|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
For the sake of 10 good men Sodom is saved?
You well know that the Gospel was crystalised through the Pauline revelation and that he based his teaching of the atonement on the death and resurrection of the Christ. You also know that revelation is progressive. Christ himself could not clarify the atonement before he died, it was inexplicable and incomprehensible to his audience who grasped it only in retrospect. The Scriptures are holistic. The epistles are no less God's revelation than the Gospels or the OT.
The following references are nevertheless consistent with my view.
Matt 16:22,23. It is in God's interest that he be killed and raised up.
Matt 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mk 15:34 My God my God why have you forsaken me?
The son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins
Matt 20:28. The son of man came..to give his life as a ransom fo many.
Jn 14: 10 No one comes to the father but through me.
Lk 24:47 ..That repentance for forgiveness of sins be proclaimed in his name.
Lk 24:7 The son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinners and crucified.
Acts 2.38 be baptised in the name of jesus for the forgiveness of your sins.
IMV we must humble our minds under God's word or we tend to put ourselves out of the reach of its power to change us.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Um, that's only nine. And Acts is not one of the gospels.
Still, those are good quotes and they do support what you are saying.
Nothing against Acts or the Epistles. My point is just that you virtually never quote Jesus, even though He is supposedly your Savior and He talks a lot about salvation. I understand your point that Paul is the one who interpretted for us what Jesus did after the fact. I don't understand why that would mean that Jesus, if He is God, would have said so little that is consistent with Paul's interpretation.
That is, I would say that about 90% of Jesus' message is that the righteous are saved and that people therefore need to change their ways. The whole point is that people need to become righteous, which they can do by listening to what Jesus has to say and changing their ways accordingly. The sacrificial payment to the Father doesn't figure into this equation as Jesus expresses it. Why not?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Even the elite 12 didn't get it no matter how often he explained it for them. As for the rest, they were looking for the son of david, the ruling messiah, not 'ben Jesef' the suffering Messiah. how could you be surprised? Even God can't reveal himself to blind and deceived hearts. Explains a lot when you think about it. The reaction to his death shows they didn't get it and were incapable of getting it except retrospectively in the light of the ressurrection.
Regarding righteousness, jesus perfectly kept Moses law but not the Paharisaic interpretation of same. All his comments on righteousness relate to the Mosaic system since that is all they knew. The marvellous improvement which affects us is that he subsumed all righteousness into himself and made it vicariously available to you and me. We can thus be circumcised in heart without the circumcision of flesh the law would require. Our righteousness exists only as we are "in him" and that is only by faith. It is unearned and unachievable and the inner transaction of faith is what makes outworked righteousness possible.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding righteousness, jesus perfectly kept Moses law but not the Paharisaic interpretation of same. All his comments on righteousness relate to the Mosaic system since that is all they knew.
Maybe you haven't read the Sermon on the Mount. In that sermon Jesus says:
quote:
Matthew 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
Practically the whole sermon is devoted to defining what righteousness is. He is even more explicit in Matthew 25 in the parable where the "wicked" are divided from the "righteous":
quote:
Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
In that parable Jesus defines righteousness this way:
quote:
Matthew 25:37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
This description of righteousness does not sound like the Mosaic system. That is not all Jesus knew. Jesus makes it very clear that righteousness and salvation are about obedience to His commandments:
quote:
John 15:5 He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned...10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love,
We are to abide in Jesus by believing Him and obeying Him. This is righteousness. Paul said the same thing:
quote:
Ephesians 4:21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.
Paul was not confused about what righteousness was.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The marvellous improvement which affects us is that he subsumed all righteousness into himself and made it vicariously available to you and me.
It is impossible for righteousness to be vicariously available. The righteousness does indeed belong to Jesus, and it is true that we have no righteousness of our own. The way that it is attributed to us, though, is not vicariously, but insofar as we hear and obey Jesus' commands, as Paul says above in Ephesians. Even then it is not ours, but is always attributed to God. Still, we have free will as a free gift from God and we are able - as if from our own strength - to use it to obey Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
We can thus be circumcised in heart without the circumcision of flesh the law would require. Our righteousness exists only as we are "in him" and that is only by faith. It is unearned and unachievable and the inner transaction of faith is what makes outworked righteousness possible.
The meaning of a "circumcised heart" is clear from Moses:
quote:
Deuteronomy 10:16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.
Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
So it is about loving and obeying God. The literal act of circumcision was meant to be an outward sign of this. Paul clearly understands this when he says that literal circumcision is unnecessary:
quote:
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
The "circumcision of the heart" requires obedience to God, not the literal obedience to the Mosaic ritual law but to the laws that Jesus gave us about love and mercy and repentance from sin.
So it is not true that Jesus' comments on righteousness relate to the Mosaic system since that is all they knew.
The point is not to have God's anger withdrawn by offering a valuable sacrifice to Him. That is a primitive and wicked idea of God. The point is for people to actually be obedient and loving by hearing and doing what Jesus says so that we can have the joy inherent in the goodness that is from God.
This is what is meant by the taking away of God's anger and the sacrifice of Jesus. We are to sacrifice or give up our addiction to sinful desires because they ruin our lives. God will then replace them with desires that bring more genuine delight - the love of the neighbor and the love of God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Practically the whole sermon is devoted to defining what righteousness is.
I'm not interested in opening up the whole PSA vs. CV debate again - I think we've been around long enough already. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
My question is more specific to your assertion about looking only to the gospels. So I'd like to stick with Matthew for now, with possibly a glance to other synoptics.
