A little while ago one of my commenters, Sherry, brought up this wonderful old hymn:
Redeemed, how I love to proclaim it!
Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb;
Redeemed through His infinite mercy,
His child and forever I am.
I remember another I liked a lot ... related to this one. The chorus goes like this:
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.
Years ago I was (among other things) the worship leader at our church. I put that particular hymn in the line up. Afterward, one of the pastors took me aside. This pastor had come from a ministry among people involved in satanic worship. He told me, "Don't ever sing that in church again." I was really caught off guard. "Why?" Well, he explained to me that many of the people in our church had come out of satanic practices and when they heard "blood", it confused them. They thought of satanic things.
Now, one group would tell me, "Preach it, brother! Who cares what anyone thinks??!!" I have to wonder how effective or loving that is. So another group will say, "So, Stan, it's important to tailor your message to take into account those who are listening. If you're using a message that offends, you need to change the message." Another group would say, "No, you don't necessarily need to change your message, but you need to avoid using your freedom if it causes a brother to stumble." And I wonder, "At what point do I simply speak the truth and hope to educate my brother?" I wonder, in fact, if someone who is stumbling over the blood of Christ is my brother at all.
In Revelation, Christ is described this way: "He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God" (Rev 19:13). Of course, John didn't know, when he wrote that, that there would be those who would be offended by the "blood" reference. So, of course, you can understand why he would write this description at the beginning of the book: "To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood ..." (Rev 1:5). Hey, as a matter of fact, it was John who wrote "The blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). Wow! John either had zero connection with people who misunderstood blood references ... or he didn't care at all.
And I begin to think that he didn't care at all. Peter wrote "If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:17-19). Paul wrote "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). Nice dodge, Paul. The blood is just implied. But wait! Paul also wrote, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (Rom 3:23-25).
Since the blood of the Lamb appears to be fundamental to salvation, is it really something we can mitigate because it might cause some to be confused? What else can't be mitigated? If it offends people to call them sinners, can we set aside that "intolerance"? Or is it absolutely essential that they recognize that they are indeed sinners? What about all that "No man comes to the Father but by Me" stuff? Do we really have to say that Christ is the only way? That's so exclusive, so offensive. At what point does our "freedom" become a necessity? At what point do we have to educate rather than avoid causing someone to stumble? What part of our message is bare-bones essential and must not be mitigated because it might offend? When Paul said, "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor 9:22), did he mean all things, or are there limitations?
61 comments:
Since the blood of the Lamb appears to be fundamental to salvation
It is clearly quite a common metaphor used throughout the Bible. The OT folk knew about blood sacrifices and those in the Jewish tradition continued using this metaphor. It is quite clear that it is one with which they were familiar and comfortable.
But we need to remember, it IS a metaphor. God, after all, has to chastise Israel frequently for thinking it was all about the actual blood sacrifice, when God would say, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." They were confusing the metaphor for the actual thing that brought salvation.
Grace.
Thank God for grace!
First, the blood is a metaphor for what? What is "the actual thing that brought salvation"?
Second, the point appears to be missed. Since Scripture uses the reference to the blood of Christ repeatedly as an important phrase, is it wise to mitigate that idea?
God's grace is what saves us. The blood is symbolic of the grace God extended to us by Jesus' sacrificial life and death poured out for God's beloved humanity, leaving us an example.
Salvation is not something purchased like a toaster, it is the gift of God by God's grace. Grace is the mechanism. Self-sacrificing love is the Call and the Life Demonstrated.
Seems to me.
What do you think it is a metaphor for?
in that day... I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
~Zec 12:9-10
John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"
For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.
~John 1:15-17
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved..."
After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe...
"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
~Acts 15
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
~Romans 5:14-16
Dan Trabue: "God's grace is what saves us. The blood is symbolic of the grace God extended to us by Jesus' sacrificial life and death poured out for God's beloved humanity, leaving us an example."
Wait, wait ... this has me really confused ... on multiple planes.
First, it looks like you're saying that Christ didn't actually pay for our sin. That was just an example of a "sacrificial life". It looks like you're denying the Substitutionary Atonement.
Second, it looks like you're saying that "grace" is just God's good will toward us. He forgives because He wants to. There's no need for anything at all (like justice, atonement, and so on). Jesus was simply an example; He didn't actually do anything toward salvation.
Third, it looks like we're actually saved by choosing to live a sacrificial life ourselves.
Is any of this your understanding, or did I completely miss it?
It looks like you're denying the Substitutionary Atonement.
Denying it? Depends on what you mean by that. There are many different theories on atonement, of which, Substitutionary Atonement is only one.
Substitutionary atonement is a variation of the Satisfaction Theory developed by medieval theologian Anselm in the tenth century.
Here is an interesting explanation of the problems of Substitutionary atonement from someone claiming to speak from a "Reformed" POV - I don't know anything about the site, though, just found it and thought it was apt.
Here's another critique which makes some sound points.
How are you defining it?
You noted...
Second, it looks like you're saying that "grace" is just God's good will toward us. He forgives because He wants to. There's no need for anything at all (like justice, atonement, and so on). Jesus was simply an example; He didn't actually do anything toward salvation.
Grace is God's gift to us. We are saved by God's grace. God DOES forgive when we ask because God DOES want to.
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." ~1 John 1:9
Does that mean there's no such thing as Justice or Atonement? Heavens no! But one need not believe in Substitutionary Atonement to believe in Justice or Atonement.
Stan said...
Third, it looks like we're actually saved by choosing to live a sacrificial life ourselves.
Is any of this your understanding, or did I completely miss it?
Missed it. We are actually saved by God's grace, as I have said. God's sacrificial grace gives us an example that we are to follow in, for as we are saved by God's grace, we are to live by God's grace.
Dan Trabue,
Repeatedly you have assured me that we're not that far apart as Christians. We're pretty much the same when it comes to core beliefs. We're only distant on the peripherals.
Originally, "the peripherals" were things like homosexual activity as sin (or not) and the ordaining of women. It spread from there. It moved into the composition and reliability of the Scriptures. Are they literal or largely not so much? Are they inerrant or not at all?
Most recently it has gone much, much deeper. The God I know is a God of justice who demands payment for sin. This God has righteous wrath toward sinners. The human race that I know is a race that is rotten at its core, in need of new life, without hope on its own. The salvation I know is a product of payment made by a Man who was God to satisfy the demands of justice. These things aren't peripheral. They are fundamental.
It seems that we're not so much alike as you would think.
(Oh, FYI, the author of that first piece against the Atonement is not speaking from a Reformed viewpoint. He's speaking against the Reformed viewpoint.)
It seems that we're not so much alike as you would think.
Perhaps in your mind. In my mind, extrabiblical and relatively recent matters such as inerrancy or substitutionary atonement are not so critical to Christian life and, therefore, not as large a problem for fellowship as more direct problems such as slander, or bearing false witness or a spirit of harsh criticism lacking in Christian love. You know, stuff the Bible actually directly talks about and stuff that Jesus specifically talks about.
So, perhaps you feel not especially close to me as a Christian brother, but I feel fairly close to you as a brother in Christ. Our differences are bet a hair's breadth apart in matters of everlasting importance, to me.
So, if it's all the same to you, however you feel about me, I love you as a dear brother in Christ, differences notwithstanding.
So, how ARE you defining Substitutionary Atonement?
What do you think the blood imagery in the Bible is a metaphor for? You DO think it is a metaphor, don't you?
You don't think that Jesus' actual physical blood somehow pays an actual price for our sin, do you? That God says to Jesus, "That will be ten ounces of blood for Stan's soul"?
