I'm off for a day to celebrate my fiancee's 30th birthday.
As a topic for discussion, does the modern divide on homosexuality remind anyone else of the difference between Israel and Judah after Solomon?
Israel fell away from God's law and was quickly assimilated into tribes and peoples who were not sons of Jacob. It seems that those churches that are totally "open and affirming" are doing the same and at the same risk.
Judah nominally kept God's laws but in the wrong proportion and with the wrong emphasis (to the extent they kept them at all). Those in the strict anti-homosexuality branch of the church appear to be doing the same thing.
I'm not just talking about people like Fred Phelps here. I'm referring to a much broader class of Christians who have taken the matter of homosexuality and made it central to Christian thought, as though being against homosexuality is on par with believing in the resurrection. For example, when Piper is describing how he personally views N.T. Wright, he praises him for such things as defending the resurrection and upholding the deity of Christ; then, in the same breath, he tacks on the defense of the traditional view of homosexuality. That's preposterous --- to somehow claim that the set of things that separate "real Christians" from others now includes something that gets so little ink in the Bible.
I think any church who wants to be closed to homosexuals should have already thrown out everyone who contributes to their own 401k.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
Not sure I follow the parallel between Israel/Judah and the modern conversations of Homsexuality and Christianity. I do like your closing thought, but feel your argument is not supported by your observations as presented. Are we really served well by placing our moral standard on the lives of the sons of Jacob? Have you studied their own moral turpitude and realized God's use of them for His Chosen People has nothing at all to do with the men they were, the lives they lived, or the faith they exhibited. Quite the contrary. Their choosing had absolutely nothing to do with them, and everything to do with God.
Like I said, I agree with your conclusion that the current debate misses entirely the relevant factors, and that modern Christianity attaches weight to an argument Scripture does not seem to support either.
I have a strong feeling tht we'd like to pick and choose which sins are most likely the worst in GOd's eyes. "Certainly YOUR sin must be wore than mine," feels like hte battle cry for modern Christianity. Lying must not be nearly so egregious as rape. We are certain of this in our less-than-godlike perspectives. I would much rather hear an honest discussion about what human behavior is really sinful. Truly, there is a way which seems right to men, but whose ends are death. The O.T. Law was a school master to each us our great need for a Savior. Grace, if it really is grace, seems to be a much higher standard than the Law...albeit a testimony of faith, and not of subserviance.
I think any church who wants to be closed to homosexuals should have already thrown out everyone who contributes to their own 401k.
Not sure I'm tracking with this last comment, Dave, but I certainly support you in your question about the proportionality of the issue. Don't know if you have seen my post on homosexuality, but my opinion is that both the antis and the pros have got the focus on the wrong issues anyhow.
Your analogy to the Israel/Judah divide is an interesting one. I don't know that I'd hang any major laundry on it, but it is an observation worth mulling over. . .
Just a couple of points:
1) I worry about balancing the weight of something in scripture by the "amount of ink" it takes up. The prohibitions to beastiality, adultery and murder are comparitively small, but I still think a Christian should be opposed to them.
2) If you're referring to John Piper's "The Future of Justification" in the Introduction, p.16, I'm afraid the quote does not support the weight you wish to put on it. He is simply saying why he (Piper) is thankful for N.T. Wright, not the reasons why he believes that N.T. Wright is a Christian.
Interesting. Christians have a view that WE get to descide what sin is, who sinners are, and what sinners do. I guess the next step to that logic is to assume WE get to choose the punishment...then perhaps also WE may be in on the execution of that punishment.
Seems so antithetical to the view of God the Righeteous Judge condemning men in their sinfelness, then rising from His bench, removing His roebes, taking His stand in MY place...accepting MY guilt and paying my sin debt.
I heard a song recently that said, "...grace was applied when mercy walked in..."
Has modern Christianity any real understanding of the old, old story?
To Anonymous,
I don't think we can summarily dismiss the moral failings of Judah and Israel, sweeping them tidily under the carpet of God's election.
It is true that there is an element of election there (that also cannot be dismissed). If we accept Paul's interpretation [Romans 11:4] of 1st Kings 19:18, then we have to see an element of election there. [Of course it should be pointed out that that the actual OT text does not require or even suggest this.]
But on the other hand, those dozens of generations were real people who themselves are accountable for their own deeds, or how else could God judge them? We cannot see the sending of the prophets as mere "going through the motions." The attitude in Ezekiel 12:3 (among others) certainly suggests this. It is not as though Israel's history was completely devoid of what would now be called "revival." Jehoshaphat in particular stands out.
In any event, I was merely making an observation, not really suggesting a call to action. My observation was simply that misappropriating God's Law (while nominally upholding it) can be just as bad and ungodly as ignoring God's law.
Israel ignored God's law and lost their identity.
Judah misused God's law and lost their claim as God's exclusive people.
