Monday, September 18, 2017

Born Anew



From a sermon from my pastor this weekend...

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.’
Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.
‘How can someone be born when they are old?’ Nicodemus asked. ‘Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!’
Jesus answered, ‘Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, “You must be born again.” The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.’
‘How can this be?’ Nicodemus asked.
~John 3:1-9

I started to do a search on the internet, but after seeing that the first page of googling didn’t reveal my answer, I gave up. I’m not a very patient googler. It doesn’t really matter, anyway. What I was searching for was, “must be born again craze.” I was wondering when that began. Well, it really began with Jesus, of course, because he’s the one who said it. But when was it that it became such a huge thing in American religious culture? I think it had to do with Jimmy Carter, and that was when I was a teenager. I don’t remember exactly when, but what I do remember is that it was very confusing to me. You must be born again, preachers would say, meaning, you must become someone else. You must become someone else. That’s how I remember them preaching it, anyway. And that was hard for me to integrate, as it probably was for some of you. “Are you a Christian?” Yes… “Have you been born again?” Well, not really. I’m still just me.

And I think that’s why my heart sang when I heard John Philip Newell talk about this passage at Lake Junaluska this summer.

Because he said that Jesus wasn’t saying that we need to become someone else. He said that Jesus, in saying that we must be born again, or anew, was saying that we need to be born into our true selves. We need to be born into our true selves.

He pointed out something that we already knew, which is that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. He wasn’t a Christian, and so he didn’t adhere to the Christian doctrine of original sin.

The idea of original sin, for those of us who might not be familiar with the term, is one that, whether we’re familiar with it our not, pervades our lives. When Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, after having sinned, all of humanity was put in a state of separation from God, and it’s only through Jesus that we are reconnected. That’s the idea that many of us grew up with. You might remember the little picture that we sometimes used when we were trying to “save” someone. There are two cliffs with a great gulf in-between. God is on one side. Humankind on the other. And then you draw a cross in-between to connect the two? Does anyone remember that? Used to be an evangelical tool that we would use to share the “good news” of Jesus Christ. But Jesus Christ didn’t preach that kind of good news. Jesus didn’t preach about how we are disconnected from God. Jesus preached about how God is within us…

The concept of original sin didn’t come from Jesus. 

Newell said that he was on an interfaith panel with some other religious leaders awhile back, and someone asked them to comment on original sin, and the Jewish rabbi on the panel said that when someone Jewish hears the term “original sin,” they are prone to think, now that was really an original sin! In other words, original sin wasn’t, and isn’t a Jewish concept, but rather came around years after Jesus’ death. It was first alluded to in the second century by Iraneus, Bishop of Lyon, and was later developed by St. Augustine. It retained its popularity through church reformers such as John Calvin and Martin Luther, and is very popular to this day. One of the founders of Celtic Christianity, Pelagius, was kicked out of Rome, first, and later, Italy, largely because he refused to accept the concept of original sin, by the way.


We spend a lot of time as Christians, not in this church, maybe not enough in this church, confessing our sin. We are bad, bad, bad. We were born in sin. But as Newell points out, what would it look like if we acted that way in one of our most important relationships? What if we were constantly apologizing and feeling guilty and less than? It would be totally unhealthy. And yet, that’s so often the way that people view their relationship with God. You must be born again. You must become someone else. Because who you are is never good enough...

You must be born again, Jesus says, calling us back to our true selves. You must be born from above. You must be born anew. Born anew into that of you which is the essence of God, the essence of your true self...

Now, I’m not an artist, and I can’t draw it. But I can tell you that I saw a very clear picture of this on Wednesday when our Diane - our homeless/hospitality minister - told me about what had happened at the Hospitality Program the day before. It was a busy day, she said, and in the middle of all of the busi-ness, a man brought in a woman in a bathrobe. He had found her a few blocks away. She was wandering around, lost and confused. She didn’t know her name, and, said the man, she was (made a motion with his finger to indicate craziness). Diane had the woman sit down with Kari, who talked with her and kept her calm while Diane made some phone calls. It took about an hour for the police to get there, and when they did, they confirmed that the woman was on the missing persons list. Her son had been looking for her. She had parked her car and left her keys and her purse and her i.d. somewhere, and they tried to find it, and they contacted her son, and they eventually took her to the hospital, where we are hoping that she received the care she needed.

It’s a sad story, but a precious one. I hate to think what might have happened had that man not have found her. 

And here’s the thing that touched me most deeply about the story: The man who brought her in, said Diane, was drunker than anyone she’d ever seen. And note: this is our homeless minister talking. He was drunker than anyone she’d ever seen! 

And yet, this man, as drunk as he was, was able to connect with the very essence of God within, with the love-longings of God, to share with this woman that there is a place where you can go where they will help you, and not just to share that with her, but to accompany her, stumbling alongside her until he had delivered into Diane’s care.

