Mormons
Gang,
I'm a news junkie and a politics wonk.
One of the things that fascinates me about the Emerging Church is its politics. Unlike Fundamentalists and the overwhelming majority of Evangelicals, who are predominately Republican and are the driving force behind the Religious Right in America, Emerging Church people are much more in the Billy Graham tradition of born again people whose politics is more moderate and perhaps ticks every so slightly toward the Democrats. (I'm sure you all know that Billy Graham has at least very strongly hinted that he voted for Bill Clinton and openly acknowledges that he was raised in a Democrat family.)
Anyway...
...if you are as interested in the political process as I am, you are probably aware of the sniping that has been going on among GOPs about 'religion.' Mike Huckabee was recently quoted as asking a New York Times Magaine reporter, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
Do they?
Labels: politics
posted by bill Sloat at 7:54 AM
59 Comments:
Bill,
Your question basically boils down to, "Do Mormons believe that Christ and Satan are brothers?" In my opinion, the answer is "Yes and No." How's that for a "postmodern" answer?
My understanding is this: Mormons believe that all angels and human beings are spirit children of the Heavenly Father which existed before the creation (please correct me if I am wrong). So (by following their logic), in our pre-existence, I suppose you could say that we all were spirit siblings (I am using the term "sibling" to explain the doctrine; I don't know whether or not Mormons use this term). To validate what I am saying, see Mormon Scriptures - Moses 3:5.
Then, the Heavenly Father searched for one of these spirit children to be the Savior of the World. Jesus, as a pre-incarnate spirit child of the Heavenly Father said, "Send me." Satan or Lucifer also said, "Send me." The Heavenly Father chose the pre-incarnate Jesus to be the Savior of the world. At that point, Satan/Lucifer became angry (See Abraham 3:27-28) and rebelled and truly became Satan (See Doctrine and Covenants 76:25-27). Other angels also followed with Satan.
So (again, following their teachings and logic), I guess you could say that during the time of their pre-existence, Jesus and Satan were brothers, but to be fair, I'd have to say that you, Barry Goldwater, Moe Howard (the Stooge), Katie Couric, Charles Manson, Satan, myself, all demons and angels, and everyone else in this pre-existent state were siblings of Christ and Satan since we were all spirit children of the Heavenly Father.
Now let's fast forward: Jesus then became the "only begotten of the Father" because He was born in a unique way. He was born of the virgin Mary as his biological mother and the Heavenly Father as his biological father. The rest of us have human beings as our biological mothers and fathers. Jesus is unique in that the Heavenly Father is both His Heavenly Father AND His biological father. So in that sense, Jesus doesn't have any brothers or sisters since He is the "only begotten." Therefore, Christ and Satan are not brothers; neither are you, Barry Goldwater, Moe Howard, Katie Couric, Charles Manson, Satan, myself, all demons and angels, nor everyone else brothers and sisters with Christ.
So, it's a loaded question in my opinion. Here's an illustration: Let's say you and I started out as associates in a mega-church. Suppose that after some time you (due to your superior knowledge and skill) were promoted to lead pastor, and I (due to my big mouth on this blog) was demoted to toilet cleaner. Would we then after that point be considered associates in relationship to one another? Probably not.
Huckabee shouldn't have tritely inferred that Christ and Satan are brothers according to Mormon doctrine. The issue is complicated and requires an explanation, not a quick answer. In saying that Christ and Satan were brothers, if he was referring to their pre-existent states as spirit children, then, yes, they would be brothers, but he would also have to realize that he HIMSELF would also be a brother of Christ AND Satan.
If anyone thinks I am defending Mormonism, trust me, I'm not. I believe that the whole religion is based on a lie. I just wish that Christians (espcially high-profile Christian politicians) would take great care when articulating the doctrines of un-orthodox groups. To do less undermines the church's ability to reach out to these people who are clearly lost. That's my 2 cents.
-Rev. George C. Jensen
Enola First Church of God
So let me see if I understand. Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan (including everyone else) were brothers at one time. This puts the preincarnate Jesus on equal ground with Satan and everyone else. No matter which way you spin it, this is bad.
This is an attack on the diety of Jesus. According to Scripture Jesus was and is God. Didn't we already deal with this in the Arian controversy? Jesus is not created. However, Satan was created as an angel. Humans are all created as children of Adam.
There is a monumental difference between Jesus and everything else.
Whether Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers or were brothers is irrelevant. It's splitting hairs and missing the bigger issue. The difference between Jesus and Satan is creator and created.
Bill,
Do you mind if I ask a question?
Good, thank you:)
What is the relationship between the politics of the emerging church (which fascinates you)
and what Huckabee was recently quoted as asking a New York Times reporter about what Mormons believe is the relationship between God and th devil?
Not really sure (based on the other information that you provided what the purpose was of that post.
Help me out here brother...
signed:
One who (usually) votes Republican
Oh, I think you'll find that emergents tick way past "Democrat". Many are informed more by anabaptist thinking which sees the whole system, and both parties, as inherently corrupted by the pursuit of power.
And others (like myself) are influenced more by the Sojourners mentality which says that we ought to still stay engaged with politics in the pursuit of "social" justice (I add the "social" only so you'll know I'm not really talking about building more prisons), while recognizing that God is neither a Democrat or a Republican. What we've found is that even the Democrats aren't really talking about the kind of issues that we think a biblical concern for justice drives us to pursue.
So yeah, you can't really categorize emergents merely as "more Democratic" than their forbears. Personally I've been known to quip that the Democrats aren't nearly "liberal" enough for me. These days I honestly don't see that they're much better than the Republicans, maybe just slightly less scary than the neo-cons.
Mike,
That you characterized both parties as "inherently corrupted by the pursuit of power,"
and pointed out that God is neither a Democrat or a Republican,
as well as (to the extent that you did) admitted that Democrats are not "much better than the Republicans,"
I agree with you.
I think that well-informed Christians are caught in trying to understand what is right and just in the political world. Knowing that both of those are things that God would have us to pursue is not as easy (or as simple) of a pursuit as we woulod like it to be. But as you say, It is important to just stay engaged and do our best.
George,
Complete answer. Thanks.
Mike,
"Oh, I think you'll find that emergents tick way past "Democrat"."
Yeah, lately we've been making a distinction between Emerging and Emergent here. Undoubtedly, what you say is more true of the Emergent subset of the larger Emerging universe.
Maybe, though I think my comments would be true of just simply "emerging" folk too. There is a decided trend away from the politics of the Religious Right in the emerging movement (not just "Emergent"), and yet at the same time it's not simply an exodus to the Democratic side of things either. More and more people that I encounter are disillusioned with both parties and are more interested in the politics of Jesus than in the politics of the Left or the Right in America.
Mike,
"More and more people that I encounter are disillusioned with both parties and are more interested in the politics of Jesus..."
How would you characterize the politics of Jesus?
