"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
What do you believe about the atonement of Christ?
and
What did Christ really die for then? It wasn't my sin, it certainly wasn't HIS :-), so why the need to die?
The atoning work of Jesus Christ began at his incarnation and ended with his death, it wasn’t simply an atonement limited to his death. Jesus led the perfect human life. He was one to whom God said, “This is my son of whom I am well pleased.” This satisfaction of God for Jesus never subsided or ended or even paused. What is the ultimate evidence of God’s satisfaction with Jesus? The resurrection.
The perfect human life is one marked by complete love and obedience to the will of God. This is an obedience which must be complete, even unto death. This is a self—denying obedience and love which means the real possibility of that death. The perfect man with perfect obedience to the will of God is willing to die, to lose his life.
Thus, we see much of Jesus’ teachings about denying one’s self, obedience unto death, leaving behind all other things (including family), the Greatest Commandment, “take up your cross and follow daily”, “he who desires to gain his life must lose it”, etc.
That last one is the key: salvation comes from denying one’s self to the will of God even when it means death. Jesus wasn’t receiving any punishment. At least not from God! Men were punishing Jesus. They punished him because he was obedient to God. Thus, God rewarded his obedience.
We already had good examples and the law to live by and be judged by. What DID happen on the cross?
Because we could never ever obey the law (and thus God) to the point that we could achieve our own salvation. There is no way that we can earn salvation by works – thus God said grace by faith in Him through Jesus Christ. By this we can very generally mean that we our identified with Christ in his life and death. Thus, Jesus’ perfect obedience and his due reward is given to us by grace.
What did happen on the cross? Jesus was put to death by men who rejected him and his obedience to God (thus they rejected God!). The death of Jesus in such a manner appeared to seal the idea to all men (both Jew and Greek) that this man was not the messiah, he was not right with God, he was not THE way.
Yet, God raised him up! God raised Jesus up into eternal glory with the Father. This resurrection proved God’s approval of Jesus, his mission and his message. He had been completely and utterly vindicated by God for eternity. And because God has thus vindicated Christ, God has made Jesus Christ the method by which grace is offered to all men who cannot achieve salvation themselves. Those who follow Christ are thus undeservingly saved. Their sins are forgotten. Their sins are not given the due punishment. They are not given their due punishment.
How does it help me if He's not taking my punishment.
It helps you because though he is not taking your punishment, you are receiving his reward. No man can earn a reward for eternal life with God because all men have sinned. Only complete obedience to God earns eternal life. We are hopeless and doomed. However, because God loved man and desired eternal fellowship with Him He offered His son as the means by which man could be saved. Not because he would take our punishment but because we could accept his reward.
How does that go along with verses like Rom. 6:23 etc.
“For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Just as it says: one who sins will die. The punishment for sin is eternal death. We have all sinned and we all deserve death. But we can receive eternal life through Jesus Christ because it is only he who death can not overcome. Why? Because he did not sin.
What is the appropriate penalty of a man’s sin? The answer is eternal damnation. But Jesus was only dead for 3 days. That’s not even a sliver of the eternal punishment of just one man. If Jesus was taking the penalty for our sins he should BE ALWAYS dead. But he’s not. He isn’t eternally damned because he wasn’t receiving an eternal punishment – he wasn’t receiving any punishment. At least not from God! Men were punishing Jesus. They punished him because he was obedient to God. But since he was perfectly obedient to God unto death – God rewarded his obedience with resurrection and a glorified body.
How does this view fit with the lamb being sacrificed to pay the penalty for the sins of a specific person all through the old Testament?
OT sacrifice is not about punishing the sacrifice but about man showing to God that the person is sorry for his or her sins and desires to make reparations. Thus the person takes something of value and offers it up to the Lord. The person takes a prized lamb and sacrifices it – burns it up – completely destroys it to show his sorrow.
Notice that it is not simply about killing the lamb but consuming it. If the idea was simply about death then there would be no need to burn it up.
Notice that not all sacrifices involve death of an animal. There are grain sacrifices and other vegetation sacrifices. Notice that Cain offered a sacrifice from the field to God. Notice, God did not reject his sacrifice because it wasn’t a lamb but because Cain’s heart was not in the right place.
Notice that Noah offered a sacrifice to God following the Flood. Why? He had not sinned. He was simply thanking God and showing his love for God. And to God it was a sweet aroma. Why would God consider punishment a sweet aroma? Really, God says that he takes no joy in the punishment of the wicked. Of course, the sacrifice of Jesus was also called a sweet aroma to God. Would God delight in the punishment of His beloved son? Of course not! God saw how much Jesus was willing to do to show his love for God and obey His will (and show his love for humans). Such a self-sacrifice was extremely pleasing to God.
Look throughout the OT. Sacrifices are often done by people who are not seeking God’s forgiveness of a particular sin but because they want to show their thanks and love to God. OT sacrifice is not about punishment but about showing love to God.
The attempted sacrifice of Isaac was not at all about appeasing the wrath of Yahweh by making Isaac be punished for the sins of Abraham. Rather, this was a test of God to see how much Abraham loved God.
Sacrifices are negated if the one making the sacrifice does not have his heart right. In fact, God hates such sacrifices because they are nothing to him because they mean nothing to us. If the point of such sacrifice was simply penalty then it would not matter if man did not care.
I am convinced that this is the correct interpretation of the atoning work of Christ. It solves so many problems and so perfectly conforms to the OT view, the teachings of Paul and Hebrews, and perfectly conforms to the teachings of Christ.
Remember also how we were crucified with Christ and will be raised with Christ. The corporate nature of Christ in which we are seen by God through his Son necessitates that in some spiritual manner we ourselves were present with Jesus on the cross. Paul is adamant about this point in Galatians, Romans, etc. If Christ was receiving a punishment, then so were we because we were there in a corporate sense. Also, the obedience to God unto death of Christ is also expected of us as believers. We are called to “take up our cross daily,” we are called to be obedient unto death as martyrs if necessary, and we are called to lose our life. Such expected obedience to take up our cross and follow Christ is not so that God can punish us but because it is that perfect obedience to God that is perfectly exemplified in the life and death of Christ.
Other posts on the subject:
The Problem With Penal Substitionary Atonement
A Discussion On The Atonement
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY
I continue to study the Biblical concept of the atonement, corporate natures and original sin.
All of these issues are interconnected in the Scriptures among the various writers in both the Former and Latter Testaments.
1) The atonement of Christ was not a matter of God punishing Jesus Christ for our sins. Such an idea is nonsense! The idea of the penal substitutionary atonement is complete bollocks. It has absolutely no Scriptural, theological or logical basis in reality. Such an idea runs completely counter to the Scriptural witness and truth and is completely contrary to what actually occurred in the atoning work of Christ. The idea of penal substitutionary atonement runs completely counter to the justice and grace of God as He Himself continually states throughout Scripture. Of all the bosh of Reformed Calvinism (including perseverance of the believer, limited and unlimited atonement theories, irresistible grace, etc.) this is the most nonsensical and is really the basis for most of the bosh that follows.
2) The idea that mankind is punished for the sin of Adam is complete nonsense. Granted, it has more evidential weight than penal substitutionary atonement theories, but it is equally wrong. We as humans are not punished for the sin of Adam. That is a theoretical line of thinking that is rejected by the prophets, by Jesus, and by Paul explicitly. We as humans are punished because we have sinned like Adam. If we had not sinned like Adam God would not have punished us.
Really, why would God punish someone who has not sinned? Do we really think that God punishes those who are innocent? What kind of god is that? What hope do we have in salvation if the innocent are punished? Yahweh is a god of justice, patience and mercy and is not vindictive upon those who are innocent. A god who punishes the innocent is no better than the powerful who prey on the poor and weak. And it is these powerful ones who God frequently denounces and punishes for such actions? Would God then not need punishing if he afflicted the innocent?
Does this go against how many of us view the God of the Bible? Read Ezekiel 18.
Now what does this inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative passage say about our concept of a God who punishes humans for the sin of Adam? Are we out of whack about who God is? What does this passage have to say about US as believers of God in Christ? What does this passage have to say about the theory of penal substitutionary atonement?
3) Yes, this is just one reason why penal substitutionary atonement is an incorrect theory. God is not going to punish a son who does His will. God is not going to punish a son for the sins of his father. God is not going to punish a son who is innocent.
God rewards His Son for his faith and devotion to God in the face of punishment BY MAN. Jesus bore the suffering of being subjected to rejection, beatings, insults and crucifixion unto death BY MAN. Jesus bore the sins that MAN inflicted upon him in the form of rejection, beatings, insults and crucifixion unto death, etc.