Is it the case that you reject all those who believe in atonement using one of the other theories besides the one developed in the tenth century, that those people are not Christians? And what of those Christians before the tenth century? As you like to ask: Had the church got it wrong for 1000 years before Anselm came along?
Dan Trabue: "You don't think that Jesus' actual physical blood somehow pays an actual price for our sin, do you?"
Did you put this in as intentionally insulting? No, of course, not.
In the beginning, all humans owed a single debt to God as His image bearers. We owed Him perfection. Of course, as it turned out, "all have sinned and fall short ..." So, according to Colossians 2, we had another "certificate of debt" that stood against us. According to Romans 6, what happened was that we earned something from God -- death. In other words, in a vacuum, there was only one possible outcome; all humans must die. Justice demanded it. God's holiness demanded it. We had a debt to pay, and that debt was our own deaths.
Now, God is also merciful. So if He wanted to save some of His creation from their just reward, He had to find a way to pay their self-earned debt. In order for that payment to be effective, there were two criteria to be met. First, the one doing the paying had to be a man who did not owe his own debt. Second, the one doing the paying had to have something more than mere humanity, as the debt was to cover more than one human. Thus the need for sinlessness, humanity, and deity.
What does "the blood" symbolize? A long time ago God said, "The life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev 17:11). Thus, the blood symbolized (if "symbolized" is an accurate term) the life of the person. In the same verse God explains that the reason for the sacrificial system was "to make atonement for your souls" because "it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." The blood, then, symbolized the death that was owed God for the transgressions we've made. Without that payment, God justly owes us wrath. With that payment, God has the option of graciously giving us mercy. With that payment on our behalf, God can be both just and justifier.
Are we saved by grace? Yes. But not grace by itself. Paul says we "are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins. It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:24-26). (Propitiation: The appeasement of wrath.)
Oh, and look! There are all sorts of "essentials" in there like "the Trinity", the Atonement, the condition of Man, and even the source I'm using, the Bible. Isn't that odd?
I think that the message stays the same.
The becoming "all things" part is so they will listen to you.
If you're hanging out with rich sophisticated types...fit in as best you can.
If you're hanging out with down home country people...try and fit in with them.
All that they might trust you enough to listen to you, and (by God's grace) hear the gospel.
Stan asked:
Did you put this in as intentionally insulting?
No. I put it in to clarify. Perhaps this will help to remember: Most of the time, when I ask a question, it is because I am seeking an answer, not to insult, to insinuate or to name-call. Sometimes, I might ask a question in an incredulous manner because I find the question an odd one and yet it seems like the person might actually think something. But that is not intended to be insulting.
Stan said...
In the beginning, all humans owed a single debt to God as His image bearers. We owed Him perfection.
Do you think perhaps "We owed God obedience" would be the more biblically accurate way to phrase this? There's nothing in the Genesis story that suggests God demanded perfection from Adam, right?
Perhaps that's a minor point, just seeking clarification.
Stan said...
Now, God is also merciful. So if He wanted to save some of His creation from their just reward, He had to find a way to pay their self-earned debt.
When God asks us to forgive someone, does God suggest they have to find some way to "pay" a debt to us? To make a sacrifice to us in order to achieve forgiveness?
Or, don't you think it the case that God merely expects us to forgive? Just like that?
"For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly God will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, God will not forgive your sins..."
"forgive, and you will be forgiven."
"forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."
"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."
"And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."
~Jesus
Over and over we are told, when someone sins against us, we are simply to forgive. Period. No sacrifice needed, no debt to pay. We ought simply forgive, AS our God in heaven forgives.
Now, if God is asking us to simply forgive, no strings attached, why do we think God can't simply forgive us? Doesn't it seem reasonable that the almighty creator of heaven and earth can choose to simply forgive us if we repent if God wishes to? Isn't that, in fact, what the Bible says will happen?
That God demands (and provides) mercy, not sacrifice?
When I said, "We owed Him perfection", I meant that as His image bearers we owed it to God to reflect Him perfectly. That would mostly be in terms of obedience (character), yes.
But on the other point, Dan (and a single quote here won't do it justice), you have made it fundamentally apparent that 1) the God you worship is not the same God I worship and 2) while I made it clear where it comes from (the entire concept of "redemption" is an idea of purchase/payment), you reject that biblical notion. In other words, in essential elements, we disagree fundamentally.
I understand God to be necessarily just. You understand that God is perfectly capable of ignoring justice and just plain writing off whatever transgressions occurred. (By the way, the biblical basis for my forgiving others is that I am forgiven ... as a product of justice met.) The biblical accounts repeatedly reference Christ's sacrifice on the Cross as not merely symbolic, but payment. So the Christ you know and the Christ I know, the God you know and the God I know, the Bible you know and the Bible I know, the Atonement you see and the Atonement I see ... these are all similar sounding, but actually quite different.
So, tell me. When you hear the term, "the Gospel", what is that? Could you please give me a brief, succinct explanation of what you mean by the term? If you were to share "the Gospel" with someone, what exactly is that? Just a brief version would be fine. Thanks.
Dan Trabue: "In my mind, extrabiblical and relatively recent matters such as inerrancy or substitutionary atonement are not so critical to Christian life and, therefore, not as large a problem for fellowship as more direct problems such as slander, or bearing false witness or a spirit of harsh criticism lacking in Christian love."
In light of the sharp differences (my previous comment) in our understanding of who God is, what Christ did, the nature of Scripture, and the fundamental nature of even Christianity, this entire statement strikes me as very, very odd ... and yet, quite understandable. You have made it something of a mission of yours to address (sometimes harshly) what you see as problems in what I write regarding "slander", "bearing false witness", or "a spirit of harsh criticism". (It strikes me as odd because it would appear to me and others that you are exhibiting the very same problems that you are addressing.) And yet, despite the many times and sources I've offered that explain that things like inerrancy and the Atonement are not "extrabiblical" nor "relatively recent", you continue to discard them and malign me for holding to them. (Say what you will. If a person provides multiple arguments and sources that indicate that some things are a matter of biblical importance and all that is returned is "That stuff is extrabiblical", there is no "inference" or "implication". The only possible conclusion is, "You're wrong no matter what you've offered as proof." Knowing my dedication to a biblical worldview, it is not possible to understand your constant disregarding of important matters as "extrabiblical" as anything but slander, false witness, and harsh criticism. The only possible way to avoid that very clear conclusion would be for you to use terms like "I see it as" or "From my view", allowing the possibility that your perceptions, while different from mine, may be wrong. I try to write often with phrases like "it seems to me", "apparently", "I would suggest", and so forth. Your choice of words do not allow for that possibility.) So it seems odd that you would discard matters of importance to reprove me for matters of lesser importance by using the same approaches you think you see in me.
Steve Martin: "All that they might trust you enough to listen to you, and (by God's grace) hear the gospel."
I agree with you on most of your points. The "all things to all people" is not mitigating the message, but relating to people. I'm not sure it's so that "they might trust you", but so that we're speaking "the same language" -- so that we can relate. But the message itself, while wording and delivery might vary, cannot change.
The thing to keep in mind, it seems to me, is that the Bible speaks about salvation in many, many ways.
When the rich young ruler approached Jesus and asked specifically, "What must I do to be saved?" Jesus gave what sounds like a Works answer: "Go, sell all you have and give it to the poor and come, follow me," but I'd suggest it boils down to, "Come, follow me."
When He is asked specifically what one must do in order to be saved, all Jesus himself said (at least in that case) was "Come, follow me."
Elsewhere, Jesus notes "whosoever believes in him [God's only begotten son] should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Later, when the Roman jailer asks Paul specifically "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
And Paul in Ephesians notes specifically, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Peter notes in Acts, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."