And in that experience, I believe that that man was born anew, not in the way we used to talk about, becoming someone else, but in that, even in the midst of his brokenness, he reconnected with the very essence of God. You must be born anew, says Jesus.

I am reminded of the voice that we hear in “The Help,” the voice of Abileen, a family maid, who babysits little Mae Mobley. Mae’s mother usually ignores her, and whenever she pays her any attention, she criticizes her. So Abilene sits her down everyday and says, “You is kind. You is smart. You is important.”

The heart of God is beating within each of us. May we listen for it, may we hear it, may we be renewed in its rhythm. 

40 comments:

Bubba said...

Though I recognize that forgiveness is both an essential component of the Christian good news and one of the greatest expressions of God's grace toward us -- His active, unmerited love -- it is not the entirety of the gospel, and it is not the only benefit of grace. It's not as if God has no more blessings for us once He's removed the guilt of sin, and so I would say that forgiveness is only the beginning of God's grace in the life of the individual.

But even though forgiveness is just the beginning of God's salvation by grace, it's an absolutely essential beginning, essential because all have sinned, all do fall short of God's glory, and all need forgiveness through Christ.

That preacher seems to reject the idea of our separation from God, that "it’s only through Jesus that we are reconnected."

"But Jesus Christ didn’t preach that kind of good news. Jesus didn’t preach about how we are disconnected from God. Jesus preached about how God is within us..." [emphasis in original]

I do not hesitate to say that this is a false teaching.

Even limiting ourselves to that same text, we see that, rather than imply that the divine life is automatically acessible to all, Jesus emphatically taught that this life in God -- new life, eternal life -- is available *ONLY* through Himself...

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." - John 6:35

"I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture." - 10:9

"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die." - 11:25-26

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life." - 14:6a

...and that those who reject Him deny themselves the blessings that He alone provides.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." - 6:53

“No one comes to the Father except through me." - 14:6b

And even in that single conversation with Nicodemus, we see how Jesus taught His unique role in salvation and the necessity of our having faith in Him.

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." - 3:14

(It's not clear whether John continues to quote Jesus in the following verses or provides his own commentary, but 3:16-18 couldn't be more clear in asserting that those who do not believe in Jesus are already condemned.)

In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus talks about being born again (or from above) and about having eternal life. These aren't distinct concepts applied to different groups, and they aren't available through multiple means.

To be born again is to receive eternal life, and there is only one way to do both, and that is believing in Jesus, NOT merely listening for "the heart of God [] beating within each of us."

Dan Trabue said...

Yeah, I figured you would disagree with this great Godly woman of God. You are welcome to do so.

But can you at least agree to the reality that to the Jews of the time (and before and afterwards), and thus, to Jesus, there was no notion of "original sin..."? That this was not a theology that was made up, yet, nor is it anything Jesus espoused?

A Jewish perspective on Jesus' teachings on the topic...

"As to whether Jesus himself really believed in Original Sin or not, I have serious doubts... As a Jew reading the Gospel narrative, it seems to me that Jesus explicitly disapproved of any idea that man suffers from an inherited sin. By extension, every human fault we are born with serves a spiritual purpose so that we may glorify the Creator despite our natural shortcomings. Nowhere does Jesus ever speak of anything resembling the idea of a prenatal sin."

http://rabbimichaelsamuel.com/2009/11/did-jesus-believe-in-original-sin-2/

A Christian perspective...

"First, let it be said that Jesus is not recorded in the gospels as saying anything that can be construed as particularly supportive of the doctrine of Original Sin. Jesus did talk about sin, to be sure (and n.b., dear readers, I am not disputing the reality of sin, just the doctrine of Original Sin). Probably the closest he came to tackling the idea of inherited sin is the pericope of Jesus healing a man born blind..."

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/tonyjones/2009/02/original-sin-jesus-ambivalence.html

And even in this defense of this human theory, if you search the page, you can find sin mentioned, Paul mentioned, the Old Testament mentioned, but not one word from Jesus...

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-original-sin

There simply is nothing in Jesus' words that I can think of to suggest he espoused an "original sin" theory.

If so, it would seem odd to denigrate my pastor's sermon for not supporting something Jesus didn't mention.

As to this preacher not "correctly" espousing (correct, according to you and those you agree with) a separation from God, knowing my pastor as I do, I think she would, like me, say there's a time and a place for everything... Do we sometimes separate ourselves from Love, from Community, from God? Sure.

On the other hand, she'd likely note that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God. God is here with us, poor sinners, all... even as God was with old Jonah in that whale belly.

So, I'd suggest you may be best off not making assumptions about what she thinks, as, with all humans, we no doubt think all kinds of things. You're most likely not understanding her words correctly, or fully, at least.

