|
Forums on i.UCC are devoted to introductions, prayer, Bible study, spiritual conversation and questions about the United Church of Christ. To participate, please register or log in as a user. Your registration information will be confidential, and we'll send you no unsolicited emails.  Register
Log in
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
subear
Posts:760
 |
| 03/06/2007 2:50 PM |
|
re: The mother hen, gathering her chicks as an image of God is Love.
I see the image of "Mother Love," loving the world as a mother loves her children. It is not aloof, but gathering and guiding, in the midst of life. I have heard some prayers addressed to "Father-Mother-God" in order to encompass the whole (metaphoric) range of God as Love.
|
|
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin |
|
|
subear
Posts:760
|
| 03/21/2007 5:30 PM |
|
I've been thinking about Jim's statement from several weeks ago:
If there is anything unique about Christianity and Jesus, I think it is the cross. I think Luther said something like that. But that is how I feel. To me the cross means something like this: when you recognize that others are precious, you begin to care. When you care, you freely take on yourself a responsibility for the well being of others. You become a servant to their real needs. Servanthood is a costly burden to bear, because you must very often deny your own comforts in order to truly meet the needs of those you serve. In fact, I think that progressively, as a person grows in the walk with Christ, the burden (cross) will grow more heavy. You discover that being a servant is killing you. The paradox is that, as the weight increases and the proximity to death draws nearer, we begin to realize that we are not actually dying, but approaching life in all its fullness. This experience and its explication in the story of the journey to the cross, seems to me to be what is unique to Christianity. My guess is that everything else is basically unoriginal, and can be found in one form or another in many other religions. What do you think?
Dear Jim:
I don't know if that's unique, (most things in life are not); but thank you for writing the meaning of that event in that way. I have often wondered what it means when someone says they have a "cross to bear." When I think about the mythology (story) that becomes central to various religions, [especially one I may be so familiar with, that I don't even understand it], I like to pull [my point of view] back and ask, what does it really mean on a personal spiritual level? What is this story really telling us (or telling me)?
I like the way you told that; it makes it spiritually purposeful, to me. This is a universal spiritual principle: one must loose his life (ego identification) to gain his true Life in Spirit/God/The One.
And, to the rest of you (my i.ucc friends): where has everybody been? Did you all give up the Internet for Lent? :-)
Blessings,
Susannah |
|
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin |
|
|
jimk
Posts:35
|
| 03/21/2007 5:41 PM |
|
| Hi Susannah,
Just a monster pile of work to get through with little end in sight. My participation will be scant for a while.
Jim |
|
|
|
|
subear
Posts:760
|
| 03/21/2007 5:45 PM |
|
| Yes, I know about that. Me too. |
|
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin |
|
|
Stekala
Posts:46
|
| 03/21/2007 7:33 PM |
|
Yes, I am sorry we have all been a bit scarce around here. Final exams are my excuse...Ugh. All finished today though!
Susannah, I really relate to your thoughts about what's unique about Christianity. I've come to realize, however, that though I probably know more about other religions that many Christians (can't take all the credit - half my family is Jewish! :-) ), I don't kow nearly enough - as far as history, doctrine, or culture goes - as necessary to truly see what's unique in Christianity. I think that is such an important thing for people of all faiths to remember - that learning about others doesn't lead you astray, but leads you to better understanding of yourself and your faith.
I love what people here are giving as thoughts on the uniqueness of Christianity. Long live the UCC! The world is blessed to have you.
In Love and Peace,
Kathy |
|
"The shackles are undone/The bullets quit the gun/The heat that's in the sun..will keep us when there's none
The rule has been disproved/ The stone it has been moved/ The grave is now a groove/ All debts are removed" - "Window in the Skies" - U2 (third world debt relief - visit www.jubileeusa.org) |
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/18/2007 11:11 AM |
|
Posted By jimk on 03/02/2007 3:41 AM
Russ,
I don’t agree that God sent his Son to die for us. I think he sent his Son to love us and that Jesus accepted his crucifixion as the cost of living out that love. And I don't think that his death removed our iniquities. I completely reject the notion of substitutionary atonement.
Jim
Dear Jim,
May I ask why you reject the doctrine of substitutionary atonement? Are you convinced from Scripture that it just is not so? This needs to be thought out carefully because it is the central focus of all of Scripture, prophesied to by Isaiah:
Isa 53:3-12 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (4) Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. (5) But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. (6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (7) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. (8) By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? (9) And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. (10) Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (11) Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous (!), and he shall bear their iniquities. (12) Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Unless this is not prophesying about Jesus--but the New Testament makes clear that this is so--the cross has to be about more than an act of love. If it was merely a demonstration of God's love which we are to reciprocate to Him and to man, then why the brutality of the cross? Why the crushing of Jesus? As Isaiah and Romans and the New Testament testify, it was because he bore our sins. Our sins demand punishment and that is what Christ bore on the cross ("the wages of sin is death" Rom. 6:23; the problem: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom. 3:23; the solution: "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." 1 Pet. 2:24). There is no greater moment in history than this, that guilty sinners (and clearly only those in Christ) are reconciled (meaning there was enmity between men and God before Christ came) to God. We can see the cross clearly in the most well-known verses of Scripture:
Joh 3:16-19 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (17) 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. (18) Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (19) And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Yes, God loves the world, but it is not an indiscriminate love. God's love is not the same for all, as many husbands and wives can attest that they do not have the same love for all. Love must have distinctions to have meaning! And clearly, God loves the world, but it is not in the way that he loves those who believe in Christ. In fact, those who do not believe in Christ are said to be in darkness, rather than the light where Christ is.