1. I agree that you won't find explicit substitution in the synoptics.
2. I also agree with your definition of righteousness from Matthew. Although it raises several issues - e.g. Jesus sets the bar very high for entry into the kingdom, in righteousness terms. In the S o t M alone he says that our righteouness needs to exceed the Pharisees to enter the kingdom ... and then goes on to imply that those who get divorced (apart from their partner committing adultery), adulterers, those who are angry with their brother ... all of them will not enter the kingdom.
Do you explain this to your congregation? That anyone whose righteousness does not measure up to this will not enter Christ's kingdom?
3. The ministry of Jesus is characterised by grace. Following on from the last point. Jesus seemed to welcome those who did not measure up to this definition of righteousness.
How do you reconcile this? I know we all say that Jesus 'forgives' us. I fully agree. That is not my question. My question is how does this forgiveness square with your definition of righteousness?
4. The ministry of Jesus (like JtB before him) focusses on repentance. How does this fit into your definition of righteousness? Repentance leads to a changed life and an increasing measure of the righteousness that you have outlined, but again this doesn't explain how it squares with righteousness in any absolute sense. The repentance thief on the cross is the classic example but the gospels are littered with others.
The parable of the workers in the vineyard poses the same question. There is a sense in which our entry to the kingdom entirely rests on God's grace and not our righteousness.
How can Jesus on the one hand offer up such an exacting definition of righteousness and then require it as entry for the kingdom, and on the other hand say to anyone, at any stage of their life, say 'repent for the kingdom of heaven is near?'
So, at last, my question - how do you reconcile Jesus' teaching about the righteousness he demands with the grace he offers?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My question is more specific to your assertion about looking only to the gospels.
I'm not suggesting that we only look to the gospels. I was just challenging Jamat because he seems so averse to them. He responded with some good quotes.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. I agree that you won't find explicit substitution in the synoptics.
Yes, I think that Jamat's quotes come about as close as we find there. You can certainly read substitution into those quotes, but I think that there are better explanations that are more consistent with the rest of Jesus' statements.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. I also agree with your definition of righteousness from Matthew. Although it raises several issues - e.g. Jesus sets the bar very high for entry into the kingdom, in righteousness terms.
I think it depends on how you understand what Jesus is saying.
The literal imagery is that there is a gate, pictured frequently in the comics, where St. Peter, or Jesus, stands guard. He looks over your life in the Book, and lets you in, or not, depending on what is in it.
I can see how comparing our lives to Jesus' standards would make it seem like the bar is high.
Do you really think that it happens that way?
As I understand it this is not at all what happens. Rather, the kingdom of heaven is something that is present with us from the very start. It is not an all-or-nothing presence, but rather is present as increased or decreased contentment, happiness, joy, satisfaction, etc.
So to the extent that we refrain from deceit, theft, hatred, and adultery, and devote ourselves to thoughtfulness and service to others we will find happiness in life. And to the extent that we give in to these weaknesses and think only of ourselves we deprive ourselves of happiness and satisfaction.
But it is not all or nothing. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction come in degreees and with enormous complexity.
The point is that the joy of heaven is eternal. Insofar as we learn to love God and one another we enter into that kingdom. After death we find ourselves in heaven. But if we do not learn this we keep ourselves out - not because of any literally closed gates but because we don't love the things that heaven is about.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In the S o t M alone he says that our righteouness needs to exceed the Pharisees to enter the kingdom ... and then goes on to imply that those who get divorced (apart from their partner committing adultery), adulterers, those who are angry with their brother ... all of them will not enter the kingdom.
The Pharisees, if you note what is said in the gospels, were actually wicked. Their so-called "righteousness" was not righteous at all.
The things that Jesus says keep us out of the kingdom are simply things that rob life of its joy. If it was obvious to everyone that a life of laziness, drunkenness and debauchery was actually not all that fulfilling we wouldn't have to make rules about it. But it's not obvious, so Jesus points out that these are the kinds of thing that keep you out of the kingdom.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Do you explain this to your congregation? That anyone whose righteousness does not measure up to this will not enter Christ's kingdom?
That's right. "Bad" behavior and "bad" thoughts rob life of its happiness and prevent you from entering heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
3. The ministry of Jesus is characterised by grace. Following on from the last point. Jesus seemed to welcome those who did not measure up to this definition of righteousness.
Yes, it is all about grace. But Jesus did not actually welcome wicked people. He was highly critical of wicked people.
The ones that Jesus welcomed were people who had not lived perfect lives but who were willing to hear Jesus, to welcome His message, and presumably to try to follow His teachings. Jesus never condoned sinful behavior or suggested that people can continue in sinful behavior without consequences.
When Jesus said that prostitutes and tax collectors would enter heaven before the religious leaders would it was a commentary on the wickedness of the religious leaders. He was not consigning prostitutes and tax collectors to heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How do you reconcile this? I know we all say that Jesus 'forgives' us. I fully agree. That is not my question. My question is how does this forgiveness square with your definition of righteousness?
It's just like every other kind of change that we all have experience with. "Grace" is the fact that we can change and the provision of the means for change. Our houses do not need to fall down around us. Even if they are in poor repair we have the means available to us to improve them either a little or a lot.
A key is that it is not all or nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
4. The ministry of Jesus (like JtB before him) focusses on repentance. How does this fit into your definition of righteousness? Repentance leads to a changed life and an increasing measure of the righteousness that you have outlined, but again this doesn't explain how it squares with righteousness in any absolute sense. The repentance thief on the cross is the classic example but the gospels are littered with others.
It is not about the sum of everything you have done in life. It is about what kind of person you actually are and what you actually love. A life of theft is not conducive to developing love to God and the neighbor. This does not mean that every thief is actually a wicked person. The thief on the cross was evidently not very wicked, and his kind words and recognition of Jesus' innocence are evidence of his decency. The justice system of the time was not especially fair either, so I don't think that we can assume that this was the worst of criminals.