Huh. Maybe we should all be a bit more humble in what we proclaim we "know" about other people's words...

Dan Trabue said...

So, to think through this a bit more, you are criticizing my pastor because she is noting that Jesus never taught the doctrine of Original Sin, which, in fact, he never taught.

You are criticizing her because, and you quote her here, "Jesus didn’t preach about how we are disconnected from God. Jesus preached about how God is within us..."

What did Jesus say?

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because
the kingdom of God is within you."
Luke 17 [emphasis, mine]

So, you are criticizing her (hell, you're calling her a false teacher!) because she does not affirm what Jesus did not teach and for saying what Jesus literally said (well, "God," "kingdom of God..." pretty close to the same meaning), is that right?

My pastor is not teaching against asking for forgiveness. She is not saying that we can't/don't manage to separate ourselves from Good, God, Love - we see it all the time, where we live and work. She is saying that the human doctrine of "original sin" does not come from Jesus, which is factually right, and that God/the realm of God is within us, which is what Jesus taught.

Just by way of clarification.

Oh, also, you complained...

and that is believing in Jesus, NOT merely listening for "the heart of God beating within each of us."

Who says they are mutually exclusive? Do you think that listening for the heart of God within us (a notion also found in OT teachings) would not lead you to believing in Jesus? Says who?

The reality is that Jesus never spelled out what Preaching the Gospel "must" look like or that it ought to look like only one thing, OR that it ought to look like affirming the human doctrines/theories/ideas of Sola Scriptura, Original Sin and/or the Penal Substitutionary theory of Atonement, none of which Jesus ever espoused. Indeed, we see in the Gospels that Jesus and his disciples frequently went out preaching the Gospel, and none of that is ever mentioned. Repentance and forgiveness is. Grace is implied strongly, but not a word of those human theories in any of Jesus' actual Gospel sermons.

Do you see how it might seem that you might criticize Jesus if you heard one of his sermons outside the context of the Bible?

Bubba said...

I didn't call the speaker a false teacher, I wrote that the speech contained a false teaching, and I thought you were careful to distinguish between the two: you certainly distinguished between the two in claiming that you weren't accusing a person of a lack of humility by denouncing as arrogant a position he espouses.

You call your pastor a "great Godly woman of God," but you just finished a conversation where you claimed to "deny that some humans are the spokesmouths for God." You say that, before Marshall can make any claims about the will of God, he must present evidence -- hard data! -- proving the existence of God, but you don't see any need to do the same in order to make claims about the people of God or the attributes of God. "She belongs to God and exihibits the attributes of God" is, apparently, a claim you feel free to make quite boldly without any fears about misrepresenting God.

---

Dan, it seems that those pages you cite are using a very narrow conception of original sin -- both mention "inherited sin" and use it as an exactly equivalent concept -- but your pastor is using an extraordinarily broad conception.

"The idea of original sin, for those of us who might not be familiar with the term, is one that, whether we’re familiar with it our not, pervades our lives. When Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, after having sinned, all of humanity was put in a state of separation from God, and it’s only through Jesus that we are reconnected. That’s the idea that many of us grew up with. You might remember the little picture that we sometimes used when we were trying to 'save' someone. There are two cliffs with a great gulf in-between. God is on one side. Humankind on the other. And then you draw a cross in-between to connect the two? Does anyone remember that? Used to be an evangelical tool that we would use to share the 'good news' of Jesus Christ. But Jesus Christ didn’t preach that kind of good news. Jesus didn’t preach about how we are disconnected from God. Jesus preached about how God is within us..."

Those phrases in bold are what I reject, and I wouldn't categorize them as part of the very specific doctrine of original sin: they're part of much more general claims that Jesus did quite clearly teach, about man's universal need for salvation and Jesus' exclusive provision of salvation.

However one would classify those claims -- that all of man is separated from God, and that only Jesus reconciles us and eliminates that separation -- Jesus clearly made those claims, and it is false to assert that He didn't.

Dan Trabue said...

Thank you for clarifying my mistake. Indeed, you called the sermon a false teaching, not her a false teacher. My bad. Sorry.

Still, I return to my questions:

You are criticizing her TEACHING because, and you quote her here, "Jesus didn’t preach about how we are disconnected from God. Jesus preached about how God is within us..."

What did Jesus say?

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because
the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17 [emphasis, mine]


So, you are criticizing her (hell, you're calling her sermon a false teaching!) because

1. she does not affirm what Jesus did not teach and
2. for saying what Jesus literally said (well, "God," "kingdom of God..." pretty close to the same meaning)...

is that right?

Can you at least agree to the reality that...

A. to the Jews of the time (and before and afterwards), and thus, to Jesus, there was no notion of "original sin..."?
B. That this was not a theology that was made up, yet, nor is it anything Jesus espoused?


