FlatFixer2
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.
Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
This is how you are to pray:
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread;
and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;
and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.
But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.
======
Matthew 6: 1-19
71 comments:
Ah yes. And so when family practicing Fundamentalism (as opposed to Christianity) sits down at McDonald's and makes sure everyone is watching them before they make a big show of praying over the BigMacs so they can Witness to the Sinners (TM), they are in clear violation of Jesus' teachings.
Ooooh. Let me sit back and enjoy the dance as they dodge their way around this one.
Moving past the obvious vitriol, I agree with you on this one. While we are commanded to let our light shine, we are also commmanded not to pray to be seen by men.
If we're tempted to hide our faith to blend in, we probably should resist that temptation. But if we're tempted to make a show of our faith to stick out, we should resist that temptation, too. The goal is a life of pure faith in God and charity toward others, a life that is free of concern for oneself.
In his commentary -- which I again recommend -- the evangelical John Stott agrees. (You can read a sermon based on his commentary on the subject here.)
The most devout of us, even the evangelicals, agree on this command. But we recognize the impossibility of obeying that command on our own.
By the bye, Dan, I'm trying to make a connection between the photos and the posts.
Is that "Zen and the Art of Bicycle Maintenance?"
Bubba,
I have no beef with your basic comments here and no particular beef with John Stott who is a good guy. But Stott is no scholar. His book, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (IVP, 1978), while helpful, is not the huge star of brilliance you seem to think. Major commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount are found in most critical commentaries on Matthew. Others include Clarence Jordan, The Sermon on the Mount (Judson Press, 1974); Dale Allison, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount (Crossroad, 1999); David Garland's Reading Matthew (Crossroad, 1993), pp. 85ff ; Robert Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount (Word Books, 1982). Very helpful is Pinchas Lapide, The Sermon on the Mount: Utopia or Program for Action? (Orbis, 1986). Lapide, now deceased, was a German Jewish Rabbi who pioneered in Jewish-Christian dialogue and was a New Testament scholar on top of his studies in Hebrew Scripture and Talmud. He interprets Jesus in his Jewish setting. (Incidentally and somewhat beside the point, Lapide in other books argued for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection and mocked liberal Christian scholars who denied it. But Lapide still did not think the resurrection proved Jesus to be the Messiah!!)
Finally, I greatly recommend the brand new work by my teacher, Glen H. Stassen, Living the Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Hope for Grace and Deliverance (Jossey-Bass, 2006).
Michael, I recommend the book, not because I think it's uniquely brilliant or the pinnacle of scholarship, but because it addresses many of the real-world concerns that are coming up in these discussions. There are no doubt many other fine commentaries.
"Is that "Zen and the Art of Bicycle Maintenance?"
If that's what you see...
"Incidentally and somewhat beside the point, Lapide in other books argued for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection and mocked liberal Christian scholars who denied it. But Lapide still did not think the resurrection proved Jesus to be the Messiah!!"
I've heard about his guy, but never got around to reading him. What did he think the Resurrection proved, if anything, given he didn't believe it pointed to Jesus being the Messiah?
Constantine (a name that strikes fear in my Anabaptist heart!), I don't want to sidetrack from the topic of Dan's posts--the Sermon on the Mount. So this is brief: Rabbi Lapide held that the Resurrection was God's seal of approval on Jesus' message for the renewal of Judaism. His rejection of the idea of Jesus as Messiah was because the Messiah was to be a Davidic king who restored Jewish sovereignty and Jesus didn't fit the bill. (Many scholars believe that this is why Jesus himself was reluctant to use the title--especially with its militaristic overtones.) In a later dialogue with the Christian theologian, Jurgen Moltmann, (published as Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Faith), Lapide barely conceded the idea that Jesus might possibly be the Messiah for the Gentiles, but not the Jews. Still later, he opined that if it turns out at Judgment that Jesus was Messiah after all few Jews will be disappointed because, once they get past all the baggage of Christian persecution, most Jews like Jesus and see in him the best of Jewish values. (Lapide's words, not mine.)
Regardless of what you think of his other writing (and his book arguing for the Resurrection is very compelling), Lapide's book on the Sermon on the Mount is first-rate. He points out that ALMOST every one of Jesus' teachings in the S.O.M. can be found in the teachings of the rabbis--except the command to love enemies. Here, according to Lapide, Jesus goes beyond Jewish teaching--though not against it. BUT, he points out, in practice over the centuries, the Jews, the physical brothers and sisters of Jesus, have more often shown love of enemy than have Christians! I have to agree.
A few thoughts on "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH, as it is in Heaven..."
One of the seminal books in my life was Art Gish's Living in Christian Community. One of the comments in that book says something to the effect of, ~"if we are longing for the day when there is no starvation, oppression, terrorism or war, why wouldn't we begin to live thusly here and now?"
Thy kingdom come...on earth.
And I'm not talking Utopianism, by the way, only right living.
G. Richard Wheatcroft writes at the Center for Progressive Christianity:
‘The time has come: the Kingdom of God is upon you; repent and believe the Gospel.” It seems evident that, given this historical background, the Kingdom of God refers to this world. This is underscored by the fact that the first petition of the Lord’s Prayer is “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as in heaven (Matt. 6:9-10) People can be confused about the location of the Kingdom of God when they read the Gospel according to Matthew because he uses the phrase, Kingdom of Heaven, which is often interpreted to mean Kingdom in Heaven.
I like that. Don't talk to me about pie in the sky by and by. Talk to me about here and now. This seems to me to be one disconnect between traditonal religiosity and biblical text.
You think?
Yeah, I think so too Dan.
"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 17:20,21.
I've been quietly observing all the comments here lately. Some are trying to make the Bible much more complicated than it is. Seems to me.
And then there's always someone who eventually questions another's salvation. That one who thinks himself or herself righteous enough to be able to see into the heart of another and make that judgement.
Beautiful passage, Marty. Thanks for adding it. That Jesus sure could turn a phrase.
Dam (quotes):"People can be confused about the location of the Kingdom of God when they read the Gospel according to Matthew because he uses the phrase, Kingdom of Heaven, which is often interpreted to mean Kingdom in Heaven."
A good point this fellow has, although the question is cleared up quite precisely in Luke (17th chapter)
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
This is one of a series of verses in Luke and Matthew (some in the SoM, and I look forward to them being brought up) which are real stumbling blocks to the Solafidians. I've even had fundamentalists hold that it must really mean "among you", but it doesn't. The word is "entos" which is an emphatic form of the idea of "within". These people Jesus was talking to were not Christians (there were as yet not any) and he doesn't say that the Kingdom will be there sometime, when they "get saved" or "accept Jesus", or that it is a gift, but rather that it is already within them.