And, as you note, Paul in places speaks of the "propitiation" [soothing the anger of the gods, in Hebrew, I'm told] of Jesus' death.
And so we have ALL these various notes about salvation (Jesus pointing out that the only difference between the sheep and the goats/saved and the unsaved is what they did and didn't do for the least of these, being another one) and what are we to make of them?
I think the essentials of Christianity in this regard is that we are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus, the son of God who died and lived again. And we can talk about the various theories of atonement and some are more problematic from a biblical and logical point of view and some are less problematic, but they are all extrabiblical theories talking about the essential of grace, by which we are saved.
As such, while I may disagree slightly with your take on your particular theory of atonement, it is not one over which I would break fellowship. That seems to me to be a key thing to keep in mind.
Stan noted:
I understand God to be necessarily just. You understand that God is perfectly capable of ignoring justice and just plain writing off whatever transgressions occurred.
You misunderstand my position, then. Okay? You understand that now - that this is NOT my position? That I have never said nor do I think that God capable of ignoring justice? God forbid!
Could you acknowledge please, then, that you are hearing me say that this is NOT my position?
Thanks.
Stan asked:
When you hear the term, "the Gospel", what is that? Could you please give me a brief, succinct explanation of what you mean by the term?
We are sinners in need of salvation.
God loves us and is not willing that ANY of us should be lost.
God loves us so much that God sent Jesus - God's Son - to earth to live a perfect life, teaching us how to live and who died as a result of his life and our sins AND that Jesus then raised from the dead, demonstrating victory over sin and hatred and even death.
That those who believe in (ie, agree with) Jesus can ask for forgiveness for sins and begin a life in community with God.
That God gladly welcomes all those who wish to follow God and forgives all those who ask for forgiveness because of God's grace - kindness, gift - by which we are saved. For we are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus, not by our works and we are saved to a life in God's community, God's realm.
This IS the essential Good News in orthodox Christianity.
There are no other hoops to jump through. We must not come to agree with the pope on his position on 9/10 of all sins or with Billy Graham's position on his theory of atonement or with Stan on HIS theory of atonement. None of those hoops. None of those Laws. None of those works.
We are saved by grace alone, through faith in Jesus, alone, to life in his steps, in God's kingdom. Hallelujah!
Stan said...
You have made it something of a mission of yours to address (sometimes harshly) what you see as problems in what I write regarding "slander", "bearing false witness", or "a spirit of harsh criticism". (It strikes me as odd because it would appear to me and others that you are exhibiting the very same problems that you are addressing.)
If someone has slandered another and you correct them, is that being "harsh"? If someone has borne false witness about someone else and you correct them, is that evidence that they are being harshly critical?
When someone corrects someone for being slanderous or harshly critical, it is not a logical argument to say that THEY are being harshly critical. It is not harsh criticism to point out harsh criticism, it's just an observation.
To ask for some appropriate action (repentance, for instance) for slander and false witness is not being harsh. Surely you can agree with this?
If I were to say that you hate God and you were to rebuke me for spreading a falsehood, you wouldn't call yourself "harsh" would you?
I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is in this.
When I have pointed out that you have misrepresented my or someone else's position, I have demonstrated what MY position was and how what you have said is not what I have said. That's supporting the claim and that's how it should be done, yes?
Dan Trabue: "Could you acknowledge please, then, that you are hearing me say that this is NOT my position?"
Hey, no problem. I acknowledge that you are saying that it is not your position that God is capable of ignoring justice and writing off whatever transgressions occurred. I definitely acknowledge that that's what you said.
Of course, I still think it's your position. Look, here's what you offered. God did not send His Son to die in our place to meet the demands of justice. He sent His Son "to live a perfect life, teaching us how to live". That whole death thing was just the consequence. He didn't actually pay for anything on our behalf. Salvation, then, is obtained by agreeing with Jesus's way of life. Now we have a problem. "The wages of sin is death", but no wages are necessarily paid. "The day that you eat it you shall surely die", but no such justice is meted out. God has declared sin as demanding death, but no such payment is required. All you have to do is "agree with" Jesus. All that stuff in the Bible about redemption and payment and propitiation ... that's not really the case. That, apparently is only "Stan's theory of atonement".
So ... I acknowledge that you are saying that is not your position. Unfortunately, I see no reference to God's justice being met that explains why it is not your position.
Dan Trabue: "If someone has slandered another and you correct them, is that being 'harsh'?"
No, of course not! Now, if someone corrects you for slander and you explain, "I didn't intend (or even convey) slander because of ..." and he argues the point, is that being harsh? If you continue to explain what you meant -- how it wasn't slander -- and he continues to malign you for slander, is that being harsh? If you examine what he's talking about and realize that you define "slander" as "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another" and he's defining "slander" as "wearing yellow shirts" and you explain to him that the two of you are using different definitions and he continues to accuse you of slander, is that being harsh?
To me, "harsh" can occur when, despite repeated explanations about something, the explanations are ignored, the worst is assumed, and the accusations continue. It's harsh because it assumes the worst. It's harsh because it is tantamount to an accusation of stupidity at best and lying at worst. It's harsh because it fails to accept the other person at face value without cause.
"Harsh", of course, also occurs with tone. If a person, say, uses profanity or slurs another's character and tries to soft-pedal it by calling it "a rebuke", it's still harsh. The idea that is in error should be addressed, not the character of the other person. If a person won't let go, like a dog with a bone, it becomes harsh.
If the shoe fits ...
To be sure, rebukes CAN and sometimes SHOULD be harsh. "You white-washed tombs! You vipers! You snakes in the grass!" Sound familiar?
I assume you might agree that sometimes a rebuke SHOULD be harsh? (ie, you don't think the prophets or John the Baptist or Jesus were wrong for their harsh rebukes)?
And when should a rebuke be harsh? Well, in Jesus' case, it tended to be with religious hypocrites who were laying burdens upon people's backs by adding law upon law to their lives - legal hoops they had to jump through in order to prove their faith, wouldn't you agree that is true?
Don't you imagine that the pharisees felt like Jesus (and John the Baptist before him) were like a dog on a bone, refusing to let go?
Stan said...
Look, here's what you offered. God did not send His Son to die in our place to meet the demands of justice. He sent His Son "to live a perfect life, teaching us how to live". That whole death thing was just the consequence. He didn't actually pay for anything on our behalf.
Let me try to make my position more clear:
I believe that Jesus came to seek and to save the lost.
I believe that Jesus came that we might have life, and that more abundantly.
I believe that Jesus came to preach good news to the poor, liberty to the captive, the day of God's good favor.
I believe that Jesus came not to do his own will, but the will of the one who sent him.
I believe that Jesus came not to judge the world, but that the world through him might be saved.
I believe Jesus came to be a light in the darkness, to testify to the truth, to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, to save sinners, to be an example that we might follow in his steps.
I'm sure you recognize that all of those are Jesus' own reasons he gave for why he came (with the exception of the last one, which is from 2 Peter, I believe).
And yes, according to Paul, Jesus came to live a sacrificial life, that his death may be a propitiation for our sins.
These are ALL biblical explanations of why Jesus came and I don't deny any of them. What I do, however, is take the propitiation language to be a metaphor, not a literal purchase of our salvation. It is a metaphor that was extremely apt and understandable to the Jewish people (and even the pagan cultures) who were well familiar with the concept of making blood sacrifices to appease angry God/gods. And so it makes a great deal of sense to me that such language is used and I don't disagree that it's biblical.
But no, God did not literally require a blood sacrifice to appease God's anger. That is more the way of the pagan gods, not the almighty God of the universe.