“Father forgive THEM for THEY do not know what they are doing.”
Perfect and absolute devotion and obedience unto death. Jesus was perfect and sinless and never wronged but always followed the will of God. He did not inherit ANY “sinful nature” from Adam and was not punished for any “inherited” sin. He had the capacity to sin but ALWAYS withstood its temptation and always followed the will of God … yet he died.
But what was the result of such a blameless and devoted life?
GOD RAISED HIM UP FROM THE DEATH UNTO ETERNAL FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER.
That was his reward.
But what of humans who are ALL sinners and who are guilty of their own sins? What becomes of us? We were created as mortals from dust and never created to be immortal. We have no natural right to live. That we have sinned and rebelled against God completely negates any hope of an idea that we can enjoy eternal fellowship with God.
Yet, God by grace has deemed that His Son Jesus Christ will be the means of grace to humans. All who follow Christ shall be saved despite their sins because they are seen THROUGH Christ. The believer is seen by God through the prism of the perfect Christ and thus we share in the inheritance (the reward) that God has given to Christ. We shall be raised up from death unto eternal fellowship with the Father.
We are not saved because God has punished Christ; we are saved because God has rewarded Christ. God did not punish Christ. God does not punish those in Christ.
What happens to the sins that should be punished? We deserve punishment for our sins. Our sins deserve punishment. What happens to our sins? God FORGIVES them. He does not count them against us. We are declared righteous in Christ.
THOSE SINS GO UNPUNISHED!!!
You Reform-minded Calvinists may have a very tough time with the idea that God allows sins to go unpunished but that is what God says he does. That’s GRACE. Yep, they disappear unto the void. They go completely unpunished. No one in Christ is duly punished for their sins and Christ is also not duly or unduly punished.
What is the point of this article, again?
JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY
All of these issues are interconnected in the Scriptures among the various writers in both the Former and Latter Testaments.
1) The atonement of Christ was not a matter of God punishing Jesus Christ for our sins. Such an idea is nonsense! The idea of the penal substitutionary atonement is complete bollocks. It has absolutely no Scriptural, theological or logical basis in reality. Such an idea runs completely counter to the Scriptural witness and truth and is completely contrary to what actually occurred in the atoning work of Christ. The idea of penal substitutionary atonement runs completely counter to the justice and grace of God as He Himself continually states throughout Scripture. Of all the bosh of Reformed Calvinism (including perseverance of the believer, limited and unlimited atonement theories, irresistible grace, etc.) this is the most nonsensical and is really the basis for most of the bosh that follows.
2) The idea that mankind is punished for the sin of Adam is complete nonsense. Granted, it has more evidential weight than penal substitutionary atonement theories, but it is equally wrong. We as humans are not punished for the sin of Adam. That is a theoretical line of thinking that is rejected by the prophets, by Jesus, and by Paul explicitly. We as humans are punished because we have sinned like Adam. If we had not sinned like Adam God would not have punished us.
Really, why would God punish someone who has not sinned? Do we really think that God punishes those who are innocent? What kind of god is that? What hope do we have in salvation if the innocent are punished? Yahweh is a god of justice, patience and mercy and is not vindictive upon those who are innocent. A god who punishes the innocent is no better than the powerful who prey on the poor and weak. And it is these powerful ones who God frequently denounces and punishes for such actions? Would God then not need punishing if he afflicted the innocent?
Does this go against how many of us view the God of the Bible? Read Ezekiel 18.
Now what does this inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative passage say about our concept of a God who punishes humans for the sin of Adam? Are we out of whack about who God is? What does this passage have to say about US as believers of God in Christ? What does this passage have to say about the theory of penal substitutionary atonement?
3) Yes, this is just one reason why penal substitutionary atonement is an incorrect theory. God is not going to punish a son who does His will. God is not going to punish a son for the sins of his father. God is not going to punish a son who is innocent.
God rewards His Son for his faith and devotion to God in the face of punishment BY MAN. Jesus bore the suffering of being subjected to rejection, beatings, insults and crucifixion unto death BY MAN. Jesus bore the sins that MAN inflicted upon him in the form of rejection, beatings, insults and crucifixion unto death, etc.
“Father forgive THEM for THEY do not know what they are doing.”
Perfect and absolute devotion and obedience unto death. Jesus was perfect and sinless and never wronged but always followed the will of God. He did not inherit ANY “sinful nature” from Adam and was not punished for any “inherited” sin. He had the capacity to sin but ALWAYS withstood its temptation and always followed the will of God … yet he died.
But what was the result of such a blameless and devoted life?
GOD RAISED HIM UP FROM THE DEATH UNTO ETERNAL FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER.
That was his reward.
But what of humans who are ALL sinners and who are guilty of their own sins? What becomes of us? We were created as mortals from dust and never created to be immortal. We have no natural right to live. That we have sinned and rebelled against God completely negates any hope of an idea that we can enjoy eternal fellowship with God.
Yet, God by grace has deemed that His Son Jesus Christ will be the means of grace to humans. All who follow Christ shall be saved despite their sins because they are seen THROUGH Christ. The believer is seen by God through the prism of the perfect Christ and thus we share in the inheritance (the reward) that God has given to Christ. We shall be raised up from death unto eternal fellowship with the Father.
We are not saved because God has punished Christ; we are saved because God has rewarded Christ. God did not punish Christ. God does not punish those in Christ.
What happens to the sins that should be punished? We deserve punishment for our sins. Our sins deserve punishment. What happens to our sins? God FORGIVES them. He does not count them against us. We are declared righteous in Christ.
THOSE SINS GO UNPUNISHED!!!
You Reform-minded Calvinists may have a very tough time with the idea that God allows sins to go unpunished but that is what God says he does. That’s GRACE. Yep, they disappear unto the void. They go completely unpunished. No one in Christ is duly punished for their sins and Christ is also not duly or unduly punished.
What is the point of this article, again?
JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Loving Those You’ll Never Know
“Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings [or, gospel] of great joy, which shall be to all people.” (Luke 2:10)
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace towards men with whom He is pleased.” (Luke 2:14)
“You shall love your neighbor as your self.” (Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27-36; Matt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; John 15:12, 17; Lev 19:18; Rom 13:8-10; 15:2; Gal 5:14; Eph 4:25; Jam 2:8; 1 Pet 2:17; 1 John 2:10; 3:10-18; 4:7-21)
“‘For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’” (Matt 25:35-45)
In the pursuit of more Christ-like and peaceful life here on earth, I have been continuing to think about the 2nd Greatest Commandment, “Love your neighbor as your self,” and how one can greater achieve this command in everyday life.
We love ourselves (for, because God loves us, we should also love us).
We love our family and our friends (for, because God loves our family and friends, we should also love our family and friends [Matt 12:46-50; 19:19]).
We love our acquaintances and those in need (Luke 10:27-36).
We even love our enemies (for, because God loves our enemies, we should love our enemies [Luke 6:27-35; Matt 5:43-47; Jonah 2-4]).
But what about those people who we never meet, those people who never meet us, those who we never encounter in our lives but do see form afar? How do we love them?
This is not really an unimportant question or one that does not deserve our attention.
1) God loves those who we don’t know, thus we should also love them (John 3:16; 1 John).
2) We never know when we might meet them (Luke 19:1-10; 16:19-31; John 1:45-50; 4:7-29).
3) Such love allows us to more easily love those we do encounter (1 John 2:9-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-21).
4) Such love enables us to be better Christians (1 John 2:9-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-21).
How do we do this? Let us first create a scenario in which one would come upon numerous individuals of whom one would see for the first time, never meet, and probably never see again. Such situations can be school, work, malls and stores, film theatres, restaurants, and driving around from one place to the next (yes, even here). Since we are now in the Holiday season when both Christian and secular culture exudes the brotherhood of man and the mercy of God, and both Christian and secular culture laments how the capitalist system negates the reason for the season among both the selfish buyers and competitive sellers of the shopping experience, perhaps we could all take this time of the year to practice loving those who we do not know.
1) The “Image of God.” Whenever your eyes fall upon someone that you do not know, focus your attention upon the “image of God’ in that person and how much God loves them as much as he loves you (Gen 1:27; John 3:16).
2) God. Think about how much God loves you and realize that God wants you to love that other person as much as He loves you.
3) The Brethren. If you are struggling to love someone who you do not know or who looks grotesque to your sense of taste, try thinking of someone who you do currently love whom may or may not resemble that person, trying to love that person with the same sort of love you give to your friends and family. An old man or woman could be your grand parents. A man or woman could be your parents, uncles and aunts. Children could be your children or your cousins (Matt 12:46-50; 19:19).