Significant, that.
Dan:"Don't talk to me about pie in the sky by and by. Talk to me about here and now."
I hope you do a post on your view of "heaven on earth".
Michael, I don't think it's all that surprising that much of Jesus' teachings were consistent with at least what some other rabbis were teaching, that we find for instance rabbis (such as Shammai) who apparently took similar stances on the normative permanence on marriage: after all, they all agreed on what texts were authoritative.
One could speculate why "love your enemies" was new to the world of Jewish religous thought in the first century, but even that teaching has its roots in the Old Testament, specifically Exodus 23:4-5. That they missed the teaching then is to their discredit; that we do not obey the teaching now is to ours.
And if I may make one more side comment about Stott, the preface to the series of which that book is a part says its ideal is "to expound the biblical text with accuracy, to relate it to contemporary life, and to be readable.
"These books are, therefore, not 'commentaries', for the commentary seeks rather to eludicate the text rather than apply it, and tends to be a work rather of reference than of literature."
For that reason, I believed and still believe that it's a good book to recommend for a discussion such as this, where the focus seems to be on real-world application of the text.
Dan, I think it's true that our lives ought to be consistent with the desire for the coming of God's kingdom, but I would remind you that -- in this fallen world -- the goals of that kingdom are sometimes in conflict. Sometimes it may be reasonable to believe that the only effective way to resist oppression, for instance, is to wage war; we should be slow to accuse those whose political positions differ from our own of being willfully disobedient of God's will.
I disagree with Wheatcroft when he writes, "the Kingdom of God refers to this world." How could that be so when, in John 18:36, Christ asserts that it's not of this world? And how could you believe that when you praise Luke 17:20-21, and Christ saying that the people won't be able to point to a geographic location corresponding to God's kingdom?
I wonder, will you skip Matthew 7:21-22, since, in talking about "that day" of final judgment, Christ is broaching the subject of what you call "pie in the sky by and by" rather than the here and now?
Seems to me that Christ preached a good bit about the end of history. We His followers should be open to whatever subject that is important to Him rather than insist on subjects that we think are important to us.
Eleutheros, were one of my assertions about Scripture so thoroughly and easily discredited as your assertion yesterday that Romans' intended readers were wholly Jewish, I would hope that I would not be so quick to return to telling other people what the Bible means.
At any rate, I believe you're overreaching. Yes, Luke 17:20-21 does not necessitate a belief in sola fide, but nor does it preclude such a belief. Pointing out individual passages that do not explicitly affirm sola fide does not discredit the doctrine; what matters is whether the doctrine is consistent with the entirety of Scripture.
What's clear in the passage here is that the kingdom of God isn't external or physical or temporal: it's spiritual. Conclusions that go radically beyond that are speculative and must be verified against the rest of Scripture.
Bubba:"Eleutheros, were one of my assertions about Scripture so thoroughly and easily discredited as your assertion yesterday that Romans' intended readers were wholly Jewish, I would hope that I would not be so quick to return to telling other people what the Bible means."
Well, Bubba, we can all hope that you will one day get on the wagon and lay off the "Old Fundie" snake oil you are swilling and engage in some real Biblical scholarship.
Romans is spends so much of it's text dealing with issues of interest only to Jews such as eating unclean meat and circumcision. You might try to expand your horizons with Mark Nanos The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter. He clearly shows that the letter was written to the Romans specifically because there was a question about how closely the Jews (and there were 50,000 of them in Rome at the time) were to follow the Jewish teachings.
Bubba:"Conclusions that go radically beyond that are speculative and must be verified against the rest of Scripture."
This conclusion only goes radically beyond Fundamentalism (which is in error) not the scriptures. Many have pointed out how heavily the Fundamentalists rely on the Pauline epistles only using Jesus' own words as a sort of secondary supplement to Paul's teaching to the Jews.
If, however, we put a very heavy weight on what Jesus Himself said as being the essence of his message and only view Paul and company as commentary on it, it presents an entirely different picture. This is what Thomas Jefferson did. He published the Jefferson Bible which only contained the words of Jesus contained in the synoptic Gospels.
If you really did "accept Jesus" instead of "accepting Paul" and Jesus could come along so long as He keeps quiet and stays out of the way, it would be clear that Paul was engaging in Jewish allegory to a Jewish audience and Jesus message is something quite other than that.
Even if you accept (and no doubt you do) all the dramatis personae and events of the NT times as historically accurate and literally true, you must surely know that at the time Paul was writing most of his epistles, the gospels didn't exist. Everyone was conveying the message by word of mouth from what they had heard Jesus say (except Paul, of course, who only met him posthumously). Try that yourself. Try making the case for your theology using ONLY Jesus' words and see if you really are "accepting Jesus."
El, on what possible grounds do you justify your preaching to me or anyone else about "real Biblical scholarship"?
You asserted that Romans was addressed solely to Jewish Christians, and I pointed out a lengthy passage in which Gentile converts were addressed directly.
Your response? The letter "spends so much of it's text dealing with issues of interest only to Jews such as eating unclean meat and circumcision." Even if it were true, that assertion would be beside the point, because you weren't arguing that Romans was addressed primarily to Jews but SOLELY to Jews.
That assertion isn't even plausible because Acts 15 records that Jewish Christians were trying to impose circumcision on Gentile Christians: the question of whether Gentiles had to become Jewish before being becoming Christian is obviously important to Jew and Gentile alike.
...and now we get the predictable attempt to abridge canon altogether.
In the last comment thread, you said that I wouldn't dare take you up on your demand for a standard by which we could interpret the Bible, because I would "eventually have to own up to parts of the Bible you'd rather ignore." Now you're suggesting we ignore everything but the Gospels -- not even that, apparently the words (not the deeds) of just the Synoptic Gospels.
You then asserted, "What is on the lips of those who buy into the franchise isn't found in the Bible," but now it doesn't matter if it's simply found in the Bible, because you write about "how heavily the Fundamentalists rely on the Pauline epistles only [to use] Jesus' own words as a sort of secondary supplement to Paul's teaching to the Jews."
For what it's worth, I believe you're somewhat mistaken about the Jefferson Bible, too. It does quote from John, but it isn't simply a collation of all Jesus said: I belive Jefferson excised verses in which Jesus claimed divinity, such as His sitting in judgment, promised in Matthew 7:21-23.
And I have no idea how the likelihood that Paul's epistles predate the Gospels disqualify them as being genuine expressions of Christian doctrine. If they were written later than the Gospels, surely you wouldn't try to discredit them as unnatural additions, would you?