In any case, forgiveness is nothing more than the ability to change. God loves everyone equally, and doesn't care at all about whatever "sins" we may have committed. But our sins prevent us from accepting His love and from loving Him and one another. This may happen to a greater or lesser degree, shutting us out of the kingdom of heaven a little or a lot.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The parable of the workers in the vineyard poses the same question. There is a sense in which our entry to the kingdom entirely rests on God's grace and not our righteousness.
The parable of the workers in the vineyard illustrates that change may come early or it may come late. Either way the result is the same. God is gracious so He makes this change possible to us at any point.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How can Jesus on the one hand offer up such an exacting definition of righteousness and then require it as entry for the kingdom, and on the other hand say to anyone, at any stage of their life, say 'repent for the kingdom of heaven is near?'
This is how everything in life works, why wouldn't it apply to the most basic and important things.
"Righteousness" is like being a good student or a good worker, or like being physically fit. We can be better or worse at these things. There is not perfect worker or perfectly physically fit person. Life is better if you are reasonably conscientious and fit. At any point you can change from being a lazy slob to being a better student or worker or becoming more physically fit. It doesn't mean that it is easy to do, but the means are always available.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So, at last, my question - how do you reconcile Jesus' teaching about the righteousness he demands with the grace he offers?
The grace He offers is the ability and the means for change. He especially offers us the truths of the Word of God to teach us how to find happiness and fulfilment in life. He came into the world to take away the power of hell that had enslaved the human race. So we are free to obey Him or ignore Him, as we choose.
So I don't see any difficulty at all reconciling Jesus' demands for righteousness with His grace. They both amount to the same thing.
It's like offering the perfect diet program and pointing out how problematic it is to be overweight, and how much better you'll feel if you shed a few pounds. Is that setting the bar too high? Would you say "I can't do it. You're asking too much. Can't I just remain overweight and sedentary and be physically fit too?" I don't think so. It's just telling the truth and offering the solution.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The literal imagery is that there is a gate, pictured frequently in the comics, where St. Peter, or Jesus, stands guard. He looks over your life in the Book, and lets you in, or not, depending on what is in it.
I can see how comparing our lives to Jesus' standards would make it seem like the bar is high.
Do you really think that it happens that way?
I have no expectation at all that it will literally happen this way.
However, Jesus repeatedly speaks of people entering the k of G or not entering. There are no degrees with his language. In or out. With no hokey-cokey in sight.
This has absolutely nothing to do with figurative speech.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But it is not all or nothing. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction come in degreees and with enormous complexity.
Yet that directly contradicts Jesus himself. Of course life is complicated and often there are shades of grey. However, when speaking about entering the k of G Jesus goes out of his way, time and time again, to use binary language.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The Pharisees, if you note what is said in the gospels, were actually wicked. Their so-called "righteousness" was not righteous at all.
Ah, but Jesus didn't just say that we've got to get it right where they went wrong. He spoke of surpassing their righteousness. Read the S on the M. He didn't abrogate the commands they loved to quote (e.g. do not commit adultery) he made them harder.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is not about the sum of everything you have done in life.
True. But you still haven't squared the circle.
You were the one who drew our attention to the way Jesus speaks about righteousness in the gospels. He speaks in absolute terms.
I'm not saying that it is the sum of everything you've done in life. However, throughout the gospels Jesus, again repeatedly, speaks of righteousness in absolute terms. He never says, 'it doesn't matter how good you are as long as you are heading in the right direction.' He always says - this is the bar for entry into the kingdom.
I don't think you've reconciled that with grace yet.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus repeatedly speaks of people entering the k of G or not entering. There are no degrees with his language. In or out. With no hokey-cokey in sight.
Yes, Jesus does speak that way. It is right/wrong, good/evil, in/out, true/false. And you do end up in either heaven or hell.
But the way that life actually works is that there are infinite degrees of almost everything. It is true that you are either alive or dead, you either survive or you don't survive. But there is living and thriving or just barely making it.
In the end you are either happy or unhappy. The one is heaven and other is hell and there is a division between the two. But it's not a city with a gate around it - it is a state of being.
The language of the Bible, and the way that Jesus puts it, makes it sound black and white. I think that it is more complex than the simplistic, universally applicable, biblical descriptions would make it seem.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not saying that it is the sum of everything you've done in life. However, throughout the gospels Jesus, again repeatedly, speaks of righteousness in absolute terms. He never says, 'it doesn't matter how good you are as long as you are heading in the right direction.' He always says - this is the bar for entry into the kingdom.
I don't think you've reconciled that with grace yet.
The grace is in the fact that we are all able to change at any point. God loves us all equally and is constantly providing us with the means. Heaven is never shut to us right up to the end of our life - and even then it is only shut if we shut it.
But it's not a literal bar. They aren't literal gates. It's about happiness and suffering, and how to find happiness and avoid suffering. These are simply not black and white concepts. Still, that is the way that we talk about them, and that is the way the Bible addresses them.
I'm trying to show how this is about how life really works. The imagery is useful for conveying the message, but if you let the imagery dominate your thinking you end up with concepts that really don't make sense.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, Jesus does speak that way. It is right/wrong, good/evil, in/out, true/false. And you do end up in either heaven or hell.
...
The language of the Bible, and the way that Jesus puts it, makes it sound black and white. I think that it is more complex than the simplistic, universally applicable, biblical descriptions would make it seem.
Sure, it is quite possible to interpret it like this. I'm struggling to see why you should though - i.e. what criteria / authority you use to come to this conclusion.
If Jesus sometimes spoke about the kingdom as shades of grey and sometimes in black and white terms I could see how you were using one to interpret the other. But he doesn't. In the gospels he always talks about those who enter / will enter and those who won't.