And, hey! Not just Mike, the rest of you, too.
bill
I would agree with Mike that I do not see a leaning toward Democrats among the "emerging," but more of a disillusionment with politicians in general.
In my opinion, Jesus was apolitical. He paid taxes because it was the law. But he had nothing to say about the Roman Empire and crossed political social lines that weren't typically crossed.
Has anyone ever NOT been disillusioned with politics???
Felicia
"In my opinion, Jesus was apolitical. He paid taxes because it was the law. But he had nothing to say about the Roman Empire and crossed political social lines that weren't typically crossed."
For a few opinions to the contrary I'd highly recommend Richard Horsley's "Jesus and Empire", or NT Wright's "Everyone" commentaries on the gospels, or Walsh & Keesmaat's "Colossian's Remixed". (Or pretty much anything by Yoder or Hauerwas or Kraybill.)
There's a growing consensus among biblical scholars - both among liberals and more conservative scholars - that Jesus' message, and really the whole subtext of the New Testament is highly political, and that Jesus quite consistently challenged the political powers of his day - from the Temple authorities & Jewish aristocracy, to Herod, to the Romans. Just a few examples:
1. The whole Nativity narrative borrows the language used to extol Caesar Augustus (e.g. Luke 2:14). Also, Mary's Magnificat is about rulers being cast down from their thrones and the rich being sent away.
2. The entire book of Mark is structured along the lines of a traditional Imperial coronation biography. What is this if not satirical subversion of the dominant political narratives of the day?
3. Terms like "gospel" (evangelion) and "church" (ekklesia) were politically loaded terms that were co-opted by the early Jesus movement as a direct challenge to the imperial vision. The original Roman evangelion was that "Caesar is Lord" and that his "kingdom" has arrived; and the original ekklesias were those cities and communities that had freely accepted this "good news" and had submitted to Caesar's lordship.
4. The earliest Christian confession of faith "Jesus is Lord" carries with it an implied "and Caesar is not", since the term "Lord" (kyrios) is the same term used for political rulers (and especially Caesar) at that time. (It'd be no different than us saying "Jesus is my President", except for maybe being even more politically subversive and inflammatory.)
5. Likewise, the very word "messiah" is a political word. It literally means "king". This would not have been heard a "metaphor" in Jesus day. This would have been a very real world, politically subversive title.
6. Many of Jesus' parables are challenges to the power and economic structures of his day, from the parable of the talents, to the parable of the shrewd manager, to the parable of the tenants, and many others besides.
7. Jesus advice about paying taxes to Caesar is less an endorsement of the Imperial system, and more a shrewd way of saying: 1) "God owns all of this, not Caesar"; and 2) "don't have anything to do with this filthy idolatrous money (after all, Roman money contained the graven image of a pagan god - i.e. Caesar), just send it back where it came from"; without actually saying anything that could get him arrested.
8. Jesus was constantly making covert jabs against Herod or the Romans. Keep in mind that the Roman's symbol was an eagle and Herod's was a fox, and then note how many times you find references to "eagles", "birds", "vultures" (a kind of eagle according to the Jews of Jesus day), or "foxes" in Jesus' teachings.
9. Notice that Jesus and the apostles often preached a radical redistribution of wealth and the flattening of social heirarchies. This would have been a radical challenge to the socio-political/economic systems of the day.
10. Jesus command to "love your enemies" is fleshed out with examples relating to how the Jews were being oppressed by the Romans. I.e. this is advice for how to practice creative non-violence against a political oppressor.
11. All those places where Paul talks about Jesus having mastery over the "thrones, powers, rulers and principalities" (cf. Colossians 1:16) are not just metaphorical or only talking about angels and demons. These are very real-world political terms in Paul's day. It'd be like us saying Jesus has lordship over all Mayors, Governors, Legislatures, and Presidents.
I could go on, but 11 is a good number. :)
"How would you characterize the politics of Jesus?"
Anti-imperial (i.e. systems of violence, oppression and exclusion), and pro-kingdom of God (i.e. communities of justice, generosity, non-violent peacemaking, and inclusive love).
Mike,
Your 11 examples are thought provoking. And, I thank you for them.
However...
(And, there's always at least a however, if not an outright but, when we post with each other, eh.)
...your references to the Nativity are probably at best just references to the politics of the Gospels of Luke--and perhaps Matthew. (Perhaps I'm splitting hairs.)
Your reference to Mark is probably only a a reference to Mark's politics.
Your appropriation of the term ekklesia probably is off base because that word was merely the Greek word used by the Septugint to translate the Hebrew word for congregation. It lacks political connotation, as far as I can tell, in the Old Testament.
The early Christians' use of the term Lord probably is not rooted in Roman politics, but in the fact that it translated the Hebrew word adonai, which the Jews substituted for YAHWEH, so they could never take the Lord's Name in vain.
The word Messiah, certainly may have some political implications and certainly the Greek translation of the term has more political clout, but the words have deeper roots in the community of faith merely as references to the one foretold to bruise the serpent's head back in Genesis 3:15.
So, as I say, what you've written is provocative and I will truly give a lot of thought to all of it. However, I'm not sure that I'll ever be able to kick the influence of my old school Anabaptist/Pietist mentor from my college days and my seminary Old Testament prof. They taught me to find other layers of meaning where the likes of Hauerwas. et. al. see this-worldly politics.
Hi Bill, thanks for your "howevers". :)
A few replies on my part:
Yes, the stuff in Luke and Matthew and Mark reflect the politics of the writers of that gospel. Are you assuming there is a disconnect between the politics/message of Jesus and the politics/message of the early Christian communities that produced these gospels? I know that the Jesus Seminar folks have that kind of discontinuity as a basic assumption, but it seems rather unlikely to me. Of course the ideas taught by Jesus were developed and fleshed out more by the time the gospels were written, but I can't believe that there is no resonance at all between the two. Unless there is good reason to assume otherwise, I would tend to default to the assumption that the gospel writers were anti-imperial because the original message of Jesus that had been handed down to them was itself anti-imperial.
Re: ekklesia and kyrios - just because these words have roots in the Old Testament doesn't mean they aren't still politically subversive. For one thing, the OT itself is highly politically subversive to begin with (what is the whole Passover story - the central event of Judaism - about if not political liberation from an imperial oppressor?) And more importantly, Paul or whomever would have certainly known the common usage of those terms within the Roman Empire. While he may have primarily been using them in connection to the Septuagint, he would have also certainly known that such language would be considered subersive. In other words, I'm arguing that for the New Testament writers it was a both/and - it was both connected to the OT and politically subversive at the same time.
As for the term "Messiah", I'm not aware of any OT passages that explicitly connect that term with Genesis 3:15, so I doubt that can be said to be the primary meaning or connotation of the term. The primary meaning is quite simply "anointed one" (as you know), which in Jewish parlance explicitly means "king". I don't know how anyone could claim to be the "king" in that day and age without it being seen as a radical political statement.