God IS angry about injustice, oppression, evil. Jesus life and death are perfect examples of how sin can destroy and just how hideous and evil sin can be.
And it is all quite literally a sacrifice, in the sense that Jesus lived and died sacrificially pouring out his life for all of humanity. In THAT sense, yes, it is a sacrifice. But it's not a blood sacrifice to appease an angry God.
That is medieval thinking, not biblical thinking, seems to me.
Of course, you are free to disagree. I won't think too much less of you for disagreeing with my opinion on this non-essential matter. But when someone starts saying "Well, HE's not a Christian because - even though he has been saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus... - well, he does not agree with my theory of atonement...," I do find that rather disheartening and lacking in the Love which we are to display one to another.
Nonetheless, you shall remain my brother whether or not you think I'm yours.
Dan Trabue: "It is a metaphor that was extremely apt and understandable to the Jewish people (and even the pagan cultures) who were well familiar with the concept of making blood sacrifices to appease angry God/gods."
Dan ... seriously ... are you actually making this argument? I mean ... seriously? Wasn't God the one who said, "Come out from among them and be separate"? Wasn't it abundantly clear that much of the Old Testament law was around being different than all of the rest? And now you argue that "Well, God just used what they were used to ... you know ... the stuff He wanted them to leave." ??? As a matter of fact, the entire concept of "kinsman redeemer" was one that God put into place as a new illustration to His people about how a kinsman can pay the price for another.
Was it a blood sacrifice that did the trick? I already told you it wasn't. I guess, as so often in the past, you simply choose to ignore it. It was death that paid the price, the death of a perfect Man/God.
The problem, here, is that by redefining all of this as "metaphor", you negate justice and eliminate reason because ... "hey, it was just for their culture to understand". Dan, just because you use the name "Jesus" and I use the same one is no reason to think it's the same "Jesus". Just because you use the term "Christian" as do I is no reason to think we're talking about the same thing. We aren't even vaguely related on matters of baseline necessity. What you are offering isn't ... slightly askew. It is heresy. I don't often use that term because it is so abused, but I can't avoid it here.
Look, here's what I asked. You claimed to deny my characterization of you as denying the justice of God. I asked you to explain. You haven't. At this point, your God is a very warm, friendly, nice God ... but lacks any justice because He can choose to forgive whomever He wishes without any debt being paid for sin. This very nice God is also apparently powerful, but not omnipotent because He can only save those who give Him the right to do so by their choice. It isn't the same God. It isn't the same Christ. It isn't the same Bible. It isn't the same Christianity. We are, genuinely, two people separated by a common language.
And it becomes immediately clear why it seems so hard for us to understand one another. We're using the same words, but we mean nothing at all the same things.
(I know ... calling someone a heretic is a bit harsh ... but sometimes rebukes need to be harsh, don't they?)
My apologies, I did not intend to overlook your distinction between a blood sacrifice and a human sacrifice - a perfect Man/God sacrifice. I meant them as one in the same, but I'll clarify now that this is your position - that God is angry about sin and injustice and that God requires a God/Human sacrifice as the only way possible to forgive sin.
Is that a fair rendering of your position/of the medieval Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory?
(I know ... calling someone a heretic is a bit harsh ... but sometimes rebukes need to be harsh, don't they?)
He drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout
But love and I had the wit to win;
We drew a circle that took him in.
~Edwin Markham
If believing in the Christian God of grace and salvation by God's grace through faith in God's Son, Jesus, makes me a heretic, then so be it, brother Stan.
But then, what does that make you?
(And do you have no fear of the "unforgivable sin" of blaspheming the work of God's Spirit? God IS a God of justice, you know...)
Stan,
I agree with you on this. It seems that his interpretations of the Bible are getting further and further "out there". His views on homosexuality, abortion, now the Atonement of what Christ did on the cross...it is quite clear now...I am attaching some verses from the book of Jude. I did not paste the whole book - too long...but here are 3 verses I'd like to share:
…for certain men whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
…"The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.
… 17But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." 19These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
I think this is what we have going on here...one who is changing the grace of our God into a license for immorality and denial of Jesus Christ. Those who will divide...whether intentional or unintentional.
Dan, you have no fear of allowing an unsaved friend to go to Hell because he/she was mistakenly convinced that he/she was okay with God when he/she wasn't. You don't think it's your place. I, on the other hand, see it quite differently. I would be remiss on your behalf if I failed to point out the distance between you and genuine Christianity.
You like to sound "superior" -- "I'm all inclusive, while you're judgmental" -- but the nature of truth demands a "circle" that includes "truth" and excludes "not truth". 2+2 demands 4 and not any other number. Very exclusive. Very ... judgmental. Very necessary.
Dan Trabue: "If believing in the Christian God of grace and salvation by God's grace through faith in God's Son, Jesus, makes me a heretic, then so be it ..."
Now, of course, it is of no interest to you to figure out why I say that your use of "Christian", "God", "grace", "salvation", "God's Son", or even "faith" all mean different things to you than they do to me. You will stress who "inclusive" you are and assure me it's my problem. But if by "Christian" you meant "yellow shirt" and by "God" you meant "dirt clod" and by "grace" you meant "humor" and by "salvation" you meant "peanut butter" and by His "Son, Jesus" you meant an antelope named Ted and by "faith" you meant "flying", then I'd be reproved for disagreeing with you that "If flying by the yellow-shirted Clod of humor and, by peanut butter by Clod's humor through flying with Clod's antelope, Ted, makes me a heretic, then so be it" and you'd see the difficulty. No, no, I know ... silly. Intentionally so. But the point is that definitions are essential ... and you're using the same words I am, but with radically different definitions.
And for the record, I did not offer to you Anselm's "Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory". I offered you a biblical account. Just like I reject being called a "Calvinist" because it suggests I get it from "Calvin", I reject your characterization of me that I was giving "a fair rendering of your position/of the medieval Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory". I was giving my understanding of the biblical concept of the Atonement.
Stan said...
you have no fear of allowing an unsaved friend to go to Hell because he/she was mistakenly convinced that he/she was okay with God when he/she wasn't.
And you base this on... what? I have not said this. I have not hinted at this. I have not implied this.
I suspect this is another instance of you thinking you can infer something from what I've written and you are inferring incorrectly.
I like to sound superior? What makes you think this? Because I think I'm right and you're mistaken? But how would that be different than what you're doing?
I have not said I'm all inclusive (I'm not) and I certainly agree that Truth would imply Non-Truth. Just as a point of fact, you are not so far apart from me on these issues as you like to think, nor do you know my positions as well as you think.
And, for the record, I know you did not say you held to Anselm's theory on atonement. But I asked you how you defined it and you did not respond, so I was going with what I thought was the most popular atonement theory amongst many evangelical types.
I reject your characterization of me that I was giving "a fair rendering of your position/of the medieval Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory". I was giving my understanding of the biblical concept of the Atonement.
? I don't think you understood my question. I was ASKING if that was your theory, not saying it WAS your theory. You're saying that you don't hold to the PSA Theory? Then would you mind defining your theory so I can know what you're speaking of?
But if you're merely saying you were giving your opinion of the atonement, good enough. Do you know how the Early Christians viewed atonement? Origen in the 1st/2nd Century believed in the Ransom theory. I've been told that this was the first theory that the Early Church developed of how to explain/describe the Atonement and was held for the first 1000 years of Christianity.
Are you familiar with the Ransom theory? Is anyone who holds to that theory a heretic, too? Including all/most the church for the first 1000 years?
SF said...