Why are you not saying 'Jesus said X, but he was mistaken because life is more complicated'? You seem to be correcting his hyperbole. (I'm sure you don't mean to do that but it seems like that to me.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why are you not saying 'Jesus said X, but he was mistaken because life is more complicated'? You seem to be correcting his hyperbole. (I'm sure you don't mean to do that but it seems like that to me.)
I'm not saying that Jesus' words are hyperbole. Everyone talks in black and white terms. Everyone also knows that reality is more complicated than black and white can express. I'm a little surprised that you're even taking this line of argument.
Are you saying that anything less than perfection is wicked and damnable in the sight of God? Isn't better better and worse worse? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you saying that anything less than perfection is wicked and damnable in the sight of God?
And yet perfection is exactly what Jesus called for:
quote:
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5: 48
Now, I'm not necessarily arguing for that to be taken literally. My point is just this:
1. You say that we should take our view of righteousness from Jesus.
2. You don't take your view of righteousness from what Jesus said, but from how you re-interpret him.
Now we all do that. I'm just after the reasons you have for doing so. So far you've only given me external reasons. None that are internal to the teaching of Christ.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now we all do that. I'm just after the reasons you have for doing so. So far you've only given me external reasons. None that are internal to the teaching of Christ.
Sure, I understand.
You agree that all of life works in terms of degrees, and seldom in strict all-or-nothing dichotomies. I think that Jesus also gives us good reason to see the righteousness/unrighteousness, good/evil, truth/falsity, saved/damned dichotomies as matters of degree, as opposed to all-or-nothing alternatives.
For example, Jesus said that we are judged according to our ways:
quote:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
This is repeated from the Old Testament:
quote:
Job 34:11 For He repays man according to his work, and makes man to find a reward according to his way.
Psalm 62:12 Also to You, O Lord, belongs mercy; For You render to each one according to his work.
Proverbs 24:29 "I will render to the man according to his work.”
The Psalmist connects this concept with mercy - the Lord is merciful because He rewards and punishes in the measure of our real quality.
This idea is found in the gospels, the epistles and Revelation:
quote:
Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”.
1 Corinthians 3:7 Neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
Revelation 2:23 I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.
Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.”
I understand "according to" to mean "in the measure of", the implication being that it is not one-size-fits-all but is different for every person, some better some worse.
This is similar to the teaching that we will be measured as we have measured others:
quote:
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
Mark 4:24 Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.
Luke 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”
This is not an all-or-nothing dichotomy but one in which a person's state is better or worse in exact accord with what they are really like.
Jesus says that our final state will vary according to a number of factors. It is not all-or-nothing:
quote:
Luke 12:48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
Still, for the most part Jesus talks in terms of first/last, greatest/least without mentioning the degrees in between. As I have said, though, this is how most people normally speak. We talk of success or failure, passing or failing, and winning or losing when we all know that these alternatives are seldom clear cut. So people are either saved or not saved, and go to heaven or hell, but these concepts are necessarily more complex than these simple terms would imply.
I expect that you have in mind Paul's statement that:
quote:
Romans 3:10 “There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
I agree that none of us has any righteousness at all. I acknowledge that all righteousness belongs to God and not to us. Nevertheless He gives us free choice and therefore the ability to believe in and obey Him as a free gift - and we are judged, or judge ourselves, according to our use of that free gift.
I assume that you are also driving at Jesus' statement that:
quote:
Matthew 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The implication is that breaking even the least commandment results in total damnation. Understood that way this statement would seem to be saying that it is fruitless to think that obedience to Jesus' teachings is the way to salvation.
I'm not sure why it isn't obvious that such an understanding negates 90% of the rest of Jesus' statements.
I think that a better way to understand this statement is that intentional disobedience to one commandment implies a disregard for all of them, and likewise intentionally obeying one implies obedience to all. The point is about respect for the commandments and their source. To say that all of the commandments are good except the sixth is to question their source in God.
The idea that the smallest slip-up condemns a person to hell is inconsistent with almost everything Jesus says. His consistent point is that people need to repent from their sins and follow Him, and that His yoke is not difficult despite the fact that the way is narrow. He urges us to change our ways, and He praises even the smallest signs of change in people in the gospel stories.
But I understand that the idea that condemnation for the smallest slip-up is integral to the PSA formula. Just one more reason that I consider this to be a detestable doctrine.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Despite there having been nothing new on this thread for a very long time,
What? It's packed with new information! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
is Freddy trying to win some prize for the Ship's longest thread?
Is there a prize? I've been hoping so. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
I think this thread would be a good candidate. Where do we apply?
But don't blame me. Jamat is the one who brought this out of obscurity. I'm just responding to questions.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Can't it go to Dead Horses, please?
Isn't Dead Horses for topics that breed numerous repetitive threads? This is only one repetitive thread. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand "according to" to mean "in the measure of", the implication being that it is not one-size-fits-all but is different for every person, some better some worse.
But of course those expressions don't have to mean that. If Jesus was saying, for example, there is a 50% pass mark to get into heaven then it would still be a one-size-fits-all / all-or-nothing measurement where each individual gets rewarded according to what they have done.
Now, I'm not suggesting that it is actually like that example just pointing out that the examples you have used do not prove your point.
I think the following quote is just about the only case in the gospels where Jesus does not speak in 'all-or-nothing' terms:
quote:
Luke 12:48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Still, for the most part Jesus talks in terms of first/last, greatest/least without mentioning the degrees in between.
So you are left with having to interpret the vast pages of teaching from Jesus according to one verse. It's not a very compelling argument, is it?
