Glory Bound

Special music from church Sunday. We've been considering stages of our lives, with the latest theme being grieving and loss. This song is a beautiful song by a group called the Wailin' Jennies (clever, eh?) that sounds very much like a traditional old hymn... It's called "Glory Bound."

Different Gospels?

So, some more from the file of "I want to ask these conservative friends questions about their claims/opinions/hunches but they are having none of it..." so, I'm posting here. In this case, the people over at Winging It is speaking of the various "gospels" found in the Bible, noting that Jesus seemed to preach about the "gospel of the kingdom" and John, in Revelation, preached about an "eternal gospel," and that these are different than the gospel evangelicals mean by THE Gospel. Here, he's speaking of the Revelation "eternal gospel" and then concludes...

This good news [in Revelation] was that God's judgment was arriving and He would be glorified.

Not the same gospel we think of when we think of the word.

No, the gospel you and I think about is what is termed "the gospel of the grace of God." That gospel, in fact, wasn't known clearly until Paul brought it up (Gal 2:2). Now, it wasn't new to Paul -- Paul didn't originate it (Gal 3:8) -- but it wasn't known in that form. Paul calls it "my gospel..."

Why is this a critical and strange teaching to me? What questions do I have?

The problem that people like this have, it seems to me, is that we have four wonderful books full of the Teachings of Jesus, the four books of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And in those four books, we have many teachings and sermons from Jesus. In fact, Jesus clearly states that he is preaching the "good news of the Kingdom of God..." Repeatedly, Jesus and his disciples preach this Gospel story.

The problem for evangelicals? Not a single time does Jesus present "the Gospel" as evangelicals understand it. For evangelicals, "the gospel" is the news that

Humans are sinners, doomed to hell because of our sin
God is a loving God, but a Just God, who can't/won't abide our sin... in the famous words of Jonathan Edwards, we are sinners in the hands of an angry God
BUT, God's anger can be appeased by a perfect blood sacrifice
AND the "Good News" (or Gospel) is that Jesus died to shed his blood to sort of literally pay for our sins and save us from an eternity of torture.

Or as the people at Ligonier Ministries put it...

...that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the righteousness of another.

The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

This is what has been called the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement, and ONLY by affirming this specific Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement (or something pretty close to it) can we actually be saved. Believing in Jesus and his teachings? Insufficient. Being a follower of Jesus' teachings? Insufficient. Accepting God's grace? Insufficient. Repenting of our sins and accepting God's grace? Insufficient. IF you do not affirm the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement, which many derive indirectly from Paul's teachings (and specifically not from Jesus' teachings), then you can not be saved, at least according to many modern conservative evangelicals.

So, while Paul or no one else in the Bible, specifically speak of the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement, it is something that many find in Paul's teaching of the Gospel. For instance, this passage in Romans 5...

But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

So, the problem for these more fundamentalist types is that Jesus and the disciples are recorded repeatedly as preaching the gospel, but not one time does the notion of blood sacrifice to appease an angry God come up in the four Gospel books. How do these more fundamentalist/conservative evangelicals deal with it? Well, I've tried asking that question many times and never have received an answer. But the people at Winging It have resolved it by DISMISSING the Gospel Jesus taught as not the "real" Gospel that Christians mean by "Gospel..."!

I have often suspected that many more conservative evangelical types prefer Paul to Jesus and will make Jesus' teachings subservient to both Pauline and OT teachings, but I've rarely seen any so openly admit it. What are we to make of that?

The problem I have with this is that, as a follower of Jesus, I am a follower of Jesus' words, his teachings. Thus, when I read the Bible, I (and traditional Baptists, Anabaptists and many others) interpret all of biblical teaching through the lens of Jesus' specific teachings. We believe that Jesus is the ultimate and best representation of God to humanity and so, when I want to best understand a teaching or text in the Bible, I take what Jesus had to say as first priority and then interpret the other, through Jesus' teachings, and the obscure through the clear. It's basic biblical exegesis and has been for many years.

Am I hearing this person incorrectly? Is he not dismissing Jesus' gospel as not THE gospel, but only Paul's is the "actual" Gospel and Jesus' teachings are some lesser, small "g" gospel? Help me understand this.

Help Me Understand. Help Harder.

NOTE: This is a repost of a blog entry from a few years ago. It is a fairly long and, in my mind, bizarre conversation between me and a more conservative fella. I do not post it again to embarrass the individual, but just to set it out there as just how weird conversations can be. For your consideration...

I have a question about HOW to conduct conversation and I'd like to post an example of how a real conversation proceeded, to serve as a reference point. My question in THIS post is not about the topic being discussed, but about how to get a straight answer to a reasonable question.