4) Your Self. If you are further struggling to love someone who you do not know or who looks grotesque to your sense of taste, try thinking of them as being your self. We recall the second greatest commandment as “you shall love your neighbor as your self.” (Matt 22:39). Such a commandment clearly implies that Man is to love Man as his self and that He is to love his self. Such self love should not be considered as selfishness or pride or even that one is to love one’s self more than others. Rather this commandment contradicts any idea of self-loathing or that others are of more value than our selves. Such a commandment proclaims universal equality in worth and thus universal love (any idea of Buddhist self-denial is completely absent in this ethic). Therefore, we get the extension of this command on how we should ethically treat others: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31). This “golden rule” implies not only love of those we know or encounter but also love of those we do not know and will never encounter because they are of the same importance as ourselves and those we know.
5) Christ. If you are further struggling to love someone who you do not know or who looks grotesque to your sense of taste, try thinking of that person as Christ. Remember that Man is created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Because Man is created in the image of God, he or she has value, worth and should be loved. This is why the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves while the greatest commandment is to love God (Matt 22:37-40). We should love others as our selves because others and ourselves are made in the image of God and have that same value and worth. We note that the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17) first begin with Man’s love of God (20:1-11) and then proceed to Man’s love of Man (20:12-7). This is a noticeable reason why Jesus says that on the greatest and second greatest commandment depends the whole of the Law and the prophets (Matt 22:40). Therefore, because Man is made in the image of God, and God loves Man, when we as men love other men, we are not only loving Man made in the image of God, but we are also loving God (Matt 25:35-45).
Therefore, ask God to make you more loving towards those you do not know (Matt 7:7; 25:35-45; 1 John 4:7).
Read the Gospel narratives and see how Jesus loved those he had just met (Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 10:21; Matt 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; 25:35-45; Luke 7:13; 10:33; 15:20; 19:1-10; John 1:45-50; 4:7-29) and practice doing likewise(1 Pet 3:8; 1 John 3:17; Jude 1:21-22).
God wants us to love and those who ask for help in following the commands of God will not be turned away.
In this holiday season, let us practice the Christian faith so that we may perfect it all the rest of the year and the rest of our lives. Remember the Great Commission:
“The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18; cf. Isa 61:1-2; Lev 25:10)
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace towards men with whom He is pleased.” (Luke 2:14)
“You shall love your neighbor as your self.” (Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27-36; Matt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; John 15:12, 17; Lev 19:18; Rom 13:8-10; 15:2; Gal 5:14; Eph 4:25; Jam 2:8; 1 Pet 2:17; 1 John 2:10; 3:10-18; 4:7-21)
“‘For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’” (Matt 25:35-45)
In the pursuit of more Christ-like and peaceful life here on earth, I have been continuing to think about the 2nd Greatest Commandment, “Love your neighbor as your self,” and how one can greater achieve this command in everyday life.
We love ourselves (for, because God loves us, we should also love us).
We love our family and our friends (for, because God loves our family and friends, we should also love our family and friends [Matt 12:46-50; 19:19]).
We love our acquaintances and those in need (Luke 10:27-36).
We even love our enemies (for, because God loves our enemies, we should love our enemies [Luke 6:27-35; Matt 5:43-47; Jonah 2-4]).
But what about those people who we never meet, those people who never meet us, those who we never encounter in our lives but do see form afar? How do we love them?
This is not really an unimportant question or one that does not deserve our attention.
1) God loves those who we don’t know, thus we should also love them (John 3:16; 1 John).
2) We never know when we might meet them (Luke 19:1-10; 16:19-31; John 1:45-50; 4:7-29).
3) Such love allows us to more easily love those we do encounter (1 John 2:9-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-21).
4) Such love enables us to be better Christians (1 John 2:9-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-21).
How do we do this? Let us first create a scenario in which one would come upon numerous individuals of whom one would see for the first time, never meet, and probably never see again. Such situations can be school, work, malls and stores, film theatres, restaurants, and driving around from one place to the next (yes, even here). Since we are now in the Holiday season when both Christian and secular culture exudes the brotherhood of man and the mercy of God, and both Christian and secular culture laments how the capitalist system negates the reason for the season among both the selfish buyers and competitive sellers of the shopping experience, perhaps we could all take this time of the year to practice loving those who we do not know.
1) The “Image of God.” Whenever your eyes fall upon someone that you do not know, focus your attention upon the “image of God’ in that person and how much God loves them as much as he loves you (Gen 1:27; John 3:16).
2) God. Think about how much God loves you and realize that God wants you to love that other person as much as He loves you.
3) The Brethren. If you are struggling to love someone who you do not know or who looks grotesque to your sense of taste, try thinking of someone who you do currently love whom may or may not resemble that person, trying to love that person with the same sort of love you give to your friends and family. An old man or woman could be your grand parents. A man or woman could be your parents, uncles and aunts. Children could be your children or your cousins (Matt 12:46-50; 19:19).
4) Your Self. If you are further struggling to love someone who you do not know or who looks grotesque to your sense of taste, try thinking of them as being your self. We recall the second greatest commandment as “you shall love your neighbor as your self.” (Matt 22:39). Such a commandment clearly implies that Man is to love Man as his self and that He is to love his self. Such self love should not be considered as selfishness or pride or even that one is to love one’s self more than others. Rather this commandment contradicts any idea of self-loathing or that others are of more value than our selves. Such a commandment proclaims universal equality in worth and thus universal love (any idea of Buddhist self-denial is completely absent in this ethic). Therefore, we get the extension of this command on how we should ethically treat others: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31). This “golden rule” implies not only love of those we know or encounter but also love of those we do not know and will never encounter because they are of the same importance as ourselves and those we know.
5) Christ. If you are further struggling to love someone who you do not know or who looks grotesque to your sense of taste, try thinking of that person as Christ. Remember that Man is created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Because Man is created in the image of God, he or she has value, worth and should be loved. This is why the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves while the greatest commandment is to love God (Matt 22:37-40). We should love others as our selves because others and ourselves are made in the image of God and have that same value and worth. We note that the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17) first begin with Man’s love of God (20:1-11) and then proceed to Man’s love of Man (20:12-7). This is a noticeable reason why Jesus says that on the greatest and second greatest commandment depends the whole of the Law and the prophets (Matt 22:40). Therefore, because Man is made in the image of God, and God loves Man, when we as men love other men, we are not only loving Man made in the image of God, but we are also loving God (Matt 25:35-45).
Therefore, ask God to make you more loving towards those you do not know (Matt 7:7; 25:35-45; 1 John 4:7).
Read the Gospel narratives and see how Jesus loved those he had just met (Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 10:21; Matt 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; 25:35-45; Luke 7:13; 10:33; 15:20; 19:1-10; John 1:45-50; 4:7-29) and practice doing likewise(1 Pet 3:8; 1 John 3:17; Jude 1:21-22).
God wants us to love and those who ask for help in following the commands of God will not be turned away.
In this holiday season, let us practice the Christian faith so that we may perfect it all the rest of the year and the rest of our lives. Remember the Great Commission:
“The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18; cf. Isa 61:1-2; Lev 25:10)
Friday, November 17, 2006
It's Only Symbolic or It's Symbolic!
On the one hand, Southern Baptist leader say that water Baptism is a symbolic action of what has occurred in the life of the believer but that if any believer is not properly Baptized by immersion, or not baptized by a church that believes in the security of the believer then he or she shouldn’t serve in the SBC. Certainly, what has occurred in the life of the believer is still the same but the symbolism isn’t there. So you have to go back and make sure the symbolism is accurate just as it was in the New Testament or who cares what the reality is.
On the other hand, Southern Baptist leaders also say that the Lord’s Supper is symbolic but it is symbolic in such that we really don’t have to do it in the way that it was done in the New Testament with other non-Baptist believers, with actual wine, or with believers outside of a local church setting. Because, yes, the Lord’s Supper is the Lords and, yes, it is represented as the whole body of Christ throughout history and not simply the local congregation, and, yes, the proper NT mode of drinking the “blood” is wine but its all just symbolism really and as long as the reality of the event is okay then it doesn’t really matter if how we do it is 100% correct because Southern Baptist churches have always done it this way and we don’t really need do it the way the NT did because we need to be more tolerant and gracious concerning the established traditions of the local Southern Baptist Churches which means that any individual believer who believes or practices a different form of communion other than that of the local Southern Baptist Church should be prevented from serving in the SBC because we really do not need that sort of thing here upsetting our way of doing things by practicing the NT form of communion and making all the other SBC members look bad by comparison by taking the mode of communion as practiced in the NT seriously while everyone else is doing it wrongly and though the person who is doing it differently is not forcing other believers to bend to his or her will, the very fact that he is not following the established way and not conforming to what we do is an effrontery that cannot be overlooked lest more people begin to follow the NT teaching on this matter.