Now, again, I'm not necessarily disputing the way you handle particular verses. (e.g. the one from Luke 12 above). My point is just that you are being incredibly selective with the teaching of Jesus and then claiming that PSAers do the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Understood that way this statement [from Matthew 5] would seem to be saying that it is fruitless to think that obedience to Jesus' teachings is the way to salvation.
You've dodged my question here. Jesus is clear in the S o t M. There is little figurative language. Jesus is speaking plainly here. According to you he doesn't mean what he says. Not just in one obscure verse, but in 3 chapters of Matthew's gospel. Yet again, we all have to interpret Jesus using things he said elsewhere. So that is not at stake here. Rather the S o t M has been used on this thread as the 'core' of Jesus' teaching which, apparently, contradicts PSA. But here we are right in the heart of this purple passage and, once more, it is you who has to say 'Jesus didn't really mean that'.
I am beginning to feel very sorry for Jesus. He said so much that he didn't mean. He really needed someone around who could have helped him to express himself more clearly. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea that the smallest slip-up condemns a person to hell is inconsistent with almost everything Jesus says. His consistent point is that people need to repent from their sins and follow Him, and that His yoke is not difficult despite the fact that the way is narrow. He urges us to change our ways, and He praises even the smallest signs of change in people in the gospel stories.
But I understand that the idea that condemnation for the smallest slip-up is integral to the PSA formula. Just one more reason that I consider this to be a detestable doctrine.
You can think PSA is detestable if you want but the description of Jesus in the gospels you have given above is entirely consistent with PSA.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand "according to" to mean "in the measure of", the implication being that it is not one-size-fits-all but is different for every person, some better some worse.
But of course those expressions don't have to mean that. If Jesus was saying, for example, there is a 50% pass mark to get into heaven then it would still be a one-size-fits-all / all-or-nothing measurement where each individual gets rewarded according to what they have done.
I hear you. So are you saying that you might conceivably need a 50% mark to pass? I thought you were saying that Jesus' bar is impossibly high, requiring 100% to pass.
The words "according to" cannot mean one-size-fits-all". The dictionary definitions are:
quote:
1. in agreement or accord with: according to his judgment.
2. consistent with; in conformity with: to be paid according to one's experience.
3. on the authority of; as stated or reported by: According to her, they have gone.
4. in proportion to: He'll be charged according to his ability to pay.
5. contingent on: According to the number of winners, the judges will award duplicate prizes.
Which of these could indicate that the the Bible means one-size-fits-all by "according to"?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think the following quote is just about the only case in the gospels where Jesus does not speak in 'all-or-nothing' terms:
quote:
Luke 12:48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
Sure, if you want to throw out the passages that say "according to" and "with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." But you have no good reason to dismiss those passages.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So you are left with having to interpret the vast pages of teaching from Jesus according to one verse. It's not a very compelling argument, is it?
Except that it is not one verse. Although Jesus does use black-and-white, all-or-nothing language, as is the convention in all human language, He also describes many things as better or worse, greater or less. For example, some are greater and some less great in the kingdom of God:
quote:
Matthew 18:4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 20:26 whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve
Luke 22:26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.
Jesus speaks in superlatives here, but the language clearly describes a prioritization based on inner qualities. The more like a child you are the happier you will be. Similarly, the more you humble yourself and the more you enter the spirit of service, the greater will be your joy.
Every person is different and each receives God in his or her own way. The Lord judges each of us individually, and the fate of each of us is unique. As Paul says:
quote:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
These words are not consistent with the idea that Jesus sets an impossibly high standard which all fail.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, again, I'm not necessarily disputing the way you handle particular verses. (e.g. the one from Luke 12 above). My point is just that you are being incredibly selective with the teaching of Jesus and then claiming that PSAers do the same.
It seems to me that I have quoted a healthy number and variety of Scriptures. Where are your references? If you are going to claim that Jesus says something you need to give examples. More than one.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus is clear in the S o t M. There is little figurative language. Jesus is speaking plainly here.
I don't think that anyone claims this. The Sermon on the Mount is loaded with figurative speech. Do you take it literally when Jesus says:
quote:
Matthew 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned?"
Do you think we are really salt? What does this mean?
quote:
Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Do you think that Jesus literally expects us to pluck out eyes and cut off hands?
quote:
Matthew 5:37 But let your words be ‘Yes, Yes,’ ‘No, No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
Really?
quote:
Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
Do you think that Jesus really requires these things? Isn't He rather making the point that we should not be inspired by revenge but should love everyone?
The Sermon on the Mount uses plenty of figurative language. This doesn't make it impossible to understand. But if you take His words literally I can see why you think that He sets the bar impossibly high.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But I understand that the idea that condemnation for the smallest slip-up is integral to the PSA formula. Just one more reason that I consider this to be a detestable doctrine.
You can think PSA is detestable if you want but the description of Jesus in the gospels you have given above is entirely consistent with PSA.
It's not consistent with PSA. Jesus describes a God who is love itself. PSA requires an angry, vengeful God, one who can be satisfied by blood, who can turn away from the suffering of His Son, and one who does not require people to love one another but only that their sins be paid for.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Essentially Freddy, ISTM that you use a metaphorical view to soften the rigor of Jesus' teaching which is actually uncompromising. The unrighteous WILL not enter, end of story. PROBLEM = I cannot make myself righteous
ANSWER = Christ does this for me.
If you reject this, I can't see how you are not locking yourself outside the gate.
Regarding the sermon on the mount. Yes, I've read it. The issue about Jesus objective in giving it is salient.
IMV he is explaining to his followers the spirit of true righteousness available under the law of Moses. Remember, Moses was the only guide they had at that point. The righteousness he was explaining here is to do with the motives for keeping the law. What it serves to illustrate from our vantage point is the reiteration of Paul's point that this righteousness is impossible to man in his natural state apart from the Holy Spirit, who at that time was only in one person, Christ himself.