So, recently one of our conservative friends had a post all about Israel's attack of the Amalekites found in the OT. This is one of those stories where it appears God is commanding Israel to wipe out everyone in the city - including the children and infants. In striving to justify a literal interpretation of this passage, this writer stated a point which I tried to ask about.

Below, I have copied and pasted the pertinent parts of our conversation. I'm just wondering what I could have done to successfully communicated with this person, to successfully get an answer to a reasonable question. This is how our conversation went (with him in italics and me in bold)...

He said on his blog entry:

Everyone deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy. Even me. Even you. That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice.

I emailed, asking:

So WHERE, in the Amalekite story, do you see the justice of killing infants? What did they do to "deserve to die..." "Horribly"?

I'd be interested in your answer.

Note: I have made no accusation. I have not called him wrong or mistaken. I have not called him names or doubted his Christian faith. He simply stated that everyone deserves to die. Horribly. HIS words.

To which I responded with the I-think reasonable question to such a position: Where in the story cited was the justice in killing infants? I was wanting his answer to THAT question. The conversation continued via email...

In answer, then, to your question, I obviously believe that all human beings are sinners, justly condemned, because they do not seek first the kingdom of God, do not seek first the glory of God, do not operate first from faith. That's my answer. I don't think it's vague or evasive.

???

My question was...

So WHERE, in the Amalekite story, do you see the justice of killing infants? What did they do to "deserve to die..." "Horribly"?

And you are saying that because a ONE DAY OLD INFANT has not chosen to seek first God's kingdom, they deserve to die a horrible death? Is that your actual position?

Note: I THINK I see his answer to my question, but since it seems rather hard to believe, I repeat what I think his answer is and ask him if, indeed that is his answer...

Since you and I DISAGREE that "sin" is defined as a willful rebellion, a knowing act against a known right/wrong, then, of course, we don't agree from the start. You see "choose" as one key component of "sin" and I do not. Frankly, neither does the Bible, but that's neither here nor there. In order for me to agree with you, I would have to redefine sin to coincide with your definition. Do you not see that, as I have repeatedly stated, we do not agree AT THE BASE? Our disagreement starts long before the Amalekite question.

Okay, what if we look at this apparent disagreement for a minute, if you'd like...

From the Bible answer website, "Got Questions?" we get this information about sin...

"Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18)."

Do you agree that these are good, solid biblical understandings of "sin"? That sin is transgressing God's law?

That sin is rebellion against God?

If so, how do you think a newborn babe rebels against God? How do you think a babe transgresses God's law?

Let's see ... you complain that I don't answer your questions directly. Going to your questions directly ...

"Do you agree that these are good, solid biblical understandings of 'sin'?" No.

"That sin is transgressing God's law?" No.

"That sin is rebellion against God?" No.

I think that "Got Questions" got it wrong. 1 John 3:4 does not say that sin is the transgression of the law of God. It says, "Sin is lawlessness".

...John wrote "Sin is lawlessness." (See ESV, NASB, NIV, Green's Literal Translation, Young's Literal Translation, oh, just about any translation at all including the New King James, with the apparent sole exception of the King James.) Sin is the absence of God's Law. Therefore, I disagree with you and with "Got Questions" and I agree with Paul, the psalmist, Isaiah, John, and others...

I am agreeing that newborns or even infants have not murdered or committed adultery or the like, but it is inconceivable that you would argue that they actively and fully operate to the glory of God, work from faith, or love God with their entire being. The biblical definition of sin is lawlessness. That is the absence of God's Law. I don't see how an infant can be defined as operating on anything but that absence. Or, to put it in the terms you've been suggesting, sin is not the choice to violate God's Law and, as long as that Law is not violated, has not occurred. Sin is the the absence of perfect submission to God's Law. Righteousness is active, not merely the absence of sin.

I apologize for my lack of understanding here, So if I may clarify... When I ask:

In what way do you think these infants are lawless and thus, deserving of a horrible death?

Your answer is that because infants do not - at the age of, say, one day old - do not "actively and fully operate to the glory of God," that this is lawlessness and deserving of a horrible death?

I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of your position.

Yeah, I get that you don't get it ... because your idea is that they are innocent and my idea is that God in all His glory deserves to be glorified and honored and loved from the birth of one of His creations. You are unable to understand this idea because you cannot define "sin" as anything but "violating God's law". As long as "sin" is "something I choose to do to violate God's law" as your premise, then none of this will make any sense to you. Oddly enough, despite my constant attempts to explain that disparity between how I see the biblical definition of sin and how you are defining it, you can't seem to see it. Either that or (as I highly suspect not because of simply Dan Trabue, but because of human nature) your view of God is fairly tame ... kind of like I indicated in the post.

