision to sin: He willingly drank the cup of His wrath for us, out of His love for us. I don't see how yours does.
And my belief accounts for the necessity of the cross, for why the cup could not pass over Christ despite His prayers in Gethsemane: it was the only way God could righteously declare the unrighteous righteous -- to use a paraphrase of the theology described particularly in Romans 3:21. I don't see how yours can.
My belief of how we are saved through Christ's death accounts for both God's righteousness and the necessity of the cross. So far as I can tell, your alternative does neither.
To be very clear, I do appreciate your continued attempts to explain what you believe, Dan. I am asking these questions sincerely because I do want to be absolutely sure I understand what your position is, even if I conclude (as I suspect I will) that I strongly disagree with you on some very serious points.
So, thanks.
"Do you suspect that, like me, when a person agrees that they need God and asks God for forgiveness and "makes Jesus the Lord of their Life" that God just forgives them and they are Right with God? "All their sins are warshed away, they've been redeemed?"
Just like that?"
Yep Dan. You hit the nail on the head. Just like that. Warshed clean away. It's just that simple.
Marty, that begs the question, why was the cross necessary? Why did Jesus institute the Lord's Supper with an emphasis on His death, His broken body and shed blood? Why did He pray so earnestly not to die -- surely Jesus wasn't a coward when martyrs have gladly accepted death for His sake -- and why did God refuse His request? And why did God forsake Jesus on the cross, as one of His final statements attests?
It begs other questions, which are just as important. Do your sins go unpunished? Is God so unconcerned about His justice that He just forgives sin without ever accounting for its penalty?
We should never wish for a deity so capricious as that. Were God ever to act unjustly, He would not be just. He would not be holy. He would not be God, certainly not worth worshipping.
We should praise God, not because He abandoned His own holiness and righteousness to forgive us, but because He found a way to forgive us while maintaining His holiness and righteousness, and that He went through the ordeal of the cross in order to offer us that righteous forgiveness.
Indeed, God's gift of forgiveness costs us nothing, but it cost Him everything: He set down His glory to become one of us, He set down His life to save us, He even suffered the penalty that we deserve so that we wouldn't have to.
Anything other than this -- the belief that God suffered the penalty of our sin so He could justly impute to us the blessings of His righteousness -- is grace on the cheap and unworthy of a just, holy, and almighty God.
Bubba, I learned a long time ago to keep it simple. Bless your heart. You're trying so hard, yet getting so bogged down with dotting i's and crossing t's.
Jesus told his disciples to keep it simple when he rebuked them for speaking sternly to the little children:
"Let the little children come to me; do not stop them, for it is to SUCH AS THESE that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever DOES NOT RECEIVE the kingdom of God AS A LITTLE CHILD will never enter it."
Faith like a little child. Not concerned with analogy or imagery, or metaphor, this interpretaion or that interpretation, atonement, propitiation, justification or sanctification, etc. etc....until you feel as if your brain will explode.
No. Instead, Jesus instructs us to be "such as these".
Keep it simple.
Marty, in general I'm actually a fan of simplification. What is simple is often elegant, and things can be simplified, but that can be taken too far. It's the difference between Walden and Into the Wild, between Thoreau's experience and that of Christopher McCandless. The latter tried to simplify so much that he didn't make adequate provisions for food, so he died within four months.
The question is, is seeing the crucifixion as the means of salvation an unnecessary complication?
I don't think it is, and I can say that because of what else Jesus taught.
For one thing, I'm not quite sure that passage you cite implies that we are to be simple-minded: meek, humble, innocent, and trusting, sure, but not necessarily simple-minded. After all, Jesus also taught us to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves." And Jesus taught us to love God with all our minds.
(I think C.S. Lewis was right when he wrote, "The proper motto is not 'Be good, sweet maid, and let who can be clever,' but 'Be good sweet maid, and don't forget that this involves being as clever as you can.' God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than any other slackers.")
But even so, even if I grant that Christianity is to be as simple as possible, I'm not sure the atonement is extraneous.
Jesus taught us to commemorate His death in the Lord's Supper and explained His own impending death in atonement terms.
"This is my blood of the covenant, poured out for the forgiveness of sins."