My point is that this sermon in context is not an injunction for Christians to live righteously. It is a demonstration of what a life that truly kept it in fact and in spirit would look like.
It is of course what we aspire to and for believers full of the Holy Spirit, it is theoretically possible now in a way that it wasn't when he gave it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Essentially Freddy, ISTM that you use a metaphorical view to soften the rigor of Jesus' teaching which is actually uncompromising.
Precisely the opposite. The PSA formula not only softens the rigor of Jesus' teachings, it entirely eliminates them.
Don't believe me? I'll show you how.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The unrighteous WILL not enter, end of story.
Yes, this is what I believe. This is what Jesus said.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
PROBLEM = I cannot make myself righteous
ANSWER = Christ does this for me.
I completely agree that I cannot make myself righteous, and I also agree that Jesus does it for me.
However, to you this means that He does it by His sacrifice on the cross, satisfying the Father's anger.
To me it means that He gives us the strength to keep His commandments - just as if that strength were our very own. But the strength belongs to Him only.
Your solution means that your salvation does not actually depend on obedience to Jesus.
My solution means that my salvation depends on obedience to Jesus.
This is what I mean that the PSA formula not only softens the rigor of Jesus' teachings, it entirely eliminates them.
And you wonder why I consider PSA to be mistaken and harmful?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
IMV he is explaining to his followers the spirit of true righteousness available under the law of Moses. Remember, Moses was the only guide they had at that point.
That's what you think? I think that Jesus is explaining actual righteousness to them.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The righteousness he was explaining here is to do with the motives for keeping the law. What it serves to illustrate from our vantage point is the reiteration of Paul's point that this righteousness is impossible to man in his natural state apart from the Holy Spirit, who at that time was only in one person, Christ himself.
That explains a lot!
So Jesus was explaining to them how impossible it is to be righteous? He set the bar so high to illustrate that it can't be achieved?
I thought His point was that with God's help it could be achieved.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that this sermon in context is not an injunction for Christians to live righteously.
Incredible. You think that this sermon is not an injunction for Christians to live righteously? And yet here you are saying that I am the one softening the rigor of Jesus' teaching. The PSA formula not only softens the rigor of Jesus' teachings, it entirely eliminates them, as you have just illustrated.
Don't you ever wonder why Jesus said, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount:
quote:
Matthew 7:26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand"
If the sermon is not an injunction to live righteously, then why would Jesus have said that?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I hear you. So are you saying that you might conceivably need a 50% mark to pass? I thought you were saying that Jesus' bar is impossibly high, requiring 100% to pass.
The words "according to" cannot mean one-size-fits-all".
No, you are not hearing me. It can be 100% if you like I was merely choosing a hypothetical example. The point is that the judgment is mafe "according to" the criteria chosen by God. that is, by definition, a one-size-fits-all statement. (If, again for example, the pass mark was 100% the point would still stand. I can say that a pupil will receive the rewards according to how they fare in an entrance exam, but it still would ultimately come down to pass / fail. Now I'm not saying you have to agree with me on the 100% thing, just that the "according to" definition doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of examples in life where we all have different outcomes / circumstances but the overall result is a binary division.
Of course, those criteria may or may not involve a gradation of rewards / punishments for everyone. Nevetheless all those statements made by Jesus are talking about a one-size-fits-all. I don't see how it can be any other way.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems to me that I have quoted a healthy number and variety of Scriptures. Where are your references? If you are going to claim that Jesus says something you need to give examples. More than one.
I haven't cited one, I cited the whole of the S ot M. Of course Jesus uses figurative language there. However, you have only quoted the analogies he makes. There is also plenty where he speaks about fulfilling the OT law and then goes on to make it harder than the Pharisees did.
For example, are you going to tell those who divorced (apart from because their spouse committed adultery) that they won't be able to enter the k of h? (Even if speaking about the body being thrown into hell is figurative, it is not symbolic of something good!)
I'm not expecting you to roll over and accept PSA. There are two reasons why I accept PSA:
1. Because of passages of scripture that seem to teach it.
2. Because of problems with scripture (like Jesus' impossible demands of obedience) that can't seem to be solved without it.
All I'm trying to do is get you to see that there are any problems (i.e. in number 2) at all.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The point is that the judgment is mafe "according to" the criteria chosen by God. that is, by definition, a one-size-fits-all statement. (If, again for example, the pass mark was 100% the point would still stand. I can say that a pupil will receive the rewards according to how they fare in an entrance exam, but it still would ultimately come down to pass / fail. Now I'm not saying you have to agree with me on the 100% thing, just that the "according to" definition doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of examples in life where we all have different outcomes / circumstances but the overall result is a binary division.
Yes it is a binary division in the sense that sickness/health is a binary division or happiness/suffering. You are not sick just because your health isn't perfect, nor are you suffering just because your happiness isn't complete.
When the Bible says "according to" it means that if you sin more it will be worse and if you sin less it will be better. There is no other way to interpret these passages:
quote:
Job 34:11 For He repays man according to his work, and makes man to find a reward according to his way.
Psalm 62:12 Also to You, O Lord, belongs mercy; For You render to each one according to his work.
Proverbs 24:29 "I will render to the man according to his work.”
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”.
1 Corinthians 3:7 Neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
Revelation 2:23 I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.
Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.”
Similarly, there is no other way to interpret the teaching that we will be measured as we have measured others than that it will be better or worse for us depending on our own fairness:
quote:
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
Mark 4:24 Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.
Luke 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”
This is not an all-or-nothing dichotomy but one in which a person's state is better or worse in exact accord with what they are really like.
