Perro y Cerdo
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
“Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
“Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
“You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
“Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.
“Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.
======
Matthew 7:1-12
54 comments:
While I think there's a good bit here that perhaps lends support to sola fide, it's worthing noting that it all points to the doctrine of sin.
Both the command to stop judging and the more general command of the Golden Rule are clearly standards to which we ought to conform, but how often have we rebelled against them? Even in this series of comment threads, how many of us have truly treated everyone else with the respect we would like for ourselves? I know for certain I haven't.
Earlier, Christ taught that those who are spiritually bankrupt are the ones who are blessed, and He taught us to pray for forgiveness. Later in this Sermon He warns about the broad path to destruction, and about false prophets who will be sent away.
And here, He presumes the sinfulness of man -- "you, who are wicked" -- to encourage us to have faith in a God who is wholly good.
Those who would suggest that the concept of sin is a fabricated problem cannot pin that fabrication merely on modern fundamentalists or even on Paul. Jesus too taught that sin is real, as He came to preach repentance from it and to deliver salvation from it.
"Those who would suggest that the concept of sin is a fabricated problem..."
I don't believe anyone here doesn't believe in the existence of Sin. I think each of us are acutely aware of wrong-doing that happens in the world and the repercussions of this wrong-doing.
My initial comments on this passage would be to note that these passages help remind us of the need for balance.
I expect we can be mostly in agreement, for instance, in the dichotomy of not judging in a bad manner/be judgemental AND YET realizing that we need to make judgements in all things.
I suspect we all acknowledge the problems of hypocrisy (pointing out the speck in the eye when you've a plank in yours) AND YET balance that notion with standing ready/preparing ourselves (at least some of us) for prophetic roles - calling down judgement on systemic injustice.
We probably realize there's not much good offering Good to those who'd refuse it and trample it underfoot AND YET we recognize the need for reaching out just the same.
Finally, who can complain about the Golden Rule? That rule which is common to nearly every (if not every) religion known to humanity.
Do unto others... it's a good measure and a good way to help us balance these previous dichotomies.
Dan, I'm not sure I'd agree with you when you write, "I don't believe anyone here doesn't believe in the existence of Sin."
After all, Eleutheros wrote this in the "Be Perfect" thread:
"Roger, the religion you proffer is no more than an Alka-Seltzer religion. When the sales of Alka-Seltzer fell (after retiring the Speedy character), the Miles Co. came up with the idea of not selling the medicine but rather sell a disease for the medicine to cure. So they came up with the Blahs for their product to cure.
"That's all you are doing, creating a disease called 'lost' out of your imagination and then fabricating a particularly dismal and disturbing form of Christianity to cure it.
"Just an Alka-Seltzer religion. Anyone can do it, and many have. It takes not a dram of marrow to fabricate a fanciful condition for your Snake Oil Jesus to cure."
Maybe El thinks that merely "being lost" is the fabrication but that sin is real, but it's not clear.
Despite all that he's written, it's not entirely clear what Eleutheros rejects in traditional Christianity and what he believes in its place. In lieu of a clarification -- I would be surprised if one did come -- I might ought to begin limiting my comments here, though I do sincerely appreciate the invitation you extended when we were discussing just war at Daniel Randle's blog.
Again, I hesitate to speak for Eleutheros, but what I hear in that quote you referenced is a person speaking to the problem of religious indoctrination and the blindness that can cause, not someone denying Sin.
Some of us think that the bigger issues of the Bible, the Greater Truths, are exactly about right and gracious living, not about the ritual hoops one needs to jump through in order to be saved.
They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger...But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves....
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Dan said...>Again, I hesitate to speak for Eleutheros, but what I hear in that quote you referenced is a person speaking to the problem of religious indoctrination and the blindness that can cause, not someone denying Sin.
Every believer will openly admit (Romans 1:16), "I'm a sinner, there is absolutely no way I can fix that problem and earn salvation." If a person can't say that in their heart, they are not saved. Why is that important? It shows that we either accept or reject Jesus as The Way.
Dan said...>Some of us think that the bigger issues of the Bible, the Greater Truths, are exactly about right and gracious living, not about the ritual hoops one needs to jump through in order to be saved.