Dan,
My point about 401k's is that Jesus' commands are clearly opposed to such things, and any church that is going to sanction members for habitual, intentional sin should give at least as much focus to the "weightier matters" of faith, charity, etc. as they do other portions of God's revealed law.
Hi Stephen,
Welcome to my blog. I do apologize for not responding to your comment earlier, but I've been finishing up another book and very much short on time of late.
I don't think you can claim that murder and adultery receive little in the way of ink in the Old Testament. The fact that these are wrong is reiterated implicitly and explicitly throughout the Bible.
But, more importantly, I'm not claiming that Christians should ignore issues that only get a little ink. I'm claiming that the politics of man has caused us to use God's law inappropriately, selectively, and for motives that lie far outside God's....just as the Pharisees did...just as Judah's priests did.
If we want to attack everything that is proscribed by God's law, which is not itself a terrible idea, that would include:
i) Seeing a relative naked.
ii) Crossdressing of any kind.
iii) Eating of anything cooked rare
iv) Remarrying the same person after having marrying someone else after divorcing the first.
v) Lying naked with a woman during her period (even if they do not have sex.)
Number iii is particularly interesting because it was preserved by the Jerusalem council [Acts 15] to be a law unto all the Gentiles.
All the above are not described as merely forbidden to Israel [here were plenty of other things forbidden to Israel], but rather are described as abominations in and of themselves.
Indeed mere nakedness itself when not absolutely necessary is decried by the Bible, even if you are by yourself. Note that the first sin was not the eating of the apple. The first sin was not even Eve lying to the serpent, misrepresenting what God had said about the tree. The first sin was actually Adam and Eve not doing anything about their state of nakedness. Note that that was what Adam thought they were going to be punished for when they were hiding from God [Genesis 3:10] and Noah cursed Ham because he made known to his other sons his own nakedness [even though he was alone in his house when it happened] (Genesis 9:21-23).
So, if we are going to take as the standard that an iron hand must be applied to anything that the Bible forbids, then the Church needs to be vociferously opposed to a lot more than it is.
The reason, clearly, is that it is a lot easier to set apart one group of people to attack them for their behavior rather than to be critical of traits shared by a larger class.
Dave, do you actually believe that (Jesus' commands preclude a 401k) or are you just using hyperbole for the sake of argument? In other words, do you, as a follower of Jesus, believe you should have no bank accounts or investments?
I presume you are referring to Matthew 6, which I've always taken to mean a question of attitude and trust more than a "don't save anything." But beyond the gadfly statement, I would be intrigued to know how you live this out, or how you propose that we should.
And if what you really mean is that if we don't follow Jesus literally on this, then we have nothing to say about homosexuality, would you also agree that every guy who's ever read a Playboy should gouge out his eye, and every guy who's ever masturbated should cut his hand off, or else we have nothing to say about adultery (straight or gay)? Just askin' . . .
Andy,
I don't actually subscribe to the idea of Jesus taking the punishment for humanity...at least not in the way presented by the modern church, but I do certainly agree that the church has walked in the same errant footsteps of those who came before in appropriating God's law for their own motives.
The first sin was actually Adam and Eve not doing anything about their state of nakedness.
Yeah, that's what Adam may have thought (or maybe it's the first lie that came to his mind), but that's not what the text says. No judgment is given in the statement that they were "naked and unashamed" in Gen 2:25.
True, seeing others' nakedness was decried in the Noachian story you recount, but nowhere does it suggest Noah sinned by BEING naked, only that Ham sinned in observing (and implicitly, mocking?) his father's nakedness.
We certainly don't see Isaiah as being portrayed a sinner for walking around naked in public for three years (Isaiah 20).
I think you're reaching there.
Dan,
I think you're reaching there.
I'm not reaching at all. Remember what the tree of knowledge did, it gave them knowledge of good and evil. It was then that they realized they were naked. The Hebrew here makes it more clear [but the fact that the story remarks "they were naked and not ashamed" should make it clear that the original audience of the story (The Israelites) knew that nakedness was something to be ashamed of.]
In any event, the word for "ashamed" there is not merely a term for embarrassement. It is a word with a much stronger notion of fear of repercussion for evil.
I don't see how Genesis 3:7 could be more clear on the matter. They eat the fruit, receive knowledge of good and evil, and the very first thing they do is cover their nakedness.
Also note that there are many ordinances and laws given designed specifically to forbid nakedness.
For example, altars could not have steps because it might expose the privates of those sacrificing on them [Exodus 20:26] and the word for "nakedness" was itself a word for iniquity or sin [it shows up in Deuteronomy 23:14 and in Deuteronomy 24:1 as a general reference to "something detestable"] and it is not mere coincidence that the term for "atone" comes from the word "to cover."