Also, in this last comment, you said what you object to is this statement, what you "reject..."

Jesus didn’t preach about how we are disconnected from God.

and the rest of that thought was that what Jesus taught was "about how God is within us..."

You didn't bold that, so presumably you can agree with the reality that Jesus DID teach that God is within us?

And doing a concordance search, we see that Jesus literally never did "preach about how we are disconnected..."

So, can you agree that Jesus literally never preached that we are disconnected?

Dan Trabue said...

Those phrases in bold are what I reject, and I wouldn't categorize them as part of the very specific doctrine of original sin: they're part of much more general claims that Jesus did quite clearly teach, about man's universal need for salvation and Jesus' exclusive provision of salvation.

1. So, it's a "false teaching," to you, if someone is mistaken about associating the notion of "all of humanity being in a state of separation from God" with the human doctrine of Original Sin, when, to you, it is more correctly associated with the need for salvation (because of the problem of Original Sin and, therefore, our sinful nature?) and Jesus' exclusive provision of salvation?

Seems a bit harsh. Why not just "This is mistakenly associating it with the wrong human theory?"

2. Has my pastor, in her words, said that she disagrees that we need salvation? I don't see it. It's not there, is it?

3. Has my pastor talked about "Jesus' exclusive provision of salvation..."? She did not in this sermon. It's not there, is it?

So, it appears less like a case (according to what you've said so far) of a "false teaching," but rather, a sermon that doesn't put things in the way that you would. Is that more accurate?

Bubba said...

There are three separate ideas that come up in that paragraph I quoted, all related to salvation and worth enumerating, for ease of discussion:

1. Man's universal need of salvation, that (prior to salvation) everyone is separated from God.

2. Jesus' exclusive provision of salvation, that Jesus eliminates that problem of our separation from God.

3. God's universal indwelling of man, that (again, prior to salvation) God is within every person.

I have NO problem with the teaching that God indwells every saved believer since, in John 14:17 and 14:23, Jesus promises His disciples that the Spirit will be in them and that Jesus and the Father will make their home with any faithful devotee -- evidently *VERY* closely related promises, even if they're not strictly identical.

But the promise that, through His Spirit, God WILL indwell the believer is quite different from the claim that God *ALREADY* indwells *EVERYONE.*

Out of context, someone's affirming #3 would make me wonder if she denies #1 and #2, because I don't see what one could really mean by saying, "The sinner is separated from God, only Jesus can bridge that separation, but God is *ALREADY* within him."

But I don't need to wonder because your pastor explicitly denies #1 and #2, and that's why I'm focusing on those denials.

--

About Luke 17:21, the ESV, the NASB, and even more recent editions of the NIV have that the kingdom of God is "in your midst" or "in the midst of you." I believe this is a better translation for a few reasons:

1. The addressees: Jesus was telling Pharisees that the kingdom is within/in the midst of them, and Luke frequently records that, with the rare exception, the Pharisees were unbelieving and even antagonistic toward Jesus. Jesus pronounced woes against them (11:42-44) and warned His disciples about their hypocrisy (12:1), and so it is not obvious (to say the least) that Jesus would reassure some Pharisees that God is within them.

2. The subject: the kingdom of God is an often repeated concept in Luke, but it's presented as something that is coming with Christ's arrival, *NOT* as something that is already present: hence, Jesus taught that the least in the kingdom is greater than the greatest prophet John the Baptist (7:28), that His disciples should preach that the kingdom has come near (10:9, 11), that His disciples should pray that God's kingdom come (11:2), that His casting out demons shows that the kingdom "has come upon you" (11:20), and that the kingdom is something that is to be received as a child receives (18:17).

In Luke 16:16, Jesus distinguishes between the Law and the Prophets and the good news of the kingdom of God: the former were only until John, and now the latter is preached. An epochal change has taken place, and that leads to the third reason.

[continued]

Bubba said...

[continued]

3. The context: Christ's own preaching was very Christocentric. He was the focus of His own preaching. His appearing was enough to cause the fulfillment of prophecy (Lk 5:21) and His life and suffering and death and resurrection were all in fulfillment of all the Scriptures (24:25-27). He presented Himself as the Son of Man with the authority to forgive sins (5:24) and lordship over the Sabbath (6:5), for whose sake we are called to suffer (6:22) and even lose our lives (9:24). He claimed to have been given all things by the Father (10:22), He demanded that we acknowledge Him before men (12:8), and He taught that we should renounce our own family and our own lives and everything that we have to be his disciple (14:26, 33). He brought salvation (19:9-10), inaugurated the new covenant in His own blood (21:2), and claimed kingship and the authority to sit at God's right hand (22:69, 23:3).