In truth, I believe that Jesus' words affirm Christian theology quite well on their own: Matthew 19 is just as clear about the complimentary nature of the two sexes as anything Paul wrote.
Justification by faith alone through grace alone? The introduction to John's Gospel talks about those who received Christ and believed in His name as those who were given the power to become children of God; the beatitude about spiritual poverty contradicts salvation by works; the parables about the lost sheep and the lost coin suggest the active saving work of God; Jesus was clear that He came to save the lost and heal the sick; the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine point to His work, not ours, in establishing the covenant that would result in the forgiveness of sins; and it's hard to see how the criminal on the cross beside Jesus was saved by anything other than faith in His ability to save.
I could probably go on, but I'm satisfied with that list as a spur-of-the-moment thing, and I'm fairly certain even an exhaustive list wouldn't satisfy you.
It would be an interesting exercise, seeing if all of Christian theology is at least latent in just the Gospels. I'd be willing to take up the challenge with a serious student of Christianity, but it's perfectly clear you ain't it.
Bubba:"I'd be willing to take up the challenge with a serious student of Christianity, but it's perfectly clear you ain't it."
In order to be a psychologist and study insane people, it isn't necessary to be insane yourself. In fact, it isn't a very good idea.
You aren't a serious student of Christianity, you are an indoctrinee of Fundamentalism. You are no more capable of being a serious student of Christianity than an insane person is of being a psychologist.
A serious student of anything doesn't adopt one point of view, one conclusion, and panickingly defend it against any possible alternate shades of meaning.
Evangelist you may be, fundamentalist you may be, but student? Hardly.
And here's why. A student is open to the possibility that their studies may lead them to the conclusion that they are wrong, fundamentally (pun intended) wrong. A student would be open to the idea that they might study the Christian religion with an open enough mind that they would find that "faith alone" is not true. An actual student would also be open to the idea that their study might lead them to conclude that the Christian religion itself is not true. Might not, but it might.
Notice the number of times you've protested "This is a discussion between Christian brothers, what's this unbeliever doing here?! (to wit)" What are you afraid of?
Until then you are no student but only very much like an insane person trying to be a psychologist.
Enough of that, if you have anything real to say about the Christian religion and Dan's posits here about the Sermon on the Mount, let's hear it. But this endless spouting of fundamentalist crap is something everyone has heard many, many times before, know it better than you do yourself, it's nothing new, nothing that adds to anyone's knowledge, it's not a different point of view that everyone doesn't already know by heart long ago and far away (yawn).
You seem incapable (or fearful) of the idea of anyone looking at your fundamentalist spiel and telling you, "Yes, yes, Bubba, I know all that. Knew it before you did, know it as well or better than you do, have heard in in ten thousand tellings all my life, can quote you all your own arguments even before you make them, can recite your rosary bead list of scriptures you quote to support it, AND I've decided that it's all crap."
Scares you, don't it! The only reason someone is supposed to reject fundamentalism is because they don't know it (disguised usually as "know Jesus") Yet you cling to the fearful myth that anyone who would not accept your fundamentalism is just .... not student of Christianity.
Gotta do better than that.
>And then there's always someone who eventually questions another's salvation. That one who thinks himself or herself righteous enough to be able to see into the heart of another and make that judgement.
Marty,
I'll answer this as I assume it was addressed to me. :)
There is nothing wrong with asking questions as to make sure that people understand salvation and what it means to be saved. Are our friends not worth it? If someone is in error about how we are saved, how can they be saved? Scripture clearly teaches that error in respect to the one true way of salvation leads to eternal death. Which would the enemy rather have us do: ask questions as to see what people believe given what they tell us? (Remember that Jesus said in Matthew 12:34 - "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks") - or would the enemy have us remain silent and assume someone is saved when in reality they are not?
By the way, how are we to witness to people? How are we to know if they need to be saved or not if it's 'wrong' to ask questions that relate to sin, death, the cross, salvation, grace, who Jesus is, etc?
If you have any questions regarding my questions or comments, feel free to email me personally and I'll address them in more detail so any misunderstandings can be cleared up.
Roger
Roger, you know what they say about assuming....
But in retrospect...if the shoe fits...
How are we to witness to people?....
Certainly not with ulterior motives.
Do I have any questions regarding your comments?...
Nope, you've been quite clear.
Thanks for offering the e-mail chat, but I think I'll pass.
Eleutheros and bubba, I must say I've found your on-going discussion vastly interesting. I'm sorry I've had nothing intelligent or cogent to add.
I'm not at all asking you to quit, but let's remember the topic which y'all are touching on somewhat but also flitting about a bit.
Still, it's all been intriguing...
Thanks for the continuing comments everyone.
A serious student of Christianity is not necessarily a Christian, much less a Christian with a particular theology. But a serious student of Christianity would, for instance, know that the book of Romans contains a lengthy passage addressed directly to Gentile converts to Christianity (11:13-32) -- or if he was at one time ignorant of that fact and was corrected, he would accept that correction.
You write, "A serious student of anything doesn't adopt one point of view, one conclusion, and panickingly defend it against any possible alternate shades of meaning."
I believe a serious student could adopt a point of view provided he was open to correction, and I don't believe you can point to a single specific example of my providing a defense out of panic, but how do you yourself measure up to this standard? You assert that Romans was directed solely to Jewish Christians (in apparent ignorance of Romans 11), then you assert that topics like circumcision are of interest only to Jewish Christians (in apparent ignorance of Acts 15), and then you suggest that we should ignore everything but the (synoptic?) Gospels anyway.
Are you open to the idea that your beliefs about sole fide are wrong? Are you open to the idea that your beliefs about Christianity are wrong? Apparently not, as you write that you've heard it all before and long ago dismissed my arguments. Funny then how you don't actually engage those arguments all that much: I would think that you would have stock refutations for my supposedly worn-out assertions, but you stick to dismissing them as old-hat snake oil, and you don't provide good reasons for doing so.
And is there any wonder about that? You clearly don't know the Bible half as well as you pretend, so it should come as no surprise that you can't provide much substance to back up your sneering.
I did not and would not suggest that a discussion about the Sermon on the Mount should be limited to Christians. What I wrote is that I did not understand what you add to the discussion given your obvious animosity toward at least a large segment of mainstream Christian thought, and that I believe there are better venues for you to rail about issues that aren't specific to the sermon, such as the infallibility and perspicuity of Scripture.
But since making those observations, I've written at least ten (often lengthy) posts dealing directly with your assertions, flinching from none of them. I've proven my ability to defend my faith just as you've demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to do much more than sling mud and offer half-baked theories that are ludicrously easy to refute.