NOTE: At this point, I have not offered any opinions about infants or their innocence in this conversation. I have not offered my opinions about sin. I've just asked a question in various ways trying to get a clear answer. I THOUGHT when I quoted him, I'd be able to get a "Yes, that IS my position," but no.

I continued...

I'm just trying to get a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

When I ask:
in what way do you think these infants are lawless and thus, deserving of a horrible death?

Your answer is...

because infants do not - at the age of, say, one day old - do not actively and fully operate to the glory of God, that this is lawlessness and deserving of a horrible death...

IS THAT YOUR POSITION? If not, could you please re-state your answer to THAT ^ question for me?

Because infants are lawless.

Again, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm not asking the question right. I'm wondering IN WHAT WAY do you think infants are lawless?

What does a "lawless" infant look like?

What are they doing that indicates they are lawless and, thus deserving of a horrible death?

Thanks...

Apparently I lack the words in the English language to express a thought that you can comprehend. I've explained it as a lack of law. I've explained it as the absence of God's law. I've explained that righteousness is active, not merely passive. I've explained that sin is not active violation, but the absence of God's Law.

And so, I summed up your position thusly...

because infants do not - at the age of, say, one day old - do not actively and fully operate to the glory of God, that this is lawlessness and deserving of a horrible death...

Is my summation incorrect? It refers to what is absent (ie, "they DO NOT actively and fully operate to the glory of God"), not what they do.

So, is my summation (which, after all, comes from your direct words) correct? Because infants do not actively operate to the glory of God, they are deserving of a horrible death?

They do not love God. They do not glorify God. They ... according to the Bible ... tell lies. But, of course, you're still operating on the do concept. What do they do that is sin. I am speaking of the absence of the Law in them. They do not love God or glorify Him as a result of this absence. You're talking about what they do and I'm talking about what they lack. That's why your summation falls short. There is no positive righteousness in an infant.

And my question remains: How do you TELL there is an "absence of law in them..."? What does that look like? Or are you just saying, "I KNOW there's an absence of law in them, take my word for it..."?

As to "there is no positive righteousness in an infant," would it then be fair to sum up your position as:

Because there is NO POSITIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS in a newborn infant (ie, they haven't done anything 'good,'), they deserve to die a horrible death?

I guess I might also ask, what do you mean by positive righteousness? Merely that they haven't done anything righteous at one day old?

...Also, "according to the bible," a one day old infant TELLS LIES? Do you really think this is true? (ie, both that the Bible teaches that and that a one day old infant is capable of telling lies?)

I get it. It won't be getting through. There is a language barrier or something, a fundamental disconnect. That the Bible says they lie from the womb and that there is not a single one righteous and that all have sinned all favor my view. That sin is defined as the absence of law favors my view. That the Church has historically declared this to be so favors my view... These facts, however, are irrelevant. I cannot get this across to you. You cannot think in terms of anything except "what they do". Even in the attempt to use "positive righteousness" you ask "that they haven't done anything...?"

You don't like that I threw in "that they haven't done anything..."? Then say so and throw it out and answer the question I asked with that revision.

Here, let me ask again without that line, using mostly your own words...

Because "there is NO POSITIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS in a [newborn] infant", they "deserve to die" "horribly" - IS THAT YOUR POSITION?

You can see that those are mostly your own words, I'm just restating it to see if I'm understanding you correctly.

I've answered your question repeatedly. You just don't accept the answer. My answer is that all human beings are sinners, that this includes infants, that the Bible says this is the case. My answer is that infants are also sinners, that there is only one, singular-for-all-of-history exception to that fact, and that would be Jesus. My answer is that infants violate the command of God to glorify Him, they lie from their mothers' wombs, they fail to love God with all their hearts. My answer is that infants and toddlers and children and teens and adults are sinners at their very core. And my answer is that God is so perfect, so high, so holy, so inviolable that any transgression or failure or omission or inaction on the part of His creation merits the penalty of eternal death.

Does my position (my position that is the historic position of the Church, the Bible, the Anabaptists, etc.) sound horrible? Undoubtedly. It probably sounds like foolishness on one hand and an offense on the other ... you know, like the Bible says it would. So I'm not equivocating and I'm not avoiding answering direct questions (a favorite mindless accusation of yours for which I would recommend you look to yourself) because of that. You're just not seeing the answers as clearly as they're given. And the Bible has an explanation for that, too.

"I've answered your question repeatedly. You just don't accept the answer."

But you haven't, not directly. Allow me to demonstrate and, if you can see that you are answering questions that I haven't asked, maybe you'll try to answer the question I DID ask.