On the other hand, Southern Baptist leaders also say that the Lord’s Supper is symbolic but it is symbolic in such that we really don’t have to do it in the way that it was done in the New Testament with other non-Baptist believers, with actual wine, or with believers outside of a local church setting. Because, yes, the Lord’s Supper is the Lords and, yes, it is represented as the whole body of Christ throughout history and not simply the local congregation, and, yes, the proper NT mode of drinking the “blood” is wine but its all just symbolism really and as long as the reality of the event is okay then it doesn’t really matter if how we do it is 100% correct because Southern Baptist churches have always done it this way and we don’t really need do it the way the NT did because we need to be more tolerant and gracious concerning the established traditions of the local Southern Baptist Churches which means that any individual believer who believes or practices a different form of communion other than that of the local Southern Baptist Church should be prevented from serving in the SBC because we really do not need that sort of thing here upsetting our way of doing things by practicing the NT form of communion and making all the other SBC members look bad by comparison by taking the mode of communion as practiced in the NT seriously while everyone else is doing it wrongly and though the person who is doing it differently is not forcing other believers to bend to his or her will, the very fact that he is not following the established way and not conforming to what we do is an effrontery that cannot be overlooked lest more people begin to follow the NT teaching on this matter.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
ONLY WARREN CAN GO TO NORTH KOREA
The spokesperson told Associated Baptist Press that Warren is expected to speak during the summer of 2007.
Warren acknowledged his trip could be used by the Korean government for propaganda or further persecution, but he said it is worth the risks.
He also asked church members to pray for him in his travels.
According to a Religion News Service report, North Korean leaders will allow Warren to preach in a stadium that will seat 15,000 people. Warren may preach in a larger venue if he can fill the seats, he said.
Saddleback members celebrated the news as a victory for religious freedom. But some critics said it will only bolster North Korea's oppressive regime.
Ingrid Schlueter, producer and co-host of a Christian talk show on the VCY America Radio Network, called Warren’s visit a “massive propaganda event in promotion of the world's most brutal and oppressive regime." In a July 4 column for the right-wing Christian Worldview Network website, Schlueter said Warren won't "call the communist faithful to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" because he preaches a “man-centered, counterfeit gospel.”
“Not for a moment do these leaders worry that they will have a Christian revival on their hands by letting Mr. Warren speak," she said. "Rick Warren is loved and feted because his message is absent the cross and Christ's call to die. That's why he is popular and politically useful.”
Schlueter also compared Warren’s trip to Billy Graham’s visit to communist Russia in 1982, during which Graham "became a shill for the Communist Party in Russia."
Warren had told his congregants that he called Graham to ask for advice on his trip, since Graham traveled on a brief, tightly controlled tour of North Korea in 1992.
Warren acknowledged North Korean leaders may exploit his trip. "I know they're going to use me, so I'm going to use them," Warren told reporters.
A few points of comment:
- Because North Korea is a closed, poor and backwards society in relation to the rest of the world, I question the awareness of the North Korean people to the nuclear issue that is otherwise known throughout the rest of the world.
- Warren is correct: this is a great opportunity (from God!) to preach the Gospel message to the people of North Korea at a time when the threat of nuclear war is growing in that region. To not go would be unchristian.
- For the last fifteen years (after the fall of European communism), the remaining Communist countries (Asia and Central America) have been slowly adopting an approach of “religious glasnost”. The Spirit is moving in these societies and the communist leaders are attempting to deal with it. Part of their response is to allow some greater freedom of religious expression. Hence, Billy Graham to North Korea, Pope John Paul II to Cuba, and Warren to North Korea. But just like the economic glasnost of the Soviet Union, such a policy, I believe, will ultimately lead to the downfall of these communist regimes. I have considered the possibility that perhaps the current communist regimes no longer see Christianity as the threat it once did. However, if so, they are quite blind and let’s let them continue to be so.
- Christianity has a great track record of helping to liberate people from communist societies. Examples:
o The ministry of Pope John Paul II in Eastern Europe
o The writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
o The underground Christian movement in Romania
o The ministry of Billy Graham
o Christianity’s general opposition to the Soviet Union in Europe
- In many respects, this is the modern equivalent of Paul going to Rome.
- In most respects, Rick Warren is our generation’s Billy Graham. I say that quite seriously with not any aspect of hyperbole.
- I am anxious to hear Warren’s message.
I myself considered a scenario in which I was given such an opportunity in order to state what my message would be. Naturally, in an actual event, I would precede such considerations with copious days of prayer and fasting, but for this exercise I did not seem necessary.
Certainly, the sermon would be a presentation of the THE Gospel message. Of course, the focus of the sermon would be JESUS. I note that the critic cited in this article Ms. Ingrid Schlueter, labeled any message that Warren would give as a “man-centered, counterfeit gospel.” I do believe this person is ignorant either of Warren’s message or the message of the Gospel. I am always intrigued by those who deem another persons gospel message or theology as “man-centered”. Usually (though I do not know in her case), the person making such a statement prefers a “God-centered” gospel and theology. In my own exploration of the gospel and theology, I have always seen both the positives and negatives of both “man-centered” and “God-centered” gospels and theologies. To this end (in the great tradition of Protestantism, neo-orthodoxy, “moderate” Baptist theology, and basically what I believe to be the approach most obviously advocated in the NT), I have a adopted a Christ-centered gospel and theology. One plus to such an approach is that it has all the benefits of both “man-centered” and “God-centered” gospels and theologies with none of the drawbacks. Therefore, I would preach Christ. I will always preach Christ. The day that I decide not to preach Christ in a message is the day I hope that God “calls me home”.
In this vein, here are my hypothetical N. Korean sermon topics:
• Christ
• The Gospel
• Man made in the image of God
• The Greatest and Second Greatest Commandments
• NT Ethics in General
• Soul competency
• Priesthood of the believer (equality)
• Peace, love of enemies, etc.
• God loves them.
• “End of the Spear” as illustration
• Salvation by Grace through Faith in Christ
Given enough time, I would weave all of these topics and points together to make one grand presentation of the Gospel message of Christ in their context and what their appropriate response should be. But that is just me.
I am sure that Warren will give a good message which I am anxious to hear. Really, what an opportunity! I do believe that every Christian should pray for Warren and his message during this missionary visit. I am sure (given Saddleback’s modus operandi) that they will have people praying constantly (Billy Graham does a similar thing during his crusades). Nevertheless, I would like to see very many Christians praying for this mission. One would hope that “pastor envy” will not get in the way of an individual’s desire to see the Gospel preached – though I know it does.
I do have one question, though: will Bibles written in Korean be allowed? I would certainly hope that Warren and company will be able to distribute Bibles to the people. In a communist country it may not be allowed. Or it might be allowed in order to easily find and persecute believers. Again, it is a risk to take in order to preach the gospel.
Warren acknowledged his trip could be used by the Korean government for propaganda or further persecution, but he said it is worth the risks.
He also asked church members to pray for him in his travels.
According to a Religion News Service report, North Korean leaders will allow Warren to preach in a stadium that will seat 15,000 people. Warren may preach in a larger venue if he can fill the seats, he said.
Saddleback members celebrated the news as a victory for religious freedom. But some critics said it will only bolster North Korea's oppressive regime.
Ingrid Schlueter, producer and co-host of a Christian talk show on the VCY America Radio Network, called Warren’s visit a “massive propaganda event in promotion of the world's most brutal and oppressive regime." In a July 4 column for the right-wing Christian Worldview Network website, Schlueter said Warren won't "call the communist faithful to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" because he preaches a “man-centered, counterfeit gospel.”
“Not for a moment do these leaders worry that they will have a Christian revival on their hands by letting Mr. Warren speak," she said. "Rick Warren is loved and feted because his message is absent the cross and Christ's call to die. That's why he is popular and politically useful.”
Schlueter also compared Warren’s trip to Billy Graham’s visit to communist Russia in 1982, during which Graham "became a shill for the Communist Party in Russia."
Warren had told his congregants that he called Graham to ask for advice on his trip, since Graham traveled on a brief, tightly controlled tour of North Korea in 1992.
Warren acknowledged North Korean leaders may exploit his trip. "I know they're going to use me, so I'm going to use them," Warren told reporters.
A few points of comment:
- Because North Korea is a closed, poor and backwards society in relation to the rest of the world, I question the awareness of the North Korean people to the nuclear issue that is otherwise known throughout the rest of the world.