So, blather on about my not having anything "real" to say about Christianity, and keep talking about cowardice. I know who was taken to the woodshed and by whom -- and so does anyone who has eyes to see -- and I'd be more than willing and able to go another round with you.
Dan, you have recently esteemed Eleutheros as your "very own visiting Greek professor," and he's praised you as someone else who has moved on from the brand of Christianity he holds in such thorough contempt.
However, he has repeatedly, unambigiously, and viciously attacked justification by faith as snake oil. Even if you have nothing of substance to add to our exchange, I for one am curious to know whether you agree with him.
If you disagree with him on an issue as important as salvation and justification, I think you should say so. If you agree with him on sola fide in opposition to most of Protestantism, I also think you should say so.
Bubba:"" Even if it were true, that assertion would be beside the point, because you weren't arguing that Romans was addressed primarily to Jews but SOLELY to Jews."
Your entire supposed rebuttal to my point is based on the word SOLELY. Go back and read the original post and find the word SOLELY in there.
The point was that Romans was not written to ethnic Romans rather to the Saints who were at Rome, hence it is written in Greek rather than Latin which Paul could have easily managed if he'd been of a mind.
It was YOU who injected the word SOLELY in there and then you precede to rebutt an argument that never existed. See what happens when you inject the word SOLELY when it's not even there.
You, and Martin Luther, have done exactly the same thing with the Christian religion. You read it, don't really understand what's being said, and inject the word SOLELY in there (Saved by faith SOLELY) then proceed to hotly defend and challenge anyone to engage you in debate about something you made up.
There's no need to rectify or harmonize the passages about 'faith' in the NT when you realize that the problem only exists when people go about sprinkling the word SOLELY where it does not exist and does not belong.
Bubba said:
"If you disagree with him on an issue as important as salvation and justification, I think you should say so."
The reason I haven't had much to say is due to the loaded words – words which might mean something different to different folk.
First, let me point out the obvious: The Bible has a lot to say about what we call salvation. The Bible has a lot to say, period.
Clearly, a literal translation of the parable of the sheep and the goats tells us that Jesus sorted out the doomed from the blessed based upon what they did and didn’t do. Further, Phillipians tells us to “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
Are Jesus and Paul telling us in these passages that we are saved by what we do and don’t do – by works? If we were to take those passages literally and at face value, it seems yes.
But then, Jesus also tells us (in Mark 16), “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
And Paul says in Ephesians, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”
And James tells us “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
My point being that it can be a confusing mess to wade through. Are we saved by works? By faith? By grace? By grace through faith? By faith alongside works?
Yikes! It’s all so biblical! Where is one to land on this issue?!
I land on the, “it’s all good” side.
Ultimately, I believe we are saved by Grace. God’s kindness to God’s creation. If we are to be saved, it will be God’s grace given to those saved.
On our end, are there requirements? Strings attached?
Well, I reckon we have to be willing to accept the gift. God’s not in the business of forcing gifts on people. We are free to choose God’s Gift – God’s Way – or not.
So, I believe we are saved by grace through faith in/acceptance of Jesus and Jesus’ way. I suspect that we all agree that “believing in” Jesus in and of itself doesn’t mean much – “even the demons believe,” right?
So, when I talk about being saved by grace through faith, I’m talking about having faith in Jesus’ teachings, Jesus’/God’s Way, believing that this Way is a Good and Right Way. Accepting that Way in our lives and striving to live in that Way. We won’t be perfect in the English sense as we strive to live that Way, but we can be Perfect, as Jesus called us to be Perfect – which I suspect means living with the desire to have faith in Jesus and Jesus’ Way.
Does that answer your question?
Dan:"I land on the, “it’s all good” side."
We have a touchstone whereby to decide, although it could hardly be a convenient tool for the strict solafidian.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
Sit back quietly and observe. Where have the major philosophical divisions of Christianity gotten us? Where has Luthernism and Solafidianism lead us? What sorts of lives do we see in the 'faith only' followers?
Surely in all our symbolism we've been discussion, 'fruits' means 'works' and 'changes' in the person's life.
Moma2 in the previous post expressed an 'I hope so' in response to my saying that at one time in my life I indeed "Got saved", the whole 9 yards, believe, repent, confess, be baptized ... as was the catechism of that particular denomination. Under the strict solafindian posit and it's inevitable expression of "once saved always saved", I am saved no matter what I do. I can be the biggest rake, womanizer, layabout, liar, irritator of fundies, that I like, and I am still saved.
And this in fact is what most people do.
The reason it is so clear that God did not intend solafidianism is that it has produced such lousy fruit.
And, Dan, I'll put it on hold for now if it's coming up later in this series, but what about those who DO the will of God but just don't go through the "get saved" business?
As in the 21st chapter of Luke:
"Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first."
I'm no genius, but I'd side with Jesus in this story: Show me what you do, don't tell me what you say.
To answer an earlier question from Eleutheros ("I hope you do a post on your view of "heaven on earth"), I might begin by pointing to one of my early posts, which was itself a poem I'd written earlier:
I'd like to see...
As a starting point, I'd think that what "God's Kingdom Come on earth" would look like would be a home, community, tribe that looks to be perfect, as God is perfect, in the sense that we try to be the part of creation that God has made us to be, that we live within our means, societally-speaking as well as individually.
That's my first off-the-top-o-my-head answer, anyway.
Eleutheros said>I've read it all. I've read it all in Greek. I've read the ancient translations into Latin and Peshita to see what the ancients thought of it. I've read from every sort of commentary on it there is from Thomas Aquinas to Billy Graham. There is NOTHING you can bring up that I haven't already heard.
"Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." - the rich young ruler from Matthew 19.
Note his response to Jesus as opposed to that of Simon Peter in Luke 5:1-5.
Why didn't the rich young ruler obey Jesus?
Dan said:>So, when I talk about being saved by grace through faith, I’m talking about having faith in Jesus’ teachings, Jesus’/God’s Way, believing that this Way is a Good and Right Way. Accepting that Way in our lives and striving to live in that Way. We won’t be perfect in the English sense as we strive to live that Way, but we can be Perfect, as Jesus called us to be Perfect – which I suspect means living with the desire to have faith in Jesus and Jesus’ Way.
But Dan, it was Jesus who died on the cross and not his 'teachings'. Your belief as stated above is contradictory. Do you believe that Jesus will save you because of what He did and who He is, or do you believe that living out His teachings can save you? It can't be both. If grace was merited, it wouldn't be grace (Romans 11:6).
What did Jesus die on a cross for?
Jesus died on his cross because of his teachings.
"Do you believe that Jesus will save you because of what He did and who He is, or do you believe that living out His teachings can save you? It can't be both."