I think this is what we have going on here...one who is changing the grace of our God into a license for immorality and denial of Jesus Christ.
Oh really? Are you sure it's not a case of some who would deny God's grace and have people jump through a series of hoops in order to be saved?
"Well, yes, you do have to believe that you're a sinner and you have to believe that you can only be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, BUT you ALSO have to agree with the Anselm theory of Atonement - or some other yet undefined Theory perhaps - AND you have to agree with me on gay marriage and gay parenting AND you have to agree with me on this sin and that sin AND..."
hoop, hoop, hoop.
Are we saved by God's grace or not? If someone repents of their sins and confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, by God's grace, are you really saying that person is not saved?
Perhaps you all could answer a question for me: How do YOU think a person is saved? What are your minimum requirements for salvation?
For the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control...
BUT, then Paul also warns...
We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening.
For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder
And Jesus himself reminds us...
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Good words to remember.
Dan Trabue: "I have not said this."
Here's what you said: "It's not really the business or duty of Christians to go around saying, 'HE's not a Christian.'"
Dan Trabue: "I like to sound superior?"
Of course! Everyone these days knows that "inclusive" is much better than "exclusive". (Nothing to do with "right".)
Dan Trabue: "I know you did not say you held to Anselm's theory on atonement."
No. What you did say was "Is that a fair rendering of your position/of the medieval Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory?" That I knew that "medieval" was a reference to Anselm was a surprise? I'm saying I was avoiding the tag ... the tag you like to hang on me. I gave you the biblical theory of atonement.
And now you'd like to test out whether I'm of the "Ransom theory" or the "Substitutionary theory" as if it makes a difference to you. Those of both of those camps would have started with a fundamental agreement: payment was made. You, on the other hand, reject both on that basis. So what is your point? Quibbling about to whom the payment was made is a small issue; denying that any payment was even required is not.
That I knew that "medieval" was a reference to Anselm was a surprise? I'm saying I was avoiding the tag ... the tag you like to hang on me.
It has nothing to do with liking to hang tags on you. There are many theories of the atonement. I was trying to get you to define what you mean by that. That was my very first question when you asked me if I believed in the atonement - depends on how you define it.
We, you and I, have had difficulty in communicating at times. I think when that happens, it helps to define words and terms, so we are on the same page.
So, please, if you don't like Anselm's theory, tell me how you define atonement so I will know what you mean by the term.
And now you'd like to test out whether I'm of the "Ransom theory" or the "Substitutionary theory" as if it makes a difference to you.
What is with the hostility and mistrust on your part? I have been mostly gracious and kind with you, or at least I have strived to do so, and you seem to doubt and mistrust every question I ask. How can we have understanding if we don't know what the other means? Yes, I asked you if you believed in the Ransom Theory, to help understand your position.
Perhaps you all could answer a question for me: How do YOU think a person is saved? What are your minimum requirements for salvation?
If a person is saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, God's son, etc... on what biblical basis would you say, "But those who disagree with me on my particular theory of the atonement (ie, what I think the Bible says about atonement) and on THESE sins is simply not a Christian..."?
Can you provide any biblical support for the notion that we must all agree on some theory of atonement or else we're not saved? That we must agree on the nature of gay marriage (sin or wonderful blessing...)?
If not, do you mind terribly if I disagree with you on a few points? For my part, I won't dismiss you as my brother, just because I believe you're mistaken. It's not my place, that's God's business.
That's not being inclusive, that's knowing my place and striving to be a bit more humble than I am.
Dan Trabue: "tell me how you define atonement so I will know what you mean by the term."
Sigh. Why? Why do it ... again? I gave the entire concept. Why do it again?
Dan Trabue: "I asked you if you believed in the Ransom Theory, to help understand your position."
Dan, Dan, you look so bewildered. "Why such hostility?" You've made it clear that you believe no price was paid. So what difference (to you) does it make if I believe the Ransom theory or the Substitution theory or the "5 and dime" theory (the one I just made up)? That's not hostility. You believe no price was paid. Why would you care which version of "a price was paid" I held to? They're all wrong to you.
Dan Trabue: "Can you provide any biblical support for the notion that we must all agree on some theory of atonement or else we're not saved?"
I've said it before. I will repeat it. It is abundantly clear that you don't actually read what I write in response to your questions. I already said regarding "essentials" "when I reference 'essentials', I'm not talking about 'What you have to believe in order to be saved.'" Your question here says, "I am not paying attention" (at best).
What must I do to be saved? Salvation is dependent on a Just God who receives a complete payment for sin. Salvation from the just penalty of death requires a new life, a spiritual life. What do I do to be saved? From all appearances, I place my confidence in the payment Christ made on my behalf. God graciously bestows forgiveness -- indeed, righteousness.
My point, however, is that without Atonement, without a genuine payment, without a God who is both merciful and just, without a payment made by a perfect Man who is also God, no amount of confidence will make a difference. Do I have to know all that to believe? No. But deny it and there's nothing left.
Stan said...
I already said regarding "essentials" "when I reference 'essentials', I'm not talking about 'What you have to believe in order to be saved.'" Your question here says, "I am not paying attention" (at best).
Well, I certainly am TRYING to pay attention. For instance, when you say things like, "But the point is that definitions are essential ... and you're using the same words I am, but with radically different definitions..." and "I know ... calling someone a heretic is a bit harsh..." it SOUNDS like you're saying you don't think I'm a Christian because I hold a different position than you do on Atonement and gay marriage.
Perhaps you could clarify, perhaps I'm misunderstanding: Do you accept me as a brother in Christ, despite our differences on matters that I THINK you are saying are not essential to salvation?
Okay, Dan, fair question. You have to understand, though, that they are different directions.
You asked me, "What are your minimum requirements for salvation?" That is a radically different question from "Do you accept me as a brother in Christ?" One is "How does this get started?" and the other is "Is there evidence that it ever did?"
Since "bearing false witness" is one of the worst evils one can do (humor), I'll speak the truth. On the basis of your definitions of God, Christ, the Crucifixion, Atonement, and the like this far into "being a Christian", I can only assume that you are not a brother in Christ. You've been presented with the truth and rejected it (which would be the primary difference between the other question -- "What must I do to be saved?" In that question, the entire set of essentials have never been presented.).
Do you see, though, that these are two different questions ("What must I do to be saved?" and "Do you think I am saved?")?
I understand they are different questions, thanks.
So, on what basis do you think I'm not a Christian? What Biblical basis?
I have recognized I am a sinner.
I have asked for forgiveness of my sins.
I have accepted Jesus, the risen son of God, as Lord of my life.
I am trusting in God's grace, by which I am saved.
What other steps are you suggesting I need to take in order to be saved, brother?
I suppose you know this is serious stuff you're dealing with, now?
Or, in other words, what must DAN TRABUE do to be saved?
This is your chance to lead a one you presume to be an unsaved sinner to salvation, brother. What must I do?
And, if you don't mind, what biblical basis do you have for setting up these additional steps, beyond what I've taken already.
Dan Trabue: "So, on what basis do you think I'm not a Christian? What Biblical basis?"
Do you remember the story of Simon the magician (Acts 8:4-24)? It says in that passage that Simon believed and was even baptized. But when he saw Peter bestowing the Spirit, he offered money for the same ability. Peter, being the good Christian that he was, recognized that Simon had believed and been baptized and realized he just didn't have the same understanding that Peter did, so he patted him on the back and told him to go on his way. Oh, wait ... actually, Peter said, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8:20-23).
What more did Simon have to do to be saved? He believed something in error. He didn't believe the truth about sin, the Lordship of Christ, repentance, salvation, demonstrated clearly in his attempt to buy power.