Whether one labels what I stated above as a 'ritual hoop' or not is irrelevant to the truth of it in our lives. Every one who realizes their spiritual poverty (Matt 5:3) will gladly run, jump, and do somersaults through those 'hoops'! :)
Dan, the "Greater Truths" of the Bible are these: that there are no hoops through which we must jump in order to be saved; that in fact we could not on our own meet any standard placed before us by a holy and righteous Creator; that the Creator is not only righteous, He is also merciful, and in His mercy -- through the cross -- He bridged the chasm of sin, a chasm that we created.
Though we clearly disagree over the details, what you call "right and gracious living" ought to be a consequence of our gratitude for God's grace, so it ought not to be diminished as our duty. But it's not the central message of the Bible.
"Love God" and "love your neighbor" are the two great commandments, but the Bible's central message isn't that we ought to love Him, but that He loves us. It's not what we ought to do in obedience to God, but what He did to save us: the manger, the cross, and the empty tomb; the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection.
THERE ARE NO BIGGER ISSUES.
Dan, I feel nothing but deep sorrow. Here, you have tried to blog on Jesus' sermon--the largest block of his teachings recorded in the NT--and bubba and roger don't think this is important. They want to discuss nothing other than whether or not someone is "saved." Theirs is a religion about Jesus--but it refuses to take Jesus' own words seriously. Every attempt to do so they steer back to their own issues.
This is trolling or spamming. It's why roger is banned from my site.
In principle it is no different from email spam for viagra ads, etc. It is an attempt to hijack your blog for their own agendas--instead of creating their own blogs to write on. Sad.
Michael, I'm not speechless in the face of your ridiculous assertions, but I'm left with few options other than to question either your character or your ability to read.
Instead of doing either, allow me to repeat myself:
Though we clearly disagree over the details, what you call "right and gracious living" ought to be a consequence of our gratitude for God's grace, so it ought not to be diminished as our duty. But it's not the central message of the Bible.
I do think the Sermon on the Mount is important -- very important, first as it is a clear view of the standard against which no mere human can measure up, the realization of which ought to bring a person to dependence on God's grace; second, as a picture of the life to which a Christian ought to aspire in gratitude for that grace. I just don't think the Sermon on the Mount replaces the cross and the empty tomb in importance.
I don't think I've demonstrated a desire to discuss "nothing other than whether or not someone is 'saved,'" but that's minor in comparison. I don't know how a person can read the passage I quoted above and conclude that I "don't think [the Sermon on the Mount] is important".
And I can't imagine how a person can accuse me of affirming a religion that "refuses to take Jesus' own words seriously."
With that, I believe you've crossed over from criticism to outright slander, Michael. As one Christian to another, I ask either for an apology or for some evidence to support your accusations.
*sigh*
I have to agree with Michael about this being sad. Quite frankly Bubba, Mom2, and Roger have turned these threads into their own quest to "save the lost". They have determined who is and who isn't. It is quite clear that Eleutheros is their main target.
I like Eleutheros. I gotta say that the life he leads requires a whole bunch more faith than I've got. That's for sure.
He is quite the skilled artisan too. He may be trying to keep this secret...but I found out! What he creates with his own hands is amazing and I'm sure the voices of angels can be heard through the master's hands that are lucky enough play those harp strings. Truly a labor of love.
Marty, could you point to even one comment where I suggested I knew who was saved and who wasn't?
You and Michael clearly don't the comments I've made, but that's hardly an excuse to lie about them.
Correction: You and Michael clearly don't like the comments I've made, but that's hardly an excuse to lie about them.
I wonder, just what is so objectionable in disagreeing with the implication that the Sermon on the Mount is one of the Bible's "Greater Truths" even in comparison to the Crucifixion and Resurrection?
What is so wrong in asking Eleutheros to clarify his incendiary comments about fabricated "Alka Seltzer" problems and the supposed "snake-oil" solution that he thinks some Christians are peddling -- to clarify what he objects to and what he himself believes?
And what is wrong in believing the Great Commission? Aren't we to take those words of Christ seriously, too?
Bubba,
The topic at hand is the Sermon on the Mount. Not the crucifixion and resurrection, not the great commission.
And as far as Eleutheros goes, his statements were loud and clear and need no clarifying.
Marty, if El's comments were quite as clear as you think they are, I wouldn't be wondering how, for instance, Dan divined how Eleutheros was talking about "the problem of religious indoctrination and the blindness that can cause" when he accused Roger of "creating a disease called 'lost' out of [his] imagination and then fabricating a particularly dismal and disturbing form of Christianity to cure it."