BTW, what does your being anabaptist have to do with it? I got most of this stuff from my anabaptist friends! They're the ones pointing out to me that the gospel has "political" implications. In fact, two of the authors I mentioned - Yoder and Kraybill - are themselves Mennonite theologians, and Hauerwas claims to have been pretty strongly influenced by Yoder himself.
Gentlemen:
I have to suggest that you go back and reread the New Testament and quit injecting 21st Century politics into the text.
The life and ministry of Jesus is all about the establishment of God's kingdom. That is what Jesus came preaching-the kingdom of God.
That is why he threatened Roman and Jewish authorities alike. That is why he confronted the tax collector (Levi) and the lady caught in adultery with their sin. This is why he continually told those that He healed to not reveal who He was. Seeing the Kingdom of God at hand was what was required for His disciples to finally recognize him as the Messiah, the Christ, the one authorized by God to rule. The placard nailed to his cross read "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." This is only understandable as meaningful for us today when it is realized that the kingdom that He ruled over was in fact "not of this world." Only in this venue did He tell his disciples that all authority in heaven and on earth now belongs to him. Understanding this is the only way that his followers (as well as the church today) is able to see him ascend to sit on the throne at the right hand of the Father to rule forever.
Any Christian today who wants to understand the Bible and the "politics of Jesus" must read the Bible as the story of God's redemption, His Kingdom, and our place in it. It has nothing to do with the world's politics that swirl around today. And not only should we see our place, but we also need to gain an understanding of every government, every nation, every authority on earth. Nothing and no one stands outside this story of judgment and redemption, which is now unfolding toward the climactic return of our King, the Lord, Jesus the King (cited from my source).
Jesus did not need to make any "political statements". May I suggest that presuming that He did presupposes an ignorance of just what the kingdom of God is all about. The Gospels were not written as political statements. This kind of writing, thinking, and authorship does nothing more than reveal the agendas of liberal scholarship in these days. It is not enough to just do the "drab" job of exegeting Scripture in its context, now we have to try and make Jesus a politician that will "right" all the "wrongs" of the world. Here is a news flash however: Jesus was not Mother Teresa, nor was he of the ilk of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Jesus came to establish and lay the foundation of the Kingdom of God in the world. He came to "seek and save the lost." He refused to take up the sword, instead He laid down his life as the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 40-66), and told his disciples to let the power of God's Spirit fill them. Yet, Jesus was doing and saying these things not in renunciation of politics and power (foolishness such as that), but in order to fulfill God's kingdom on God's terms. That last point is a very profound one for all of us to remember.
That God's kingdom is established on God's terms is exemplified in the trial of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin (reported in Matthew 26:57ff.). The leaders are frustrated that they cannot do away with Jesus. The high priest commands him, under oath, to "tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God." Jesus finally speaks: "Yes, it is as you say. But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Brothers, most of what I am putting forth here, I have gotten from Scripture, and I have obtained insight from those who prefer to allow the Bible to speak for itself. I suggest that you need to come to a different understanding of How God operates, and the truth that His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. You need to recognize in the Gospels the conjunction of Messiah and Son of Man," "They are one and the same-God's ruler, God's judge-to whom all of us will have to give account.
We see in each one of the Gospels that the Son of Man stands trial as Messiah, fulfilling its content (Messiah) as no one can conceive, (and that includes those who consider themselves expert politicians today), and on no other terms than his own.
Jesus came to establish God's rule over all, forever. And I tell you that He is coming again. Our place as the church is to do nothing more and nothing less than fulfill the directive that He set forth for us. That requires that we submerge ourselves in the business of saving as many as we can.
May we do that I propose without getting to caught up in labels such as anabaptist, pietism, emerging, religious right, or anything else of the kind. We are Christians, born again, slowly making our way toward Christlikeness, doing nothing more and nothing less than living out Chirst's mandate in our lives in response to God's grace. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but make sure that you give God what is God's. And may the Lord bless you along the way.
"I have to suggest that you go back and reread the New Testament and quit injecting 21st Century politics into the text."
What in the world are you talking about Ken? Every single one of my examples was straight from scripture. At which point did I say anything about 21st century politics?
Just because I don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean my views are not "biblical" (what did I do do except point you guys to what the Bible actually says?), and frankly I'm rather offended at your suggestion otherwise. I could just as easily suggest that you need to quit injecting your 20th century evangelical neo-gnosticism into the text.
Mike said:
"I could just as easily suggest that you need to quit injecting your 20th century evangelical neo-gnosticism into the text."
I accept that brother. I guess we'll just have to see what Jesus says about it Himself when He comes back.
Oh, by the way, I'm not offended at all. I see it as a natural consequence of putting my views out there for all to see. I can live with it.
"If God had wanted us to vote he would have given us candidates."
Okay, now for something more serious.
I have using Velvet Elvis for a bible study and I think Bell makes a good point about how we read Scripture. He talks about a church leader who concluded a presenation with "I decided to go back to the Bible and just take it for what it really says."
Bell then comments that this view is warped and toxic because it assumes there is a way to read the Bible that is agenda free and perspective free.
I know that I read the Bible with a set of glasses (bifocals) that were ground at the fundamentalist churches in which I grew up, with tints from the assemblies of France, the writings of Francis Schaeffer mixed with teachings from the neo-orthodox seminary I attended informed, hopefully, by studies in Jewish and Roman history and culture.
Even if I don't say it I try to keep in mind that any of my comments must be framed with IMHO.
Doesn't Jesus seem very imperial? The Bible calls him King of kings, Lord of lords. It mentions something about every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. Stuff like ruling with a rod of iron, executing judgment. Casting people into everlasting darkness and punishment where there is weeping and gnashingof teeth. Mmmm might be violent. Dividing people left and right between punishment and everlasting life... perhaps a little exclusionary.
What do you think?
If everything preached is framed with IMHO then let's just close the churches now.
IMHO Jesus is LORD? No, sorry, its a fact.
IMHO the Bible is truth? Take it up with the Author.
IMHO God loves us? Didn't He demonstrate that by dying for our sins?
You have a God-given gift and responsibility to preach the life giving TRUTH of the one and only living God. People are desperate for the hope that His truth brings.
Tell the truth. Say it boldly. Say it humbly. Wrap it in love.
Has God given you a unique perspective in understanding Him and His word? Yes. Use it. Do any of us have all the answers or everything figured out? No. To say so is arrogance and foolishness.
Yes, there are those doctrines that are IMHO. But there are also those doctrines worth dying for.
"Doesn't Jesus seem very imperial? The Bible calls him King of kings, Lord of lords. It mentions something about every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. Stuff like ruling with a rod of iron, executing judgment. Casting people into everlasting darkness and punishment where there is weeping and gnashingof teeth. Mmmm might be violent. Dividing people left and right between punishment and everlasting life... perhaps a little exclusionary."
I'd suggest that all that imperial language for Jesus is being deliberately subverted and turned on it's head. That Jesus' kingdom and Lordship is of a different kind - one that serves rather than dominates. (Not unlike some of the things Ken also recently mentioned actually).