Please consider these things. I know this board is all about creating discussion and dialogue. Here we have it. I would like to know your thoughts and reflections upon why you (and others) may feel substitutionary atonement is not what the Bible teaches. T
hank you, Russ, for standing up for the truth of Scripture. This is the crucial conversation to be having just weeks after easter. Eternity hinges on the idea of Christ in the sinner's stead.
|
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/18/2007 11:25 AM |
|
I want to add to this further. I do not denigrate God's love, for God certainly does love all men. It's just that we distort God's love to suit our image of what love should be--which is radically different from God's own conception of love. Let me share an excellent article with you, original here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2000/1515_The_Goal_of_Gods_Love_May_Not_Be_What_You_Think_It_Is/
The Goal of God's Love May Not Be What You Think It Is
By John Piper
October 14, 2000
Do people go to the Grand Canyon to increase their self-esteem?
Probably not. This is, at least, a hint that the deepest joys in life
come not from savoring the self, but from seeing splendor. And in the
end even the Grand Canyon will not do. We were made to enjoy God.
We are all bent to believe that we are central in the universe. How
shall we be cured of this joy-destroying disease? Perhaps by hearing
afresh how radically God-centered reality is according to the Bible.
Both the Old and New Testament tell us that God's loving us is a
means to our glorifying him. "Christ became a servant ... in order that
the nations might glorify God for his mercy" (Romans 15:8-9). God has
been merciful to us so that we would magnify him. We see it again in
the words, "In love [God] destined us to adoption ... to the praise of
the glory of His grace" (Ephesians 1:4-6). In other words, the goal of
God's loving us is that we might praise him. One more illustration from
Psalm 86:12-13: "I will glorify your name forever. For your
lovingkindness toward me is great." God's love is the ground. His glory
is the goal.
This is shocking. The love of God is not God's making much of us,
but God's saving us from self-centeredness so that we can enjoy making
much of him forever. And our love to others is not our making much of
them, but helping them to find satisfaction in making much of God. True
love aims at satisfying people in the glory of God. Any love that
terminates on man is eventually destructive. It does not lead people to
the only lasting joy, namely, God. Love must be God-centered, or it is
not true love; it leaves people without their final hope of joy.
Take the cross of Christ, for example. The death of Jesus Christ is
the ultimate expression of divine love: "God demonstrates his own love
toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"
(Romans 5:8). Yet the Bible also says that the aim of the death of
Christ was "to demonstrate [God's] righteousness, because in the
forbearance of God he passed over the sins previously committed"
(Romans 3:25). Passing over sins creates a huge problem for the
righteousness of God. It makes him look like a judge who lets criminals
go free without punishment. In other words, the mercy of God puts the
justice of God in jeopardy.
So to vindicate his justice he does the unthinkable – he puts his
Son to death as the substitute penalty for our sins. The cross makes it
plain to everyone that God does not sweep evil under the rug of the
universe. He punishes it in Jesus for those who believe.
But notice that this ultimately loving act has at the center of it
the vindication of the righteousness of God. Good Friday love is
God-glorifying love. God exalts God at the cross. If he didn't, he
could not be just and rescue us from sin. But it is a mistake to say,
"Well, if the aim was to rescue us, then we were the ultimate goal of
the cross." No, we were rescued from sin in order that we might see and
savor the glory of God. This is the ultimately loving aim of Christ's
death. He did not die to make much of us, but to free us to enjoy
making much of God forever.
It is profoundly wrong to turn the cross into a proof that
self-esteem is the root of mental health. If I stand before the love of
God and do not feel a healthy, satisfying, freeing joy unless I turn
that love into an echo of my self-esteem, then I am like a man who
stands before the Grand Canyon and feels no satisfying wonder until he
translates the canyon into a case for his own significance. That is not
the presence of mental health, but bondage to self.
The cure for this bondage is to see that God is the one being in the
universe for whom self-exaltation is the most loving act. In exalting
himself – Grand Canyon-like – he gets the glory and we get the joy. The
greatest news in all the world is that there is no final conflict
between my passion for joy and God's passion for his glory. The knot
that ties these together is the truth that God is most glorified in us
when we are most satisfied in him. Jesus Christ died and rose again to
forgive the treason of our souls, which have turned from savoring God
to savoring self. In the cross of Christ, God rescues us from the house
of mirrors and leads us out to the mountains and canyons of his
majesty. Nothing satisfies us – or magnifies him – more.
|
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
Pastorbogy
Posts:121
|
| 04/19/2007 3:28 PM |
|
I have some skepticism about the passages that state the only way to God/eternal life/heaven are by believing in Jesus. The guys writing the gospels had a vested interest in stating that their faith was the only true way. But there were a number of other times when Jesus makes statements that declare that what God requires is not that narrow, and that what you do is more important than what you say. Let's look at this passage from Luke 10.
An expert in the Law of Moses stood up and asked Jesus a question to see what he would say. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to have eternal life?" Jesus answered, "What is written in the Scriptures? How do you understand them?" The man replied, "The Scriptures say, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.' They also say, 'Love your neighbors as much as you love yourself.' " Jesus said, "You have given the right answer. If you do this, you will have eternal life." (Luke 10:25-28)
The question and answer have to do with how to obtain eternal life, and according to Jesus, the right answer doesn't mention the name of Jesus. Through this passage and others, I have come to believe that any religion that has as its foundation love, love of God and love of others, is a true religion. That includes most of them, when you get past all the gee-whiz stuff we load down our religions with.