And I bring up the Crucifixion because Dan seemed to suggest that the Sermon on the Mount was important than issues of salvation:
"Some of us think that the bigger issues of the Bible, the Greater Truths, are exactly about right and gracious living, not about the ritual hoops one needs to jump through in order to be saved."
That's kind of an important question, whether the Biblical assertions about salvation are central to its message or a mere distraction from its ethical precepts. Do you really not think that's important enough to interrupt the intended flow of this look at Matthew 5-7?
But, anyway, I ASKED YOU A QUESTION.
Could you point to even one comment where I suggested I knew who was saved and who wasn't?
May I presume that the answer is no?
Would it then be too much then to expect an apology for accusing me of doing something I have not done?
Or let me guess: the accusation itself wasn't a digression from the topic of this blog entry, but an apology for it is out of bounds.
The problem that some of us have with "the great commission" is that the passage feels as if it's been hijacked to promote a particular strain of religion rather than honored for what Jesus is actually saying.
For one thing, by labelling it the Great Commission, it has gained the status of Primary Marching Order amongst many.
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world...
Some seem to have taken Jesus' usually fairly straightforward message (Love God, Love people, beware wealth, live simply, be peacemakers, do unto the least of these, etc) and made salvation a series of steps that are marginally biblical.
ie,
1. Believe you're a sinner
2. Recognize your need for Jesus' gift of salvation
3. Repent and turn from your sins
4. Make Jesus "Lord of your life" (which usually means don't be gay, have abortions, smoke, drink, cuss, gamble or hang out with those who do - and tithe!, but is NOT usually associated with Jesus' actual teachings)
And this Great Commission means getting people to accept this Four Step Process (or Five or Six, depending upon the evangelist) as the primary message of God in the Bible.
It's not so much (for some of us) that we necessarily disagree with those thoughts in and of themselves (as far as they go), but rather the rigidity of adherence to that particular process which is expected of followers and the exclusion of those who don't do the Procedures in the right order, in the right way or with the right rituals.
There's more to God than verbally accepting "Jesus into your heart," and the religious have often done more to turn folk away from the Jesus of the Bible than to bring them in.
Or so it seems to some.
There's more to God than verbally accepting "Jesus into your heart," and the religious have often done more to turn folk away from the Jesus of the Bible than to bring them in.
Or so it seems to some.>
Maybe it just seems so.
THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION BUBBA
On the post "Be Perfect"
Bubba: "Eleutheros, I believe your behavior makes an excellent case for the need for salvation." 1.06PM
"Why anyone should accept your word on what is and isn't Christian is beyond me." 3:54PM
Marty, How do you condone the statements made by eleutheros?
Although that was directed towards Marty, my answer to that question is that I think Eleutheros is getting much closer to the heart of the Gospel as found in the Bible than some of these other repetitive questions (Have you repented of your sins?, etc).
Let me try to put this in religious terms. Would I be correct in assuming that we agree that one step in the Salvation Process is Making Jesus Lord of your Life?
That's fairly boilerplate Christianity there, so I'll assume the answer is Yes.
What we're talking about is: What does it mean to make Jesus Lord of your life? It seems that many of the religious type are saying, "it means believe that he died for our sins (God having punished Jesus in our place), three days later rose again and has ascended into heaven to be our advocate there."
I'm (we're?) saying, to make Jesus Lord of your life means believing in the rightness of his teachings (that which Jesus actually talked about, that is - and that are echoed throughout the Bible) and following them by God's grace.
The disconnect, to me it seems, is that there seems not to be an emphasis on Jesus' actual teachings but rather this whole Atonement process. For those who've correctly followed and believed in this salvation/atonement process, they are free to believe that what they need to do to follow Jesus' teachings is to oppose gay marriages, support war, support capitalism, oppose abortion, exploit the earth, live irresponsibly (all the while condemning the poor for living irresponsibly).
That seems like a huge disconnect to at least some of us.
Marty, in neither of those quotes do I suggest I know who is and isn't saved, as my own behavior is also an excellent case for the need for salvation, and as I don't believe questioning a person's credibility on proclaiming what is and isn't Christian is directly related to the question of who is and isn't saved.