And yes, that, along with all of my beliefs, is strictly IMHO. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you, but I personally happen to believe that we walk by faith, not by sight.
"Oh, by the way, I'm not offended at all. I see it as a natural consequence of putting my views out there for all to see. I can live with it."
Sorry Ken. I guess I'm just a little fed up with emergents like myself being constantly accused of being "unbiblical" and too influenced by "culture"; to the point that even when I make an argument completely based on the Bible, as I did here, that accusation is still thrown up in my face - almost like it's just a knee-jerk response to anything anyone emergent says anymore. (And I'm not just putting this on you - I see this a lot from many different sources.)
Mike,
you said:
"Sorry Ken"
I'm sorry too.
Mike, I might dsagree with you (and I do)
but that's okay.
It isn't a personal thing, and what I say shouldn't be perceived as a personal thing directed toward Mike Clawson. In the end, I believe that if we are both sincere seekers of the truth, we can fight nicely. I think it is a given that we will never agree, but I appreciate your insights. In the interest of full disclosure, I disagree with everything that is "emergent", but I will say about you that you are honest enough to stake out your position and not try to hide behind rhetoric. I do not presume that I will ever be able to influence you, but in spite of that you have my respect, even if it is for the reason that you were just willing to say "sorry."
By the way, it is not that I think that you are unbiblical. I just don't see all of that political stuff that you see in Scripture. My point in my last post is this (very simply):
Jesus does not need to subvert anything. The Kingdom of God is not just another (more substantial) movement out there in the realm of ideas and movements. IMHO to think that Jesus would be political is to say that I need to show myself more competent than my sister every Sunday before I can get into the pulpit and preach. By the way, the one I am referring to does not go to church at all.
I think of Psalm 2 where God says:
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
To be quite honest with you, I don't see God being very political at all here, I see Him as being very undiplomatic. I anticipate you saying "That is Old Testament." Well, here is the New:
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Taken from the Book of Revelation, I trust I am doing justice to the context, that passage is about the new Jerusalem that is (even now) breaking into the world. It is irrespective to all that is going on around it. It is like I believe God is; it just is (like it or not).
Again my point is that Jesus does not subvert, nor does He compete, it is what it is (The Kingdom of God) and I would suggest that God has operated in the same way throughout history, that when mankind gets tired of trying to gain their own way through power and politics and such, they will finally see the light and repent, turning to the only reality that is not going to be burned up in the end. That is Him and the Son who reigns over His kingdom.
blessings
Lew,
you said:
"Even if I don't say it I try to keep in mind that any of my comments must be framed with IMHO."
I would suggest the book:
"How to Read the Bible for all its Worth."
One of the authors is Gordon Fee.
He has alot of helpful insights on the dilemma that you struggle with there. You might find him of some use. I would suggest that proper exegesis of Scripture alleviates the problem that you sense. By the way, I would suggest that you browse "Rob Bell". I'm not sure that I would be comfortable presenting him uncut to members of any congregation that I serve. But I will presume that you know what you are doing.
blessings
"And yes, that, along with all of my beliefs, is strictly IMHO. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you, but I personally happen to believe that we walk by faith, not by sight."
Faith is nothing unless that which we have faith in is fact.
If a man's faith is not in something factual, then he believes a lie.
And how do you know whether something is "factual" andrew, unless you first accept it by faith?
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. The issue is NOT the reality (i.e. "factuality") of the thing in itself. The issue is our ability to know whether our ideas about it actually conform to reality. I believe (have faith) that my ideas about reality are "factual", but I can't know (with absolute certainty) that they are. Thus it's always IMHO; it's always by faith. By faith I choose to believe that certain things are factual, not vice versa.
Ken, you're confusing me. I would say that both of those passages you quoted to me are highly political. They are all about how the kings and rulers of this world must submit themselves to God's ultimate authority. What is more political than that?
I'm getting the feeling that you mean something entirely different by "political" than how I am using it.
Mike,
I'm not sure that the difference is so much in how we define "political", rather I am tempted to believe it is in the approach that we use.
I hear you seeming to say that the politics of Jesus "turns on its head" existing power structures. He is "subverting" them. I hope that is a fair assessment.
I would say that He is not doing that at all. In fact, I would contend that the existing power structures serves His purposes quite well, because they continue to remind us human beings that what we all inherently seek is not in fact something that is or will be readily found by any of us in this world.
I guess if you want to talk about God's (particularly Christ's) politics, that is okay, but it would need to be done that the underlying assumption that the affairs of state with regard to the Kingdom of God presuppose a completely different way of thinking than the affairs of state here in this world. God does not differentiate between rich or poor, male or female, young or old, black or white or hispanic, everybody is treated the same.
They (the affairs of state in heaven and in this world) are not unrelated, but the natural man or the secular mind cannot possibly realize (or understand) the norms that God sets out for His community.
Mike, if I may say, this gets to the root of my problem with "emergent." I do not in any way have a problem with some of the problems that they have identified in the churh. My problem is in how they propose to "fix" them. You cannot just presume to say that "everybody's view matters." or that just following "the way of Jesus" will get you to where you want to go. The church will not be fixed by just "doing community," or understanding the bible as "just another voice" (her's as Doug Pagitt says). The church is made up of those who "have the mind of Christ" as Paul says. Those who have the mind of Christ, and are able to discern God's will. It is possible to do that, actually, it is nothing less than absolutely required. If that mindset is not required, the church can do nothing more than spin her wheels.
You said in another thread that in your preaching context you bring a word of prophecy into your conversations on Sunday. I'm sure that you know that the prophetic voice has two dimensions which must be held equally and sometimes in tension. They are "righteousness" and "justice".
I believe that the Bible clearly teaches us that righteousness must come frst. There is no way to love your neighbor in the right way unless you understand first how God has loved you (2nd person plural). And in order to understand that, a person must have some idea of just exactly how much they have trespassed against God. And they must have at the very least taken the measures to fix that. It is not possible for us to love our neighbors unless we have the spirit of God within. The only way that the Spirit of God is within us is if there is a place prepared for Him (Isaiah 40:1ff). The Holy Spirit is God, and He does not dwell in unclean temples. The place where God is must have been made pure.
Sorry if I've giving too much info here, back to your point... God's political viewpoint is not the viewpoint of the world. God uses the existing structures to bring people to himself for the purpose of saving them. There is no way of understanding God's politics unless we have a completely remade point of view (not worldly). I hope this contributes to a joint understanding for us.
Once again we have proof that a person can shoot himself in the foot trying to make a point on a blog.
So for anyone who has concerns about my view of truth--I can confidently say that Jesus is Lord.
I guess one of the things that prompted my remarks is a comment I heard from Bernard Ramm. He said fundamentalists believe in the Fall of man except when it concerns their interpretation of Scripture. Then they believe they are right.