- Warren is correct: this is a great opportunity (from God!) to preach the Gospel message to the people of North Korea at a time when the threat of nuclear war is growing in that region. To not go would be unchristian.
- For the last fifteen years (after the fall of European communism), the remaining Communist countries (Asia and Central America) have been slowly adopting an approach of “religious glasnost”. The Spirit is moving in these societies and the communist leaders are attempting to deal with it. Part of their response is to allow some greater freedom of religious expression. Hence, Billy Graham to North Korea, Pope John Paul II to Cuba, and Warren to North Korea. But just like the economic glasnost of the Soviet Union, such a policy, I believe, will ultimately lead to the downfall of these communist regimes. I have considered the possibility that perhaps the current communist regimes no longer see Christianity as the threat it once did. However, if so, they are quite blind and let’s let them continue to be so.
- Christianity has a great track record of helping to liberate people from communist societies. Examples:
o The ministry of Pope John Paul II in Eastern Europe
o The writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
o The underground Christian movement in Romania
o The ministry of Billy Graham
o Christianity’s general opposition to the Soviet Union in Europe
- In many respects, this is the modern equivalent of Paul going to Rome.
- In most respects, Rick Warren is our generation’s Billy Graham. I say that quite seriously with not any aspect of hyperbole.
- I am anxious to hear Warren’s message.
I myself considered a scenario in which I was given such an opportunity in order to state what my message would be. Naturally, in an actual event, I would precede such considerations with copious days of prayer and fasting, but for this exercise I did not seem necessary.
Certainly, the sermon would be a presentation of the THE Gospel message. Of course, the focus of the sermon would be JESUS. I note that the critic cited in this article Ms. Ingrid Schlueter, labeled any message that Warren would give as a “man-centered, counterfeit gospel.” I do believe this person is ignorant either of Warren’s message or the message of the Gospel. I am always intrigued by those who deem another persons gospel message or theology as “man-centered”. Usually (though I do not know in her case), the person making such a statement prefers a “God-centered” gospel and theology. In my own exploration of the gospel and theology, I have always seen both the positives and negatives of both “man-centered” and “God-centered” gospels and theologies. To this end (in the great tradition of Protestantism, neo-orthodoxy, “moderate” Baptist theology, and basically what I believe to be the approach most obviously advocated in the NT), I have a adopted a Christ-centered gospel and theology. One plus to such an approach is that it has all the benefits of both “man-centered” and “God-centered” gospels and theologies with none of the drawbacks. Therefore, I would preach Christ. I will always preach Christ. The day that I decide not to preach Christ in a message is the day I hope that God “calls me home”.
In this vein, here are my hypothetical N. Korean sermon topics:
• Christ
• The Gospel
• Man made in the image of God
• The Greatest and Second Greatest Commandments
• NT Ethics in General
• Soul competency
• Priesthood of the believer (equality)
• Peace, love of enemies, etc.
• God loves them.
• “End of the Spear” as illustration
• Salvation by Grace through Faith in Christ
Given enough time, I would weave all of these topics and points together to make one grand presentation of the Gospel message of Christ in their context and what their appropriate response should be. But that is just me.
I am sure that Warren will give a good message which I am anxious to hear. Really, what an opportunity! I do believe that every Christian should pray for Warren and his message during this missionary visit. I am sure (given Saddleback’s modus operandi) that they will have people praying constantly (Billy Graham does a similar thing during his crusades). Nevertheless, I would like to see very many Christians praying for this mission. One would hope that “pastor envy” will not get in the way of an individual’s desire to see the Gospel preached – though I know it does.
I do have one question, though: will Bibles written in Korean be allowed? I would certainly hope that Warren and company will be able to distribute Bibles to the people. In a communist country it may not be allowed. Or it might be allowed in order to easily find and persecute believers. Again, it is a risk to take in order to preach the gospel.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Three Questions on the Inerrancy of Scripture
Here is a presumed evangelical scenario and three questions (the main question being at the end) for your thoughts.
First the milk:
PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS SCENARIO OR ITS THREE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH DOUBTS ABOUT THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE!!!
This scenario and its questions are designed to make one ponder their faith and their relationship with God in Christ. Too many believers have such a struggle with uncertainty concerning the theology of the Faith that they are often fearful of either asking or even considering particular questions about our Faith. Many believers are so unsure of the intellectual side of the Faith that they treat theology like a glass bowl so delicate that the slightest question could forever smash it.
While I myself see the Faith and its theology as an indestructible castle built upon the foundation of God in Christ, individual believer’s faith is not so indestructible. Therefore, if you are struggling with doubts, disregard all of this but pray to God to help you with your doubts.
Now to the meat:
Amongst learned evangelicals it is common knowledge that only the original autographs of the New Testament are inerrant. Every single copy of the NT that we currently possess contains errors in the text which change the meaning of what we believe to be some aspect of the Scripture. Hypothetically, only the original documents written by the apostles are free from error. Let it be known that none of the known errors in the various ancient NT manuscripts alters any significant doctrine in any way. One of the points of significant doctrines being significant is that they are repeated by the author numerous times in a book, numerous times in the author’s various books and numerous times in various books by various authors.
But two points:
1) With specific reference to the autographs, nowhere does the Bible claim inerrancy for itself either as a whole or with an individual book. The idea of inerrancy is a logical corollary to the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures but it is a foreign idea in the Scriptures. In truth, it was a doctrine formulated by at Princeton Theological Seminary in the latter half of the 19th century.
2) The inerrancy of the autographs is a hypothesis that cannot be proven due to the fact that we do not have the original autographs and we never will. They have long since been destroyed by time and there is no way to recreate them.
The apostle and/or his secretary wrote down the original Scripture on an original scroll, parchment, etc. This original scroll is the original autograph and is the document or version which is deemed by all learned evangelicalism to be THE inerrant copy.
Now for the three questions:
1) If the apostle and/or his secretary made copies of this original inerrant document, were these copies made by the apostle and/or his secretary inerrant?
2) If we agree that the original autographs are inerrant, if we agree that the subsequent copies contain errors, then which copy of the original autographs contained the first error? The first copy, the second copy, the third or fourth?
3) Since we do agree that only the first editions of the autographs are inerrant and all the other editions contain errors, then there are only 27 inerrant editions of the NT documents and 100s of millions of errant editions. There could only be one complete inerrant version of the entire NT which was very early on completely lost to history and the Church while there are 100s of thousands of subsequent editions that we still have and have never been lost. Thus, we can practically presume that God has had no problem at all giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice documents that have errors in them. If this scenario is indeed the case, then why would God not mind giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice original autographs with original errors in them?
First the milk:
PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS SCENARIO OR ITS THREE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH DOUBTS ABOUT THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE!!!
This scenario and its questions are designed to make one ponder their faith and their relationship with God in Christ. Too many believers have such a struggle with uncertainty concerning the theology of the Faith that they are often fearful of either asking or even considering particular questions about our Faith. Many believers are so unsure of the intellectual side of the Faith that they treat theology like a glass bowl so delicate that the slightest question could forever smash it.
While I myself see the Faith and its theology as an indestructible castle built upon the foundation of God in Christ, individual believer’s faith is not so indestructible. Therefore, if you are struggling with doubts, disregard all of this but pray to God to help you with your doubts.
Now to the meat:
Amongst learned evangelicals it is common knowledge that only the original autographs of the New Testament are inerrant. Every single copy of the NT that we currently possess contains errors in the text which change the meaning of what we believe to be some aspect of the Scripture. Hypothetically, only the original documents written by the apostles are free from error. Let it be known that none of the known errors in the various ancient NT manuscripts alters any significant doctrine in any way. One of the points of significant doctrines being significant is that they are repeated by the author numerous times in a book, numerous times in the author’s various books and numerous times in various books by various authors.
But two points:
1) With specific reference to the autographs, nowhere does the Bible claim inerrancy for itself either as a whole or with an individual book. The idea of inerrancy is a logical corollary to the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures but it is a foreign idea in the Scriptures. In truth, it was a doctrine formulated by at Princeton Theological Seminary in the latter half of the 19th century.
2) The inerrancy of the autographs is a hypothesis that cannot be proven due to the fact that we do not have the original autographs and we never will. They have long since been destroyed by time and there is no way to recreate them.
The apostle and/or his secretary wrote down the original Scripture on an original scroll, parchment, etc. This original scroll is the original autograph and is the document or version which is deemed by all learned evangelicalism to be THE inerrant copy.
Now for the three questions:
1) If the apostle and/or his secretary made copies of this original inerrant document, were these copies made by the apostle and/or his secretary inerrant?