That being said, I happen to believe there was something special about Jesus and the cross. But I like to go back to what the church generally believed prior to about 1100 AD, when Anselm and Abelard confused things with their talk of a God so mean and vengeful that only blood could satisfy God, or the alternative, a God who used the cross as a demonstration of love, in order to make humans feel guilty for the awful sins they had committed. Luther and most of the other Protestant Reformers rejected these notions, but obviously they are still hanging around. Luther went back to the predominate theme of the cross in the early church, that the cross was where Jesus willingly went to do battle with sin and death. And won.
"The bodies we now have are weak and can die. But they will be changed into bodies that are eternal. Then the Scriptures will come true, "Death has lost the battle! Where is its victory? Where is its sting?" Sin is what gives death its sting, and the Law is the power behind sin. But thank God for letting our Lord Jesus Christ give us the victory!" (1 Corinthians 15:54-57)
The cross is about the battle with evil. It is about victory. I do believe that Jesus is The Way, but it is through his victory over sin and death. I believe that God is big enough to care more about what we do, than whose name we say. At least that is what Jesus leads me to believe. |
|
|
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/19/2007 3:46 PM |
|
Pastorbogy: I thank you for your honesty and candor but I have a few reservations about your statements in light of Scripture (and no I do not worship Scripture, but our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ revealed therein and only therein).
Can you please back up your statement regarding this "vested interest" the gospel writers had? It would seem pretty foolish to me to be persecuted, tortured, and killed for something they knew to be a lie...
Jesus also makes statements regarding the narrow way:
Mat 7:13-14 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. (14) For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Mat 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (22) On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' (23) And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Jesus' words here depict clearly that Jesus must know you, which means you also know and have faith in Him. This is the will of the Father, for persons to have faith in Christ Jesus alone. The exclusivity of Jesus is made clear most potently in Revelation, speaking of Jesus' return:
Rev 22:12-13 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. (13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Jesus will judge the world in righteousness. Every evil deed will receive its recompense. The gate is indeed narrow, and it only makes sense in the light of the New Testament for Christ to be the only way. Otherwise there is much explaining to do.
For instance, Paul says in First Corinthians:
1Co 15:17-19 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (18) Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (19) If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Forgiveness of sins rests in the resurrection of Christ. Christ clearly spoke that salvation was in Him alone through faith, for the forgiveness of sins. If Christ has not been raised, then Christianity is a sham because it is all false. We are still in our sins and God is against us. We still bear God's wrath against sin. But praise God that this is not so for those who find their identity and forgiveness in Christ alone! To accept any other way is to deny Christ. |
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
Pastorbogy
Posts:121
|
| 04/19/2007 4:56 PM |
|
Posted By bstritesky on 04/19/2007 3:46 PM
Pastorbogy: I thank you for your honesty and candor but I have a few reservations about your statements in light of Scripture (and no I do not worship Scripture, but our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ revealed therein and only therein).
Can you please back up your statement regarding this "vested interest" the gospel writers had? It would seem pretty foolish to me to be persecuted, tortured, and killed for something they knew to be a lie...
Well, I kind of think you answered your own question. First, I didn't say the guys credited with writing the gospels lied. However, those apostles who were persecuted etc. were not necessarily the ones who actually wrote down their testimony in what we now know as the Gospels. Second, we don't know exactly what was written in the original documents in many cases. There are innumerable variations between various manuscripts and fragments. In some cases it appears a monk, sitting (relatively) comfortably in an monostary at some later date decided to put a little more emphasis on the role Jesus plays in redemption (as if it needed it). I don't think it is to difficult to understand how people devoted to Jesus as their Lord would want to emphasize that Christianity is the ONLY way.
Jesus also makes statements regarding the narrow way:
Mat 7:13-14 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. (14) For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Mat 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (22) On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' (23) And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Jesus' words here depict clearly that Jesus must know you, which means you also know and have faith in Him. This is the will of the Father, for persons to have faith in Christ Jesus alone.
This demonstrates the importance of context. The verses preceding v. 21 describe the way we should treat others. Then you left out v. 21 which says, "Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in." Putting that together with the verses you quote, we see that the important thing is NOT that Jesus knows you, but that you do what God wants, treating others with love, will enter the Kingdom. It states clearly that there are people who claim to know Jesus, and to do things in Jesus' name, but they don't. It says clearly that Jesus only "knows" you if you walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
The exclusivity of Jesus is made clear most potently in Revelation, speaking of Jesus' return:
Rev 22:12-13 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. (13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Jesus will judge the world in righteousness. Every evil deed will receive its recompense. The gate is indeed narrow, and it only makes sense in the light of the New Testament for Christ to be the only way. Otherwise there is much explaining to do.
As far as I can see, you just keep proving my point. The passage says that Jesus will come to hand out rewards, but I don't see a thing about a specific belief in Jesus as being the point of the passage.
"Evil people will keep on being evil, and everyone who is dirty-minded will still be dirty-minded. But good people will keep on doing right, and God's people will always be holy. Then I was told: I am coming soon! And when I come, I will reward everyone for what they have done. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. God will bless all who have washed their robes. They will each have the right to eat fruit from the tree that gives life, and they can enter the gates of the city." (Revelation 22:11-14)
Once again, the emphasis is on what God's people have done. They will keep on doing right, they will be holy, and Jesus will be the one who rewards them.
For instance, Paul says in First Corinthians:
1Co 15:17-19 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (18) Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (19) If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Forgiveness of sins rests in the resurrection of Christ. Christ clearly spoke that salvation was in Him alone through faith, for the forgiveness of sins. If Christ has not been raised, then Christianity is a sham because it is all false. We are still in our sins and God is against us. We still bear God's wrath against sin. But praise God that this is not so for those who find their identity and forgiveness in Christ alone! To accept any other way is to deny Christ.