Dan, I absolutely agree that there's more to one's relationship with God than accepting the gift of grace, that accepting that gift is the beginning of the restored relationship, not the end of it: obedience to what Christ teaches ought to be the inevitable consequence of faith in His salvation from our sins.
To the degree that the church de-emphasizes our faithful submission to His Lordship, we ought to be ashamed.
I have a couple problems with what you wrote to Marty. For one thing, you mention "do unto the least of these" and in the very next paragraph suggest that opposition to murdering the helpless unborn isn't Biblical; and you act as if Christ didn't, in Matthew 19, affirm the complementary nature of the sexes that is described in Genesis 2.
Moreover, you seem to miss that Christ's ethical teachings ofeten revolve around Him personally: you've already covered the part of the sermon where He blesses those who are persecuted for His sake, and you're fast approaching that passage where He makes clear His central role in the final judgment. Even His ethical teachings have running through them a thread that is tied to Christianity's unique theological claims.
But what disturbs me is this:
Some seem to have taken Jesus' usually fairly straightforward message (Love God, Love people, beware wealth, live simply, be peacemakers, do unto the least of these, etc) and made salvation a series of steps that are marginally biblical.
Where IS salvation in your version of Jesus' "fairly straightforward message"?
It is my firm belief that the message of Christianity starts with Christ Himself. I would summarize the message this way: God became a man to be killed in order to save us from our sins; He rose from the dead and offers us the new life that is in Him; because of this, we should love God because He first loved us, we should love others because He loves them just as much, we should renounce our devotion to wealth in order to make His priorities our own, etc.
Where is the manger, the cross, and the empty tomb in your account of Christ's "fairly straightforward message"?
My point can be reiterated in your follow-up comment:
I'm (we're?) saying, to make Jesus Lord of your life means believing in the rightness of his teachings (that which Jesus actually talked about, that is - and that are echoed throughout the Bible) and following them by God's grace.
"Following them by God's grace" is a rather vague way to put it, one that I fear deemphasizes what Jesus taught about Himself.
And what Jesus "actually talked about" most emphatically includes Himself.
He says they are blessed who are persecuted for His sake; He says that He will judge us at the end of history.
He proclaimed that it is His blood and His body that initiates the new covenant between God and man.
He claimed Himself to be the light of the world, the bread of life, the good shepherd, and the true vine.
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
To focus our attention on these things -- while affirming that obedience to His commands ought to be a consequence of genuine faith in Him -- is NOT to ignore what He actually taught.
It's not just that we should affirm the rightness of His ethical teachings by obeying them, though we certainly should: we should affirm the truth of Who He is -- God Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected and Glorified -- and believe in the saving power of what He has done for us.
The former is important, but the latter must necessarily come first: the claims of the Incarnation and Crucifixion and Resurrection are so great that they cannot be subordinated to anything and still taken seriously.
"Marty, in neither of those quotes do I suggest I know who is and isn't saved"
Whatever Bubba.
Mom2, Dan answered your question quite well. I won't elaborate any further.
Marty, if you want to accuse me of lying, have the intestinal fortitude to do so explicitly.
Bubba has correctly stated:
>It's not just that we should affirm the rightness of His ethical teachings by obeying them, though we certainly should: we should affirm the truth of Who He is -- God Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected and Glorified -- and believe in the saving power of what He has done for us.
which are exemplified in
>the manger (Luke 2:11 - For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.)
>the cross (1 Peter 2:24 - who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness — by whose stripes you were healed)
>and the empty tomb (John 2:22 - Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.)
What we do need to do to be saved?
>we should affirm the truth of Who He is -- God Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected and Glorified -- and believe in the saving power of what He has done for us.
Does that make sense to you all?
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I believe (and stand to be corrected) that Roger would affirm that we ought to obey Christ's commands in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. I doubt any of us deny that duty, it's just that we think God's grace is a doctrine that trumps even that duty in importance.
But there's another thing worth noting. Dan, you're critical of "the rigidity of adherence to that particular process which is expected of followers and the exclusion of those who don't do the Procedures in the right order, in the right way or with the right rituals."
Do you not notice that none of us -- Mom2, Roger, and myself -- are as rigid as the example you give?
"Marty, if you want to accuse me of lying, have the intestinal fortitude to do so explicitly."
Look Bubba (sigh), you said what you said. I took it to mean what I said. If that's not what you meant, then fine. But that's sure how it came across to me.