Here is what YOU say your answers are...

"My answer is that all human beings are sinners, that this includes infants, that the Bible says this is the case."

And that WOULD be an answer to the question, "Are all human beings sinners?" But THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION...

"My answer is that infants are also sinners, that there is only one, singular-for-all-of-history exception to that fact, and that would be Jesus."

And that WOULD be an answer to the question, "Are infants sinners?" But THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION...

"My answer is that infants violate the command of God to glorify Him, they lie from their mothers' wombs, they fail to love God with all their hearts."

This might be closer. My actual question was:

BECAUSE "THERE NO POSITIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS IN A [NEWBORN] INFANT", THEY "DESERVE TO DIE" "HORRIBLY" - IS THAT YOUR POSITION?

and so, are you saying your answer (YOUR WORDS) to THIS question is

No, it is NOT my position that because there is no positive righteousness in newborn infants, they deserve to die a horrible death. Rather my position is "[BECAUSE] infants violate the command of God to glorify Him, they lie from their mothers' wombs, they fail to love God with all their hearts..." they deserve to die horribly."

Is THAT the answer to the question asked?

the reason I do not take the bold-faced question you ask and repeat it back to you with a "yes" or a "no" is because you have made it into a simplistic, false statement (read "lie"). You did it (repeatedly) with the whole "So, you believe that God approves of killing your enemies' children?" A lie. It is a naked, out of context, unexplained and therefore misunderstood statement. You were so very quick to misquote me before ("I only took your words and put them out there"). It will not go well here, either.

Do I think that everyone ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Do I think that babies ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Certainly not what I meant. The context was the justice of God that is forgotten...

I believe that all human beings from age 0 up are sinners, guilty of not keeping God's law either consciously or not either positively or not. I believe that God, as just and holy, has the right (that is, it would be right) to put all human beings to death for this guilt. But, of course, that won't satisfy you. Therefore, since I won't play your game and you won't accept an answer, we're done.

IF it's a false statement, then why don't you answer, "No, that is not my position..."? and clarify with your actual position? It would seem like it would have to be pretty close to your actual position because THEY'RE YOUR ACTUAL WORDS.

" You did it (repeatedly) with the whole "So, you believe that God approves of killing your enemies' children?" A lie. It is a naked, out of context, unexplained and therefore misunderstood statement."

It is A QUESTION. IS THIS YOUR POSITION? Notice the question mark at the end. It is a question, seeking to clarify your position (and, hopefully, seeking to help you see how wrong-headed that position is).

"Do I think that everyone ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Do I think that babies ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Certainly not what I meant."

Here is what YOU said in the context of the paragraph...

"When asked about the Galileans killed by Pilate, He assured His listeners, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-3). The message? Everyone deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy. Even me. Even you. That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice."

You said, "EVERYONE deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy."

So, let's drop the baby part for a second and deal with your comment.

DID you say "everyone deserves to die. Horribly..."? Well, of course that is a silly question. It IS what you said, I just quoted you.

So, moving on, Did you MEAN to say that everyone deserves to die horribly?

Did you MEAN to say that infants deserve to die horribly?

If not, why did you say it?

"The context was the justice of God that is forgotten. I don't have the option of carrying out God's justice, so this isn't what I recommend. It is what I believe we cannot see. As a matter of fact, you can't, can you?"

And my question to you was and remains, do you think it is the "justice of God" that babies should die horribly?

Given YOUR WORDS, it is a fair and reasonable question.

If it's NOT your position, just say, No, I don't think so.

"To you, "sin" in EVERY APPLICATION is only when I choose to knowingly violate God's commands. Apparently, the only method of lying is when we speak as well. There are no other forms of lies. So we have radically different definitions of both sin and lies. (Like I said, a recent SECULAR study indicated that they detected lies in 6-month-old babies. You must figure they're pretty stupid, too, since children that age don't speak.)"

So, you think a one day old infant is LYING? Then my question is HOW? What does that look like? In WHAT WAY does a one day old infant lie?

Again, this is a reasonable question to the position, "babies are lying from the womb..." - a statement that sounds on the face of it like poetic hyperbole, why should we take it literally?

And that was the end of that ongoing conversation. No more answers.

My question is: What could I have done to have gotten a DIRECT answer to my actual question(s)? For a large part of that conversation, I was simply quoting him and asking, "Is this (ie, what you just said) your actual position?"

My second question is: Do those on the further Right side of things see how this seems to be avoiding a simple question and as if they are avoiding confirming their own actual words because those words sound so horrible? As if they WANT to say it, but they don't want to confirm that it's their actual position?

Gruff Fairy

Amen and amen.