In an effort to keep it simple, Marty, do you disobey Christ's command to observe the Lord's Supper? "Do this in remembrance of me."
Or do you advocate ignoring what He Himself taught about the meaning of His death?
Bubba I take communion on the first Sunday of every month, but if I can arrive early from my responsibilities I can take it every Sunday as my wonderful church offers it. And I don't take it lightly. It is symbolic for me however.
Neither do I think having faith as a little child means we can't be wise.
I just don't see why you can't accept Dan's simple confession of faith. It is certainly what I was taught growing up in a Southern Baptist Church.
Computer's been down the last couple of days. Will comment when I get a chance.
Briefly: HOW do I think God forgives sin? By forgiving, sorta like we do. God, in God's grace, hears our confession and forgives. I don't think God has to have a blood offering to forgive sin.
"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice."
Also, how do I think sin gets punished? I think sin has natural consequences and those are punishment. You drink too much, you get sick. You eat too much, you get chubby. If you're a mean, nasty person, people avoid you and you spend time alone.
Sin is its own punishment. We can live right by God's grace and tend to be whole, or we can make bad choices and we suffer through those bad choices.
Wow. What arrogance. Could it be the result of being too wise in your own eyes Bubba?
I'm not sure that it's arrogance, just certain-ness that he's correct. And, thinking himself correct, he genuinely (I believe) wishes me well and that one day I would agree that he is correct 100%, instead of the merely 97% that I currently agree with him on this particular topic.
I'm willing to give Bubba the benefit of the doubt and write it off to sincere certainty in his interpretation of things and no genuine arrogance, which to me has a slightly more nasty tone.
Or, is that all the same thing?
Dan, you've provided *the* orthodox response to Bubba's question to wit: Grace alone, Faith alone, Christ alone, Scripture alone, to God alone be the glory! We are saved by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, as revealed in Scripture alone.
Also known as the 5 Solas, this is about as basic and traditional as it gets.
Thanks for providing the historical and orthodox understanding of salvation. Apparently some choose not to recognize it as such.
Christ alone saves, but the Bible is clear that it is through His death that He saves. It is not a denial of any of the Five Solas of Protestantism to acknowledge Scripture's clear explanation for how Christ saves.
"Or, is that all the same thing?"
Yes.
Bubba states "Christ alone saves, but....."
There is no "but" Bubba.
How does Christ save us, then, Marty? By His wounds we are healed: His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin. The Bible is perfectly clear about this.
"It is not a denial of any of the Five Solas of Protestantism to acknowledge Scripture's clear explanation for how Christ saves."
Perhaps I'm simply confused because of the language you're using. I would say you appear to be mixing up the concepts of justification and atonement and putting them all under the general label "saves."
Justification is by faith alone through Grace alone in Christ alone. We sinners receive this Grace because of imputed righteousness. That is, the sinless and perfect life of Christ is imputed to us as righteousness because of our faith, which is itself a gift of God's Grace. The "trade" (for lack of a better term) is that Christ somehow took upon himself our sin when he died on the cross.
So what's the "somehow" in the paragraph above? As for his death, there have been many theories of atonement including: the substitutionary theory, the ransom theory, the governmental theory, and the moral influence theory. All of these are very old understandings of atonement and how it works and are more or less popular in various faith traditions.
So it isn't only Christ's death that "saves" but his life as well.
That, I can agree with Alan: Christ accepted the penalty of our sin in His death, and we are imputed the righteousness of His life.
It does seem to me, however, that Dan doesn't think that Christ's death is in any way connected to the forgiveness of our sin, and -- strangely -- Marty apparently thinks it's arrogant to believe the Bible not only in its claims about who saves us (Christ alone) but how Christ saves us.
If I had any reason to believe that Dan's explanation for the mechanism by which we are saved approached yours, this conversation wouldn't need to be continued. Instead, he writes this:
Briefly: HOW do I think God forgives sin? By forgiving, sorta like we do. God, in God's grace, hears our confession and forgives. I don't think God has to have a blood offering to forgive sin.
How does God forgive? Dan apparently thinks that He just does which minimizes both the gravity of sin and the righteousness of God.
Am I missing something, Alan? Has Dan written something that I overlooked entirely? You seem to think that Dan has presented the epitome of Protestant orthodoxy, and I don't see it.