2) If we agree that the original autographs are inerrant, if we agree that the subsequent copies contain errors, then which copy of the original autographs contained the first error? The first copy, the second copy, the third or fourth?
3) Since we do agree that only the first editions of the autographs are inerrant and all the other editions contain errors, then there are only 27 inerrant editions of the NT documents and 100s of millions of errant editions. There could only be one complete inerrant version of the entire NT which was very early on completely lost to history and the Church while there are 100s of thousands of subsequent editions that we still have and have never been lost. Thus, we can practically presume that God has had no problem at all giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice documents that have errors in them. If this scenario is indeed the case, then why would God not mind giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice original autographs with original errors in them?
Friday, November 10, 2006
Word Play From Genesis 1.
Check out this word play from Genesis 1. This is a brilliant bit of writing. The writer must’ve been the best of his generation. The puns are flying faster than in a Marx Brothers movie.
God ['elohiym] let the waters [mayim] bring forth [sharats] the crawling creatures [sherets] and the open [paniym] sky [shamayim] brings forth fowl [`owph] that fly [`uwph] above the earth ['erets].
God ['elohiym] let the waters [mayim] bring forth [sharats] the crawling creatures [sherets] and the open [paniym] sky [shamayim] brings forth fowl [`owph] that fly [`uwph] above the earth ['erets].
The Wonderful Blessings of Being a Southern Baptist.
I wrote this piece back in May of 2006 but never got around to posting it due to other engagements. Since I was recently questioned by a good friend about my criticism of the SBC, I searched through my files to find this piece.
Let us take some time today to remind ourselves of the wonderful blessings of being a Southern Baptist.
No division over homosexuality – While most other Christian bodies in America our suffering and even splitting over the issue of homosexuality, Southern Baptists are riding thru the storm.
Pro-Scripture – Southern Baptists have a high view of Scripture and take it very seriously in matters of the faith and in their personal walk with God. It is very nice to have the Scriptures as an authoritative and fairly objective source for handling matters of our Faith.
Pro-discipline (mostly) – For the most part, Southern Baptists (like our Anabaptist ancestors) hold church discipline as a norm and a commandment by Christ. As Dr. Mohler recently highlighted, church discipline is an extremely effective means by which we can save a fellow believer from falling away.
Loving, devoted people - Southern Baptists are a very loving people and devoted people. We take the command to love God and our neighbors very seriously and we seek to live out these fundamental Christian principles in our daily lives. We are extremely devoted to the task of spreading this love to the rest our nation and the rest of the world.
Evangelistic – We are extremely devoted to the task of spreading this love to the rest our nation and the rest of the world. I really do not know of a more evangelistic body of believers in the history of Christianity. From Smyth to Carey till today, Baptists and evangelism have gone hand in hand and we have made the Great Commission in Matthew our primary collective task. Southern Baptists in particular have done more to evangelize the world than any other believing body.
The Cooperative Program – The Cooperative Program is the genius of Southern Baptists. It is the most brilliant invention of the evangelical, free church community and it has been the driving success of all our endeavors. There really is nothing more important to Southern Baptists as a body, save God Himself.
North American Mission Board – The NAMB has been an extremely successful agency of Southern Baptists helping to plant new churches across the country and pave the way for our most successful conversions and discipleship.
International Mission Board – The IMB is the greatest missionary success story since St. Patrick. During the Golden Years of the Southern Baptist Convention the IMB (then the Foreign Mission Board) sent missionaries from China to Paraguay, planting churches, building hospitals and converting people from paganism to new life with God in Christ.
Pragmatism – Say what you want about the tradition-minded members of the SBC; we are still the most pragmatic denomination out there. This is almost wholly due to two main factors: we are evangelicals and we are Americans. Evangelicalism in terms of its approach to spreading the gospel to various cultures must be pragmatic by nature. We have to grow, bend and evolve in order to preach the Word. Also, America is a capitalistic society of high growth, constant change and feverish drives to win; we as American evangelicals have used such cultural characteristics to proclaim the Gospel. And that has been a great thing!
Diversity – One might say with some degree of accuracy that the “big tent” which is the SBC has been shrink over the past quarter century. Nevertheless, the SBC is still the most diverse Protestant denomination in all Christendom. We have conservatives, moderates and liberals, errantists and inerrantists, white, blacks, Asian, Hispanics, Africans, Europeans, Landmarkists, Fundamentalists, small churches, large churches, mega-churches, charismatics, non-charismatics, Canadians, South Americans, modernists, post-modernists, traditional churches, contemporary churches, emergent churches, house churches, dispensationalists, non-dispensationalists … I don’t know about you, but I like being amidst such different approaches of practicing the Faith.
Leadership cares about the “laity” and the “laity” trusts the leadership – This is undoubted by any serious examiner of the SBC. The SBC leadership really does care about the people and missions they are serving and really wants to make good on their given duties and responsibilities. And the “laity” really trusts the leadership – perhaps to a fault but it is still a good thing. Both of these facts are probably due to the concept of local church autonomy which enables a greater degree of freedom and distance between “leadership” and “laity”. The two very rarely cross paths so the distance between them makes the heart grow fonder.
Soul Competency (believer’s baptism, church autonomy, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, local church autonomy, etc.) – I love the fact that I am apart of a Baptist denomination that allows me to freely worship God and practice my faith. I would never want to be apart of any denomination that existed in a hierarchy. We all should be proud that we have inherited the traditions of Menno Simmons, Balthasar Hubmaier, John Smyth, William Carey, Andrew Fuller, E.Y. Mullins, Ralph Elliott, Dale Moody, Frank Stagg and H. H. Hobbs.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Ethics of the Sermon on the Mount
Matthew 5-7:27 (New International Version)
I am really interested in discussing the ethics and the interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Does any one have any thoughts or anecdotes about their experiences with the teachings of this Sermon?
All seminary students go over the Sermon on the Mount (if not on their own in their own personal studies, then in their classes of NT Introduction) and I have continued to give the Sermon some serious consideration over the years.
I have heard various lectures on the Sermon from Dr. Tolar, Dr. Crutchley, Dr. Ellis and Dr. Wenham. I have also read Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship, which is a great work, and various other interpretations by Albert Schweitzer, Leo Tolstoy, Stanley Hauerwas, Martin Luther Henry Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi and Francis of Assisi.
To me the matter comes down to how we approach Christian Ethics. I myself take my own form of the Absolutist View which takes the Sermon as a real sermon about matters that should be taken as a literal teaching to be literally applied in our daily lives.
Here is a Wikipedia definition of the Absolutist View:
“The Absolutist View rejects all compromise and believes that, if obeying the scripture costs the welfare of the believer, then that is a reasonable sacrifice for salvation. All the precepts in the Sermon must be taken literally and applied universally. Proponents of this view include St. Francis of Assisi and in later life Leo Tolstoy. The Oriental Orthodox Churches fully adopt this position; among heterodox groups, the early Anabaptists came close, and modern Anabaptist groups such as the Mennonites and Hutterites come closest.”
The aspect of my view of the Absolutist View which allows me to call it my own form is that I while I believe that the ethics of this Sermon should be taken as universal, the idea that one could enforce or even expect such a spiritual ethic to be universal is absurd.
In this, I agree with Ellis that there exists a two-tiered ethic between that of the OT and NT and between the world and the kingdom of God. The world works with an ethic like that of the OT which is “eye for an eye”. This is the ethical system of the world and it works (as Dr. Pierce states, the “eye for an eye” ethic is grace).
However, there is a higher grace that we see throughout the OT but which comes in both spirit and power at the coming of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The kingdom of God works with a higher level ethic which we could summarize as “love thy neighbor as thyself”, “love thy enemies”, and “universal forgiveness”. This ethic comes to absolute expression in the Cross. This ethic is about taking up the cross and following Jesus towards that self-submission, self-emptying, self-sacrificing obedience unto death for love of God and Man.