Bubba said...>I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I believe (and stand to be corrected) that Roger would affirm that we ought to obey Christ's commands in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere.
You are right, Bubba. We should obey Christ's commands in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere.
Marty, it wasn't certainly not my intent to imply that I know whether Eleutheros or anyone else is saved. I don't think it can be reasonably inferred from what I wrote, but we can agree to disagree on that point.
Roger, thanks; perhaps both our clarifications can dispel the ridiculous insinuation that we don't think the Sermon on the Mount is important.
If by chance someone thought I was suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount was not important, they were taking what I said out of context. I told E (would have to go back to check exact words, but this is what I meant) that if Jesus was not God, then his writing of the Sermon on the Mount was not bearing the same weight.
Since I know that Jesus is God, I find the Sermon very important and the whole thing of Christ's birth, death and resurrection are proof of his divinity.
Man, I wish I'da got in on this earlier. In a nutshell: I mostly agree with Dan.
Now, would y'all come to my joint, read today's post (Tuesday's), join me in prayin' for my mama, and help spread my prayer request to others?
http://eruditeredneck.blogspot.com
Gracias.
>Now, would y'all come to my joint, read today's post (Tuesday's), join me in prayin' for my mama, and help spread my prayer request to others?
Thanks for sharing that with us, heading over to your site now...
The role of faith vs works is dealt with directly here, not so much in Jesus' words as what we make of them.
For those of us who take just the simple meaning, God promises to apply the same standard to us that we apply to other people. Fine. I don't expect anyone to be perfect so here I am promised that God won't expect me to be perfect either. I might be moderately annoyed at someone from time to time, but I don't ever act on it. I would treat them the same way as I'd treat someone against whom I had nothing at all. So God promises to deal with me the same way.
Which points out, why do I need Grace? It's grace enough that God has agreed to deal with me no more harshly than I deal with others.
Hence my ?"salvation", how God deals with me, is directly dependent on what I do.
I've discussed these verses with many a solafidian and fundamentalist and the gist of the take is this:
When we deal with people, no matter how good, gracious, generous and unforgiving we might be, it is always imperfect. Since God can only accept us as perfect (based on merit), then God treating us as we treat other people means that He too would be holding back just a little and that little bit is enough to be a deal breaker .... and we're lost since we are still not perfect.
So why tell us to not judge, forgive, give, etc.? It's only to show us and demonstrate definitively that we are imperfect and can never measure up, hence the need for Grace.
If fact, under this system of belief, any call to right living is moot. In the end it really doesn't make any difference because it is Grace that saves us, through faith. This is equally true for the pious philanthropist as it is for the womanizer and total debauch.
So you have a simple choice in how to understand some very simple teachings. Is Jesus giving us a promise that our actions, our works, have consequences (or rather than "promise" this, is He just pointing out the obvious), or else is He simply saying that our fate is dependent on a standard that we cannot in any wise ever hope to achieve.
Dan:"Finally, who can complain about the Golden Rule?"
Ah ... now that you bring it up...
A suicidal Islamic Jihadist is on a plane with you. He firmly believes (just as much as the fervent believers on this blog believe what they believe). If he detonates his bomb and you die in an act that is to the glory of Allah, you will be rewarded in Paradise.
If you ask him if he'd like someone to "do unto him as he is about to do unto you", he'd not hesitate to say "Oh, yes!"
Do you want him to follow the golden rule?
People of other religions were coerced and terrorized into accepting Christianity, such as much of the Native American Indian population. Their cultures were destroyed and families split up, all in an effort to save the children at least for Christ. The evangelicals of the day, when asked if they'd want that done to their families and their children, said "Oh, yes, if I was a lost heathen it would be better for someone to take my children than they go to Hell."
Like the question in earlier posts on your blog, Dan, about Gandhi and nonviolent resistance toward the British, the golden rule only works if all the people involved subscribe to more or less the same culture.
Eleutheros...
You don't have to try to come up with a solution on your own. God has already come up with a perfect one...