Dan,
Dave, do you actually believe that (Jesus' commands preclude a 401k) or are you just using hyperbole for the sake of argument? In other words, do you, as a follower of Jesus, believe you should have no bank accounts or investments?
There is nothing wrong with bank accounts [as a convenience] or even investments (depending on their purpose). The problem is when the reason for the investment is future security. Jesus mocks those who build up barns or keep things for tomorrow because it does not show faith in a God who has the power to provide for us and who desires that we take care of others' needs today because we know that God can provide for our tomorrow.
This is not just Matthew 6. It's everywhere. Is Luke 12:18-19 not a picture of saving for retirement?
Luke 14:33 is a similar issue, and 1st John 3:17 is about as direct as one can hope for.
I'm not talking about Jesus' literal command to "Sell everything you have and give to the poor." I'm referring to the point that is behind it. That point is that those who save for their own security instead of using that money to help others are both ignoring God's commands and not putting faith in His providence.
With regard to Playboy and such, it is worthwhile to point out what Christ actually says. "If your eye CAUSES you to sin..." People who lust after others' wives can do so with our without pornography. Christ's point is that sin carries a significant price and the wise should do everything they can to incorporate that truth into their everyday living.
I'm not going to go into details as to how this plays out in my personal life, but I don't consider myself a hypocrite in this regard. I've written before on why Christians in general should not seek to own homes, especially not through mortgages, etc.
Is Luke 12:18-19 not a picture of saving for retirement?
Not at all. It's a picture of taking unanticipated bounty and sequestering it for oneself, and even more, (v. 19) presuming that this wealth entitles the holder to kick back and enjoy "the good life" with (as you pointed out) no regard to the poor & needy. V. 21 "So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God" is Jesus' own summary. I think it precludes conspicuous consumption and wanton ease; I don't think he's talking about any form of future planning.
As to Luke 14:33, it's at the end of Jesus' discourse starting with verse 26. Clearly he doesn't mean we are to literally "hate" our family (he forbids hatred elsewhere). So he must mean making sure our priorities are in the right order. No fair taking one verse literally and the other symbolically. . .
Your reference to 1 John 3 is actually what brings this together IMHO. It isn't that we should spend ourselves dry and blindly "trust God" for our needs; it is that we should respond with compassion where we see need, and that THIS SHOULD BE DONE IN COMMUNITY! Note he says "if anyone sees A BROTHER" (my emphasis) in need and does not respond. . .the security we ought to have is not that of individual believers relying blindly on God, but rather on the community of believers looking out for each other and then together responding to the needs around them.
In other words, it might be legitimate to argue that if we really had a church, we wouldn't need a 401(k), but that is an indictment of the church, not the individual believer's faith or obedience.
And I realize the reference to self-mutilation is hyperbole--Jesus intended it to be. My point is that you can't demand literal implementation of one part of Jesus' illustration while explaining away another part as a heart issue. So I still say that by your logic (getting back to the root of this post on homosexuality) we would have nothing legitimate to say about any form of adultery, unless we jump into the extremes of all those illustrations. Or else I'm just not following your logic here. . .
And, re: the nakedness; I see your argument, but the narrative could just as consistently be interpreted that there was nothing to be ashamed of until, having sinned against God's intended order, humanity "knew" (experientially) good and evil. Sure, by the time the story was written, nakedness was a shameful thing (not a sin, or God wouldn't have told Isaiah to do it). But that was a result, not a cause, of the fall. After all, God created them naked, and his one command--don't eat the fruit--wasn't a fashion directive. . .
Dan,
And, re: the nakedness; I see your argument, but the narrative could just as consistently be interpreted that there was nothing to be ashamed of until, having sinned against God's intended order, humanity "knew" (experientially) good and evil.
I'm not even sure what you are saying here, but we have to assume that "Good and evil" exist outside of humanity and there was a "good" and "evil" that they did not know about before eating the fruit, which they did know about afterward.
Sure, by the time the story was written, nakedness was a shameful thing (not a sin, or God wouldn't have told Isaiah to do it).
That is poor logic, I think. By that token having multiple wives and marrying prostitutes is okay because God told people to do that too.
But that was a result, not a cause, of the fall. After all, God created them naked, and his one command--don't eat the fruit--wasn't a fashion directive. . .
I think you are confusing sin with "rebellion" [a separate word Paul uses to refer to the specific act by Adam.]
Jews acknowledged that Adam sinned before eating the apple [for example, the coveting of something that was not his to have was of course a sin, as was Eve's lying to the serpent, etc.]
It was the rebellion against a promulgated law that caused the fall, not sin in general. Paul separates the two in Romans 5:12-21 in pointing out that people could sin even when there was no law to sin against, but the law puts one in greater spiritual peril because it is the way in which we become actively separated from God.