We can be confident about many things but we can never think we speak for God on everything.
Let me say one more thing (yeah, I'll shut up here in a sec)
Contra Bill above-let me say that the etymology of the word "ekklesia" is this:
"Throughout the Greek world and right down to New Testament times, Grk: ekklesia was the designation of the regular assembly of the whole body of citizens in a free city-state, "called out" (Greek Grk: ek, "out," and Grk: kalein, "to call"). (ISBE)
The church is called out. And it is a body (in a biblical sense) that is "called out" of the world, more specifically "called out" of sin.
I tell you this because it shows that the politics of Jesus are not just readily understood. There is a rite of initiation involved and unless a person undergoes it, well, they are not going to just "understand".
God is not breaking into the world to transform political structures, He is calling the citizens of His kingdom "out" of them. This is what I mean when I say "the method" of our politics might differ. I say this knowing that you may not agree, but to help you better understand where I am coming from.
May I offer an observation? Jesus is King. He is not going to become King. He is the rightful ruler of all things created both seen and unseen. All forms of government are flawed where Jesus is not the head. That would include all of them. To be a Christian is to transcend the political systems and enter into the rightful Kingdom. We can and should operate in an through whatever manmade system we are under. We can work through communism, fascism, capitalism or any other form. As Christians IMHO we are to transform the system we are in to bring it back into balance with what God intended. As the inside of men & women are changed they will conform to what God intended on the outside. Jesus will finally accomplish that outward change with His return when He will rule with an iron sceptor.
I do not see Jesus as subversive; rather I see every other system as subversive seeking to elevate themselves to equality or superiority over God. Governments don't matter. Some are better than others. The kingdom of God will eventually absorb all other governments.
"I guess if you want to talk about God's (particularly Christ's) politics, that is okay, but it would need to be done that the underlying assumption that the affairs of state with regard to the Kingdom of God presuppose a completely different way of thinking than the affairs of state here in this world. God does not differentiate between rich or poor, male or female, young or old, black or white or hispanic, everybody is treated the same."
I completely agree. This is what I think the politics of Jesus are all about. That is why I say that they "subvert" and "turn on their head" the politics of this world. Or, as you put it, it's a "completely different way of thinking". That's exactly what I mean. The message of Jesus is "political" because it challenges the usual political ways of thinking in this world.
But to clarify, where exactly do you think the "Kingdom of God" happens? I am getting the sense that you are espousing the neo-gnostic/traditional evangelical view that the Kingdom is somehow "separate" from this world. And I don't mean "separate" as in merely different. I get the sense that you're talking about it as if it's some other place altogether - either some "spiritual" heavenly realm we go to after death, or as something that will become a reality after the Second Coming a Final Judgment and all that. Am I reading you correctly or have I misunderstood you?
If I'm reading you correctly then I think that might be the source of our disagreement. See I believe that the Kingdom of God is a present reality. It is the way of life that Christ followers are called to live in the world, here and now. The Kingdom is a reality whenever God's will is done "on earth as it is in heaven." And since God's will, as you pointed out, is a completely different way of thinking than the politics of this world, the living out of that will by individuals and communities of faith is necessarily a politically subversive action in this world. We choose to live differently and care about different things, because these are God's will - part of what it means to live as citizens of his kingdom and not as citizens of some "kingdom" of the world (whether America, or the EU, or global capitalism, or whatever), and these choices are therefore political choices.
"I'm sure that you know that the prophetic voice has two dimensions which must be held equally and sometimes in tension. They are "righteousness" and "justice"."
I'm confused as to what you mean by this since the English words "righteousness" and "justice" are just differing translations of the same word in both Hebrew and Greek (tsedhaqah & dikaiosune). And even more than that, the word "righteousness" actually comes from the Old English word for "justice". So in other words, they mean exactly the same thing! Both "righteousness" and "justice" refer to the same biblical concept. "Righteousness" is simply another way of saying "justice".
Given that, I'm not quite sure what the distinction is that you're trying to make between them. Are you simply talking about "loving God" vs. "loving others"? IMHO those commands again are simply two sides of the same coin - completely inseparable. As John told us, you can't love God if you don't love your brother.
Uhmmm, no, no, and no :)
We'll have to talk about this another time cause I got a Bible study to finish. I promise to come back because it really is interesting, not so much because of the content, but rather to try and make yourself understood in this medium.
By the way, I'm really not a gnostic! I am of the firm belief that the Kingdom of God is already, not yet. May I suggest, I'm not really sure that you and I are agreed on the role that prophecy plays in the Bible. I would say that righteousness and justice are not the same thing. One has to do with the individual's relationship with God, the other has to do with our relationship with our neighbor. Certainly they are related, but John would also say (and I believe in the context of first things first), you cannot really love your neighbor unless you love God. The way that he makes the statement (as you pointed out) was because of particular issues that he was dealing with in the community.
I'll let it go at that, but I promise to come back.
blessings
Okay, brother Mike
you said:
"If I'm reading you correctly then I think that might be the source of our disagreement. See I believe that the Kingdom of God is a present reality. It is the way of life that Christ followers are called to live in the world, here and now. The Kingdom is a reality whenever God's will is done "on earth as it is in heaven."
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you are absolutely wrong in your assesment of what the kingdom of God is, IMHO
You are quite correct in your observation that it is precisely the point of our disagreement.
The Kingdom is a reality (for any of us individually) when we "confess with our mouth that 'Jesus is LORD', and believe in our heart that God raised Him from the dead... for it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved (Romans 10:9-10).
The Kingdom is a reality (for any one of us) when by faith we enter into the covenant with God. This has absolutely nothing to do with what you may or may not do afterwards.
This is most definitely the place where you and I differ. This cannot be emphasized enough. You see Mike, Emergent people (as I have seen) have this thing where there is a "but", or an "and" or "yet so" with Romans 10:9-10; there is absolutely nothing that can be added there that makes a difference with God.
Ephesians 2:8-9 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.
Brother, that is a deal breaker for me. Whether you call it salvation, or entering the Kingdom, it is irrelevant to me. Any way you slice it, it does not happen by any other means than faith. Your faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross taking away your sin (2nd person plural)is the only way that you gain the kingdom of God.
Just to be clear: The Kingdom is the presence of God. It is eternity with Him. We get a picture of the Kingdom in Revelation, chapter four. It is not of this earth. Being a part of the Kingdom WILL give you the privilege of contributing to the work of God on earth. This is all concerned with what has traditionally been known in Christendom as "believer's sanctification." (I'm sure you know these things, but I'm repeating them for clarification as to what I believe-please don't take this as patronization). At justification we are pronounced "not guilty" of the sins that we have committed, and we receive the gift of eternal life. We enter into God's Kingdom at that point by no other means than a confession of our mouth and faith in our heart that God has raised Christ (and us with Him) out of death and into eternal life. Nothing more needs to be done or said.