Without a price being paid, there can be no forgiveness. (Hey, that sounds familiar, doesn't it (Heb 9:22)?) You've asked for forgiveness on the basis that ... what ... God likes you? What kind of sinner is that? Certainly not very bad if God can look so favorably on you.
What is required? Recognize the seriousness of sin, the affront to God, the cost you have incurred. If you haven't come to the end of your rope, you're not there yet. Rely on Jesus as the one who paid the price because His payment is the only hope you have. Submit to His Lordship, even if it means you are not lord.
In other words, all the same things you listed ... only correctly defined.
I asked for forgiveness on the basis that I am a sinner in need of God's grace.
I recognize the seriousness of sin, our sin killed the Son of God and that's pretty damnably serious.
So, if it's a matter of thinking that I'm doing the correct things but defining them incorrectly, then how do you know YOU are saved? How do you know that YOU have not incorrectly defined some sin or some behavior?
If you have mistakenly presumed that gay marriage is a sin and beat people away from God with your belief, if you have believed - in good faith - that babies are corrupt and that the one and only way of looking at the atonement is as you define it, if you are mistaken about these things and yet have asked for forgiveness for sins and thrown yourself on God's wonderful grace, are you doomed in ignorance?
Is God's grace not enough to cover our sometimes ignorance?
Dan, I'm at the end of this conversation. When you ask "How do you know that YOU have not incorrectly defined some sin or some behavior?", you have clearly decided to ignore the entire gist of "essentials" as I've written and repeated. I don't recall saying "some sin or some behavior" is an essential. I don't recall saying that a misunderstanding of peripherals was the issue.
You're offended that I cannot see you as a brother in Christ. I understand. Can I be mistaken? Yes. So ... therefore I should toss out all I believe that corresponds so clearly with Scripture and historic Christianity and go along with Dan who ... doesn't believe any of that. Right? These are my options.
If you have nothing more to add, then stop. You've looped back on yourself here to completely miss my point and my intent ... which I've explained multiple times in multiple places. At what point do I have to conclude that it's intentional?
Stan said...
In other words, all the same things you listed ... only correctly defined.
Or, a shorter version of what I just asked: Who gets to correctly define sinner saved by God's grace? Who gets to define whatever it is you think I've mis-defined?
I would presume you think God, would be the ultimate answer?
And what if, Stan, in his frail utterly corrupt humanity, is the one who has misunderstood/mis-defined God's grace and salvation?
It sounds like you have no assurance that you yourself are saved, much less me. In fact, seeing as how you are utterly convinced in the depravity of humanity, you must have a great deal of fear that you'll never know because you are such a sinner incapable of anything good, that you must be quite likely you are bound to hell. It seems like the odds are in favor of it with your belief system.
Am I mistaken?
Dan Trabue: "It sounds like you have no assurance that you yourself are saved, much less me."
Isn't it you that keeps saying I shouldn't leap to conclusions about what you believe? Sadly, you've made the same leap. (Now, does that qualify as "false witness"? I know it wouldn't in my use of the phrase.)
Dan, way back at the beginning I asked you to explain to me God's justice. I asked you to tell me how God could be just without exacting the required payment for sin. You never offered an answer.
Isn't it you that keeps saying I shouldn't leap to conclusions about what you believe?
It isn't jumping to conclusions when one asks a question seeking clarification (ie, "Is THIS what you believe, because it sounds like..." - THAT is not jumping to conclusions, right?)
Stan said...
I asked you to tell me how God could be just without exacting the required payment for sin.
If someone sins against you, can you be just and still simply forgive them? Is that not the definition of grace? An UNDESERVED Gift?
Let us presume that Bob is a Just Man. When his neighbor was mugged, Bob chased the mugger and captured him and brought him to the police. Bob believes in Justice.
Then, Bob has his house broken into and he is robbed of $300 - by his own neighbor, the very one who he helped. But Bob loves his neighbor and doesn't want him to go to jail. And so, even though Bob believes in justice, Bob chooses to forgive the neighbor and not press charges. Instead, Bob invites him over for dinner to talk all about it.
Bob believes in justice and yet Bob forgave his neighbor anyway. just like that. Just like God asks us to do. Just like God forgives us.
Remember, IF we confess our sins, God is faithful AND JUST to forgive them. (1 John 1) Do you think the Bible was mistaken on that point?
If God can be faithful AND JUST and forgive our sins, as the Bible says, whom am I to say otherwise?
Stan said...
You're offended that I cannot see you as a brother in Christ. I understand.
Offended? Not because you don't like me, as I suspect you might be thinking. I am offended by the pharisaical approach of all too many fundamentalist-types who forget that we are saved by Grace. It reminds me of Jesus' story...
“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’
“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
Stan said...
you have clearly decided to ignore the entire gist of "essentials" as I've written and repeated. I don't recall saying "some sin or some behavior" is an essential. I don't recall saying that a misunderstanding of peripherals was the issue.
I will admit to being confused.
1. You said that I was not saved.
2. I asked what I would need to do to be saved.
3. You said I was doing the correct things (asking for forgiveness, trusting in God's grace), BUT that I was apparently incorrectly defining something.
Two questions:
1. What am I incorrectly defining?
2. How do you know YOU are not incorrectly defining whatever it is you think I'm incorrectly defining?
You pointed to Simon in Acts and said, "He believed something in error. He didn't believe the truth about sin, the Lordship of Christ, repentance, salvation, demonstrated clearly in his attempt to buy power."
Then you said in answering what I need to do to be saved, "In other words, all the same things you listed ... only correctly defined."
If you want to see me saved, brother, could you help me see what I'm not understanding? I don't know what it is I'm incorrectly defining?
"All the things I said," was, recognizing my need for salvation/sinful state, asking forgiveness, asking Jesus to be Lord of my life and trusting in God's grace.
Which of those have I incorrectly defined???
Dan Trabue: "I am offended by the pharisaical approach of all too many fundamentalist-types who forget that we are saved by Grace."
I suppose that wasn't intended to denigrate my character. Fortunately, since "fundamentalism" is most literally defined as "adherence to what are perceived to be the most basic and traditional principles and beliefs of that religion", I see it as a good thing. Your use of the term "pharisaical" would also be construed as insulting if I didn't find it so laughable. Since I haven't offered a single argument that says you need to earn your salvation, nor can the charge of hypocritical piety be laid at my feet, I'll let that go as well. But I am guessing that this isn't the kind of things you call your friends ... and this is supposed to be a friendly conversation.
Dan Trabue: "Bob believes in justice and yet Bob forgave his neighbor anyway."
The term "yet" is a differentiator. It suggests a "however", a contradiction. "Bob likes red and yet he bought a blue car" would say that Bob did something different than the first phrase would have expected. So the "red" that Bob likes is over against the blue of his car. You offered, then, a fine explanation of how forgiveness is different than justice. You did not offer an explanation of how forgiveness without payment is justice. Your explanation shows, in fact, that it is not.
Look, if God is so gracious, why not just forgive everyone? If He is genuinely unwilling that any human should perish, why do allow it? But these are questions in the opposite direction. You have yet to offer me anything that approximates justice.
The reason you have not offered justice is because stealing an ice cream or robbing a house (metaphors for "sin") are naughty things, but surely not worthy of death. I mean, really! Assuming Bob was a truly just man and loved justice, even he wouldn't demand the death penalty for the $300 taken. And, yet, the Bible indicates that God does. Why? The problem is that your version of "sin" is "bad things" and God's version of sin is a violation of ultimate holiness, Cosmic Treason, an insurrection by a creature toward the Creator. The "repentance" we need isn't from "I've done bad things", but from "I'm damned!"