But in my last post I declared that the glory of the cross is the battle that Jesus won on that cross. That is exactly what this passage also emphasizes. It is about the power of Jesus. I certainly never denied that Jesus died and rose again. I rejoice in that death and resurrection. That action, that battle by Christ with the power of evil that was won, makes it possible now for all who obey God to enter into God's Kingdom. |
|
|
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/19/2007 5:44 PM |
|
| Pastorbogy: Again, thanks for your response. I see that we are mostly in disagreement on what it is to obey God. Correct me if I am mistaken, are you saying that all persons, whether they be Hindu, Buddhist, or secular humanist, and does good things such as justice, mercy, love, and compassion towards others will be saved and go to heaven? What would disqualify a person from entering into heaven? |
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
Pastorbogy
Posts:121
|
| 04/19/2007 9:51 PM |
|
Posted By bstritesky on 04/19/2007 5:44 PM
Pastorbogy: Again, thanks for your response. I see that we are mostly in disagreement on what it is to obey God. Correct me if I am mistaken, are you saying that all persons, whether they be Hindu, Buddhist, or secular humanist, and does good things such as justice, mercy, love, and compassion towards others will be saved and go to heaven? What would disqualify a person from entering into heaven? Well, let's talk about what it means to obey God. Are you saying that obeying God only, or at least primarily, consists of a statement that Jesus is your savior? That justice, mercy, love and compassion are not important parts of obeying God. That despite the statements of Jesus that those who only talk a good game, but never do anything about it, are going to heaven, but those who do all the things God commands, but don't declare Jesus is messiah, are without doubt going to hell?
One of my favorite parables is the one Jesus tells about the father with two sons. Dad goes to one son, and asks him to go work in the field. The son says that of course he will go work in the field, there is absolutely nothing he would rather do, but after dad leaves he spends the rest of the day playing video games. Dad goes to the other brother, who says, heck no, he's not going to go work in some hot, dusty field all day. He's got lots of better things to do with his time. But after dad leaves, the son goes out and spends the day working in the field. Jesus asks which one actually did what he father asked? Obviously, it was the one who, in what he said, rejected the father, but did what he asked, not the one who professed his love and respect, but then ignored the father's wishes. Do you see a correlation?
As I have have already stated, I believe true religions have at their root the love of God, and love for others. That those who are righteous are those who do what God requires, which is to love. Who could possibly be disqualified? Those who do not love. Who is definately disqualified from entering heaven? Not my decision. Thank God. What my much more conservative preacher father used to say was that he believed a lot of people were going to be surprised by who wasn't in heaven, and who was.
Asking the questions is important. Each of us must come to these decisions based on our own understanding of what the testimony of the Bible and other sources leads us to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/19/2007 11:58 PM |
|
Repenting and believing in Jesus is all that God requires. Scripture is clear that genuine faith must be accompanied by works, but it is not the basis of our being made right before God; only our faith, our trusting with our whole being in Jesus' finished work on the cross in atoning for our sin, is what justifies or makes us right before God. Good works naturally flow from this; if not, there is no genuine faith and that person is deceived.
In addition, we have to deal with those texts which explicitly speak that Jesus is the only way to God:
Rom 10:13-17 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (14) How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (15) And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" (16) But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" (17) So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
1Ti 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
In Old Testament times, the people of God were saved through looking forward to God's sending of Christ:
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
Heb 11:26 He (Abraham) considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." (Jesus speaking)
So we see that salvation is only through Christ, even for those who were before Christ who trusted in God's future sending of a Savior. But now Christ has come. I do not delight in the fact that those who do not hear the name of Jesus go to hell. Yet we must take the words of Scripture seriously. These verses seem to point towards faith in Christ alone, for there is no other mediator between God and men. That is why we, and the church historically, proclaim Jesus Christ, crucified on behalf of sinners who might trust in Him alone for salvation.
|
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
Pastorbogy
Posts:121
|
| 04/20/2007 12:52 AM |
|
Posted By bstritesky on 04/19/2007 11:58 PM
Repenting and believing in Jesus is all that God requires. Scripture is clear that genuine faith must be accompanied by works, but it is not the basis of our being made right before God; only our faith, our trusting with our whole being in Jesus' finished work on the cross in atoning for our sin, is what justifies or makes us right before God. Good works naturally flow from this; if not, there is no genuine faith and that person is deceived.
In addition, we have to deal with those texts which explicitly speak that Jesus is the only way to God:
Rom 10:13-17 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (14) How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (15) And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" (16) But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" (17) So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
1Ti 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
In Old Testament times, the people of God were saved through looking forward to God's sending of Christ:
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
Heb 11:26 He (Abraham) considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." (Jesus speaking)
So we see that salvation is only through Christ, even for those who were before Christ who trusted in God's future sending of a Savior. But now Christ has come. I do not delight in the fact that those who do not hear the name of Jesus go to hell. Yet we must take the words of Scripture seriously. These verses seem to point towards faith in Christ alone, for there is no other mediator between God and men. That is why we, and the church historically, proclaim Jesus Christ, crucified on behalf of sinners who might trust in Him alone for salvation.
OK, we can go back and forth like this forever. We don't agree. While I take scripture very seriously, I place much more weight on the statements of Jesus than those of Paul. I feel the parables of Jesus probably give us a more correct understanding of what Jesus actually said than the long dialogues in which he is protrayed as making very exclusivistic statements. I have already mentioned some of these, but one more and I am ready to just acknowledge we don't agree.