I'm saved because of what and who Jesus is, and I'm working out my salvation with fear and trembling.
I'm not saying both, though. I'm saying I'm saved by God's grace. Period. I've accepted that grace by my faith in Jesus and Jesus' teachings.
"Just" believing in Jesus is not what the Bible teaches - again, "the demons believe." It's "accepting Jesus into our hearts" (TM) that makes the difference - but what does it mean to accept Jesus into our hearts if not accepting his teachings?
You mean that I have to believe that he died for our sins and rose from the dead? But again, the demons believe that, says the Bible.
If we're not accepting the teachings of Jesus, then we're not really accepting who he is, are we? We're accepting a name, at no cost or inconvenience.
Roger asked:
"Why didn't the rich young ruler obey Jesus?"
Matthew answers:
"he went away sad, for he had many possessions..."
Is that the answer you were looking for?
"Our Father who art in heaven...."
In his little book "Honest Prayer", John Shelby Spong writes:
"Let us attempt to explore this word 'heaven' not as that word employed in popular religious jargon, but in its biblical origins and use; and particularly seek its meaning on the lips of Jesus of Nazareth when he taught us to pray, 'Our Father, who art in heaven.'.....in the Old Testament the primary meaning of the word 'heaven' is simply the sky, sky and heaven being synonymous...not some otherworldly sphere where God was to be found. For to the Old Testament Hebrew mind, God was the power experienced by men in life, in the world, and in living history....Where else is the Christian God discovered but in life? Our Christian story is of the God who so loved the world that he entered it (John 3:16). Our Christ is the One who said, 'I have come that you might have life' (John 10:10). It is our Lord who says the mark of the Christian is not piety, but love (John 13:35). Wherever love is shared and life is lived, there the Source of Life is known and there God is experienced. The only place the biblical God is discovered is in the midst of life, but once we know him there, we find him in life everywhere... ...The world was made by him, yet the world which continues to search for him beyond the skies or in otherworldly places will know him not in our age."
There is something to be said for maturing in the faith.
Dan said:>"he went away sad, for he had many possessions..."
Yes, but why didn't he obey? He loved his possessions more than he loved Jesus! Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matthew 6:21). His treasure was in his possessions, not in Jesus. We're digging deep here to look beyond externals and think about his heart, our hearts...
Dan said:>what does it mean to accept Jesus into our hearts
Notice that the rich young ruler called Jesus 'Teacher'. That's not a realization of who Jesus is. He is Lord (not merely a teacher) - and He is Lord in the hearts of those who are saved (Romans 10:9).
Does that mean the teachings of Jesus are diminished by this? Certainly not. If Jesus was Lord of a person's life, why then would that person not consider His teachings worthy of assimilating into their heart? (Romans 6:1-2)
But, the question still remains: What did Jesus die on a cross for?
Dan said:>Jesus died on his cross because of his teachings.
Technically true (as His teachings were a vehicle by which He would be arrested, crucified), but the way you worded your answer here does not reveal the heart of why He willingly came to die - it doesn't explain WHY. This is critical that we realize why...
Luke 19:10
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."
John 3:14-17
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.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
1 Peter 1:18-21
knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake, who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Hebrews 9:24-28
For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Roger:"Why didn't the rich young ruler obey Jesus?"
Might we remind you here, Roger, that you are not Jesus and do not speak for Jesus. No one is under any compunction to obey you nor your particular version of Jesus.
Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give it to the poor. Have you done that?
Now I am quite curious at this point, Roger, do you think that Dan doesn't know the verses you quoted? I find that highly unlikely.
There's no end to Bible verse bingo.
It might be interesting there to note that Martin Luther, the father of Sola Fide, did not struggle with trying to harmonize the teachings of works vs faith. He simply said that the books of the Bible that offered any opposition to the notion of Sola Fide (Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation) were fake, not part of the inspired Word of God, and he removed them to the end of his publication of the Bible with notes explaining that they were only of historical interest but not to be taken as scripture.
By the way, you've asked a dozen times and made an issue out of asking me if I'd ever, how did you put it, "take Jesus at his word". I've told you I have. So now what?
Eleutheros said...>So now what?
Do you acknowledge you are a sinner?
"There's no end to Bible verse bingo."
Ha! Ain't that the truth! Sheesh. There doesn't seem to be any end to interrogation either.
Thanks Michael for the succinct summation re: Lapide. Very intriguing to say the least. Based on your comments alone, I’m going to f/u w/ Lapide’s work.
Sorry, Dan. Didn’t mean to propose or initiate a sidetrack or alternate route, but was genuinely struck by Michaels’s reference to the renegade Rabbi.
Eleutheros - I come across you here and there, and even once (I believe it was actually here on Dan’s blog quite some time ago), interacted w/ you briefly concerning a religious motif. If memory serves me correctly, it was somehow related to Sola Scriptura or something akin. Anyhow, I’m continually impressed at your breadth of knowledge, especially when “faith” is the subject matter at hand. I consider myself quite well read where theology is concerned, and I must say you play a fantastic and convincing Devil’s advocate. (No rib intended. I can be quite the smart-ass, but that’s truly not my intent with my comments here.)
Here’s my contention Eleutheros. There’s not a doubt in my mind, not the least bit, that at some point in your life you were a very devout adherent of some brand/version/flavor of Christianity. Your knowledge gives you away Eleutheros. There’s no way in hell that curiosity alone or a general review of comparative religion could inculcate you with said level of knowledge. Maybe I’ve missed your “testimony” elsewhere, but what instigated, if I may ask, your about-face, your odyssey down a contrary path? Why did the proverbial worm turn? Once again, my comments in this regard are in no way meant to be sarcastic or acerbic in nature. I’m genuinely curious. If I’m correct in my assumption, your path would be the antithesis of Saul to Paul. I’m not making a judgment, but just an observation.
Saul turned away from his religious self (that religion which caused him to go around deciding who deserved death and not) and turned towards a Jesus following self.
Perhaps it is that Eleutheros is closer to the Saul to Paul trip than the other way around? I'm not speaking for E, of course. I'm just saying...
Roger said (about the rich dude):
"His treasure was in his possessions, not in Jesus. We're digging deep here to look beyond externals and think about his heart, our hearts."
That's one way of looking at it. Might another way be to say that he had his FAITH in his money - he couldn't imagine being able to make it in this world without a certain way of life. And that Jesus was asking him to release that way of life and join in a life more in harmony with God and God's creation?
Roger badgered:
"Do you acknowledge you are a sinner?"