Adam and Eve may not have carried guilt for their sin prior to eating the apple, but that is another matter. Note the similarity with John 9:41 and John 15:22. You can act contrary to God's will without bearing the consequence of it.
And I realize the reference to self-mutilation is hyperbole--Jesus intended it to be. My point is that you can't demand literal implementation of one part of Jesus' illustration while explaining away another part as a heart issue. So I still say that by your logic (getting back to the root of this post on homosexuality) we would have nothing legitimate to say about any form of adultery, unless we jump into the extremes of all those illustrations. Or else I'm just not following your logic here. . .
I don't find it extreme to say we should not put away money against unknown future need. From all indication that is exactly what Jesus literally called people to do and He gave a good reason why. I don't see Matthew 6 as hyperbole. Regarding Luke 12:18-19, I would say any 1st century Jew would look on what Americans think of "retirement" [a life of ease] as easily fitting the description given there.
I also think you are making an error in treating a discussion of action commanded [self-mutilation] in the same realm as a discussion of ethics [whether or not saving is correct.]
We can agree that lust [in any form] is wrong. That is an "extreme" the any form part, without at the same time being beholden to the action prescribed. Just as we can uphold parts of the Mosaic code without feeling that we have to also uphold the punishments given by them.
I'm not saying the church cannot say anything about homosexuality [which, as I mentioned earlier, is really not related to adultery at all.] I'm just saying that true reliance on God and having faith in God's providence that allows for generous (some would say "extreme") charity toward those placed in our lives today is easily as important and any church that takes a less forgiving approach to the former has its priorities wrong.
The issue is that people think this "giving to the poor" or "relying on God" idea is more nebulous, and so its easy to say "Well, we cannot put exact requirements down on what those words say to do," and then play up those aspects where clear requirements are more easily seen.
And my point is that this is just a convenient way not to show proper concern for those issues that dominated Jesus' actual teaching. Jesus says we must renounce material possessions to be His disciple. I don't think He was speaking in hyperbole there given everything we read in the gospels.
I do agree that we are particularly responsible for those needs that have been made apparent to us, but my guess is that if you have extra money and cannot find someone in your own life who could use it...then you aren't looking very hard. Having money automatically removed/deducated and put into a 401k as an institutional savings plan makes it easy to hold it back from others who are in far greater need of it than we are.
That is poor logic, I think. By that token having multiple wives and marrying prostitutes is okay because God told people to do that too.
Well, actually, polygamy is not presented in the Bible as a sin, only as a disqualifier for eldership and deaconship in the church. We have adopted the standard that it's contrary to God's order, and I think correctly so, but it's not (ever) taught as sinful. Likewise, Hosea didn't sin in marrying the prostitute--SHE sinned in cheating on him after they were married (and in whoring beforehand, of course). So neither of your objections stands, I would say. God did not command his people to sin (of course you can bring up the stickier issue of genocide in the Pentateuch/Joshua, which I suspect may not have actually been God's command, but that's another issue).
I know we've gotten far afield, and I don't expect to convince you. I'm still going to shower, and enjoy my wife, without feeling guilty for not keeping something on. I see no scriptural reason to be concerned.
I am, however, a little confused by what appears to me to be a rather permissive view of sexuality (at least homosexuality) while getting (at least in my view) rather legalistic on some of these other issues. I'm afraid I don't get the logic there...I would expect someone who is concerned about the finer points we have been discussing, to be MORE concerned about homosexuality vis-a-vis the church, not LESS. . .
Jesus says we must renounce material possessions to be His disciple. I don't think He was speaking in hyperbole there given everything we read in the gospels.
Maybe so. I certainly grant that working on behalf of the poor is central to both old and new testaments, and that it gets far too short a shrift in churches in America. I have tried to do my bit, but certainly not enough. I'm trying to do more, but certainly not enough. I would reiterate that a committed community of believers would make this way more practicable than individuals on their own.
But I also have to admit, I have a wife and three kids and I feel a God-ordained duty to support them. I believe I would be violating that duty if I simply cleaned out my bank accounts, sold my house, and took them into poverty so I could give away the little I've saved. Am I lacking faith? Yes, probably so. I've seen too many people who believe far more faithfully than I can, struggling mightily (and far beyond what I could've mitigated with all the $$$ I'll ever earn in my life).
So if that's lack of faith, go ahead and damn me, you won't be the first. I'll do my best to order my priorities to help those in need, and maybe it won't be enough. But the hard, cold reality is that despite the faith I do have, I don't expect God to come in and pick me up after I flush away everything he's so far provided for my family. Guess I'm just too corrupted. . .
Come, Come, Dan...there is a big difference between choosing not to put away specifically for retirement or unforeseen vague concerns and giving away every cent you have.
Further, I doubt giving away everything you own could in any way shape or form be called "flushing away."