Note the definition of Atonement:
There are two opposite facts that the ingenuity of the theologians could not have reconciled without God’s solution: first, that God is holy and He hates sin, and that by His holy law sin is a capital crime; and second, that “God is love” (I John 4:8); and so the problem was “How can God be just and at the same time justify the sinner?” (cf. Rom. 3:26). John 3:16 tells us that God so loved that He gave — but our blessed Lord was not just a means to an end — He was not a martyr to a cause. In the eternal counsels of the Trinity, He offered Himself to bear our sins (Rev. 13:8), and so, voluntarily, He emptied Himself of the divine trappings of omnipotence, omniscience, and glory (Phil. 2:5-8), that He might be truly human, became the Babe of Bethlehem. For about 33 years He perfectly fulfilled the law on our behalf (Matt. 5:18) and then paid the penalty for our sins in His death for us upon the cross. Our Lord’s work of atonement looks in three directions: looking toward sin and Satan, He redeemed us with His precious blood (I Pet. 1:18,19: “Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold—but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot”); looking toward us, He reconciled a world of sinners with God (Rom. 5:6-11: “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”—); and looking toward the Holy Father, He propitiated divine justice (I John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world”).
Roger:"You don't have to try to come up with a solution on your own. God has already come up with a perfect one..."
Yes, He has, and Jesus describe it quite completely and precisely in the verses Dan quoted in this post. God will not judge us any more harshly than we judge others. There. Nothing more is really needed, is it?
Jesus' simple meaning of Jesus' words here can only be taken as being with odds with Paul's obsession over the Jewish symbolism of the atonement and sacrifice. Are we to reconcile Jesus to Paul, or Paul to Jesus. I'd say the former. Therefore we would not try to look beyond the simple meaning of Jesus' words to find some hidden meaning that would agree with a literal interpretation of Paul's symbolism, rather we'd accept Jesus' words just as they are and take Paul's Jewish hyperbole for what it is.
So while I appreciate the endless list of quotes from Paul's and Peter's and John's comparison of Jesus teachings to first century Jewish theology for instructional purposes to the Jews of those times, no thanks. I'll just take Jesus at his word and leave it at that.
Eleutheros, I will acknowledge that you understand at least part of the theologically conservative Christian's response to your theorizing about salvation by works: it is doubtful that you or anyone else could ever abstain totally from holding people to standards to which you yourself do not measure up.
But I'm not impressed with your rebuttal to that response:
"So why tell us to not judge, forgive, give, etc.? It's only to show us and demonstrate definitively that we are imperfect and can never measure up, hence the need for Grace.
"If fact, under this system of belief, any call to right living is moot. In the end it really doesn't make any difference because it is Grace that saves us, through faith. This is equally true for the pious philanthropist as it is for the womanizer and total debauch."
I believe this objection has already been addressed. As I wrote earlier in this thread, the standard of the Sermon on the Mount has a twofold purpose, first to convict us of a sinfulness that needs grace, then to paint a picture "of the life to which a Christian ought to aspire in gratitude for that grace."
Or as I wrote in an earlier thread, "in most circumstances, the faith that saves should lead a person to obey Christ in gratitude. That obedience isn't what saves, but it's a rather predictable effect of what does."
And why does it matter? Look to what I wrote in the very next paragraph:
"I sincerely believe that salvation ought not to be used as 'fire insurance': it's the first step in our walk with God, not the last. God wants His adopted sons and daughters to grow in maturity, to grow closer to Christ in resemblance and closer to the Father in an intimate relationship."
You apparently think Christians have paid entirely too much attention to Paul, but even he teaches in Romans 6 that grace is not a license to continuing sinning, and he teaches in Galatians 5 that we are to walk in the Spirit to produce its good and holy fruit.
The Bible is quite clear that the goal is not just the salvation of sinners, it's the sanctification of the saints.
And, briefly:
"God will not judge us any more harshly than we judge others. There. Nothing more is really needed, is it?"
It is if you judge more harshly than your own life could bear.
I suspect all men judge others more harshly than they ought, more harshly than they would want were the situation reversed. If I'm right about that, it's far better to acknowledge this hypocrisy than to live in denial of it. Which leads us right back to the beginning of this sermon...
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Eleutheros said...>I'll just take Jesus at his word and leave it at that.
Taking Jesus at His word leads us to some unavoidable issues.
As Bubba has correctly noted...
>Which leads us right back to the beginning of this sermon...
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
We can't avoid the issue of our own sin (accepting it just as Jesus has stated regarding it) and the reality of the cross and resurrection (accepting it just as Jesus actually did it!).