It is doubtful that, being asked about that kingdom, Jesus would have His audience look inward rather than Christward.

I believe THAT is the more likely interpretation: "When is the kingdom coming? I'm already here."

---

Your ignoring the dispute over that translation is only the beginning of the liberties you take with that verse.

You ask, "presumably you can agree with the reality that Jesus DID teach that God is within us?"

Even going by your translation, He did no such thing.

- He taught about the kingdom of God, not God Himself: you presume to treat the two as equivalent -- "well, 'God,' 'kingdom of God...' pretty close to the same meaning" -- but you do not justify your doing so by the only criterion that matters in this discussion, namely whether Jesus or the evangelist recording His teachings treats the two as equivalent.

- And He didn't make a universal claim, such as a claim about "anyone" or "no one." Strictly speaking, Jesus said that the kingdom is within or in the midst of the people He was addressing, namely the Pharisees who raised the question.

The reality is, Jesus taught that the kingdom of God is within or in the midst of the quite specific Pharisees who asked Him about the kingdom.

What you wrote is far more speculation than summary.

I wouldn't mind that nearly as much, except (as usual) you give yourself license that you refuse to grant to others.

How do you know that Jesus didn't preach that we are disconnected from God? A concordance search, presumably on the word "disconnected" and not on any of its synonyms, entirely avoiding a more thorough investigation.

I've already pointed to a few other verses from John, which you haven't even acknowledged much less addressed substantively, and John 14:6 only makes sense if, prior to salvation, we are all separated from God.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

If we cannot come to the Father on our own, we are quite logically separated from Him.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba...

1. Man's universal need of salvation, that (prior to salvation) everyone is separated from God.

Part of the problem here is that I'm not sure that you're treating this notion the right way. There certainly IS a sense that we are separated from God... that we separate ourselves from God, from good, from love when we make certain decisions/take certain actions.

And yet, IF God is an omniscient, omnipresent God, there is also a sense that we can never be separated from God. God is everywhere and in everything and in everyone, if you believe in an omnipresent God. By definition.

I think you're treating the concept of Separation from God as if it were a real, measurable fact of life, rather than a metaphor or imagery to help us consider different aspects of our lives and of God.

Agreed?

So, where you say things along the lines of...

Your ignoring the dispute over that translation is only the beginning of the liberties you take with that verse.

You're just mistaken. I'm not looking at one verse and making a decision. I'm considering the notion of the nature of God using the whole Bible (which sometimes speaks of separation from God and sometimes tells us that NOTHING can separate us from God, and sometimes says "the realm of God is in us..." (as if you could separate God from God's realm...). Again, just from a rational view of the notion of an omnipresent God, that would rule out any Entire Separation Theory you may hold, because it would change the nature of God as you probably generally accept it/as Christian tradition has accepted it.

But the promise that, through His Spirit, God WILL indwell the believer is quite different from the claim that God *ALREADY* indwells *EVERYONE.*

You are certainly welcome to your opinion on the matter. So, you don't accept the notion of an omnipresent God? That's fine, just trying to clarify. Ultimately, we're talking about unprovable opinions on unprovable matters and I'm not going down too long a road with you discussing what can't be proven.

To the points my pastor actually preached on in this sermon, I'm still waiting to hear your clarification of these questions:

Can you at least agree to the reality that...

A. to the Jews of the time (and before and afterwards), and thus, to Jesus, there was no notion of "original sin..."?
B. That this was not a theology that was made up, yet, nor is it anything Jesus espoused?


Also waiting for you to answer more questions about what she actually preached on...

2. Has my pastor, in her words, said that she disagrees that we need salvation? I don't see it. It's not there, is it?

3. Has my pastor talked about "Jesus' exclusive provision of salvation..."? She did not in this sermon. It's not there, is it?

So, it appears less like a case (according to what you've said so far) of a "false teaching," but rather, a sermon that doesn't put things in the way that you would. Is that more accurate?

Dan Trabue said...

Just another passage that speaks to God's universality...

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything,

since GOD Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;

and God made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though

God is not far from each one of us;

for in God we live and move and exist
,

as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children...'"


~Paul, preaching to the pagans in Athens (acts 17)

Bubba said...

I'm frankly ambivalent about writing at length, because, while the truth deserves a full hearing, I don't believe there's much point in acting as if you are arguing in good faith.

To address just one question, you ask, "Has my pastor, in her words, said that she disagrees that we need salvation? I don't see it. It's not there, is it?"

On the one hand, you seem to demand that I produce an explicit quote that fits a particular formula, your position being that anything else is inadequate to reach a particular conclusion.

On the other hand, you have elsewhere seen Marshall and Craig repeatedly and explicitly and emphatically state that, in cases of rape, they assign the blame entirely to the perpetrator and not at all to the victim, but you nevertheless feel free to reach the OPPOSITE conclusion, accusing them of blaming the victim and abetting the rapist.