But I also wonder why you consider poverty such a bad thing? But then again, I'm not really talking about poverty here, right? There is a difference between living on what is provided today (which would not put you in a state of poverty, as I assume you make enough to cover your current bills, etc.) and eating only oatmeal so that you can give even more away.
I believe you're making my case more extreme than it needs to be. I have no problem with people providing for their families [and neither did the writer of Timothy evidently: 1 Tim 5:8]. Providing today for your family with what you are given today is very different from storing up your excess (as the Israelites tried to do with the manna and quail) for fear of God not providing in the future.
Finally, I'm not advocating "permissiveness." I'm advocated that the church look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they have not become in this way like the Pharisees in Jesus day. Jesus did not attack the Pharisees for upholding the Law. He attacked them for only holding up the parts that were convenient and politic to do so. Note the wording of Matthew 23:23. Jesus claims they should uphold the provisions they actually were upholding without neglecting the others.
In other words, the church should first make sure it has removed the plank from its eye before pointing out the speck in another's. We do a terrible job of renouncing materialism, especially in America...and especially among conservatives distrust anything that smells like communism, socialism, or giving money to someone who doesn't deserve it. We have been trained to distrust anything that sounds like requiring as a matter of faith that which the politically liberal attempt to construct through force of law.
It's always easy to attack the behaviors that are considered deviant by the majority.
With regard to the question of whether God's dictating that an action be done in a particular situation indicates the action is not otherwise contrary to God's will, it's an open and shut case. The Israelites were told, point-blank, "thou shall not kill," and upon any interpretation of the Torah we see situations where killing is quite clearly within God's will (even when it is not statutorily called for).
Dishonesty is generally sinful, but we see instances where people or spirits sent from God are either told to lie or told to break an agreement they had hitherto made.
Well, Dave, it's like this. I agree with your statement that the church is far too materialistic, and far too uncritical of the business-and-wealthy-first priorities of the Republican platform. I'm completely with you there.
But let me personalize it a little. We live comfortably, including the ability to give, on what we make today. I am in the very real situation that my next paycheck (or the last one) could be my last until I find a different job. Whatever time that takes, I can either try to save a buffer, or I can trust God to provide. In the final analysis I know he will or won't, bank accounts aside, but that does not excuse me from trying to give my family a bit of a cushion.
I also have a young son with Down syndrome. He's doing well, and will likely be able to live semi-independently when he's older, but he will always require more care, and have the ability to earn less, because of his disability. My other two children may or may not be able/willing to support him (I have seen families estranged over the assumption that the typical kids would have to carry the water for the disabled one).
So my wife and I have taken measures to save money and to buy life insurance, not so anybody can "take their ease, eat, drink, and be merry," but rather so our son can be provided for when we aren't here to do so.
As I mentioned several comments ago, if we were part of a fellowship of believers who really saw it as their God-ordained duty to look out for each other (as, I believe, they did in Acts), neither of these things would be the concern that it is in fact. But we live in America, and American churches don't do that.
So do I throw my family blindly on the grace of God, or do I make my best efforts to provide for a future that we all know remains uncertain despite my efforts? You may call it disobedience or lack of faith all you want; I see a pretty clear responsibility here.
I don't know your personal/family situation, and it's really none of my business. I only say that perhaps you should consider the lives people live before you make blanket statements about the disobedience inherent in their choices.
Dave,
I just re-read your OP (which I hadn't gone back to as the comments continued) and noticed this:
Israel fell away from God's law and was quickly assimilated into tribes and peoples who were not sons of Jacob. It seems that those churches that are totally "open and affirming" are doing the same and at the same risk.
I withdraw my suggestion that you were being permissive on this issue. I misspoke by not reviewing your original words. I apologize.
Dan
Hey Dan,
I certainly wasn't out to offend you with my words, and I do agree it would be easier for Christians to live as they should be if their fellow believers were doing the same, but I believe if you go back to my original post you'd see there was a focus on the corporate body there as well: IF churches took a stance that took Christ's words on materialism to heart, wouldn't it be those same churches that would likely have the means (or make the means available) to provide for their members?
If a church took a hard-line policy on this (as they take a hard-line policy on easier (for them) topics), and only allowed membership to those who resisted relying on material possessions or stockpiles for their future, wouldn't those same churches be the ones who (by pooling the surplus of their members) be able to provide for their members?
Recall that I was talking about church policy in my original post, and clearly the policy a church has towards materialism is related to the policy it would have toward communalism.
Finally, with regard to this:
I only say that perhaps you should consider the lives people live before you make blanket statements about the disobedience inherent in their choices.
I think homosexuals could (and do) feel the same way towards those who would make blanket statements about their actions as well.
And so we have come full circle, and I do hope you can see to forgive me any offense my hardline approach to this subject engendered.
and I do hope you can see to forgive me any offense my hardline approach to this subject engendered.