Here are some words of Jesus regarding the issue of Him being Lord, man's sin, and the necessity of repenting of sin and being 'born again'...
Matt 4:10
Matt 4:17
John 13:13
Luke 13:3
John 3:7
John 8:7
John 8:24
John 10:9
Here are some words of Jesus regarding the sacrifice and atonement of the cross...
John 10:15
John 10:17-18
John 15:13
Dan, the trolls have hijacked your blog. I think you are going to have to go to a moderated format, more's the pity. Unless, of course, you like all this name calling.
Sorry, I've been otherwise engage.
I'll pass on the moderation, Michael. Not my style. I don't see name-calling going on so much as moving away from the topic.
A reminder: We're discussing Matt. 7 here. Hypocrisy, pearls before swine, judging (and not)...these issues.
If no one has anything else to contribute to the passage at hand, I'll be moving on to the final portion of the sermon.
Bubba:"Christian ought to aspire in gratitude for that grace."
Or as I wrote in an earlier thread, "in most circumstances, the faith that saves should lead a person to obey Christ in gratitude."
Ought. Should. Here is the heart of the matter then. Taking Jesus at the simple direct meaning of his words, one must live a better life, move toward a more spiritual life.
But under the system of belief you describe one simply should live a better life, ought to live a better life, although it isn't actually necessary. And even then not because it makes any difference, but rather out of gratitude, as if you are leaving God a gratuity.
So a decent life, right living, the ONLY thing we have in our hands and in our control in this mortal life, is under one system of belief an urgent vital affair, and under the other system of belief it's just a tip we are leaving on the table for God.
Michael, I must agree with Dan that I don't see a whole lot of name-calling -- other than your calling others "trolls".
And I would still like an apology for your baseless assertion that my faith "refuses to take Jesus' own words seriously."
Eleutheros, you write that my beliefs lead to the conclusion that obedience to Christ's commands "isn't actually necessary."
The question is, necessary for what?
Is perfect obedience a necessary precursor for the completed salvation of a sinner? Absolutely not, and thankfully not, or we would all be condemned.
Is perfect obedience a necessary precursor for the completed sanctification of a saint? I would say yes, it is, and though such perfection is impossible in this life, we ought to do all that we can to get as close as we can.
I don't think it's the case that "a decent life, right living," is "the ONLY thing we have in our hands and in our control in this mortal life." There is faith, the decision to trust God's ability to save and right to rule.
And I think you misunderstand my beliefs terribly if you confuse gratitude with a mere gratuity, if you think that obedience in thankfulness is "just a tip we are leaving on the table for God." I agree fully with Isaac Watts on this score:
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.
A genuine understanding of the magnitude of God's gift of forgiveness results in a commitment of one's entire life to Him. It results, here and now, in one's doing his best (for, by definition, he cannot do better) to submit to His instructions; it culminates in his being made perfect after this life.
Eleutheros, Dan, and Michael,
Do you understand the words of Jesus in those verses that I listed in my previous post?
They are not off topic and very relevant to the discussion of the Sermon on the Mount (which started with Matt 5:3)...
"Do you understand the words of Jesus in those verses that I listed in my previous post?"
No, Roger. We haven't read those before and, now that I have read them, I'm baffled! What the hell is Jesus talking about?
Bubba:"perfect obedience"
Bubba, when did Jesus command us to perfect obedience? Here I mean 'perfect' as you are using the word, in the modern English sense of flawless in every detail.
Roger:"Do you understand the words of Jesus in those verses that I listed in my previous post."
Sorry, Roger, we got distracted being concerned whether you understood the verses that are the subject of this post.
Roger, you may just be unable to understand this, but your statements like this are condescending, presumptive and off-putting. They do damage to the Realm of God.
Stop, please.
Or, to remind you of the topic at hand: Stop judgind that you may not be judged. The measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
Jesus is talking to us here, it appears.
Are we all taking Jesus' words seriously? This is a matter of life or death! If you don't let the truths of those verses touch your heart, you'll die in your sins and no matter of good works will save you.
This is all key to understanding Matt 5:3 which is the topic at hand.
If those words of Jesus do not tie into a discussion on the Sermon on the mount, please clarify.
Eleutheros, we are commanded that we are not only to abstain from lustful deeds and hateful words, but also to abstain from the thoughts that lead to them. We are told that those who break even the least commandment will be considered the least in Heaven, and that our righteousness must not only meet but exceed the Pharisees. And even if we grant that teleios means "complete," we're commanded to be complete in the same way God is.