Mat 25:31-46 When the Son of Man comes in his glory with all of his angels, he will sit on his royal throne. (32) The people of all nations will be brought before him, and he will separate them, as shepherds separate their sheep from their goats. (33) He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. (34) Then the king will say to those on his right, "My father has blessed you! Come and receive the kingdom that was prepared for you before the world was created. (35) When I was hungry, you gave me something to eat, and when I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink. When I was a stranger, you welcomed me, (36) and when I was naked, you gave me clothes to wear. When I was sick, you took care of me, and when I was in jail, you visited me." (37) Then the ones who pleased the Lord will ask, "When did we give you something to eat or drink? (38) When did we welcome you as a stranger or give you clothes to wear (39) or visit you while you were sick or in jail?" (40) The king will answer, "Whenever you did it for any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did it for me." (41) Then the king will say to those on his left, "Get away from me! You are under God's curse. Go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels! (42) I was hungry, but you did not give me anything to eat, and I was thirsty, but you did not give me anything to drink. (43) I was a stranger, but you did not welcome me, and I was naked, but you did not give me any clothes to wear. I was sick and in jail, but you did not take care of me." (44) Then the people will ask, "Lord, when did we fail to help you when you were hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in jail?" (45) The king will say to them, "Whenever you failed to help any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do it for me." (46) Then Jesus said, "Those people will be punished forever. But the ones who pleased God will have eternal life."
Once again, the emphasis is on the actions of the people, which pleased God, not their allegience to Jesus. The people who pleased God are surprised. They sure don't seem to be receiving what they expected to receive just because they belieived in Jesus. Of course the other people are also surprised.
Are you familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his book "The Cost of Discipleship"? Bonhoeffer wrote about Cheap Grace from the perspective of WW2 Nazi Germany, and from the point of view of a pastor who had escaped Germany only to return to continue his protest of what his nation was doing, and to pastor his congregation. Bonhoeffer wrote his book in prison, and was executed. Fortunately his book survived. Bonhoeffer said that the concept that all that was really important was grace, with no cost to the recipient, was cheap grace. He felt that the salvation Jesus and his brother James described was much more costly than that of Paul. One of my few disagreements with Boenhoeffer is that I feel it was not so much that Paul saw grace as cheap, but he definitely downplayed the works aspect and separated out grace and works so that Christians found it easy to remember the verses which stated salvation is by grace alone, and forget the verses which acknowledge the requirement of works.
To be fair, you acknowledge that works are a result of real faith. But I believe they are more than just a result, they are a requirement. I see many people in our nation who are recognized as "Christians", but I fear they are not "followers of Jesus" because of the evidence of their lives, or perhaps more accurately, the lack of evidence. To be honest, as an American pastor I am much more concerned about the many people who fill the churches of America on Sunday morning, proclaiming themselves saved by the blood, and then proceed to live according to their own, and the world's, rules for the rest of the week, than I am for people who are conscientiously serving God with an attitude of love, albeit without acknowledging Jesus as Messiah.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/20/2007 10:45 AM |
|
Dear Pastorbogy:
Keep in mind that these passages are taken from the authors Luke and John, in addition to Paul. Paul's epistles were written
On what basis do you see fit to just dismiss Paul's teachings as incorrect? This is a pretty bold move, considering that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write these things and also that Jesus himself appeared to Paul and called him out as an apostle.
2Pe 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (16) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Here Paul's writings are equated to the Old Testament Scriptures! To dismiss Paul is just like dismissing any part of the Old Testament.
Over and over again, Paul appeals to his apostolic authority as being called out directly by Jesus for this ministry.
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle--not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--
1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
Tit 1:1-3 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, (2) in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began (3) and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;
Paul was sent by Jesus. I would hesitate to reject or downplay what Paul has to say. Not Paul only, but God as well:
2Ti 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
All Scripture, including Paul and the rest of the New Testament was breathed out by God. We cannot get into the issue of canonization, but it is safe to say that those writings not of divinely-inspired origin were weeded out in the first few centuries of the faith. Do not overlook what you are doing in preferring one conception of salvation to what the Bible speaks to in its entirety regarding salvation.
Paul, coming from a history of being an extremely observant and faithful Jew, his change in thinking from salvation by works of the law to only the grace of Christ can only be explained by the divine origins of the message which he taught.
In addition, the passage you cite is Jesus' long monologue to his disciples, the ones who had faith in him (even though Judas did not)
Mat 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"
He was not speaking to all persons, but to those who had faith in Christ. Jesus was not teaching a salvation which was by works apart from faith, but he assumed that they knew that these works were to be works which come from faith.
Paul places strong emphasis that:
Rom 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Those who do not place their trust in Christ for salvation do not have this faith that Paul speaks of. It is unique, as the passages I cited above explain, because salvation is found only through the one mediator. These passages cannot be ignored. From what I have seen, you just seem to have dismissed them because you do not agree with them. If we all did that with passages of the Bible, without earnestly seeking to see how it all fits together, then we are in serious trouble, because our faith would have no stable foundation.
|
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
Pastorbogy
Posts:121
|
| 04/20/2007 11:18 AM |
|
Posted By bstritesky on 04/20/2007 10:45 AM
Dear Pastorbogy:
Keep in mind that these passages are taken from the authors Luke and John, in addition to Paul. Paul's epistles were written
On what basis do you see fit to just dismiss Paul's teachings as incorrect? This is a pretty bold move, considering that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write these things and also that Jesus himself appeared to Paul and called him out as an apostle.