Alan you stated it so well. I agree.
Bubba, the arrogance I see in you has nothing to do what you believe, but rather in the fact that you have judged Dan and found him wanting. You have judged that he is not a christian because he will not jump through your hoops.
Dan provided you with a clear profession of faith. And it was as orthodox as you can get. The fact that you refuse to accept it shows arrogance on your part in that God does not give you the authority to question another person's salvation.
Marty, I have not said that Dan's not a Christian, and I have not said that Dan is not saved.
Dan's explanation for what he believes has been anything but clear: it's taken a conversation spanning multiple threads and literally hundreds of comments for him to get around to admitting that he thinks salvation is apparently completely unrelated to Christ's death. And, for that matter, that position is hardly as orthodox as one can get; beyond denying the saving power of Christ's death, he explicitly dismisses the Bible's clear teaching about the atonment as something that "meant something" to the Jews and means apparently nothing to him.
I wish I was wrong in my conclusion that Dan's beliefs seriously deviate from what the Bible teaches. I don't believe I am, and I won't be convinced by accusations of arrogance from someone whose recollection of what I've written doesn't match the record.
"Dan's explanation for what he believes has been anything but clear"
It's been crystal clear to me.
Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind summarizing Dan's beliefs regarding, for instance, the relationship between Christ's death and our salvation. If you could point where exactly he first explained his beliefs and show that they were explained very early in this conversation, that would be a very good indication that Dan really has made his beliefs crystal clear from the beginning.
"That, I can agree with Alan:"
*sputter* You should give a guy some warning before writing things like that, Bubba. I nearly lost my grande half-caff all over my keyboard. ;)
"Am I missing something, Alan? Has Dan written something that I overlooked entirely? You seem to think that Dan has presented the epitome of Protestant orthodoxy, and I don't see it."
As I already stated, there are several different atonement theories. I'm not going to speculate on which one of them Dan subscribes to. Several of the "orthodox" atonement theories do not *require* a blood sacrifice in the way that God required a blood sacrifice in the Old Testament, if that's what you're referring to by a "blood offering". They required obedience, in this case obedience unto death, as the Bible states. But they do not require a "blood pouring out, being sprinkled on the alter and the priests and all the assembly" sort of offering as you seem to be implying.
Alan, I think the most succinct way I can explain how I see things is this: it doesn't look like Dan and I are arguing over atonement theories, we're arguing over the atonement itself.
It doesn't appear that Dan holds to either the substitutionary theory, the ransom theory, the governmental theory, or the moral influence theory as an explanation of how Christ's death is related to our salvation.
It appears, instead, that he denies any relationship at all between Christ's death and our salvation.
"HOW do I think God forgives sin? By forgiving, sorta like we do. God, in God's grace, hears our confession and forgives."
If I misunderstood him, Dan can and should clarify his beliefs.
I asked Dan, quite plainly, what do you believe is the relationship, if any, between our salvation and the death of Jesus Christ?
He hasn't actually given a completely clear answer to this repeated question, but I have since responded to the answer that he has given by saying that I think he's altogether denying a relationship between the two. He has NOT said that that conclusion is wrong and further clarified what he believes.
In other words, if Dan would simply write, "I believe there is no relationship between Christ's death and our salvation," we could clearly see that he denies the atonement in general.
Or if he completed this sentence...
"I believe the relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is..."
...we could clearly see that he doesn't deny the atonement in general and, instead, only denies certain theories of the atonement in affirming some other theory.
"I think he's altogether denying a relationship between the two"
And I think you're wrong. But then, I've never found your speculating about what other people think to be very accurate most of the time. Quite frankly, In fact, I think that most of the time if I want to know what someone thinks, I can just read your summary and assume the opposite (which seems only fair since it often seems like you look for ways to change what people say or believe so that you can disagree with them.)
I like Dan's answer. How does God forgive? Much better than we do, apparently!
Anyway, I'll answer this one though: "I believe the relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is..." complicated.