To the extent any forgiveness is needed, it is gladly given. I often agree to disagree with a brother, without in any way denying he is a brother. I don't fully agree with your reasoning, as I know you don't with mine. But I see you striving to follow, and to goad others to follow, the Lord Jesus. Peace be upon you!
Dan
"Note that the first sin was not the eating of the apple. The first sin was not even Eve lying to the serpent, misrepresenting what God had said about the tree. The first sin was actually Adam and Eve not doing anything about their state of nakedness."
I fear you are caught in your own trap. Stand back from the picture for perspective on this mater. The SIN was disobediance to God. THAT seems always (or signficntly) the issue; we think we can just do things our own way, and CHOOSE (by will or neglect) to disobey God's will and desires. Adam passed to his children this very nature. Did Cain do evil for growing a garden? No, his sin was in usurping is own idea of acceptiblitiy over God's stated purpose.
Even in watching how God chose the skin clothings for Adam and Eve as covering their nakedness - what was happening? God was presenting our first sermon on the cross. He was showing us blood is required to deal with sin.
I disagree. Adam's sin was not tardiness in covering his and Eve's nakedness...it was disobeying the command of God.
"I don't actually subscribe to the idea of Jesus taking the punishment for humanity...at least not in the way presented by the modern church..."
Intersting, though I may say you have caught me flatfooted on tis one. If you understood my own comments to mean I think Jesus took my punishment on Calvary and I have no role or action (such as to accept or reject His mercy), then I mis-stated , or you misunderstand my own view.
Jesus' actions on Calvary were substitutionaly, of this there can be no debate. 1 John 2:1 is very clear on this matter (as are a gagle of other Scriptures). A bit of room for discussion would be upon the individual's role or responsibility in the process of forgiveness and salvation. I doubt we two could solve that debate in a confined space such as this; but my own view is that Jesus paid the price, and if I acept His offer, then His righteouness can be imputed unto me and I will be saved.
Sin is something God simply cannot forgive. His righteousness, His judgement, His truth cannot allow sin to simply be forgiven, or ignored. Sin must be paid for: It requires a blood sacrifice.
This is what Jesus did on the cross. He paid a debt I could not pay. I thank Him for the gift of life, eternal live daily. In Heaven, my first 10,000 years could well be spent thanking Him for His unspeakaable gift.
Sin is something God simply cannot forgive. His righteousness, His judgement, His truth cannot allow sin to simply be forgiven, or ignored. Sin must be paid for: It requires a blood sacrifice.
This is flat-out wrong, Andy. It is deeply embedded in church doctrine, to be sure, but it is false. God has forgiven sins without requiring blood many times throughout the history of Scripture, and to make such a statement is a denial of his sovereignty as well as his character. 1 Kings 8:33-34, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Jeremiah 31:33-34, Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 9:2-7 (and its parallels in Mark & Luke), 1 John 1:9.
"If we want to attack everything that is proscribed by God's law, which is not itself a terrible idea, that would include:
i) Seeing a relative naked.
ii) Crossdressing of any kind.
iii) Eating of anything cooked rare
iv) Remarrying the same person after having marrying someone else after divorcing the first.
v) Lying naked with a woman during her period (even if they do not have sex.)"
I don't remember any of those getting mention in the New Testament at all, save possibly under a claim that all the above may be considered Pornea.
It is not inconsistent to call sinful that which the Bible calls sinful, as opposed to what was necessarily considered lawful in theocratic Israel. I do not need to consider shellfish evil to think of homosexuality as sinful scripturally. You're excluding middles.
"This is flat-out wrong, Andy. It is deeply embedded in church doctrine, to be sure, but it is false. God has forgiven sins without requiring blood many times throughout the history of Scripture, and to make such a statement is a denial of his sovereignty as well as his character. 1 Kings 8:33-34, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Jeremiah 31:33-34, Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 9:2-7 (and its parallels in Mark & Luke), 1 John 1:9."
Hey Dan, I don't doubt you have some backup for your refutation of Andy, but none of those verses include that backup. You seem to be mistaking an efficient condition for an exhaustive cause. An example: I will marry my fiance if she shows up at the Church on our wedding day. Does that mean that the totality of causal relation is exhausted by the statement? No. I will not marry just anyone who shows up on my wedding day, just the woman with whom I have built up a relationship. There is no inherent contradiction between these verses and what Andy says.
! John 1:9 makes my point. Are you willing to claim that confession itself "purifies us of all unrighteousness" by itself? None of this is inconsistent with a standard evangelical reading of Romans 3, where the blood of Christ is necessary that God both be just and the justifier of the ungodly.
And before someone points me to the book, I don't find that dealing with the text at all persuasive (nor the James Dunn attempt to do the same thing in his commentaries).
Stephen,
I believe you are misunderstanding the reasoning I am using with regard to claiming those items are proscribed.