Roger, I think E has acknowledged - and even celebrated? - this before. He has said that he's been down that Romans Road (TM), he's aware of the Four Spiritual Laws (TM), his Consciousness has been Constantly Contacted (TM), he's been Evangelism Exploded (TM), etc, etc.
I believe that is what he has said. He sounds pretty well-versed in the language of relgiosity (and of the dialect of Southern Evangelism, if I'm not mistaken).
He has acknowledged he's a sinner, his own inability to save himself, has repented of his sins and asked Jesus into his heart to be his Lord and Savior (TM).
I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
He always does...
Roger:"Do you acknowledge you are a sinner?"
At one time I also acknowledged that there was an Easter Bunny but I got over that too.
Your approach greatly cheapens Christianity and makes you sound like a sleazy telemarketer selling insurance. You go through your list of prescribed questions to "lead" someone to "acknowledge" your predetermined parameters and then say "Aha, see the plan of salvation (as I am hallucinating it to you) is perfect."
Try to follow this, Roger, it's very important.
Tell someone you are psychic and you can ask them a series of questions that makes them pick out a certain card from a deck. Have them pick a card, look at it, show it to you. And begin thus:
(Let's suppose it's the 9 of clubs.)
"There are two colors of cards in the deck, red and black. Choose one."
"Red."
"OK red. You've eliminated that the card is red, so that leaves ..."
"Black."
"Right, you've chosen black. Now, of the black cards there are two suits, clubs and spades. Which do you choose?"
"Clubs."
"Right, you've chose clubs. The cards are either face cards or numbered cards (ace being one), which do you choose face cards or numbered cards."
"Face cards."
"OK, since you have eliminated face cards, what's left?"
"Numbered cards."
"SO you've chosen numbered cards. Even or odd."
"Odd."
"You've chosen odd. The number is going to be above six or below six, which do you choose?'
"Above six."
"The two odd numbers above six are seven and nine. Which do you chose?"
"Seven."
"You've eliminated seven, so what's left?"
"Nine."
"And the suit you chose earlier?"
"Clubs! Nine of clubs!"
At this point you turn the card over and everyone is amazed at your psychic ability. Of course unless you are a slackjawed mouth breather you instantly see that anyone could make anyone else "guess" the card by manipulating the questions.
The Bible says each person's salvation is to be worked out in fear and trembling between them and God, not between them, God, and Roger. You little list of badgering questions is no more the "truth" than the above card trick, they are very similar. The "Jesus" handpuppet on your fist is not the Gospel.
"See, you didn't answer my question" is no defense. It's an charlatan's question intended for idiots.
Dan said:>Might another way be to say that he had his FAITH in his money - he couldn't imagine being able to make it in this world without a certain way of life. And that Jesus was asking him to release that way of life and join in a life more in harmony with God and God's creation?
Coming by faith to Jesus is not an external thing - where you answer a few questions, or give away your possessions and then you qualify - it's a matter of the heart. His answer that he had kept 'ALL' of the commandments from his youth is very telling. We know that is humanly impossible and therefore it appears at this point he is not able to acknowledge his spiritual poverty. We're back to Matt 5:3 again, it's making more sense all the time why Jesus started the sermon on the mount with that reference!
Dan, did those scripture references help clarify why Jesus died on the cross?
Constantine:"but what instigated, if I may ask, your about-face, your odyssey down a contrary path?"
Yes, as I recall it was about Sola Scriptura. Don't recall much else about it nor that we identified it as such.
You are quite right except in one small point. Obviously no one goes into this as far as I have out of curiosity nor contrariness. But it isn't a contrary path I'm on, it's just an entirely different one. Unless you mean that in these discussions I'm the contrarian, which obviously I am.
I won't go into details about my background, but let's say that what caused me to say, as Long John Silver says in Stevenson's Treasure Island"This here's a rum start. We're on a wrong tack, mates, prepare to go about!" was finding and realizing (and I was actively seeking it) what the core essence of Christianity is. God revealed to man? Man's search for God? Salvation through sacrifice?
None of those.
There is something that is essential for the Christian religion without which (sine qua non) it cannot operate. It isn't very flattering to the adherents of the religion so I don't go into it except privily and then not often.
But it is well personified in the comments of Bubba, Roger, and the like.
I'm not opposed to Christianity. I think by means of it people can get somewhere spiritually if they will only understand Jesus' most important teaching:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you;
Alas, almost no one understands it. That's why I lurk around here on Dan's blog. I don't go trolling on the fundie blogs. But having taken the first step away from fundamentalist thought, I'm always curious to see if Dan and his curious band will take the next step. Not likely. But one never knows.
Dan:"I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong."
No, you've pretty much got the straight of it.
I'm not opposed to Christianity. I think by means of it people can get somewhere spiritually if they will only understand Jesus' most important teaching:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you;>
I am curious to know how you have applied this to your life. It is a bit confusing from reading your posts.
Moma2:"I am curious to know how you have applied this to your life. It is a bit confusing from reading your posts."
Now, now, Moma2, fundamentalists are not to have curiosity. If you are curious, the Devil might reach out and grab you!
I've commented way too much on Dan's post and way too far afield of his topic. But since this question doesn't appear to be rhetorical, I'll answer it (in part, the Reader's Digest version):
With the 'now it's literal - now it's figurative' switch in play, Christians get tot this verse and assume that Jesus means his ascension. He means nothing of the sort.
Jesus said He must needs go away. But Christians will not let Him go away. They cling onto him like a personal Possession (Jesus as your personal savior (TM)), a Rag Doll they carry around with them.
I got such a good look at this back in the very early 70's when I had occasion to frequent the than dying Hippie enclave of "The Strip" in Atlanta. It was peopled then with by a lot of Jesus Freaks who would work themselves up into a real high chanting "Jesus, Jesus, Jeeeeeeesus" over and over. It was there I was first introduced to the practice of praying by inserting the word just as every third of fourth word:
"Now Jesus we just want to thank you for just being Jesus and just being with us here and we just want to say that we just want you to just bless everyone ..."
A sort of just-ification by 'just', I suppose.
While using Jesus as a recreational drug was an extreme example, I was able to see the extent to which every Christian does that. "Accept Jesus" "Jesus saves" "Jesus as personal savior" "Meet Jesus, know Jesus, What Would Jesus Do, blood of Jesus, Jesus and Him crucified ..... Jesus, Jesus, Jeeeeeesus, Jes-us, Jes-you, Jes-me .....
Then there are the Rogers who try to sell Jesus as a Cheap Used Car wearing their cheap used car checkered jacket with the "Jesus Saves" badge and using their cheap used car gimmicks to make the sale.
And your purchase of this New Jesus comes with the Jesus Owner's Manual (Bible).