Dan Trabue: "Which of those have I incorrectly defined?"
All of them. But I've tried to explain and you're not getting it. (Could it be that natural man doesn't understand the things of the Spirit? Naw. That would be too obvious.) You've redefined "salvation", "sin" (and "sinful state"), "forgiveness", "Jesus", and even "God". I've offered multiple explanations of the differences but you're not receiving them. What more can I do?
Any other readers ... if you are unclear on what I'm saying, let me know. That way I can tell if it's Dan's inability to understand or my inability to explain.
You don't feel that I've answered your questions (on definitions). Let's try this.
Saved ... from what? I mean, God is gracious and doesn't want anyone to perish so what really is there to be saved from?
Sin was bad enough to kill Jesus. Of course, that's just murder. What is really bad about sin? What possible definition of sin would lead a reasonable person to think, "Now that deserves death"?
Jesus died. Why? For what purpose? What, in fact, was His purpose for being here at all? And, really, what's the big deal about Him being "God" or not?
What is "faith"? I mean, is it simply "agreeing with" or is it more? Is it mere "mental assent" or does it have other aspects to it?
And the still-remaining question: In what sense is God just? Or sovereign? Or wrathful? (All standard biblical terms used in describing God.)
You've redefined "salvation", "sin" (and "sinful state"), "forgiveness", "Jesus", and even "God".
Yes, I feel you have not defined your terms and how I'm defining them incorrectly. You asked questions, but you did not define the terms.
Perhaps if I defined the terms as I understand them, you can tell me where I've gone wrong? I'll define these with the given that we're talking about these terms as they relate to Christianity.
Salvation: To be saved from our sins to God's Way, to be saved from hell to heaven, to be saved from death to life everlasting.
Have I incorrectly defined salvation?
Sin: Sin is defined in multiple ways in the bible and in Christianity. The word literally means missing the mark, I believe, meaning failing to live in God's Way; it is also defined as rebellion or transgression against God, or crossing a line which ought not be crossed. There may be other definitions, but I believe those are the two most common uses of the word in the Bible.
Sinful state: Humanity is born with a tendency to sin (to do wrong, to transgress against God), or a sinful nature. This sinful nature means that we WILL make mistakes and do the wrong thing, given the chance. Everyone has (once they are able to - ie, once they understand right/wrong - infants of course, can't understand right/wrong and can't sin in the way the Bible speaks of - that is, they can't deliberately transgress against God and they aren't "missing the mark," since they can't shoot, so to speak...)
forgiveness: giving up my right to hurt you, for hurting me. It is the acknowledgment that a wrong was done and yet being willing to pardon the wrong.
Continuing with definitions...
Jesus: Son of God, who came to earth as a man (yet who was fully God) 2000 years ago and lived a perfect life, telling us how to live and showing us how to live. Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead. His life and death have been called an atonement - it made us at one with God.
God Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of heaven and Earth. John has defined God's Self as "Love."
God so loved the world, that God came to earth in the form of God's son, Jesus. God is with us today in the form of God's Spirit. God has been described in many ways in the Bible: Prince of Peace, Almighty God, Everlasting Father, Holy One. God says in Isaiah that God, "As a mother comforts her son..." etc, etc.
What have I defined wrong?
And the still-remaining question: In what sense is God just? Or sovereign? Or wrathful?
I've tried to answer that a few times. God IS just. God is opposed to oppression and wants us (God's hands and feet) to work to end it. God is opposed to hunger as it is often a result of injustice and God wants us to work to relieve it. God expects justice. What are you wanting me to say?
And God IS sovereign (ruler, all powerful). And God IS wrathful against injustice. We are to stand against it with a hot anger.
So, what? I don't think I'm defining those differently than you, am I? Are you saying I need to agree with you about what it MEANS when God is wrathful or that God demands justice? If I just agree with you on those, THEN will I be saved?
Perhaps here is a glistening of understanding between us, and where our difference lies. You said...
The reason you have not offered justice is because stealing an ice cream or robbing a house (metaphors for "sin") are naughty things, but surely not worthy of death.
I'm not sure that it's biblically correct to say that sin is "worthy of death." I'd probably say that sin LEADS to death. Death, destruction, oppression, disharmony, and ugliness.
Do you have a biblical reason for describing sin as "worthy of death"? (That may be a minor point, but I thought I'd raise it).
Along all these lines (and who is and isn't a Christian), I thought I'd offer a bit from the Mennonites - their thoughts on Atonement:
In the history of Christian thought, there have been three major views of the atonement. Each has a basis in Scripture and contributes to our understanding of salvation. By breaking the power of sin and death, Christ is conqueror over evil (the Christ-the-victor view). By canceling our debt of sin, Christ is a sacrifice and pays the ransom on our behalf (substitutionary atonement). By opening the way to new life, Christ shows God's love, inspiring us to receive that love and love God and others in return (the moral-influence view).
I'm okay with that, depending upon how they would further define substitutionary atonement. Knowing the mennonites that I know, I suspect that they would not define it further at all. They merely acknowledge that this is one way of looking at atonement, as I acknowledge.
I wonder if you ever had time and inclination if you read a bit about the Mennonites, if you would call the whole of them/us "not Christian," as what they say on these pages is what I believe, largely (with a little tweaking/questioning).
Justice: the quality of being righteous or fair. Behind the concept of justice lies the notion of balance--that people get what is right, fair, and appropriate. Justice also includes the notion of upholding the law.
Forgiveness: To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon; To renounce anger or resentment against; To absolve from payment of (a debt, for example).
If Justice demands "what is right" and "includes the notion of upholding the law" and forgiveness is "to excuse" or "to absolve from payment", can you not see that these are in opposition?
Dan Trabue: "God IS wrathful against injustice."
That is likely true, but it's not what the Bible says. The Bible says, "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Rom 1:18). The Bible says, "Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:36). The Bible says, "Because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed" (Rom 2:5). (Remember, your sense of "judgment" seems to be "forgiveness".) The Bible says, "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God" (Rom 5:9). (Oh, that's interesting. The topic of the post was the blood of Christ. And this says we are justified by that blood.) Need I continue? You see God as being angry at injustice and oppression. The Bible portrays Him as being angry at all sinners.
Dan Trabue: "His life and death have been called an atonement."
What in your mind makes Jesus's life and death "atonement"? It's certainly not because He made the necessary payment on our behalf. What did He accomplish that turned God's wrath to love?
Dan Trabue: "Omnipotent ... Almighty"
Well, now you have a problem. If it is God's will that none should perish, why doesn't He accomplish it? Is He actually omnipotent? Then He lacks the interest. If He actually wants it, then He's apparently unable. What's going on here?
Oh, by the way, you have a lovely description of the heresy known as "modalism" where God appears in one form and then in another form and then in another form ... but it is not related in the least to the biblical concept we call the Trinity. (Just quickly, as an example, if God came to Earth as Jesus, who was Jesus praying to? If the Word was both with God and was God, how can they be the same thing?)
You defined sin as "missing the mark", but you go on to speak of it as "making mistakes" and "do the wrong thing". That is the problem with your definition of both "sin" and Man's "sinful state". Paul defines Man's natural condition not merely as a propensity to sin, but as slavery to sin.
I did this all backward because 1) they interrelate and 2) only from the bottom up can we see the problem with your definition of "salvation". You see, justice demands payment. God is justly angry with sinners. We needed "atonement" because we are not "at one" with God; we're at war. We're not merely sinners -- defying His requirements of us -- we're slaves to sin. We need someone to make the payment on our behalf. That someone has to be Man because we are human and that someone has to be God because the payment needs to cover just one. We need to be saved from eternal damnation because we have earned eternal damnation and we need to be saved from God's just wrath because we have earned His wrath.