I don't "just dismiss Paul's teachings as incorrect", but I do not regard everything between the covers of the Bible as being equal. Neither did the men who took part in the council that set the canon. The Revelation of John, for example, was only accepted as part of the canon with the understanding that it was to be regarded as allegory. Paul was inspired by God, but that is not the same as receiving direct dictation from God. Paul at times states that what he is writing is his own opinion. There is also pretty good evidence that not everything that is attributed to Paul was written by Paul, and if the same person wrote everything attributed to him, he went through some big changes in how he viewed things over the years. Paul was obviously a huge factor in the growth of the early church, but a big part of his gift was adapting and compromising to make Christianity acceptable to non-Jews. The theology we have from Paul has a huge amount of Greek influence. Palestine during the time of Jesus and Paul was still heavily influenced by Hellenism, remaining from the Greek occupation which preceded the Roman occupation. In many ways, Paul's theology was more Greek than Jewish.
A big part of how we see things differently is due to how we see the inspiration of those who wrote the Bible we have today. I read it with a much more critical eye. Your view of scripture, as I understand it is very common. If we don't accept everything that was included in the canon, with a literal translation, then how can we accept any of it. For myself, I don't accept everything that was included in the canon, and neither did those who established the canon, at least some of them. In my case, I devote a great deal of time to study and prayer. It would be easier to just take things literally, to see things in black and white. But I can't do that. My personal beliefs are shaped by my training, study, and personal experience. My faith is not affected by my understanding that there are some questionable texts in the Bible. If today irrefutable proof was uncovered that one of the letters of Paul was a fraud, it wouldn't change my faith. Those writings are testimonies of faith, they are valuable to study, they are not the basis of my faith or relationship with God.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
subear
Posts:760
|
| 04/20/2007 11:40 AM |
|
"bs tritesky" wrote:On what basis do you see fit to just dismiss Paul's teachings as incorrect? This is a pretty bold move, considering that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write these things and also that Jesus himself appeared to Paul and called him out as an apostle.
Dear bstritesky,
I have been "inspired by the Holy Spirit," do you want to believe every thing that I write?
Keep thinking.
Blessings and Love,
Susannah |
|
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin |
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/20/2007 11:46 AM |
|
Well you are being selective in your acceptance of certain texts to the exclusion of many others. I don't know how else to label what it is you are doing. It seems to be very shaky, as who is to determine exactly what is the truth if it is up to subjective analysis alone to determine it. For what reason should I accept your your personal beliefs? In what I presented, these were not personal beliefs, but citations and explanations of clear biblical texts. You are right. if the Bible cannot be trusted in full, then we are utterly at a lost for determining which parts are true and not true, which are from God and from mere men. My view of inspiration includes the full exercise of the human desires in writing, so that what Paul and James and Mark and Luke and John and the author of Hebrews, and all the Old Testament authors wrote is what God desired to have been written. It need not be inspiration by mechanical dictation, but God can oversee the thoughts and desires of men and have them line up with His will. This is why we see the different writing styles and personalities of the human authors in these writings. This is also why there appears to be influence from culture in the text; yet God was able to speak through Paul and the other biblical writers to communicate truth not contrary to His will. Yes they were written by men, but not men left to themselves. Also, it is clear from much of Paul's writings that he used a secretary to help him write much of what was written. Yet, Paul always made sure to sign and approve the letter at the end to show his approval for what was written.
When you say testimonies of faith, do you put Paul and James on the same par as say, the Heidelberg Catechism or the Apostle's Creed? Or is there a uniqueness to Scriptural writings that non-Scriptural writings simply cannot match? This definitely has an impact on the way we are viewing Scripture and what it clearly says. Otherwise, if it is mere subjective faith testimony, then I can disagree with them because I've experienced something different. |
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/20/2007 11:48 AM |
|
Posted By subear on 04/20/2007 11:40 AM "bs tritesky" wrote: On what basis do you see fit to just dismiss Paul's teachings as incorrect? This is a pretty bold move, considering that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write these things and also that Jesus himself appeared to Paul and called him out as an apostle. Dear bstritesky, I have been "inspired by the Holy Spirit," do you want to believe every thing that I write? Keep thinking. Blessings and Love, Susannah
Certainly not because you are not inspired in the way in which the authors of Scripture were inspired. Inspiration in Scripture is much much different than the inspiration I might get to paint a beautiful sunset or to pen a glorious hymn. One clearly claims (and screams!) divine origin, while the other plainly does not.
|
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
Pastorbogy
Posts:121
|
| 04/20/2007 4:47 PM |
|
Posted By bstritesky on 04/20/2007 11:46 AM
Well you are being selective in your acceptance of certain texts to the exclusion of many others.
But so are you. Just different texts. You place more importance on some text than I do, and I place more importance on other texts than you do. EVERYONE reads the scripture with an agenda. Particularly, if you read an English translation of the scripture, you are somewhat at the mercy of the translator, unless you believe that the translator was also inspired. But do you believe that inspiration can take place today? Your response to subear was that an inspired painting was different than writing scripture, but what about a sermon? I seem to have been truly inspired on at least a few Sunday mornings. I had a member of one of my congregations who claimed to see people's auras. Not having ever seen one that I can remember, I had to take her word for it. She told me that there were some Sundays when I preached that my aura was incredibly intense. Not every Sunday, some Sundays there evidently wasn't much of an aura, or it was weak. But from her view, there were some Sundays when something incredible was going on. I believe she would have said I was inspired on those mornings by something far beyond myself. So, on those days in particular, why shouldn't the word I prophesy, be considered as good as that of any other inspired source? I'm not claiming that every time I speak its the inspired Word of God, but then again, that is what preachers are supposed to be doing, not delivering their own message, but bringing the Word of God to the people. Just as not everything I say, or write, is necessarily on that level, I don't know that Paul was always having one of his "on" days either.
For what reason should I accept your your personal beliefs? In what I presented, these were not personal beliefs, but citations and explanations of clear biblical texts.