I'm reminded of the Memorial Acclamation that we say during communion: "Great is the mystery of our faith: Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus come again in glory." [emphasis mine]
I frankly don't find it all that necessary to claim one particular atonement theory over another. I can't help but notice that the thief crucified with Jesus didn't have to give a detailed theological treatise on atonement before Jesus proclaimed his salvation, and so neither do I think one is required of us. God saves the elect by faith through Grace, even if they happen to be mistaken about a particular theological jot or tittle, or even if they're wrong about just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Alan, I don't go out of my way to twist people's words in order to disagree with them: as with your writing that we are saved both by Christ's life and by His death, I make it clear when I really do agree with people. I don't appreciate the accustion to the contrary.
Whether you like what Dan wrote or not, it's still the case that his answer was a non-answer in regards to the relationship between Christ's death and our salvation.
But if you think he's already been clear on the queation of that relationship, I'll ask you what I asked Marty: show me where.
The best I can tell, he denies not just a particular theory of atonement, but atonement altogether:
"Atonement" meant something to the Jews.
The clear implication is that it means nothing to Dan.
"Great is the mystery of our faith: Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus come again in glory."
To say that the atonement is mysterious and ultimately cannot be fully understood is one thing, Alan. But here the words you cite assert something that I don't believe Dan has affirmed: dying, Christ destoryed our death. His death actually is a cause of our salvation.
Let me be clear that I too don't believe that belief in the atonement is strictly necessary for salvation:
I frankly don't find it all that necessary to claim one particular atonement theory over another. I can't help but notice that the thief crucified with Jesus didn't have to give a detailed theological treatise on atonement before Jesus proclaimed his salvation, and so neither do I think one is required of us.
(It's worth noting, too, that the thief didn't get baptized or work for peace and justice.)
I'm not saying that belief in the atonement is necessary for salvation. I'm simply saying that it is what the Bible clearly teaches and that a denial of the Atonement risks hindering one's spritual maturity just as much as, say, a denial either of Christ's humanity or His divinity: the denial changes one's conception of God, away from what the Bible teaches.
You write that you don't think it is "all that necessary to claim one particular atonement theory over another," but it doesn't appear that Dan claims one particular theory or another: it appears that he denies the atonement to begin with.
You say you won't speculate about which theory he holds, but you seem to presume that Dan does affirm the atonement. What specifically has Dan written that suggests that?
I don't know of any passages where Dan has affirmed the atonment. If you can point to such a passage, please do so, but if all you're going to do is presume that whatever I say is wrong -- the very essence of mere contradiction, even when I have just agreed with you -- then you're not really adding all that much to the conversation.
Alan, I will repeat the question I've asked Dan, in its most recent form:
What [does Dan] believe is the relationship, if any, between our salvation and the death of Jesus Christ?
More simply, does he believe there is a relationship between the two?
From what you quote, #1 doesn't answer the question: to say that the cross is central does not necessarily imply that it's central for our salvation.
#2 suggests that the answer is, he doesn't believe that there is a relationship.
#3 suggests that he believes there is, but only if one assumes that "one might say" is equivalent to "Dan personally believes".
#4 is -- as I pointed out before -- a digression from the question I was aksing.
#5 doesn't answer the question either, because it doesn't discuss Christ's death at all. I'm inclined to believe that, by excluding His death from the equation of why we're saved, he implies that His death isn't related; Dan hasn't further clarified.
In order to conclude from the above that Dan's answers are clear, you have to presume that "one might say" means "Dan does say" and you have to attribute to Dan talk about imputing righteousness that Dan never approaches.
It seems to me your problem isn't that I'm making assumptions to draw conclusions, but that my assumptions doesn't match yours.
But if you think Dan's been clear as crystal, please tell me what is answer is or would be.
Yes or no: does Dan believe there is a relationship between Christ's death and our salvation?
"But if you think Dan's been clear as crystal, please tell me what is answer is or would be."
Already. Answered. That. ROFL. Did. Done. Again, I'm not trying to answer FOR Dan (I'll leave that up to you) I'm simply explaining how it seems clear to me that he's already answered your questions in detail several times. I picked just a few examples that are consistent, that all hang together, and that explain what appears to me to be a systematic understanding of justification and atonement. As I wrote before, perhaps you don't actually know enough orthodox theology to recognize answers when you hear them. In that case, it really would be useful to go do some reading elsewhere, so that you can get a more thorough understanding of justification and atonement than can be offered in a blog comment. Or, perhaps you're simply looking for disagreement. Or maybe both. Who knows? (Who cares?) What is indeed "crystal clear" is that you have an preternatural ability to find disagreement wherever you look.