Notice this similar approach to the Beatitudes:
“One interpretation of narrative theologians is that the Beatitudes provide a corrective against an upside-down view of the power structures of the world that has been all but universally taken for granted. That is, the powers and principalities of this world - primarily referencing, but not meant to be exclusive to political, military and economic forces - appear to be the inheritors of power and dominion. In the Beatitudes, however, Jesus explains that the reality of things as seen from God's perspective is that the powerless who are the inheritors the future. It is the meek, the poor, those who suffer loss, those on the bottom of the social ladder, who will rule in the rightside-up kingdom of God. Jesus is attempting to jog his listeners' assumptions regarding security and hope, showing them that the kingdom of God is for those who hope in God and not in the power structures offered by the world. Though not specifically referenced and explained with much less poetry, these same themes are strongly espoused by the Apostle Paul in his letters to the Colossians and to the Ephesians. As for a more modern example, such an interpretation of the Beatitudes can be found in "Resident Aliens", by Stanley Hauerwas & William Willimon. In their book Jesus is explained to be showing his audience that "In God's kingdom, the poor are royalty, the sick are blessed." "The Beatitudes are not a strategy for achieving a better society ... they are an indication ... of life in the kingdom of God ... to produce a shock within our imaginations ... to see life ... in a radical new way." Similary, John H. Yoder, in his "Politics of Jesus" refers to Matthew 5 as part of a "call on the disciples of Jesus to renounce participation in the interplay of egoisms". This entire work attempts to show that such politlics of Jesus is the entire basis behind Christian pacifism - that the Jesus who has already conquered evil now calls us to follow him through the same heavenly humility.”
The Sermon the Mount is about this self-denying Faith of God in Christ. However, while such an ethic was accomplished in Christ, it is impossible for anyone to follow this ethic absolutely. Indeed, it is even practically absurd to expect believers themselves to adopt these principles for their lives.
To this extent, I have a modified interpretation of the Sermon similarly to that of Martin Dibelius.
“Martin Dibelius, presented another view also based on eschatology. His Unconditional Divine Will View is that the ethics behind the Sermon are absolute and unbending, but the current fallen state of the world makes it impossible to live up to them. Humans are bound to attempt to live up to them, but failure is inevitable. This will change when the Kingdom of Heaven is proclaimed and all will be able to live in a Godly manner. A similar view is also described in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, written in the late nineteenth century.”
But I differ with Dibelius in that while I do know that such an ethic is impossible for man, such a fact does not negate the reality of such an ethic and the pursuit of that ethic by the follower of Jesus. Indeed, the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is what we as believers are called to and what God expects. Thus, we should pursue that ethic in the way of Christ and pray for that Christ-like-ness. Will we always be perfect in such a practice? No, of course not. But God is gracious and that is why there is Jesus Christ as the means of grace upon Man. In this same way, we should expect believers to practice the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount but certainly be gracious in the inability of others to meet its high ethic. Why? Because God has been gracious and tolerant with our inabilities, thus we should be just as gracious with others.
I am really interested in discussing the ethics and the interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Does any one have any thoughts or anecdotes about their experiences with the teachings of this Sermon?
I am really interested in discussing the ethics and the interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Does any one have any thoughts or anecdotes about their experiences with the teachings of this Sermon?
All seminary students go over the Sermon on the Mount (if not on their own in their own personal studies, then in their classes of NT Introduction) and I have continued to give the Sermon some serious consideration over the years.
I have heard various lectures on the Sermon from Dr. Tolar, Dr. Crutchley, Dr. Ellis and Dr. Wenham. I have also read Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship, which is a great work, and various other interpretations by Albert Schweitzer, Leo Tolstoy, Stanley Hauerwas, Martin Luther Henry Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi and Francis of Assisi.
To me the matter comes down to how we approach Christian Ethics. I myself take my own form of the Absolutist View which takes the Sermon as a real sermon about matters that should be taken as a literal teaching to be literally applied in our daily lives.
Here is a Wikipedia definition of the Absolutist View:
“The Absolutist View rejects all compromise and believes that, if obeying the scripture costs the welfare of the believer, then that is a reasonable sacrifice for salvation. All the precepts in the Sermon must be taken literally and applied universally. Proponents of this view include St. Francis of Assisi and in later life Leo Tolstoy. The Oriental Orthodox Churches fully adopt this position; among heterodox groups, the early Anabaptists came close, and modern Anabaptist groups such as the Mennonites and Hutterites come closest.”
The aspect of my view of the Absolutist View which allows me to call it my own form is that I while I believe that the ethics of this Sermon should be taken as universal, the idea that one could enforce or even expect such a spiritual ethic to be universal is absurd.
In this, I agree with Ellis that there exists a two-tiered ethic between that of the OT and NT and between the world and the kingdom of God. The world works with an ethic like that of the OT which is “eye for an eye”. This is the ethical system of the world and it works (as Dr. Pierce states, the “eye for an eye” ethic is grace).
However, there is a higher grace that we see throughout the OT but which comes in both spirit and power at the coming of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The kingdom of God works with a higher level ethic which we could summarize as “love thy neighbor as thyself”, “love thy enemies”, and “universal forgiveness”. This ethic comes to absolute expression in the Cross. This ethic is about taking up the cross and following Jesus towards that self-submission, self-emptying, self-sacrificing obedience unto death for love of God and Man.
Notice this similar approach to the Beatitudes:
“One interpretation of narrative theologians is that the Beatitudes provide a corrective against an upside-down view of the power structures of the world that has been all but universally taken for granted. That is, the powers and principalities of this world - primarily referencing, but not meant to be exclusive to political, military and economic forces - appear to be the inheritors of power and dominion. In the Beatitudes, however, Jesus explains that the reality of things as seen from God's perspective is that the powerless who are the inheritors the future. It is the meek, the poor, those who suffer loss, those on the bottom of the social ladder, who will rule in the rightside-up kingdom of God. Jesus is attempting to jog his listeners' assumptions regarding security and hope, showing them that the kingdom of God is for those who hope in God and not in the power structures offered by the world. Though not specifically referenced and explained with much less poetry, these same themes are strongly espoused by the Apostle Paul in his letters to the Colossians and to the Ephesians. As for a more modern example, such an interpretation of the Beatitudes can be found in "Resident Aliens", by Stanley Hauerwas & William Willimon. In their book Jesus is explained to be showing his audience that "In God's kingdom, the poor are royalty, the sick are blessed." "The Beatitudes are not a strategy for achieving a better society ... they are an indication ... of life in the kingdom of God ... to produce a shock within our imaginations ... to see life ... in a radical new way." Similary, John H. Yoder, in his "Politics of Jesus" refers to Matthew 5 as part of a "call on the disciples of Jesus to renounce participation in the interplay of egoisms". This entire work attempts to show that such politlics of Jesus is the entire basis behind Christian pacifism - that the Jesus who has already conquered evil now calls us to follow him through the same heavenly humility.”
The Sermon the Mount is about this self-denying Faith of God in Christ. However, while such an ethic was accomplished in Christ, it is impossible for anyone to follow this ethic absolutely. Indeed, it is even practically absurd to expect believers themselves to adopt these principles for their lives.
To this extent, I have a modified interpretation of the Sermon similarly to that of Martin Dibelius.
“Martin Dibelius, presented another view also based on eschatology. His Unconditional Divine Will View is that the ethics behind the Sermon are absolute and unbending, but the current fallen state of the world makes it impossible to live up to them. Humans are bound to attempt to live up to them, but failure is inevitable. This will change when the Kingdom of Heaven is proclaimed and all will be able to live in a Godly manner. A similar view is also described in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, written in the late nineteenth century.”
But I differ with Dibelius in that while I do know that such an ethic is impossible for man, such a fact does not negate the reality of such an ethic and the pursuit of that ethic by the follower of Jesus. Indeed, the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is what we as believers are called to and what God expects. Thus, we should pursue that ethic in the way of Christ and pray for that Christ-like-ness. Will we always be perfect in such a practice? No, of course not. But God is gracious and that is why there is Jesus Christ as the means of grace upon Man. In this same way, we should expect believers to practice the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount but certainly be gracious in the inability of others to meet its high ethic. Why? Because God has been gracious and tolerant with our inabilities, thus we should be just as gracious with others.
I am really interested in discussing the ethics and the interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Does any one have any thoughts or anecdotes about their experiences with the teachings of this Sermon?
The Height of Goliath
The Bible records the famous strife between David and the giant Goliath, ending with the defeat of the latter. Goliath was "six cubits and a span" in height--over nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). However, an earlier translation of this tale found in the Dead Sea Scrolls puts Goliath at just under two meters tall, rather than three meters as had been written in later versions. This greatly increases the validity of claims that Goliath may have been a real person, being gigantic in stature compared to the average height of a man in the early classical era of around 1.6 meters compared to around 1.75 today.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Creeds and Confessions
Another nice opportunity to express the problems of creeds and confessions
1. Heretics are deemed such, not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe wrong interpretations of the Bible.
Agreed. However, the distinction between believing the Bible and believing the wrong things about the Bible has not been made. Truly, when SBC leaders have complained about other Christians who disagree with them about the proper meaning of Scripture, the complaint is not that “they have misinterpreted the Bible” but that “they don’t believe the Bible.” Basically, people have been saying that those who do not believe in their own interpretation of Scripture do not believe in Scripture at all.