Jesus sits on their fist like a hand puppet, a thing you possess.
They will in no wise let Jesus go. Yet Jesus said that the Helper (paraklete) will not come unless He goes away.
They will in no wise let Jesus go. Yet Jesus said that the Helper (paraklete) will not come unless He goes away.>
I am more confused than ever now. Where do you think Jesus went? Your teaching is not easy to follow and for us "unenlightened", try to simplify it and leave everyone elses opinion out of it, since you are the educated one. I don't mean that sarcastically either, but I seem to get that impression.
Eleutheros, I'm going back a bit to cover the last couple posts you addressed to me.
First, you criticize my presuming that you asserted Romans was directed "solely" to Jewish converts, but let's return to what you wrote about Paul and the Greeks in Acts 17:
Look closely at the 27th [sic] chapter of Acts. In the beginning Paul talks about Jesus as sacrificial and the whole bit you distill into a Snake Oil bottle. But he was talking to JEWS then for whom that had some symbolism and meaning. But later in the chapter when he's talking to Greeks on the Aereopagus, he doesn't mention Jesus nor any of the sad trite list of things bandied about in your essence of Christianity. [emphasis mine]
How do you know that Paul doesn't mention the things that aren't recorded in Acts unless you presume that Acts records the entirety of his speech, a speech that would, as recorded, take about two minutes? Acts 17:22 begins, "Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said..."
It seems to me your argument presumes that it means, "Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and only said..."
You're arguing from silence and, in doing so, making the same assumption that you criticize Luther and me for making.
You write that you are very well-read when it comes to Scripture. So were the Pharisees Christ criticized, and I haven't seen a great deal of evidence that you understand what you've read, to say nothing of living by it.
You write that my arguments are old. Old arguments are not necessarily bad arguments; if you can refute them, do so. If you have refuted them so often, you should have the counter-arguments already nearly memorized.
You write that you haven't attacked sola fide, but I recall this little criticism of Roger:
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.
It seems that you criticize even the conception of sin -- or at least sin from which we cannot save ourselves -- and that criticism implies a criticism of sola fide and other doctrines.
Perhaps if you spent more time explaining what it is you dislike and less time smearing it as snake oil, your criticism would be more easily understood.
Ultimately, I don't quite grasp exactly what you're attacking, but I suspect that your making wrong assumptions about my beliefs.
In affirming sola fide, I affirm that faith alone saves, but I do believe that good works are an almost inevitable consequence of saving faith.
There are exceptions: the thief on the cross had no time to act on his faith, and a political prisoner in permanent solitary would have little opportunity to produce good works. But 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.
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.
Moma2:"I am more confused than ever now. Where do you think Jesus went? "
Just where He said, away. No more and no less.
I know it can be confusing. One imagines that if Jesus is gone, they are left destitute and without help. But remember He said that when He has gone away, a Helper will come ... and not before he has gone away.
What is the nature of this Helper? One never knows until one let's Jesus go away as He asked us to do.
Bubba:"You write that you haven't attacked sola fide, but I recall this little criticism of Roger:"
I'm sorry, Bubba, I didn't catch that. Is 'Sola Fide' Roger's middle name or is it his handle? Or is it his real name?
What utter, utter pride and arrogance to say that a critique of someone's view of religion is the same thing as a critique on the religion itself.
Bubba:"How do you know that Paul doesn't mention the things that aren't recorded in Acts unless you presume that Acts records the entirety of his speech, a speech that would, as recorded, take about two minutes?"
If I had spent a good part of the morning trying to come up with the weakest and most moronic argument I could think of, I would not have come even close.
Bubba, you don't HAVE any arguments to refute. You think that if you keep quoting the same narrow bit of Bible verses in you Bible verse bingo, it somehow constitutes and argument. It doesn't. If you want your argument refuted, then, pray, by all means make an argument.
Bubba said...> It seems that you criticize even the conception of sin -- or at least sin from which we cannot save ourselves -- and that criticism implies a criticism of sola fide and other doctrines.
That's a valid point.
Eleutheros said... >Jesus, Jesus, Jeeeeeesus, Jes-us
Why Jesus? Why did He die on a cross?
I personally think that Jesus returned to heaven after his death and resurrection. I was just wondering if you believed in a resurrected Lord. If you don't, I think that might be why you don't understand us "fundies". That would indicate that we don't believe in the same Jesus.
Let me be clear, El:
I'm sorry, Bubba, I didn't catch that. Is 'Sola Fide' Roger's middle name or is it his handle? Or is it his real name?
What utter, utter pride and arrogance to say that a critique of someone's view of religion is the same thing as a critique on the religion itself.
I mentioned Roger because it wasn't part of the exchange between you and me.
You seem to be critical even of the concept of sin, referring to it as a fabricated problem. Your criticism of the concept of sin implies a criticism of all concepts that presume sin -- such as sola fide.
Again, you could be more clear about what you're criticizing.
You should clarify: do you think I'm making old arguments or that I'm not making any arguments at all? You seem to oscillate between the two whenever it's convenient to do so.
I must say, by the way, I don't understand what makes Eleutheros consider valid his idea that Jesus must disappear entirely from one's life.
In Matthew 18:20, Christ did say, after all, "where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."
And in Matthew 5:11 Christ said that they are blessed who are persecuted on His account.
And His last recorded words in Matthew, in 22:20, are, "I am with you always, to the end of the age."
And what is the purpose of the Helper that will come?
According to John 14:26, Jesus said of the Helper, "whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you." [emphasis mine]
And it appears that, in John 15:26, Christ assures us that the Helper will bear witness about Christ Himself.
I don't see why El thinks his theory is even necessary. He seems to reject prayers in which people babble in a near trance-like state, but Christ forbade such prayers, in the passage we're looking at now.
"When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
It's overkill in the extreme to say that we must "let go" of Christ because some of us have missed the boat on what He taught about prayer.
As interesting as this all is (and it is, truly), allow me to rein this amorphous blob in a bit and ask us to keep our comments to the post at hand.
What you think about God's Kingdom come? What does that look like to you?
We've covered praying in public and giving alms a bit, I believe. We agree that we ought not be hypocritical, I imagine.
Have we talked much about why Jesus seems to save his harshest criticisms for the religious?
Thoughts on fasting?
It seems these would be the topics at hand with this passage.
And I'll probably be moving on to the next part of the Sermon, but as always, keep commenting if you wish.
Why are you asking to rein in the discussion now, when headway is being made about Eleutheros' rather unorthodox beliefs, but not when he was posting comment after comment attacking others as snake-oil salesmen?
We've gone this far into the discussion; ending it now would leave too much unresolved.