I'm not saying "everything in the Mosaic Law is proscribed." Were I doing that, clearly the list could have been much longer.
Rather I'm saying that if the Word of God to Moses describes something as outside God's desire for humanity (without reference to Israel), then that is a claim we are bound to accept. There are certain proscriptions in the Old Testament where something is said to forbidden to Israel in particular, and there is a separate set of items that the Old Testament labels as detestable in general.
The items I indicated were of this second class: not merely forbidden to Israel but declared generally outside of God's will for all.
Secondly, the NT does in fact refer to some of these. The Acts 15 council specifically lay the Jewish regulations regarding the eating of strangled animals, blood, and food sacrificed to idols. It also transferred the Jewish sexual code to Gentiles (who had a completely different norm).
Thirdly, it sounds like you are adopting the idea that "Jesus' death allows God to forgive...and that forgiveness is ladled out in certain situations dictated by things completely separate from Jesus' death."
This stance would allow God to forgive anyone [believer or non-believer] while at the same time not guaranteeing forgiveness to anyone (other than by satisfaction of one of works described as provoking forgiveness).
In this theology, Jesus' blood is a type of limitless bank account God can (but does not have to) transfer whatever is desired to for purposes of payment for sins.
Is the above what you are suggesting as the most accurate representation of atonement?
Your remarks on 1 John 1:9 are well taken.
Hey Dan, I don't doubt you have some backup for your refutation of Andy, but none of those verses include that backup. You seem to be mistaking an efficient condition for an exhaustive cause.
I don't believe I have, Stephen. Andy made the statement that "Sin is something God simply cannot forgive." That statement is what's not backed up by Scripture. He went on to say that without blood there is no forgiveness -- which I admit the writer of Hebrews also says -- but what I intended to show with the verses I listed above was a series of forgiveness events or promises throughout both old and new testaments, that have not the slightest mention of sacrifice in their contexts. The claim that God cannot, or will not, forgive sin without blood is simply not substantiated by the greater scriptural narrative.
Which is not to say Jesus' blood was of no effect. I don't know if you've read any of the other threads on this blog--on Penal-Substitutionary Atonement, the Passover, or Propitiation--but we've gone around this subject quite a bit and it'd be tough to regurgitate it all here.
Nevertheless I think it's Andy's blanket statement about God's conditions for forgiveness that needs backing, and my challenge was merely to demonstrate places where God forgave with other conditions.
Dan;
Intersting defense of your view point. As was already mentioned by someone else, your verses in defense of your position do not nullify my comment.
My statement was a bit hashly worded, no doubt. Yet it is truth. Sin is ultimatley against God. All sin. It is all an afront to Him and His person, His holiness. Sin must be dealt with. God cannot and will not ignore affronts to Himself.
As you say...I am a new comer to this blog, and don't intend to drag everyone back into a centuries old argument...I just have a few questions for you...
Should God be able to "simply" forgive at face value...just because someone asks, or beacuse someone has remorse...what was Calvary all about? Why would God send Jesus (or allow, or stand by...I don't care which term you use) to Calvary? What was the point?
Good God: could we say that of a God who allowed His only Son to die so cruely for no point? When He could have intervened? What a horrible thing to say of our God.
What say you of the judgement of Sodom and Gommorah? If God does not require something BEFORE forgiveness...what of the sodomites? Need God repent and appologize for that judgement?
This strikes at the very core of true Christianity....what is the point? If no sacrifice is required...why on God's earth and in God's name was or is the point?
If Calvary is pointless...God is cruel. We should worship Mohammed instead of a God like that.
Has anyone on this blog read the book of Hebrews?
~ Andy
My gracious, Andy, much to answer:
your verses in defense of your position do not nullify my comment
Why not? Your comment was that "Sin must be paid for: It requires a blood sacrifice." I merely showed numerous times throughout Scripture where God dealt with sin, or promised he would, on the basis of repentance, mercy, etc., with no mention of sacrifice. Blood is sometimes required, and I do not dispute this. But the scriptural diversity would suggest it is not a NECESSARY condition at all junctures.
God cannot and will not ignore affronts to Himself.
Nor have I suggested that he will. But the amazing grace and compassion of God are demonstrated repeatedly in his forgiving and reaching out to those who have affronted them. To forgive is most definitely NOT to ignore. . .
Should God be able to "simply" forgive at face value...just because someone asks, or beacuse someone has remorse...
Well, if God is sovereign at all, then yes, by golly, God "should" be able to do absolutely, unequivocally, anything he chooses, without having to resort to justifying himself before you or me or anybody else. See my post on God's sovereignty for a longer version of my response to this question.
what was Calvary all about?