The point is that it is fair. Your ultimate state depends precisely on your own free choices and efforts - or what seem like your own efforts, since all efforts are really God's.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course, those criteria may or may not involve a gradation of rewards / punishments for everyone. Nevetheless all those statements made by Jesus are talking about a one-size-fits-all. I don't see how it can be any other way.
It can't be one-size-fits-all and involve gradations at the same time. I don't dispute the there is a saved/damned dichotomy. But the difference between the two is not that the smallest sin brings on damnation. Rather, salvation recedes and damnation approaches as sins become more numerous and greater.
The point is that you are saying that Jesus sets the bar impossibly high. One slip-up and you are out. I'm saying that the language of "according to" and "in the measure of" precludes that possibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example, are you going to tell those who divorced (apart from because their spouse committed adultery) that they won't be able to enter the k of h? (Even if speaking about the body being thrown into hell is figurative, it is not symbolic of something good!)
That is not how it works. Divorce is wrong because it is harmful to your life and the lives of others. No one denies that divorce is a painful process that is inevitably accompanied with enormous unhappiness. Jesus is saying that divorce without just cause is the equivalent of adultery. It robs your life, and the lives of others, of heaven's happiness.
But every divorce is different. A person's ultimate state does not depend on any one thing they have done but on their true nature formed over a lifetime of free choices and actions. Everyone is ultimately more happy or less happy "according to" the quality of their lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not expecting you to roll over and accept PSA. There are two reasons why I accept PSA:
1. Because of passages of scripture that seem to teach it.
2. Because of problems with scripture (like Jesus' impossible demands of obedience) that can't seem to be solved without it.
All I'm trying to do is get you to see that there are any problems (i.e. in number 2) at all.
The problems you refer to are problems with your interpretation of Scripture and your understanding of God. A loving and fair God would not make the kind of impossible demands that you imagine Scripture to teach.
For example, I imagine that you would say that every man is condemned to hell by Jesus' statement:
quote:
Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This could be seen as raising the bar to impossibly high levels.
Isn't it more reasonable, though, to see this statement as acknowledging what every man and woman already knows - that lust is a problematic behavior. The more you indulge in it the closer it comes to real infidelity. Implicit in Jesus' statement is the idea that you have choices, and that you can give free reign to your desires or not.
The same is true for each one of Jesus' supposedly impossible demands. He says:
quote:
Matthew 5:39 whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Taken literally this is an impossible demand, a bar raised impossibly high. But Christians do not actually turn their cheeks this way. People understand that Jesus is saying that we are not to desire revenge or retribution, but that we should seek the welfare even of our enemies.
If you postulate a good God, one who is kind and fair according to the teaching of Scripture, and if you interpret Scripture accordingly, the so-called problems that you see disappear.
But PSA postulates an angry, punishing God, and interprets Scripture by that measure. It's no wonder that this leads to a search for a way out - one that PSA obligingly provides.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The problems you refer to are problems with your interpretation of Scripture and your understanding of God. A loving and fair God would not make the kind of impossible demands that you imagine Scripture to teach.
I think you misunderstand my aim in returning to this lengthy thread.
I'm not trying to convinced you of PSA or my understanding of righteousness.
My point is that both of us are interpreting the words of Jesus according to our systematic theology. You keep coming up with quotes that you think contradict my theology, and I have done the same to you on many occasions.
This is an 'implements for boiling water and very dark colour' discussion. You say that I have to awkwardly squeeze some verses into my theology. At which point I cop a plea - guilty as charged.
What is currently twisting my noodle is that you refuse to admit that you do the same.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you misunderstand my aim in returning to this lengthy thread.
I'm not trying to convinced you of PSA or my understanding of righteousness.
Just to be clear, my aim is to demonstrate that PSA is a mistaken and harmful doctrine, and that Christus Victor, or some version of it, is a fine doctrine that is consistent with both reason and Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point is that both of us are interpreting the words of Jesus according to our systematic theology. You keep coming up with quotes that you think contradict my theology, and I have done the same to you on many occasions.
Sure. It is impossible to understand Scripture without having an overall systematic theology through which to interpret it.
I haven't noticed you or Jamat coming up with many quotes to demonstrate your points. Those you come up with are almost exclusively statements from the Epistles. I have no argument with those statements, but the fact that you both have so much trouble finding other biblical support for your positions is evidence to me that there is not much biblical support for your positions.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is an 'implements for boiling water and very dark colour' discussion.
I'm not familiar with that interesting expression. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You say that I have to awkwardly squeeze some verses into my theology. At which point I cop a plea - guilty as charged.
What I would say is that you have to ignore huge sections of the Bible in order to accept your theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What is currently twisting my noodle is that you refuse to admit that you do the same.
That's right. I'm happy to admit that the Bible needs to be interpretted to be understood, and that all of us have our own methods of interpretation.
What I refuse to admit is that my interpretation is inconsistent with an overall understanding of the Bible. I think that your position, on the other hand, is inconsistent with an overall understanding of the Bible. Not that there are not passages that support what you say, but that the more passages you quote the more your argument falls apart.
Fundamentally your repeated argument falls apart in two major ways: - 1. It depends on a conception of God that is at variance with the most basic biblical understanding of goodness and fairness. The idea of a God who is angry with His creation, and who demands that it be punished, certainly fits many biblical statements in a superficial way. But it contradicts Jesus' teachings at a level that is so fundamental that it leaves us with a God who is impossible to see as good.
- 2. Perhaps even more importantly, your arguments contradict the universal biblical teaching that the righteous are blessed and happy and that the wicked are unhappy. Your position forces you to discount all the passages where this is said.
You end up with a religion that negates the basic tenet of all religion - that God is good and we must obey Him. Your God is not good and obedience to Him is impossible.