I don't know that you do or don't believe that. But, it is just my observation that by grace, through faith never seems to suffice in emergent conversations. There is always it seems to me something "other". You yourself did this in your post hinting that there is something that needs to be "done" in the piece that I copied above.
No, no, and a million times no. I will have to disagree with you here, but in my book, the book is closed at precisely that point. I know that it might bother you that Christians make a one time confession of faith at the altar, but that is just the way it is. That is biblical. That is what the Israelites did in Deuteronomy (and failed to follow through with their part of the promise). Notwithstanding the fact that they were eventually kicked out of the land, at the point that they received the promise, it was gained by giving nothing but their word that they would be His people, and in turn, He gave them His Word that He would be their God. Nothing else was required. It is the same process in the New Testament. We receive the benefit of His promises when we give our heart to God through Christ. When we realize that we are a sinner with no hope and repent and receive His free gift of salvation and the Holy Spirit. The order of all of that happening might be disagreed on by honest questioners, but I am absolutely convinced that the Bible bears out this process and quite frankly the church fathers that I have read bear this out also. Whether we fail to follow through on the gift of faith that we receive is between us and God. Certainly, I believe that there must be works, but that is not a requisite for entrance into the kingdom nor receiving the precious gift of salvation. There does not even need to be the promise of them on the part of the believer initially. Works will come as we grow in faith and gratitude toward God.
Our justification is free, unequivocal, and has absolutely no strings attached. As I said, works will come as we grow in faith. If we don't grow, there is as we believe in the CGGC the possibility that backsliding will occur and the believer might fall out of faith (and potentially lose their salvation), but that has nothing to do with the point of salvation. It is just as if we put our hands on the bull's head at the altar when we put our faith in Christ. That is all that is required. As a devout Protestant, Church of God believer I will never deviate from that belief of what salvation is. You can take that to the bank!
If I seem pushy on this, it is because I consider this to be at the crux of Christianity. By the way, the Kingdom already exists with or without anybody's confession of faith. It is absolutely separate from this world. It is separate in the sense that only Christians reside there at this point in time. Our home is in the Holy City with Christ as our King. This is clearly seen in the scripture from Revelation that I quoted a couple of posts back:
"And the nations of them which are SAVED shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."
The Kingdom is here now and we already enjoy the benefits of it. It is possible to go forth and share it with people and invite them to join us there, but it only exists through faith.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Don't be offended my friend, I am not attacking you or belittling you or anything like that. This is what I believe, and I have absolute confidence that it is what I need to believe. You may have different ideas and that is between you and God. But this is the path that I must be on. This is what I continue to teach my people. I have absolute confidence that God will make it so.
By the way, justice (or judgement-depending on your translation) is translated in the Old Testament mishpat. It is not the same as tsedhaqah. There is a legal sense, and it also refers to each getting his due (Holladay). Tsedhaqah carries the meanings of truthfulness, righteousness (as ethically right), righteousness (as vindicated), justification, salvation of God (ibid).
I have seen it this way: Righteousness is upward, and justice is outward. Righteousness must preceed justice, because without the insight from God (gained through the imputed righteousness of God), there is really no way for a human to know what justice is.
Call all of this gnosticism if you must, but I call it salvation. We will just have to see how it all comes out.
These are just a few thoughts. I hope my forthrightness hasn't turned you off, I enjoy your conversation.
blessings
By the way Mike,
I don't consider living out our faith as a part of the Kingdom on this earth as subversive because as Phil hints at, what we are doing is not subversive at all.
Our's is the "Norm" The world's behavior is abherrant. The world is what has distorted God's original plan for salvation. As citizens of the Kingdom, we are doing nothing less than living out God's original mandate in Genesis and Christ's mandate to reach out to the world. We are just doing what we need to be doing. I am not of the opinion that we will change our culture. As I already said, God uses culture to drive people from sin and into the Kingdom. As Phil said, changes will occur for the better when people are changed on the inside (through Christ) and go forth as Kingdom citizens reflecting the glory of God. That will not ever amount to God's Kingdom totally coming to pass on this earth. As Phil said, "Jesus will finally accomplish that outward change (universally) with His return when He will rule with an iron sceptor."
Again blessings to you.
And what does Ephesians 2:10 say?
I completely affirm Ephesians 2:8-9. I learned it by heart in AWANA decades ago, and it hasn't changed since. And yet every evangelical I know stops with verse nine. But what does verse 10 say? Without verse ten I think you get a very skewed and unbalanced picture of what the gospel is for.
Within the context of the passage, it has to mean exactly what it says.
You see brother, again, I applaud you for your passion. You have something to say to the rest of us there, and I would not want to see that diminished. I think it is interesting that the passage says that "(God) hath before ordained that we should walk in (good works). We don't have to invent them, God has put them there for us. All in the context of that wonderful salvation that He has given us, by faith.
So you go ahead and preach that brother. I will join you in it. There are things to be done; there is a battle to be won (if you'll pardon the metaphor). My call to you (as well as others who share your passion) is to not let that initial choice that is required to start the journey get lost in other issues. Let us make sure that they are saved before we set them on the path to good works. In my view, if we lose that, we lose everything. It is the lynch pin of our faith:)
blessings
Mike,
Re: I completely affirm Ephesians 2:8-9. I learned it by heart in AWANA decades ago, and it hasn't changed since. And yet every evangelical I know stops with verse nine. But what does verse 10 say? Without verse ten I think you get a very skewed and unbalanced picture of what the gospel is for
It has been interesting for me to watch the exchange that you are having with Ken. You are being very patient and kind (to use a little 1 Corinthians 13:4 lingo). I applaud you.
It's interesting for me because the you are Emergent and Ken is Evangelical and I can slice so small a piece of the pie that I can find room for myself in between and call myself Emerg-ING.
In this case, though, I am with you. While it seems to be so easy for Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to throw around the accusation of heresy at us, one of my reasons for identifying myself with the Emerging community is that I believe that it offers a very powerful critique of Neo Evangelical theology.
One way to characterize that critique is that Emerging believers want to add Ephesians 2:10 back into the Bible.
There is a passion for the integration of the doctrines of justification and sanctification among Emerging people that is powerfully biblical and exposes a very serious weakness in Neo Evangelical thought. While Ken pays lip service to the importance of verse 10, like other Evangelicals, he doesn't seem to be able to understand that all three of these verses fit together as one inseparable truth.
The two of you are incarnating for us one very key element of the difference between Evangelicals and Emerging believers. And, you are presenting a crucial challenge to Evangelicals to be genuinely biblical in their thoughts and actions.
You have spoken well.
Thanks.
"There is a passion for the integration of the doctrines of justification and sanctification... all three of these verses fit together as one inseparable truth."
Thanks Bill. That's an excellent way of summarizing what I was getting at.
Mike,
Hey brother, I'm sorry that I've taken up your time.
I'm assuming from your response to Bill (in agreeing with what he said) that you've gone out of your way to "be patient and kind" in your dialogue with me.