I don't know that any of us will ever know all that Calvary was about, and I certainly don't presume to. But even if you still subscribe to substitutionary atonement (which I do not), scripture is full of evidence for other things God accomplished through Jesus on Calvary (or more accurately, through Jesus' death AND RESURRECTION). For this I refer you to my post Atonement and the Resurrection as well as the rest of my writings on atonement, as well as the discussions previously alluded to on this blog.
What say you of the judgement of Sodom and Gommorah? If God does not require something BEFORE forgiveness...what of the sodomites?
And what part of the story of Sodom and Gommorah looks like forgiveness to you? God blotted out a great evil, and I'm not going into his justification for doing so, but nowhere in that account is there any suggestion that in the destruction of those towns any sort of atonement or forgiveness was accomplished. Irrelevant to your point.
This strikes at the very core of true Christianity....what is the point? If no sacrifice is required...why on God's earth and in God's name was or is the point?
This statement is fundamentally the greatest tragedy of modern Christianity. . .that you could even ask this question is proof positive that the church has failed to teach the way of Jesus. "The point" is the one Jesus made over and over again: "FOLLOW ME."
If Calvary is pointless...God is cruel. We should worship Mohammed instead of a God like that.
Calvary is not pointless, God is not cruel. But I take offense at this statement's implication for Muslims...they do NOT worship Mohammed; they worship the God of Abraham, and they teach that Mohammed was his prophet. There is much we can do to reach out to Muslims with the name of Jesus; blaspheming their faith is not helpful in that regard.
Dan;
Okay, I read many of the posts on your blog...We will have to respectfully disagree. Jesus Christ is my Saviour, and His work is the reason I am saved: I nneded a Savior. I cannot save, nor redeem myself. Were my work sufficent to gain Heaven, to produce a life of holiness and godlikness...I would not need a Savior.
It seems in your attempt to address "easy belivism" and some faulty notion that "salvation" is an "end," you have gone off on some reservation that is no longer even biblical.
One point I just haven't read from you on your "follow me" expose is the purpose of Christ's invitation. Follow Him where? Down a road of religeous activity? That seems somhow beneath the Savior. Yes, Jesus instructed us to follow. He also said He is the Way, Truth, and LIfe. He told us only one Door is available; and that He is THAT Door.
Are we to follow Christ to our own martyrdom? Would my own blod spilled be the point? I think even you would find that a silly notion. You tell us salvation is pointless. Dan, you miss the whole point of Jesus coming to us as Emmanuel.
As for you comment on blood only part of the answer for sin...may I remind you of Mat 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." And, Rom 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" Then, from the book you may dead reading, Heberws there is a tiny problem with your primise: Hbr 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
As for my comment about Mohammed was sarcasim. We do not worship a cruel, arbitrary, in-coherrant God. We worship the God of the Bible, revealed to us through His Son. I am not slamming Musilms in this discussion, and am not affronted by their false religon, so much as I am affronted by your own blashemy of Jesus finished work on Calvary.
God's Soverignity cannot, nor will not over-urule His Justice.
That He COULD do anything concievable (or inconceivable) is evident; but He will notact independantly of His own attributes. He will not counter His own attribues. Did He not tell us Himself that He CANNOT lie? Is this a weakness then? A assault to His Soverignity? No - to think so is foolishness. So, that He cannot "simply" forgive is NOT an assault to His Soverignity.
My point about forgiveness and Sodom is EXACTLY that there is no forgiveness in the story. IF there were no price necesary for sin's atonement; if God COULD simply forgive at whim...then He oes those folks an apology for NOT extending forgiveness...
I'll leave off this discussion. We will hve to disagree, as neither of us seem likly to convince the other. In Heaven, our Savior will have plenty of time to explain all His work and the relevancy of His attonement.
Until the we have His Word.
Whoa, whoa, Andy. I would really caution you to not attack so harshly or decide that you have all the answers. Biblical interpretation is tough and even then, it communicates truth only so far as our fallen and feeble and finite minds can grasp it. God is bound by His own attributes, but I would caution you to be very careful before you box God up all neat and tidy.
Remember that Scripture is accommodation, giving us a glimpse of something we could not otherwise hope to see. It's also not written in a vacuum.
Christ's finished work is sufficient entirely, and Dan says such numerous times on his blog.
Lastly, I've read Hebrews. Have you read the Old Testament?
God is love.
Blessings to you, friend.
Moderator's Note:
For the record, I could easily be accused of writing as though I "have all the answers." as well...and I appreciate a diversity of opinions on this blog, including Andy's.
----
Also: Welcome to the blog, Jaigner...I hope to see more comments by you elsewhere!
...please where can I buy a unicorn?
This is my first post I'd like to congratulate you for such a great quality forum!
thought this is a perfect way to introduce myself!
Sincerely,
Robin Toby
if you're ever bored check out my site!
[url=http://www.partyopedia.com/articles/elmo-party-supplies.html]elmo Party Supplies[/url].
Post a Comment