You're not living up to the standards you seek to impose on others; you're not allowing others to do what you do.

--

I think there are a few statements in what you quote that do indeed point quite clearly to a denial of a universal need for salvation.

1. On what Jesus taught. After mentioning original sin, your pastor describes the concept that "all of humanity [is] in a state of separation from God, and it’s only through Jesus that we are reconnected."

Rather than focus on (or even explicitly mention) "inherited sin", she paints the familiar word picture of a gulf dividing God and man, bridged by the cross, and she then states -- I believe incorrectly, but clearly nevertheless -- that "Jesus didn't preach that kind of good news. Jesus didn't preach about how we are disconnected from God."

I think it's entirely reasonable and fair to believe that, from the repeated assertion that Jesus didn't teach this idea, we're under no obligation to believe the idea and the idea is not true.

2. On what we already are. Your pastor then claims that Jesus is "calling us back to our true selves," and she mentions some fictional character who, in the context of constant parental neglect and criticism, daily reassures another character of all the good things that she already is: "You is kind. You is smart. You is important."

The implication is that we too need to hear these positive self-affirmations, and there's no room given to less reassuring messages such as, "You is a sinner in need of salvation."

Those are two big reasons I reached the conclusion I did.

While I'm happy to hash out that rationale, I'm simply not interested in measuring my evidence against a standard you refuse to apply to yourself.

--

More in a moment, focusing on Scripture rather than that sermon.

Bubba said...

Now, MOST EMPHATICALLY, I affirm the omnipresence of God, but -- just as emphatically -- I also affirm the holiness of God.

To be holy means to be set apart, and while God is near to each one of us, He is also separate from each of us until we have been sanctified (made holy) by His saving work, at which point He adopts us as His Father and His Spirit regnerates and indwells us.

In its actual context, what you quote is consistent with the view that sinners are separated from God.

Here, I'm reminded of your denial that Jesus' death is causally connected to our forgiveness. As proof that the Bible doesn't always connect the two, you quoted I Peter 2:21, which teaches that Christ suffered as our example, but you did so ENTIRELY ignoring 2:24, which teaches that Jesus bore our sins on the cross. I despise your willingness to rip passages out of even in their immediate context to distort their plain meaning.

You quote Acts 17, where Paul teaches that God isn't far from each of us, but even though his sermon in Athens was interrupted, we see that Paul taught that God calls people to repentance (17:30) prior to a coming day of judgment (17:31), the implication being that we stand condemned UNLESS WE REPENT.

And you say that the Bible "tells us that NOTHING can separate us from God," but Romans 8 is clear that nothing can separate us from the love of God IN CHRIST, and the "us" in that passage is the redeemed community of believing Christians, not the universal community of all human beings. We know this because, in the very same letter, Paul is clear that all of us begin condemned and under sin, that all have sinned (Rom 3:23), and that we are only justified by God's grace "to be received by faith," (3:25) which not everyone does.

If you do believe that, before we repent and believe, we are separated from God, I don't see why you would suggest that such a separation is incompatible with God's omnipresence.

Or if you don't believe it, I don't see any good reason for you not to be out-and-proud about the position that you and evidently your pastor take.

Dan Trabue said...

We take the position that Jesus never preached about original sin.

We take the position that an almighty God is everywhere and with everyone.

We take the position that we are created in the image of a good God, according to the Bible. A little lower than God, according to the Bible.

We take the position that it is profoundly disturbing and irrational as hell to say that a newborn infant is "sinful" or "sin-full" or bound for hell because of an innate separation from God.

We take the position that neither life, nor death, etc can separate us from God.

We take the position that we can and do sin, and that this creates a separation, a problem. But that God remains with us, nonetheless.

Because an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving God would be none of those things if God did not remain with us.

Disagree if you wish.

Dan Trabue said...

Your pastor then claims that Jesus is "calling us back to our true selves,"

Indeed, she believes, as the Bible teaches, that we are created a little lower than the angels/God... that we are created to do good works in Christ. Nothing unbiblical in that.

Bubba said...

My copy of Ephesians 2 doesn't begin with verse 10, which teaches that "we are [God's] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works" -- never mind the validity of concluding that the "we" encompasses all mankind -- and instead the very same passage teaches that we were dead in our trespasses (2:1, 5) and then saved by grace through faith (2:8).

Ripping one phrase of the Bible out of its immediate context to mangle its meaning seems a little unbiblical, actually.

I do believe that everything you just wrote suggests that you don't believe in man's universal separation from God and Christ's exclusive provision of salvation. You asked whether I could quote an explicit denial of these things from you or your pastor, but you didn't actually provide an explicit affirmation -- and if you will not do that, I wish you would provide an explicit denial.