My attempt to dialogue with you here is sincere and I've not been pressed to accord you respect. There is alot of reason to have admiration for you. I had hoped that you were responding likewise to me. Obviously that isn't the case at all.
My thinking with you was that you were serious about wanting to reach across divides and establish common ground and working relationships. It appears that I made a mistake in looking at your emergingpensees blog and seeing in January of 2005 "But what good will it do to repeat the mistakes of the past by fighting and thereby creating one more level of division in the body of Christ?"
I can't see from what I witness here how that was serious discourse at all.
I shan't bother you anymore. I don't want you to have to give more time to me than what I deserve.
Bill,
You said:
"While Ken pays lip service to the importance of verse 10, like other Evangelicals, he doesn't seem to be able to understand that all three of these verses fit together as one inseparable truth."
I'm so glad that God knows my heart. You on the other hand don't know me very well at all.
You can have your sounding board back Bill, I will cease frustrating you.
I will be gone now brother
Ken, that was Bill's comment, not mine. I didn't feel exceptionally "put upon" by you, nor did I go out of my way to be "patient or kind". The part of Bill's post I agreed with was his summary of my point, that's all I referred to. It'd be a mistake to read more into it than that.
I am open to dialogue. However with Christmas coming up I honestly don't have the time to go point by point through your last post and describe exactly where I agree or disagree. I've already said pretty much all I have to say on the subject at this time.
Besides which you made it clear that you already have "absolute confidence" in this particular brand of theology, so I don't really see what the point of further conversation would be - I'm not interested in trying to change the mind of someone who isn't really open to change.
At any rate, I hope you have a good Christmas!
-Mike
Mike,
the point of dialogue isn't to change people's minds,
It is to build understanding and relationships
Merry Christmas Mike
Have a good life
"There is a passion for the integration of the doctrines of justification and sanctification among Emerging people that is powerfully biblical and exposes a very serious weakness in Neo Evangelical thought."
My basic understanding is that justification is the changing of a person's standing before God: from unrighteous to righteous. This standing is based on whether or not the person allows Christ to stand in their place before God in judgment. With Christ standing in our place we are made righteous in the eyes of the Father.
Sanctification is the actual change in a person of becoming more and more righteous in their behavior. this change is inspired by love for God and empowered by the Holy Spirit. A person can only allow God to work in him, not bring about the changes on his own. This sanctification is ongoing until we are perfected in Christ after we die.
Is this the Neo evangelical thought that has serious weakness? If so what is it?
Also, how does emerging/ent theology integrate these two ideas?
Andrew,
before I leave this blog and give it up for good, and move on to more productive things in life:
I want to tell you that you have raised the fundamental question that nobody here will answer.
They will skirt around the question and insult you if you press to deeply, but they won't deal with the issue.
And what the scary part is that if there is anyone else out there who may be in authority that is reading this, they obviously don't think it is important enough to address. I am very concerned about thisl It is one thing to want to allow the conversation on a blog to go on unhindered, it is another thing when what is being discussed is so clearly contrary to the core beliefs of what we as a denomination hold to theologically.
Here is the thing for me: If I am wrong and I have misunderstood what I was to have learned in going through seminary and what I found it was necessary to understand in standing before my ordaining board, well, I jus want to know so that I can make the necessary correction in my life and just move on. That there is a fundamental difference between what is expoused here and wh I believe is beyond dispute in my mind. I am looking for answers, and all that I am ever able to get here is rhetoric. Stuff like above:
"Oh, we are just adding Ephesians 10 back into the Bible that has been taken out by evangelicals."
I would submit that all of that is nonsense and it is an atempt to disguise a thinly veliled agenda that is much more subversive to what has been traditional protestant (even CGGC thinking) than what is let on. What you have outlined above is what We Believe in as contemporary of language as what there is. And thie issue that you are raising is monumental. I encourage you to not stop until you get an answer. I have come to the point where I realize that it isn't going to happen for me. Either I'm to vulgar or beneath contempt. Either way, nobody seems to perceive the importance of this issue and what is saddest for me, nobody seems to feel that it is important enough. I will watch your conversation with interest, but I tell you now, I am beginning to recognize that my final days as a CGGC person might be at hand, and I can't even begin to tell you how much that grieves me.
God bless you and merry Christmas
Ken,
For crying out loud, would you please relax! These are most certainly not your final days in the CGGC. This blog does not set the standards for polity and doctrine in the CGGC. If there are some people on this blog that are outside the accepted doctrines and practices of the CGGC, then that's THEIR problem. Neither this blog nor any participants on it can chase you out of the CGGC. I think the best thing you could do right now is flop down on the couch with a tall glass of milk and a big plate of cookies and laugh your head off while watching Chevy Chase's "Christmas Vacation" (get a copy of the cleaner edited version from TV which conservatives like you and I prefer!).
-Pastor George C. Jensen
Enola First Church of God
Andrew,
Your definitions of justification and sanctification are fine, though since the days of John Wesley the doctrine of sanctification has been a source of controversy. I believe that you have adequately articulated a view of sanctification that represents the position we hold in the CGGC. If you want, you can check out pp. 28 and 29 in We Believe.
As far as this thread is concerned, the point I believe Mike has been making, though I won't speak for him, is that justification must become obvious in the lifestyle of a person who claims to be justified. The lifestyle that comes from justification is sanctification.
Jesus said that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven and that only those who actually do the will of His Father will be welcomed by Him on the Day He judges us. He says that a prophet is known, not by His words, but the fruit his/her life produces. And, in Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul says that the grace that produces faith in us also produces good works in us, which God has already prepared for us to do.
Reading the exchange between Mike and Ken has been fascinating for me. I believe it is a microcosm of what's taking place on a much larger scale.
I see Mike standing with the Emerging Community in general and calling for an integrated understanding of the doctrine of salvation in which grace yields both trust in Christ as savior and obedience to Christ as Lord. Ken objects that his call.
Mike has indicated that I am summarizing his view properly. Ken has merely said that I don't know him very well at all. And, perhaps he'll correct my characterization of his posts.
In the conversation involving Mike and Ken, I agree with Mike.
But, more significantly, as I said, I believe that what Mike and Ken represent is the debate that is taking place on a broader level in which the whole Emerging movement is calling Evangelicals to a more holistic understanding of the connection between justification and sanctification.
Ken, on the other hand, is suggesting that Emerging people are committing a serious theological error that may even border on heresy: They are diminishing grace.
(And, to be fair, Ken is in some very good company. John MacArthur comes down on Emerging people with a wrath as hot as Ken's.)
This answer is probably overkill.
Sorry.
Have a blessed celebration of our Lord's incarnation.
bill
"Jesus said that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven and that only those who actually do the will of His Father will be welcomed by Him on the Day He judges us. He says that a PROPHET is known, not by His words, but the fruit his/her life produces."