I also presented clear Biblical texts. I also offered my interpretation of what I felt were already clear texts. I do that as a UCC pastor who does not fall back on the "God told me to tell you this" claim. I state, as Paul did at times, when I am offering my own opinion or belief. I believe as a UCC pastor there are many areas where it is not my job to tell people what they must believe. To copy something from one of our websites, "Recognition is given to those among us who have received special training in pastoral, priestly, educational and administrative functions, but these persons are regarded as servants--rather than as persons in authority. Their task is to guide, to instruct, to enable the ministry of all Christians rather to do the work of ministry for us."
So you don't have to accept my beliefs. But consider carefully why you reject them. Is it because I have no Biblical foundation for what I believe? Is it because my beliefs are something to which I have not given careful thought and prayerful consideration (well, you only have my word on that)? Or do you reject my beliefs out of hand because they do not fit with what you already believe, and considering an alternative would be inconvenient?
You are right. if the Bible cannot be trusted in full, then we are utterly at a lost for determining which parts are true and not true, which are from God and from mere men. My view of inspiration includes the full exercise of the human desires in writing, so that what Paul and James and Mark and Luke and John and the author of Hebrews, and all the Old Testament authors wrote is what God desired to have been written. It need not be inspiration by mechanical dictation, but God can oversee the thoughts and desires of men and have them line up with His will. This is why we see the different writing styles and personalities of the human authors in these writings. This is also why there appears to be influence from culture in the text; yet God was able to speak through Paul and the other biblical writers to communicate truth not contrary to His will. Yes they were written by men, but not men left to themselves. Also, it is clear from much of Paul's writings that he used a secretary to help him write much of what was written. Yet, Paul always made sure to sign and approve the letter at the end to show his approval for what was written.
So what Paul and James and Mark, etc. wrote was all inspired. I agree. But was what somebody else added a decade or three later also inspired? Which of the many variant manuscripts that we have, and which are not identical, are the inspired ones? The manuscripts from the Eastern tradition and those from the Western tration are not identical. Changes, most additions, were made. Which were the inspired additions? I'm not trying to undermine your faith, but I am trying to help you to understand that a faith that is dependent on exactly how a document almost 2 millenia old was put together and cared for over that expanse of time is a faith on shaky ground. At least, that's my opinion. There was a time when leaders in the church interpreted the Bible as saying that the earth was the center of creation. Everything, the sun, moon, stars, all revolved around the earth, because earth, and humans, were the crowning glory of God's creation, and if we weren't at the center, as they believed Genesis described, then how could we believe any of it. People who claimed differently were tortured and threatened with death. Galileo was forced to recant his heretical theory that the earth rotated around the sun (although he is reported as muttering under his breath that it still moved). Today some Christians declare that if we do not believe in a six day, 24 hour day, creation, we can't believe anything the Bible says. Most Christians today deal with an earth that revolves around the sun, a fairly insignificant sun at that, and many of us deal with the idea that God spent a long time creating this planet, and everything else, and many of us are able to deal with what seems to us to be a fairly obvious fact that the Bible has been messed with over the years by humans. We do our best to understand it, to discern what the real message of God is to us, and our faith is able to withstand a little uncertainty. It still moves.
When you say testimonies of faith, do you put Paul and James on the same par as say, the Heidelberg Catechism or the Apostle's Creed? Or is there a uniqueness to Scriptural writings that non-Scriptural writings simply cannot match? This definitely has an impact on the way we are viewing Scripture and what it clearly says. Otherwise, if it is mere subjective faith testimony, then I can disagree with them because I've experienced something different.
Probably when I used the term testimonies of faith in this way, it was not my best choice of wording. The Bible is our primary source for understanding and is the foundation for all statements of faith. A better way of putting it is the old affirmation from the Congregational tradition that "There is yet more light and truth to break forth from God's holy word." We are not limited to past interpretations, but look for new insights and understandings. That is the attitude that allowed many Congregationalists (as well as many in the Evangelical and Reformed traditions) to reject the interpretation that the Bible condoned, if not outright supported, slavery. Isn't it interesting how few Christians today understand the Bible as promoting slavery. The words on the pages didn't change. How Christians understood those words certainly did. Which passages became the "important" ones changed. Light and truth broke forth. |
|
|
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/20/2007 5:27 PM |
|
Pastorbogy, I'm not so sure that I am ignoring other texts regarding this issue. I don't believe that the Scripture supports both salvation by faith in Christ alone and also by works apart from Christ. Why does Jesus tell his disciples to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Mat 28:19-20)? Why do they have to go? Why does Paul take three missionary journeys to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ? Surely the reason must be because people must hear the name of Jesus, to be saved by hearing the gospel and trusting in Christ alone for salvation. When Jesus says "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you," he encompasses his entire teaching, which included having faith in him, and because of that doing acts of mercy and compassion as Christ did.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that God can speak to people through anointed preaching. This anointing is not "in you," but in the Word of God, which is the only vehicle that changes hearts. So I also agree that teachers are not imposers or of a higher kind, but are "fellow sheep" of the Great Shepherd, humbly teaching the Word of God. Yet this inspiration in preaching is much different than that which occurred for scriptural authors. God works through His Word; preachers have impact and anointing because they point to Him where He is found: the Bible.