How could you read all that and not believe that the sermon requires perfection?
Since the mainstream interpretation is that the sermon sets a standard of perfect obedience, I'm not sure the burden isn't on you to explain why it doesn't.
I believe it could be said that, for your belief systems, right living is not the "urgent vital affair" you claim it is, at least not in comparison to mine.
In the mainstream Christian system, sure, obedience is not necessary for salvation, but the standard for obedience isn't merely reaching a close approximation of the Sermon's teachings but is rather a perfect adherence to it. Since saints are fully saved but not yet fully sanctified, perfection is not attainable in this life, but it is the goal.
In your system it appears that obedience is necessary for salvation, but it's an obedience of "good enough."
I don't believe that God became a human, born in a stable in a backwater Roman province, lived a perfect life, established a new covenant with His blood and body to offer a new covenant and a new birth, and provided through His Holy Spirit a wholly new nature, just so we could read His ethical teachings and suppose that an approximate facsimile is good enough for Him.
Where, in the face of Who Jesus is and what He taught, is the sense of numinous awe and dread?
I believe, now more firmly than ever, that a person who can read the Sermon on the Mount and not tremble at its implications does not understand either the sermon, or himself, or both.
Bubba:"In your system it appears that obedience is necessary for salvation, but it's an obedience of "good enough."
Ah, well, Bubba, and I do believe, bless my soul, that you ARE beginning to understand.
Bubba:"we're commanded to be complete in the same way God is."
That's right, you're coming around to it at long last. Since we are commanded to be complete in the same way God is complete, and only a nave or fool commands you to do something they already know you can't do, then the "way" God is complete isn't what you imagine it to be. It doesn't mean infinitely detailed flawlessness. It must per force mean something else.
Bubba:"Where, in the face of Who Jesus is and what He taught, is the sense of numinous awe and dread? "
I'd say Constantine was mainly responsible for that, setting himself up as a sort of Jesus substitute with all the dread and awe full blown. Jesus is more along these lines:
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Meek. Lowly. Easy. Light.
The awe and dread are fading here, Bubba.
"requires perfection"
For Christ's sake. And I mean that honestly, in the sense of "for the Body of Christ."
How can any discussion that even brushes against God's grace include the lie that perfection is either a prerequisite, or a requisite, or even a result of salvation this side of heaven?
Give. Me. A. Break.
If we could be perfect without Jesus, we souldn't need Jesus. Amd if we could be perfect *with* Jesus, we wouldn't really need Grace, would we? We'd just need to use our newfound power through Christ to be spotless and holy. But we don't, whether we try or not. Not one of us. No. Not. One.
Sigh. There must be some Holiness, Pentecostal or other stripe of post-Cross LEGALISTS in here. :-)
Not that I don't count all y'all as brothers. :-)
There is one common thread that runs between most all that agree with Dan and that is that you all have seemed to come out of a church to go another direction. Have any or all of you really sat down and thought about WHAT drew you away? Is there any possibility that you want to find a doctrine that agrees with YOU? I have attended the same church for 50 years and sometimes things were not going MY way, but as long as the gospel is preached, I was there to hear it and usually if I listened I heard my own sin revealed.
I might add that I attended 2 other churches before this last one and the reason I left them was because I moved to this location last. Over all the years, I've heard the gospel and I have not desired to hear a "new" gospel. I think Paul advised against seeking a new message other than the one he taught. That is why God's Word is so wonderful, it is timeless and unchanging. It is powerful, it will speak to our hearts if we listen. Merry Christmas everyone!
In my case, the Southern Baptist Church left ME, when the fundamentlaists took it over starting in 1978-1979.
And, I'm engaging no new Gospel, but the one I grew up with in a small-town Baptist church before so many people decided to deify the Bible.
"Have any or all of you really sat down and thought about WHAT drew you away?"
Yes, we have (speaking for at least a few of us, if not all of us). We left the traditional religionists (or it left us, as ER put it) to pursue what the Bible actually says, what God is trying to tell us.
I believe the way I believe precisely because I was taught to take the Bible seriously by little old lady Baptist Sunday School teachers and preachers when I was a kid. They taught me pretty well in a lot of ways. I'm trying to stay true to what I learned.
Post a Comment