Maybe Jesus can end this.
Eleutheros said: "I am not opposed to Christianity"..
Jesus said: "for whoever is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:40)
The ever-sensible Marty.
Bubba, feel free to give E your email address. As interesting as I find all of this, I think good blog manners compel me to keep a semblance of order - just barely a semblance, but a semblance all the same.
In my opinion, the best time to have made this request for the sake of order and manners was when El began relentlessly referring to the beliefs of others as "snake oil."
I will honor your request but I do not like its timing.
"Why are you asking to rein in the discussion now, when headway is being made about Eleutheros' rather unorthodox beliefs"
I'm asking because I'm not sure that much in the way of headway is being made by anyone. From where I'm sitting, E is spanking the fundies.
So, thank you for honoring this request.
Now, insofar as it fits with the topic - and some of it does - please continue.
Eleutheros said... >"Accept Jesus" "Jesus saves" "Jesus as personal savior" "Meet Jesus, know Jesus, What Would Jesus Do, blood of Jesus, Jesus and Him crucified
For the sake of clarity:
The alternatives to these are: Reject Jesus, Jesus cannot save, Jesus is not personal nor a savior, we don't need to meet or know Jesus, What Jesus did doesn't matter, the blood of Jesus is irrelevant, Jesus' crucificion on the Cross is not important.
Roger, this fits into our discussion on the first part of chapter 6 of Matthew, how?
It fits about as well as your use of the pejorative "fundies," Dan.
Eleutheros said...>I am not opposed to Christianity
Christianity is an acceptance of the TRUTH who Jesus is (the God-man), what He said about us (we're sinners in need of repentance), and that He died on the cross for our sins, and rose again (He is Lord, and Savior).
There are many cults and false religions in the world that use 99% of the same terminology of Christianity, however, it's the 1% that keeps the adherents from being saved - yet they believe with all their heart that they are saved. Such is the danger of spiritual deception. It takes a lot of patience and diligence to wade through the external words to get to the heart of the matter. The enemy will throw everything at us to keep us from getting there. So, hang in there, don't be in a hurry to rush through this. Eternity could be at stake for someone. If what I'm doing is unbiblical, please make the case for it. I don't want to stray from scripture to try to help someone understand it. But having said that, you must certainly agree that wanting someone to understand the life-giving truths of the gospel far outweigh whether we wrap this thread up in a timely manner, etc. After all, this series started out as a study of the sermon on the mount - which scrutinizes our hearts - so therefore we should be concerned with the same.
Have we talked much about why Jesus seems to save his harshest criticisms for the religious?>
This seems to be an area you enjoy, Dan. Take after the religious but leave the sinners alone. Is that the way we should treat our brothers and sisters? I am for treating everyone as I would want to be treated, but sometimes I think Christians are getting the brunt of criticism. That too is foretold in the scriptures though. Another sign of the times.
Roger, Eleutheros isn't buying what your selling. Shake the dust off your feet. Move on.
Mom2, Jesus had a lot to say about the religious. Most of it not very kind. Move on.
Dan said:>Roger, this fits into our discussion on the first part of chapter 6 of Matthew, how?
Dan,
Eleutheros said... >"Accept Jesus" "Jesus saves" "Jesus as personal savior" "Meet Jesus, know Jesus, What Would Jesus Do, blood of Jesus, Jesus and Him crucified
Do you believe he said that as an affirmation of those things as being true?
If not (as he has called it something akin to 'snake-oil'), then we need to take a look at what the flip-side of each phrase he used to see where he is coming from ...
How many here (or anywhere else, for that matter) will say:
"Yes, I'm a Christian and I Reject Jesus, Jesus cannot save, Jesus is not personal nor a savior, we don't need to meet or know Jesus, What Jesus did doesn't matter, the blood of Jesus is irrelevant, and Jesus' crucificion on the Cross is not important."
That's a total rejection of Jesus. Does that relate to the topic of this thread? Considering it is Jesus giving us the Sermon on the Mount, I believe it does.
"Roger, Eleutheros isn't buying what your selling. Shake the dust off your feet. Move on.
"Mom2, Jesus had a lot to say about the religious. Most of it not very kind. Move on."
Careful, there, Marty; Dan's very possessive of his right to invite and disinvite people.
Hey, let me pause in the midst of this intriguing bit of chaos and wish a Merry Christmas and a happy holidays to this group of mostly strangers.
Life is good. God is good. This world is a good creation, is it not? I'm very glad that none of y'all are the sort of monsters that would go around and try to kill me if I disagree with you, nor I, you.
Let's lighten up just a bit, okay?
If I might roughly quote a line from O Brother, Where Art Thou, "Consider the lilies of the damned field!"
The question of whether sin is as imaginary as the Easter Bunny is of infinite importance, as is the question of whether Jesus' most important teaching is that we should leave Him alone.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
I celebrate the birth of my Savior and Lord, regardless of what others say about Him. Because His coming is good news, I should share it; and because the Father loves all of us enough to have sent His Son, I wish all of us would experience even a taste of His grace and peace this and every season.
Marty:"Roger, Eleutheros isn't buying what your selling. Shake the dust off your feet. Move on."
That's the essence of it, Marty.
Did you ever see the old Star Trek episode "The Will of Landru". There was a planet of people so conditioned to obey and respond that those controlling the people only had to point a hollow tube at them and they obeyed or died or some such. Of course the Enterprise crew eventually figured out all they had to do is say "No" and those in charge just crumbled, no one had ever said 'no' before and they didn't know what to do.
The fundamentalist who is like one of those small rat-like dogs biting your trouser cuffs and won't let go is much like that. In the general comings and goings people have a tendency to show too much deference to the 'man of the cloth' types. This leads the evangelical to expect some degree of kowtowing. When confronted with anything remotely religious they expect people to cast their eyes down, nervously shuffle their feet, and fumble with their hat in their hands and say, "Well, yes, Rev. I know I'm not 'right with the Lord (TM)' as I ought to be.
When confronted with someone who says "bug off, you ill informed pest", they are dumbfounded, have no clue how to conduct an actual conversation, and mindlessly repeat the same string of contrived verses over and over.
So to the fundamentalist disputants I say, "Mene mene tekel upharsin"
Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
To be found wanting by a guy who does little more than insult people: how horrible. Can anyone bear such criticism?
I sincerely want to wish eleutheros, Dan, Marty and their band, a blessed, Holy and Merry Christmas. May God place in your hearts an abundance of love, peace and goodwill toward all. I am thankful that God loved us so much that He sent His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. I thank Him for forgiveness and guidance. Good evening!
I am grateful also for John 3:17!
Post a Comment