I also agree with you that "There is yet more light and truth to break forth from God's holy word." This is so because of our finite comprehension of Scripture. Yet because it is finite does not mean that we can know things truly from Scripture. We just cannot explain every single thing, but we can know some things. So being enlightened by God through His Word has been happening since these documents were circulated. That's why we are to spend time in the Word. The important thing to remember is that "new" truth shown to us in God's Word will not contradict what is already there. For instance, let's say that God has enlightened my heart to the meaning and foreshadowing of Christ in Genesis 3:15. Now in order for this to be true, it must fit with Scripture as a whole. This interpretation is confirmed in Revelation by the final defeat of Satan. So when the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to the Father (as it does, shown in my posts above), then there must be serious reason from other Scripture to dismiss this claim. I have provided responses to the texts you have provided so far which you see as disproving that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. I do not believe that they deny that faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation. Please show me how you think that our interpretation of these "exclusive salvation" texts must change to show that Christ really is not the only way. |
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
jimk
Posts:35
|
| 04/21/2007 7:03 AM |
|
Wow, I don’t know how you two have been keeping up this blistering pace, but I hope others have appreciated following it. I have (in a limited way). I pretty much agree with the Pastor from start to finish.
I’d just like to add that I think experience should have an important role to play in evaluating scripture. You can quote scripture all you want and build all kinds of rationale for an exclusivist interpretation, but I know real people (many of whom do not confess allegiance to Jesus Christ) and I have been through life’s struggles with them and my experience tells me otherwise.
My own brother is not a Christian and yet he is a warm and loving man, a better man than I in so many ways. If my being a follower of Christ really necessitated accepting that God excludes him from the possibility of salvation, then I guess that is where my journey as a Christian would end.
I accept wholeheartedly as revealed knowledge from God, regardless of any argument to the contrary, scripturally based or otherwise, that there are many who do not confess allegiance to Christ alone with their lips, who receive salvation (however defined).
|
|
|
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/21/2007 10:34 AM |
|
Dear Jim,
Thanks for your feedback. I just want to let this danger be known outright:
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Jeremiah understood well his own corruption and sin, universal to mankind. He understood how much it affected his daily living. Surely we cannot think that our reason and experience is unaffected by our sinfulness. However, if you do not see the universal depravity of mankind (meaning that all aspects, including reason and body and soul of man, are tainted by the touch of sin), if you do not see how great your own sin is (how great my own sin is!), then it is difficult to see the point Jeremiah is trying to get across. Not only Jeremiah, but Paul:
Rom 7:18-25 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. (19) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. (20) Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. (21) So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. (22) For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, (23) but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. (24) Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Tit 1:15-16 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. (16) They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. (Yes, this verse includes those who claim to be Christians but deny him by their works. This sadly includes many Christians today who are Christian in name only.)
We cannot rightly understand ourselves apart from Scripture. This whole discussion hinges on our view from Scripture. Either it is God's revelation of Himself to man so that man can rightfully understand his desperate position before him, or it is the partly-inspired word (partially of G0d) which I can suit to my own understanding. I am the one who determines what the text ultimately means and says, not God in Scripture. This is exactly what happens when you read the Word of God and say "But...." The moment that word is uttered, there is much at stake. You can finish it, "I will trust His Word over my deceptive heart, because this brings me greater joy in knowing myself as God knows me," or you can finish it, "This cannot be. Look at our culture for crying out loud! Surely they cannot bear it, and by the way, I'm embarrassed and uncomfortable about what this says, and I need to make Scripture say something more comfortable so that it suits my predilections and tastes." Is this not what has taken place in this conversation? The authority of the Bible is really at stake here. Either Scripture is objective truth or it is not. It cannot be both objective in parts and subjective (up to my decision). In the end, when one sees himself rightly as a sinner before God (and hopefully saved by grace alone by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone!), he will depend much more in what the Scripture clearly teaches, than what I want it to say. I don't want Scripture to paint that picture of me and mankind. I really don't. It's not flattering and it hurts my pride. But that is exactly what it is meant to do! It is meant to reveal our great need before God of a Savior. And God sent only one. Natural ears do not want to hear these things. Paul knew this well:
2Ti 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (4) and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
So I am pleading with all of you to consider what has been written, to place greater trust in Scripture as authoritative and deserving of your (and my) highest consideration. And if it teaches something I frankly do not like, I will accept it, because it's better to trust the unchanging Word of God than the shifting passions of men. This is where a choice needs to be made. This is where the roads diverge. |
|
Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. |
|
|
bstritesky
Posts:41
|
| 04/21/2007 10:58 AM |
|
Posted By jimk on 04/21/2007 7:03 AM
Wow, I don’t know how you two have been keeping up this blistering pace, but I hope others have appreciated following it. I have (in a limited way). I pretty much agree with the Pastor from start to finish.
I’d just like to add that I think experience should have an important role to play in evaluating scripture. You can quote scripture all you want and build all kinds of rationale for an exclusivist interpretation, but I know real people (many of whom do not confess allegiance to Jesus Christ) and I have been through life’s struggles with them and my experience tells me otherwise.
My own brother is not a Christian and yet he is a warm and loving man, a better man than I in so many ways. If my being a follower of Christ really necessitated accepting that God excludes him from the possibility of salvation, then I guess that is where my journey as a Christian would end.
I accept wholeheartedly as revealed knowledge from God, regardless of any argument to the contrary, scripturally based or otherwise, that there are many who do not confess allegiance to Christ alone with their lips, who receive salvation (however defined).
Dear Jim, your brother is not excluded from salvation, for he is still alive. There is still time to place his faith and trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins and hope of eternal life. His faith and trust must be in Christ alone, or Peter and John and Paul and Jesus were merely crazy or unclear communicators when they said:
Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
Rom 10:13-17 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be
saved." (14) How then will they call on him in whom they have not
believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never
heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (15) And how
are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How
beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" (16) But
they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has
believed what he has heard from us?" (17) So faith | | | |
|