We are not talking about the test of a prophet here. We are talking about people out in the world that need to be saved. Justification is about nothing more or less than the souls of people being purified and saved from the fire. It is a process whereby at the end we stand before God and are pronounced NOT GUILTY.
Sanctification is extremely important, but it has no place in a discussion of justification except at the end when we stand before God and either share the rewards of our consecrated (as Forney would say) lives with Him.
Assuming that as a saint we have CHOOSEN to allow God's grace to work through us and enable us to persevere to the end.
In other words, a person can be justified and in the end not make the Kingdom at all. In that case the process of sanctification for him/her just has not been worked out. By the way, I'm pretty confident about that because at the end of my ordination exam, I sat with my friend Mike Walker (love him to death), and He would not let me out of the room until we both understood that we shared that little bit of wisdom. And by the way, he hurt my feelings then, but I have learned to appreciate him more and more over time. He knew what he was talking about.
That is CGGC theology 101
Please correct me where I have been wrong. And if I am right, then the basic arguments that the emerging church makes are null and void except where they would want to remind us that after our justification, God will enable us (if we choose to respond) to walk in good works.
By the way,
Johnny Mac would not affirm any of that at all. He is reformed, not Arminian.
I said,
"We are not talking about the test of a prophet here. We are talking about people out in the world that need to be saved. Justification is about nothing more or less than the souls of people being purified and saved from the fire. It is a process whereby at the end we stand before God and are pronounced NOT GUILTY."
Just so we are clear here, that PROCESS only takes a few minutes in the life of a believer. Fittingly enough with regard to the Christmas season I can say it is when JBap makes a pilgrimage into their life and calls them to repentance. In repentance they come to the altar and respond with a desire for Christ to fill their life with His Spirit.
After that, well, there's that thing called sanctification.
I believe the point that Ken is trying to make (Correct me Ken if I am misunderstanding you.)is that sanctification is not necesary for justification, but sanctification is a result of justification.
In other words, two sentences:
Good works don't save us.
Being saved produces good works.
Is this the serious weakness of Neo- evangelical thought?
Andrew,
I believe the point that Ken is trying to make (Correct me Ken if I am misunderstanding you.)is that sanctification is not necesary for justification, but sanctification is a result of justification.
I sure that Ken is saying that. But, Mike would also acknowledge that truth. Obviously, there's more to the discussion than what they agree on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"And what the scary part is that if there is anyone else out there who may be in authority that is reading this, they obviously don't think it is important enough to address. I am very concerned about thisl It is one thing to want to allow the conversation on a blog to go on unhindered, it is another thing when what is being discussed is so clearly contrary to the core beliefs of what we as a denomination hold to theologically."
And whenever someone starts swinging that stick around it seems like a pretty good time to bow out of the conversation. Thank you for reminding me why I don't care to hang out at this blog much anymore.
Ken: ...it is another thing when what is being discussed is so clearly contrary to the core beliefs of what we as a denomination hold to theologically."
Mike: And whenever someone starts swinging that stick around it seems like a pretty good time to bow out of the conversation. Thank you for reminding me why I don't care to hang out at this blog much anymore.
Mike,
What kind of a wimp are you, anyway?
Anyone,
Can someone please tell me what is being discussed in this thread that is so clearly contrary to the core beliefs of what we as a denomination hold on to?
In case the comment was more general in nature, what is being discussed in ANY thread that meets that criterion?
"What kind of a wimp are you, anyway?"
The kind that doesn't care to be part of conversations where people start implying that you should be kicked out of the denomination if you disagree with anything that they just said.
The kind that doesn't care to be part of conversations where people start implying that you should be kicked out of the denomination if you disagree with anything that they just said.
Well, there is that. Perhaps discretion is the better part of valor, after all, but I hate to lose you to the conversation.
You help keep us thinking.
(Sorry this quote is so long; I tried to trim it while retaining the point I want to make.)
Pastor Ken said: " ...Christians make a one time confession of faith at the altar, ...That is biblical. That is what the Israelites did in Deuteronomy (and failed to follow through with their part of the promise). Notwithstanding the fact that they were eventually kicked out of the land, at the point that they received the promise, it was gained by giving nothing but their word that they would be His people, and in turn, He gave them His Word that He would be their God. Nothing else was required. It is the same process in the New Testament. ...When we realize that we are a sinner with no hope and repent and receive His free gift of salvation ...Whether we fail to follow through on the gift of faith that we receive is between us and God. Certainly, I believe that there must be works, but that is not a requisite for entrance into the kingdom nor receiving the precious gift of salvation."
******************************
Pastor Ken's parenthetical remark, made in passing, is key to this discussion: "(and failed to follow through with their part of the promise). "
Somewhere between "thru faith alone", and a "social Gospel", is found Biblical truth. You are both in danger of missing the balance by emphasizing one over the other.
Eph 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith"
James 2:19 "You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. "
James 2:17 "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
John 14: 15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
Gal 5:14 "For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "
***********************
Faith alone is not enough. Jesus commands me to love my neighbor. I am COMMANDED to do good works in order to keep my promise to Jesus that He is Lord of my life.
When we repent of our sinful ways and accept Him as Lord of our lives, it doesn't end there. If we don't then live up to our promise, we too, as the Israelites did, can lose favor with God. I guess you'd call that "back-sliding". And it ultimately could lead to the loss of salvation.
****************************
James 2:
20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
***************************
So, yeah, it takes more than a declaration of faith. (keep in mind that in New Testament times, declaring "Jesus is Lord" put one's life at risk).
However, Jesus does not call believers to a "social Gospel" either. It's much more personal than that.
Actually, His plan is far better. We are called to be disciples---to spread the Gospel and change hearts. By allowing Jesus to work in us and thru us we bring forth the Kingdom, where God's will is done; and in so doing we change the world.
Dallas Willard sums it up well:
"The division of professing Christians into those who maintain a consumer, or client, relationship to the church has now been an accepted reality for over 1500 years.
And at present---in the distant outworkings of the Protestant Reformation, with its truly great and good message of salvation by faith alone---that long accepted division has worked its way into the very heart of the gospel message. It is now understood to be a part of the 'good news' that one does not have to be a life student of Jesus in order to be a Christian and receive forgiveness of sins. This gives a precise meaning to the phrase "cheap grace", though it would be better described as 'costly faithfulness' "( The Divine Conspiracy)
Pastor Ken is right. Without a passionate desire to reach the lost, even those sitting in the pews answering to the name "Christian", all your talk of good works is meaningless.
Pastor Mike is right. The Kingdom is here and now---though imperfect. And true disciples must live their lives differently from those "of the world".
A disciple must strive to act in accordance with the will of God. To be willing to sacrifice all to Jesus and truly allow Him to be Lord and Master.
Will any of us totally get it right? Probably not. Certainly not me. Do we need to try every minute of every day?
Luke 14
26
"If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
27
Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
...
33
In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.
******************************
I'd say so.
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
Felicia,
One word:
WOW!
pb
Post a Comment
<< Home