Actual clarity would have been nice at some point.

--

Still, I see the many adjectives you just attributed to God...

almighty
good
omnipotent
omnipresent
all-loving

...and I notice one important adjective you overlooked, despite the fact that I just very emphatically mentioned it.

holy

The word doesn't seem to be part of your vocabulary. Its absence really says it all, as the holiness of God is not something that one can overlook while still maintaining a truly balanced and biblical understanding of God.

Craig said...

Interesting that you rip one phrase from Hebrews 2 out of context, then you add a little extra that it doesn't actually say. For someone who constantly prates on about the importance of context, I find this wanton disregard for context somewhat appalling. Perhaps your just not familiar enough with actually using scripture to justify your opinions and need a bit more practice.

Anonymous said...

"Doesn't actually say?" You mean "a little lower than God..."? That's the literal word there, I've been told. How best to translate it is debatable. And the point of the text (Hebrews lifting it from the Psalmist) is that God has made us in God's image, a little lower than "heavenly beings."

THAT is how God has created us, all of us.

Now, you can say it is your hunch that we are born as hateful, deadly, awful sinners if you want. I would disagree with your hunch.

You can feel free to disagree with my hunch if you wish. But you can't say it's based on nothing. It's based on literal text, in context, of the Bible.

Feel free to rip it out of context and try to make it mean something else if you wish.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%208

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Bubba...

almighty
good
omnipotent
omnipresent
all-loving

...and I notice one important adjective you overlooked, despite the fact that I just very emphatically mentioned it.

holy


Holy: Set apart.

I think it is self-evident that an omnipotent, all-loving, omnipresent God is set apart, in a sense, by the very nature of being God vs us being human, only created in God's image, a little lower than God/angels. But what of it?

There is no absence of it in my beliefs. I do worry about how some humans abuse the notion, but I certainly believe in holiness as the Bible talks about it.

Look, feel free to disagree, hold whatever hunch you want, I don't mind. I will have to understand God the best I can, just as you will have to do.

Craig said...

That's amazing, you rip one phrase out of context, then try to act as if my pointing it out was the problem.

Oh, and please demonstrate your claim that "heavenly beings" is directly referring to God.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, translators disagree on the best translation. I don't know the right translation, and so, I offered both.

Are you really wanting to argue that I'm wrong for being thorough?

Are you really wanting to argue that it makes a bit of difference to my point I'm making?

Now, if you have some data that you know the right translation, feel free to provide it.

But before you do that, please demonstrate what I'm ripping out of context?

Did the Psalmist NOT say that man is created a little lower than God/the angels? In context, the psalmist is praising God and God's creation and wondering why an almighty God would make us or worry about us, mere mortals? Does the text somehow say that we AREN'T created wonderfully by God, in God's image?

How about you admitting you made a mistake, and the text I quoted supports exactly my point: That we ARE made in God's image, to do good works in Christ, just a little lower than even the angels?

Given that, do you really want to argue that we are born as worms, sinful as hell, deserving of hell, even as an infant?

Or do you recognize the irrationality and unbiblical nature of such a goofy claim?

Craig said...

Do you realize that the psalm is likely a messianic psalm, in which case it would be referring to Jesus.

But, if your not taking that one line out of context, (the fact that you've paraphrased/ altered it and ignored the Hebrews reference suggests that possibility), then do you trust the rest of the psalm in the same literal manner of your chosen phrase?

Dan Trabue said...

I'm sorry, what am I taking out of context?

Or are you admitting you made a mistake?

As I have said, I take the Bible to be a book of Truths. Truths that can be thought about and considered and discovered in a variety of ways, including using our reason, God's revelation, the Spirit, etc.

IF there is a good God and
IF we are created in God's image,
THEN, it is reasonable that we are created Good, in God's image.

This passage speaks to that truth that one can reach using reason.

I find this passage to be trustworthy because it's rational. I don't take it literally "because it's in the Bible." Rather, it speaks to sound thinking that one can reach using reason.

Dan Trabue said...

Do you realize that the psalm is likely a messianic psalm

Oh, does the text tell you that? Let me see... um, nope, not there in the text. "Likely," says who? Some humans hold the opinion, you mean? Maybe it would be better to say that, then.

Craig said...

You’ve taken one phrase out of a chapter and chosen to apply it in a wooden literal sense, do you apply that same wooden literal standard to the rest of the chapter?
I’d also suggest, that the use of the quote in Hebrews would mean that there would at least be an attempt to acknowledge that context as well.

You keep using the term “created”, in what sense did God create?

Bubba said...

It's not as if the author of Hebrews explicitly applied the verse to "namely Jesus" in 2:9...

IF there is a good God and
IF we are created in God's image,
THEN, it is reasonable that we are created Good, in God's image.