So yes, I deny that I have to awkwardly squeeze some verses into my theology. A good theology, I think, ought to smoothly integrate every verse from every part of the Bible. It is tested by searching for verses that might contradict it. The assumption here, of course, is that every part of the Bible is authored by God and so cannot be contradictory if properly understood.
What keeps this thread going, I think, is that the concepts of salvation and Christ's mission are overwhelmingly important to Christianity. PSA, or some version of it, is an easily understood and firmly entrenched model of how salvation works and what Christ did. But I think that the Bible provides endless support for a different model.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Freddy, we've obviously come to the end of the road on this one. (Cheer from Leo ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) ) I'm surprised, because you are normally so good at listening to different POVs. However, on this occasion (and it is a first) I give up because you are simply not listening to what I say.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I haven't noticed you or Jamat coming up with many quotes to demonstrate your points. Those you come up with are almost exclusively statements from the Epistles. I have no argument with those statements, but the fact that you both have so much trouble finding other biblical support for your positions is evidence to me that there is not much biblical support for your positions.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) Jamat and I are not the same person. Read back over the last two pages. Since I returned to this thread, after months absence, I have been only talking about the teaching of Jesus, and specifically the S o t M.
There are plenty of examples in the teaching of Jesus that support PSA. Jamat has mentioned some. One key one would be the Tax Collector story in Luke 18. (Who prays not for forgiveness but for 'atonement'.)
But that is not the point. Whenever we raise examples like this, you dismiss them because they doesn't fit with your system. Fine. We all do that. We can do the same with your system.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is an 'implements for boiling water and very dark colour' discussion.
I'm not familiar with that interesting expression.
That's because it was an analogy and you were stuck in the 'plain meaning' of the text. If you had studied it more carefully you would have been able to grasp the figurative teaching easily. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
implements for boiling water = pots and kettles.
very dark colour = black.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What keeps this thread going, I think, is that the concepts of salvation and Christ's mission are overwhelmingly important to Christianity. PSA, or some version of it, is an easily understood and firmly entrenched model of how salvation works and what Christ did. But I think that the Bible provides endless support for a different model.
And I disagree. Well, with the last sentence anyway. So not much more to say.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Freddy, we've obviously come to the end of the road on this one.
Don't say that. I think we are quite close to resolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
There are plenty of examples in the teaching of Jesus that support PSA. Jamat has mentioned some. One key one would be the Tax Collector story in Luke 18. (Who prays not for forgiveness but for 'atonement'.)
Huh?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But that is not the point. Whenever we raise examples like this, you dismiss them because they doesn't fit with your system. Fine. We all do that. We can do the same with your system..
Yes, we can both dismiss each other's examples. The point is to at least engage with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
implements for boiling water = pots and kettles.
very dark colour = black.
How could I be so stupid? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Regarding Sermon on the mount.
I don't dismiss it as ideal and great teaching.
My comment was that in context, Jesus is addressing those who knew no other revelation than Moses, and were constrained by the Pharisaic interpretation of this. Jesus is here offering his own interpretation of Moses. He focuses on the spirit of the law rather than its letter.
This raises the problem as to how we, in the church age, approach it seeing that it is not actually addressed to Christians since there were none at that time.
IMV then It represents the highest standard of human behaviour which is possible only with supernatural help.
In that sesnse Jesus is setting the bar impossibly high as he does elsewhere eg You look lustfully and you are guilty of adultery. Who now is not guilty of same?
In conclusion, Freddy, My view is that righteous living from a righteous heart is only possible on the basis of the internal revolution that changes our sinful nature into a Godly nature; viz, "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature.." Don't forget also, Jesus injunction that "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter."
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This raises the problem as to how we, in the church age, approach it seeing that it is not actually addressed to Christians since there were none at that time.
That's a red herring if I ever saw one. So Jesus' sayings don't apply to us since they were directed at Jews?
How about His sayings to the disciples? Would they qualify, since we all seek to be His disciples?
To His disciples He said:
quote:
Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.
John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
Wouldn't the Sermon on the Mount count among the things that they had been commanded by Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In that sesnse Jesus is setting the bar impossibly high as he does elsewhere eg You look lustfully and you are guilty of adultery. Who now is not guilty of same?
Again if you do not see degrees of culpability here you can see this as an impossibly high bar. But no society encourages the harboring and free expression of lustful desire. It is not respectful, nor is it something that people are proud of. At the same time, everyone acknowledges that sexual desire is a part of our natural being, and that there are legitimate ways to express it.
Jesus is merely pointing out what everyone knows, which is that it is not only the act but also the desire that is problematic. And just as your actions are not completely out of your control neither are your desires.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In conclusion, Freddy, My view is that righteous living from a righteous heart is only possible on the basis of the internal revolution that changes our sinful nature into a Godly nature; viz, "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature.."
I certainly agree with that. The issue is how this happens. Jesus says that it happens as we hear and obey Him. You say that it happens by faith apart from works.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Don't forget also, Jesus injunction that "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter."
What does that have to do with it? According to Jesus the Scribes and Pharisees were as wicked as they come. It wouldn't take much to be more righteous than they were.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kid Who Cracked
Shipmate
# 13963
|
Posted
Jamat, how is it "impossibly high"? Honestly, that seems a bit dismissive. Jesus put great emphasis on those teachings, saying that whoever hears and does them are like a man who builds his house on a rock. He also calls it the narrow way that leads to life, if I'm not over-contextualizing. How is it impossible for a married man (or woman) not to desire to commit adultery? Shouldn't that be the case in a truly healthy relationship? I think the harder one may be giving to those who ask of you, and lending without asking again.
Posts: 532 | From: Texas | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