2. Modern US denominational creeds - faults and all - do not *make* or *force* anyone to believe anything. We simply do not have the military/political structure to do such a thing.
Really, denominational creeds do not force anyone to believe anything? I think you might want to ask the numerous missionaries, professors, and administrators who have been fired because they did not believe the BFM 2000. You might better inquire about the numerous churches which have been told that they could not be a part of a denomination because they did not believe the BFM 2000. Also, it might be best to ask around many of the Baptist state colleges who are under pressure to adopt the BFM 2000. Again, with references to professors, the matter of tension was not that the professors did not teach within the parameters of the BFM 2000 but that they did not believe it themselves.
Who needs a state military to coerce the other believers when you can simply threaten the future of their ministries and their well-being of their families?
Of course, now we are coercing all these same individuals to either adopt a particular view of alcohol consumption and “private prayer language” – neither of which is confessed in the BFM 2000 – or face the same consequences. Yes, the trustees at particular SBC agencies have taken it upon themselves to interpret Scripture for all Southern Baptists and then set doctrinal parameters for such matters.
It’s sort of like the U.S. judges who ignore a particular law and legislate from the bench. Some may cry “foul” about such an action, but the judges simply state that they have been appointed by presidents and congressmen who have been elected by the people; when they make any new law from the bench they are simply acting in accordance to the will of the people. Of course, the same SBC leaders who set doctrine in this same manner will then turn around and have “Justice Sundays.”
The Bible is data. The confession/creed is the Christian understanding of it.
I like your statement: “The Bible is data.The confession/creed is the Christian understanding of it.”
True, confessions and creeds do express a particular Christian group’s interpretation of the Faith (and not just the Scriptures). Be aware of the other authoritative interpretations of the Scriptures.
The oral law of the Pharisees – these were authoritative interpretations of the Pentateuch that the 1st century Jewish rabbis of Jesus’ day believed to be the correct interpretation of the OT faith. Really, the Pharisees believed the Bible to be inspired and inerrant but they also believed that they had the correct interpretation of the OT and forced such an interpretation on others, coerced everyone other Jew to adopt their interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated). Jesus responded that they were negating the Scriptures through their traditional interpretations.
The canon law of the Roman Catholic Church – the Roman Catholics certainly believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. They also believe that they have the right interpretation of the Scriptures. How so? The correct interpretation of the Scriptures has been passed down to them through numerous Church leaders (apostles, the patristics, popes, councils, etc.). They believed they had the correct traditional interpretation of Scripture and then coerced every other Roman Catholic to adopt their interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated). Martin Luther responded that they were negating the Scriptures through their traditional interpretations.
The BFM 2000 of the Southern Baptists – Southern Baptists certainly believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. We also believe that we have the right interpretation of the Scriptures. How so? Because we hold the Scriptures up very high and say that we only follow them. The correct interpretation of the Scriptures has been passed down to us through numerous avenues. We believe that we have the correct traditional interpretation of Scripture and are now coercing every other Southern Baptist to adopt our interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated).
Is this not the case?
#2 is why I have a very hard time buying into much of a distinction between a confession and a creed. Such distinctions seem to work only if one assumes that the central role of a creed is its use by a political state to force conformity.
Agreed. When the BFM was being devised a major concern was the traditional understanding of the Baptist faith that we are not a “creedal people.” Therefore, the distinction was made between creeds and confessions to remove any idea that people would be forced into believing the BFM.
“Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines. Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.”
Again, the use of the BFM 2000 has been to enforce conformity to it. Why else are people (who do not hold to particular aspects of the document) being fired left and right even when they agree to honor it as the SBC confession?
Why is no one who signs the document ever saying, “Yes, I agree with most of the document except perhaps A, B, and C.”?
Why are all SBC seminary professors now having to sign the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (a good 27 year old document) when it is not a SBC confession?
All the same, may the tribe of Williams and Harmon increase.
Heck, if Williams and Harmon are not advocating the enforcement of particular creeds (really, how would one today force the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" Creed on anyone?) but simply urging other evangelical believers to examine the past confessions of previous believers, then I certainly do support them!
1. Heretics are deemed such, not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe wrong interpretations of the Bible.
Agreed. However, the distinction between believing the Bible and believing the wrong things about the Bible has not been made. Truly, when SBC leaders have complained about other Christians who disagree with them about the proper meaning of Scripture, the complaint is not that “they have misinterpreted the Bible” but that “they don’t believe the Bible.” Basically, people have been saying that those who do not believe in their own interpretation of Scripture do not believe in Scripture at all.
2. Modern US denominational creeds - faults and all - do not *make* or *force* anyone to believe anything. We simply do not have the military/political structure to do such a thing.
Really, denominational creeds do not force anyone to believe anything? I think you might want to ask the numerous missionaries, professors, and administrators who have been fired because they did not believe the BFM 2000. You might better inquire about the numerous churches which have been told that they could not be a part of a denomination because they did not believe the BFM 2000. Also, it might be best to ask around many of the Baptist state colleges who are under pressure to adopt the BFM 2000. Again, with references to professors, the matter of tension was not that the professors did not teach within the parameters of the BFM 2000 but that they did not believe it themselves.
Who needs a state military to coerce the other believers when you can simply threaten the future of their ministries and their well-being of their families?
Of course, now we are coercing all these same individuals to either adopt a particular view of alcohol consumption and “private prayer language” – neither of which is confessed in the BFM 2000 – or face the same consequences. Yes, the trustees at particular SBC agencies have taken it upon themselves to interpret Scripture for all Southern Baptists and then set doctrinal parameters for such matters.
It’s sort of like the U.S. judges who ignore a particular law and legislate from the bench. Some may cry “foul” about such an action, but the judges simply state that they have been appointed by presidents and congressmen who have been elected by the people; when they make any new law from the bench they are simply acting in accordance to the will of the people. Of course, the same SBC leaders who set doctrine in this same manner will then turn around and have “Justice Sundays.”
The Bible is data. The confession/creed is the Christian understanding of it.
I like your statement: “The Bible is data.The confession/creed is the Christian understanding of it.”
True, confessions and creeds do express a particular Christian group’s interpretation of the Faith (and not just the Scriptures). Be aware of the other authoritative interpretations of the Scriptures.
The oral law of the Pharisees – these were authoritative interpretations of the Pentateuch that the 1st century Jewish rabbis of Jesus’ day believed to be the correct interpretation of the OT faith. Really, the Pharisees believed the Bible to be inspired and inerrant but they also believed that they had the correct interpretation of the OT and forced such an interpretation on others, coerced everyone other Jew to adopt their interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated). Jesus responded that they were negating the Scriptures through their traditional interpretations.
The canon law of the Roman Catholic Church – the Roman Catholics certainly believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. They also believe that they have the right interpretation of the Scriptures. How so? The correct interpretation of the Scriptures has been passed down to them through numerous Church leaders (apostles, the patristics, popes, councils, etc.). They believed they had the correct traditional interpretation of Scripture and then coerced every other Roman Catholic to adopt their interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated). Martin Luther responded that they were negating the Scriptures through their traditional interpretations.
The BFM 2000 of the Southern Baptists – Southern Baptists certainly believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. We also believe that we have the right interpretation of the Scriptures. How so? Because we hold the Scriptures up very high and say that we only follow them. The correct interpretation of the Scriptures has been passed down to us through numerous avenues. We believe that we have the correct traditional interpretation of Scripture and are now coercing every other Southern Baptist to adopt our interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated).
Is this not the case?
#2 is why I have a very hard time buying into much of a distinction between a confession and a creed. Such distinctions seem to work only if one assumes that the central role of a creed is its use by a political state to force conformity.
Agreed. When the BFM was being devised a major concern was the traditional understanding of the Baptist faith that we are not a “creedal people.” Therefore, the distinction was made between creeds and confessions to remove any idea that people would be forced into believing the BFM.
“Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines. Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.”
Again, the use of the BFM 2000 has been to enforce conformity to it. Why else are people (who do not hold to particular aspects of the document) being fired left and right even when they agree to honor it as the SBC confession?
Why is no one who signs the document ever saying, “Yes, I agree with most of the document except perhaps A, B, and C.”?
Why are all SBC seminary professors now having to sign the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (a good 27 year old document) when it is not a SBC confession?
All the same, may the tribe of Williams and Harmon increase.
Heck, if Williams and Harmon are not advocating the enforcement of particular creeds (really, how would one today force the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" Creed on anyone?) but simply urging other evangelical believers to examine the past confessions of previous believers, then I certainly do support them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)