But, as I've said, Dan's answers are indeed orthodox. Disagree if you want, but recognize what that makes you.
So anyway, sorry Bubba. As always, I'm happy to have a pleasant conversation or a forceful debate. But simply repeating myself over and over? Meh. Lame.
If you are either unwilling or unable to understand even my simple answers which clearly addressed your question, then I have a hard time imagining that repeating them is going to help much. ROFL. For example, #3 and #4 so clearly address your questions (they were written one paragraph after the other, in the same comment) and you dismiss them as "digression". Hilarious!!
For your own amusement though, if you wish, you may feel free to select, copy, and paste my previous comment into another one, in order to answer your questions again. Then you can repeat how my answers have not answered you. Lather, rinse, and repeat as necessary. LOL
In the words of LOLCats: "Argumentation. Yer doin' it wrong." :)
Alan, I don't go looking for disagreement, nor am I ignorant of basic orthodoxy. The fact that I agree with you that salvation involves both Christ's taking the penalty of our sins and the imputing of His righteous life to us should be proof enough of that.
And I'm not asking you or Dan to repeat yourselves. No one has even once given a clear answer to an extremely simple yes/no question: does Dan believe there is a relationship between Christ's death and our salvation?
I picked just a few examples that are consistent, that all hang together, and that explain what appears to me to be a systematic understanding of justification and atonement.
Okay: what is that understanding, specifically? What role does the death of Jesus Christ have in Dan's systematic understanding of justification and atonement?
You seem determined to say that Dan has repeatedly answered my question in detail and that this answer accords entirely with orthodoxy but no one seems willing to say what that answer is: either yes, Dan believes there is a relationship between Christ's death and our salvation, or no, he denies any such relationship.
But let's assume for a moment that you or (preferably) Dan has given such a straight-forward yes or no answer.
What harm is it to repeat that clear yes or clear no just one more time?
If someone can and will produce a clear yes or a clear no to my question, either I will be satisfied with that answer or I won't. And if I'm not -- if I keep harping on this question after the repetition of such an indisputably clear answer -- I will be shown to be just as belligerant as you think I am.
I believe I've answered this ad nauseum, Bubba, but here:
What [does Dan] believe is the relationship, if any, between our salvation and the death of Jesus Christ?
It's all part of the story of God's Love for us. God created/creates the world. God loved/loves the world. God created people and loves them.
People tend to sin. Sin is bad. It hurts the sinner and those around him/her. God by God's grace offers forgiveness for our sin. Jesus came showing us the Way to live. Because of that life of radical love - one which challenged the religious and social status quo - they killed Jesus.
Jesus, being God, rose from the dead. Death can't stop that sort of love.
All of this is the ongoing story of God's love for the world and for us. It's all part of the Good News.
God forgives us by forgiving us. Period. God offers us heaven by God's Grace. Period.
It's all of one cloth.
Dan, again, I appreciate the fact that you've provided answers to my questions, in some cases multiple times.
I still don't think that this answer is as clear as it could be.
Your answer attributes Christ's death to the earthly powers that conspired against Him without either acknowledging or explicitly denying His claim to have laid down His life of His own accord. Your answer doesn't wrestle with Christ's initiation of the Lord's Supper, and His claim that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin.
You write that the Crucifixion and our forgiveness are "of one cloth" and all part of one story, but that doesn't explicitly entail an affirmation or a rejection of a more direct causal connection between His death and our forgiveness.
As best as I can tell, you really do reject that sort of connection, but I can only infer that.
God forgives us by forgiving us. Period. God offers us heaven by God's Grace. Period.
This seems to be a implicit denial of any means by which God forgives us other than "He just does." But because this denial is implicit, drawing this obvious conclusion will elicit charges of arguing from silence, when I have tried repeatedly to remove any need to infer a clearer answer from the many sentences and paragraphs you've written.
Your answer isn't as clear as it could be, but it's apparently as clear as it's ever going to be.
Thank you again for the answer, such as it is.
Thank you, Alan, for your fine defense of my position in my absence. You're a gentleman and a scholar.
Post a Comment