Is any of this remotely like the things you have described?
You know what? I'm a bit tired of this. Go on presuming that those who don't define words the way you do are lost, even if they are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus.
I find that to be a bit presumptious and pharisaical. I suppose that ISN'T friendly, but it is what I think. If you're only wanting to publish friendly thoughts, no need to publish this one.
I am saved by God's glorious grace and am walking in Jesus' steps the best I can, by God's grace. You are welcome to join me at church any Sunday and worship God with me and I will welcome you in our fellowship. Or you can choose to keep calling me "lost," as if you know.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature - Not even Stan in all his marvelous wisdom, shall be able to separate me from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Peace, brother.
Okay, one more thought that I didn't finish earlier.
Stan says I'm not saved because, while I have been saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, I have not defined the terms correctly.
My question remains open: What makes you think it's MY terms that are defined incorrectly? What if YOU have defined terms incorrectly?
OR, what if I defined terms correctly for half the terms and YOU defined them correctly for the other half? Are we both half-saved or are we both fully lost?
I'm defining my terms from Scripture. You? Even the Mennonites saw Christ's work as a payment. You? I'm defining the terms in the classical, historical sense. You?
You seem to think that definitions are irrelevant. Surely you can see that's not true. The Mormons, for instance, believe in a Jesus who isn't even remotely related to the Jesus I know. (You know, the brother of Satan, all that good stuff.) They call themselves "Christians" and use all the same terms you are, at the same time denying the core of it all. And I should stay silent about them, too?
Look, I believe you do not have a relationship with God. That irritates you because, well, you see it as "pharisaical" and "fundamentalist". Fine. I'm left with few options. I can give up my own set of beliefs with all the Scripture I understand behind it and all the reason it holds. I can keep my mouth shut so that people who are hellbound will never hear from me that they're hellbound. Or I can try to express the truth out of concern for others whom I fear may be ending up where they never intended.
I'm open to suggestion here. Which would you recommend?
I would sure like to hear a response to the question you posed to Dan T. about the Mormons, Stan!
There have been and are some really fine Mormon folks in my life whom I care about very much. Dan, shall I just let them be, and allow them to go merrily on their way through life? Or, if I have opportunity and feel led by The Holy Spirit, someday say something to them?
They send reps to our doors who aren't wanting US to just merrily go on OUR way!
It is my belief that they have attained membership in a nice, big, affluent social club and have involvement in a RELIGION ABOUT God but do not have a RELATIONSHIP WITH Him. (Except that we really aren't even talking about the same god here! Theirs is just one of many, but the only one we are supposed to recognize as ours at this time.)
They would tell you otherwise, of course, but I have never once heard an LDS person, while giving his or her "testimony" state how much his or her life has changed since he/she surrendered to "Heavenly Father" or Jesus and started a new life in Him. Their testimonies are always prefaced by "since I joined the church". I've heard some great testimonies from them but... wow. How telling is THAT?! (Humans really like to join things, don't they?)
That doesn't mean much of anything to me because my life very well might change greatly too, if I were to join the YWCA! I might make some wonderful new friends, get involved in some really fun and interesting new activities, and maybe even lose a lot of weight! Membership might "change my life" in some really big and wonderful new ways!
And what about all those who hold New Age beliefs? They too use EXACTLY the same terms as we Christians do, yet the same words mean VERY different things.
Are we ALL walking in the light? Are we ALL following the truth, Dan? Do you think IT can be found?
About 35 years ago I found out in a very laborious and time-consuming way that it is essential that all of the most pertinent words to discussions of religion issues be well defined and agreed upon first with some people or else you and they can go around and around and around and get nowhere.
How are we supposed to know this beforehand however, when the person with whom we are talking identifies his or herself by the same name as us and sounds pretty right "on the mark" in most ways? Generally we all assume that we are coming from the same place. And most of the time we are, at least when it comes to the essentials (which of course are what originally were being discussed and debated).
I never cease to be amazed at Satan's oh-so-clever counterfeits and cunning ways. These groups which claim to be in possession of the one and only truth, which look so very real and are so outwardly appealing in many ways are doing very well at bringing people into their ranks. (Yes, I know... people could say the same of my particular beliefs.)
I think the LDS church has many really great programs and other things going for it. It's quite an organization! So many nice people and so much "good" and yet its theology itself, its very foundation.... wow. Just don't dig too deeply into it or your grand illusions will be destroyed.
I discovered this need to define terms when trying to talk with Mormon friends. We were using all the same words but not speaking the same language. What the heck?! It took quite a while to discover that however. In the meantime it was like talking to people who had eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear. They were intelligent people but it was like talking to a wall!
I'm not going to go further into all that might have caused that phenomena but there was obviously some kind of "disconnect". I don't think it was as simple as just a need to define terms. No matter how many times I explained things and no matter in how many different ways, they just couldn't seem to get it. I tried to clarify things until I was blue in the face but sometimes they still didn't comprehend.
Sound familar?
Oh, and by the way, I rather doubt this "disconnect" (or inability to connect) would be occuring between 2 genuine followers of Jesus Christ if both parties were connected to "the true vine" and receiving life-giving, life-saving information from the same source, do you?
Sherry, that's my sense of it, too, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. I mean, I don't know, maybe I'm just not clear enough.
Sherry noted...
I rather doubt this "disconnect" (or inability to connect) would be occuring between 2 genuine followers of Jesus Christ if both parties were connected to "the true vine" and receiving life-giving, life-saving information from the same source, do you?
So, what makes you think that I'm the one that's not genuine and Stan is?
Sherry, I have been saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, God's son. What would YOU have me change in order to be saved in your opinion?
Stan asked earlier (and I've responded once, but I guess it was lost like so many others... you might ought to check with blogger)...
I'm defining my terms from Scripture. You? Even the Mennonites saw Christ's work as a payment. You? I'm defining the terms in the classical, historical sense. You?
1. I'm defining my terms from Scripture, yes.
The Mennonites believe, as I have stated I believe, that the "payment" sense of atonement is ONE way which the atonement is described in the Bible and I'm okay with that (as long as we note it is not the ONLY way atonement may be considered). So, are you saying now you're okay with me and the Mennonites?
3. I'm defining the terms using standard English as we have come to understand it when we speak words.
Dan asked, "So, what makes you think that I'm the one that's not genuine and Stan is?"
You know what, Dan? I don't really know.
We can all say and do all kinds of things, but only God can REALLY know our hearts. Right?
How's that for a somewhat evasive-sounding answer? But it's late, I'm tired, and it's the truth that I don't know that you are not "genuine".
I'm just trying to make some sense of things.
I really DO wonder though about how difficult it seems to be for you two to communicate and agree sometimes if you are both growing on the same vine or are both parts of the same body getting signals and information from the same head. Shouldn't the left foot know what the right foot is doing? Shouldn't the body of Christ be able to communicate and pull off coordinated movements? There must be SOME way to get those two feet in sync, and maybe even to dance, and to do it with grace!
Let's hope and pray that when THIS lifetime is over God will cut all of us (at this time, meaning the readers of this blog) slack for all those things we have misunderstood or just plain couldn't understand. Hopefully each of us will have been tuned into Him enough that we have understood and accepted as truth whatever is essential to please Him.
Still wondering though.... what about those Mormons, New Agers, and other folks who talk about Christ in you, The Holy Spirit, salvation, etc. but it is not what you believe to be THE TRUTH? Like Stan asked, in your opinion, should we stay silent about them?
Post a Comment