That logic doesn't work for God's power or omnipresence, so it's not clear why it must work for His goodness -- and claims like this suggest to me either that you don't really understand or that you don't really believe what the Bible says about God's holiness.

There's no one good but God. See Luke 18:19.

There's a huge difference between saying the Bible contains truths (sorry, Truths) and believing it contains nothing but truth. The former lets a person pick-and-choose the teachings he likes, the latter requires him to seek an understanding that harmonizes ALL teachings, even if that search is hindered by our biases and our limited knowledge.

I find this passage to be trustworthy because it's rational. I don't take it literally "because it's in the Bible." Rather, it speaks to sound thinking that one can reach using reason.

I GREATLY appreciate your candor here: it's far more honest than lip service to a teaching, claiming a figurative interpretation without EVER trying to discern (much less apply) the message being conveyed in figurative language.

But it's still a pretext for idolatry, creating a deity of your own choosing.

Craig said...

How is this theology you are espousing not panentheism?

Dan Trabue said...

But it's still a pretext for idolatry, creating a deity of your own choosing.

Admitting my opinion is MY opinion, that my interpretation is MY human interpretation and understanding is creating a deity, but suggesting that you hold the True Interpretation and understanding (i.e., conflating your opinion with God's Word) is not? Is that what you're saying?

The thing is, fellas, we ALL use our reasoning to understand the texts, we ALL reach human conclusions on these texts. It's just some of us are realistic and honest enough to admit our opinions are our opinions.

That isn't creating a deity, it's recognizing reality.

Failing to recognize reality, ironically, comes much closer to creating your own deity.

Or so it seems to me.

Dan Trabue said...

You’ve taken one phrase out of a chapter and chosen to apply it in a wooden literal sense, do you apply that same wooden literal standard to the rest of the chapter?

But I'm literally not doing that. You misunderstand my point.

How is this theology you are espousing not panentheism?

What theology am I espousing?

And I assume you mean Pantheism? What definition of it are you using?

MW: "a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe"

That one?

Craig said...

The theology that God is with/near/in all things at all times and in the same way.

Anonymous said...

Well, I do believe that Jesus taught a lot of that, except for "the same way..." I don't know that I believe that or not. It would have to be defined a bit more.

But I rather doubt it. That part of it.

Dan

Craig said...

That's pretty cryptic, care to be more specific?

Bubba said...

It's remarkable how much you invoke reality as equivalent to your position when our understanding of reality is mediated precisely by the same human reasoning which you think renders every interpretation fallible. You think humility should constrain us from believing that a text's message is EVER clear beyond any reasonable, good-faith disagreement, but you have no problem presuming to speak for reality itself.

But you miss my point: I wasn't talking about how one interprets any particular part of Scripture, but whether one attempts to trust ALL of Scripture.

You very clearly don't, by your own admission, so in a very real sense your conception of God is not biblical -- it's a fabrication of your own, supported by Bible passages taken out of context, if and only if they align with that fabrication -- and it's not subject to revision and correction resulting from subsequent study.

Dan Trabue said...

I very clearly DO trust ALL of Scripture, Bubba. I don't trust YOUR OPINIONS of its meanings, but I have no problems at all with Scripture. Indeed, I love it and have been reading it my whole life. By my own admission. Another instance of you all reading my words but not understanding what I say. Indeed, you all regularly interpret my words to be completely opposite of what I actually believe.

Craig, I don't know what you're asking for me to specify?

"The Theology that God is With..." I believe it, I believe that Jesus taught this.

"that God is near..." I believe it, I believe that Jesus taught this.

"that God is in all things..." I believe it, I believe that Jesus taught this.

"that God is With/near/in all things, at all times..." I believe it, I believe that Jesus taught this,

"that God is With/near/in all things, at all times... AND IN THE SAME WAY" I don't think I believe this, depending on what is being meant by "in the same way..."

What are you asking for clarification about?

Craig said...

I’m asking for clarification regarding how the theology you’re espousing differs from panentheism? If you can’t read and understand a simple question.,.

Anonymous said...

...and I answered. You expressed confusion about my answer. I asked for you to clarify what was confusing about my answer.

If you can't read...

Dan

Craig said...

The lack of specificity is confusing.

Dan Trabue said...

...?

And here we go again:

Craig, I don't know what you're asking for me to specify?

Craig said...

How, the theology you are espousing differs from Panentheism. Which, strangely enough is what I’ve asked before. For you to simply make vague assertions or offer proof texts doesn’t actually explain the difference between the two.

Craig said...

This may strike you as odd, but when I ask for an explanation or clarification when something you’ve said is confusing to me, I’d really appreciate an answer with some depth and detail.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm closing comments on this post, as there has been nothing notably added in the comments. If a visitor would like to add a productive comment here, please let me know.