The past two weeks have been a lot of fun. I have looked at the Bible (and a lot to do with religion for that matter) in a very different way. I started reading the Bible daily, which is something I can’t remember ever doing. I was then opened up to three (now four) different commentaries (Jamieson/Faussett/Brown, Wesley, Calvin, and now Arminius), and a website which provided them all for free. So now every time I read the Bible I literally have thousands of pages of deep theology at my finger tips. The word that has used most recently to describe my new found inspiration is “restless”. I know a little, but I see an importance of knowing more and am passionate to get there. So here are a few things that have gone through my head this past week, really capping off last night/this morning.
I’ve started reading Romans. Over the course of a week, I’ve made it through two chapters and just started chapter three this morning. During a car ride I had yesterday I started clarifying terms with what I had been thinking on for a while. The two words: Armenian and Calvinist. The past month or so I’ve been struggling with Christian’s interpretation of the Bible; specifically this fantastical representation of events. In March I wrote two entries entitled “Presentation” and then “Realism” which were the beginning steps to this. But now I’ve been introduced to Arminius and Calvin. Arminius emphasizes the 100% human aspect first, while Calvin emphasizes first the 100% divine aspect of Jesus. I believe more that it is up to humans to put all of their effort into God’s vision for themselves, and then hope for God to intervene (Arminius). The emphasis is on humans doing everything within their ability and then putting their faith in God for the rest. The glorification of Jesus comes when you think in terms of Jesus being a human being, and being perfect. Yeah, sure he was the Son of God, but he was a HUMAN who never sinned and was perfect. That is a true test of his glory.
The next revolutionary thought that was presented to me within the last 36 hours has been about holiness; starting with the “Closeness” blog at the beginning of the month, and then partially coming from “Tested”. This morning I read Romans 3:20 – “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, though the law we become conscious of sin.” Obeying the Law does not make us righteous or holy in the sight of God. If you read that for what it is, it’s blatantly obvious. The Law is there to show that we are all sinners…that’s it! This idea that through obeying the Laws of God, that it somehow makes us closer to God or holier. Look back at “Closeness”: good fruit is a bi-product, not something to strive for.
Going with that view of the laws, it amazes me how much of the Church is shaped through culture. Because of the exclusivist approach by some churches, a good portion of churches now take the “forgive everyone, and don’t judge anyone regardless of their actions”, quickly followed up by the proverbial “that’s what Jesus would do, love everyone”. The church has stopped condemning non-believers and sin because “we’re all sinners”. But that’s not the point. Yes we’re all sinners, but believers know that they’re sinners. That is the difference between believers and non-believers. Believers realize they are need f a savior. If the Church begins to forgive every sinner, then there is no reason for forgiveness, then there is no need for grace or salvation, and if we forgive all sin just to “love” people, then we have lost the need of a Savior
In the same way that without hell there would be no cause to be moral, if there is no law then there is no need of a savior.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's some interesting stuff. i would like to respond with just some simple thoughts. i've not been too specific with my words, and i haven't fleshed out the thoughts to the 'nth degree, but just some simple thoughts that struck me as i was reading.
ReplyDeleteVery true that holiness is not obtained by following "laws" it is only obtained through the surrender of one's self to Jesus and allowing him to guide our life.
i do think that it is our job as believers to love people no matter what. God does and he calls us to. now that doesn't mean we just let everything go. there still has to be some discipline in the church and scriptural authority must guide us in how we deal with sin. but it is our job to love, unconditionally, and allow God to change the person's heart. also, it does no good for us to forgive sin, they must ask God for forgiveness right? without that, they are still outside the life that God has for them.
i would like to explore you're very last statement further.
you've been talking about "not following rules" as a way to God, but then you used the term "moral." Morality, in my mind, has everything to do with acting and doing good and right.
moral: relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and wrong
Someone can be 'moral' without ever accepting Christ's invitation to true life. Morality doesn't make anyone closer to God, only Jesus does.
i also think that following Jesus is way more than a 'get out of jail free' card. Following Jesus leads to an abundant life, here and now. we then get to spend eternity with him, but "eternal life" begins the moment we accept him.
i have had youth pastors and preachers pose the question before, "if there was no hell, would you still follow Jesus?" what would you say to that?
Well for starters I’d like to preface this by saying you gave me a lot to speak about, ha. Be that as it may, I’ll try to condense some of my reply. I recently had a separate conversation with a guy who helped clarify this very same forgiveness topic. It is not the Church or the Christian’s duty to “forgive” sinners of sin. My quarrel comes from their acceptance of that sin; when the Church and Christians begin to accept sin as something less than absolutely wrong. We can accept people who happen to be sinners…that’s apparent. But to accept sinners as being anything other than people constantly in sin is something else. Sin is bad, evil and wrong. We cannot lose that.
ReplyDeleteI think we both agree on this, but just to clarify: obeying the Law does not justify God saving us. The Law is there to show us exactly how sinful we are, and our everlasting need for God and His forgiveness. (Romans 3:20 – “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the law we become conscious of sin.”) But I think that we mixed words a little bit. Yes, non-believers are capable of doing good things. But morality is knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing right. You can be a good person without accepting Christ’s invitation to true life, but living a moral life is in acknowledgement to our sinful nature and inevitably our need for God’s grace. Yet to take it a step further…morality is an acknowledgement for our need of God, not a signifier of our salvation.
As to your final question: “if there was no hell, would you still follow Jesus?” There’s a few ways to answer this. The short answer is “no”. From there, there’s more. If you break apart the heaven/hell debate, it breaks down to the fact that we are either moving towards God or away from God. The inevitable destination for moving away from God is hell, and the inevitable destination for moving towards God is heaven. If you eliminate the eternal punishment for moving away from God, then you eliminate the need for heaven. If there is no punishment for turning away from God (doing in terms of what you think is right and wrong), then why obey God? If you eliminate any sense of punishment for acting wrong, then you lose any definition for wrong which eliminates any definition of right. Then you have no sense of morality. If there is no wrong, then Jesus and God are unnecessary and you would not need or even think about following Him. If you have no hell, you have no God. So why follow something that no longer exists. The distinction between heaven/hell and right/wrong is what validates our existence. If you take out one, you have no purpose for the other.
i hear ya brotha but i'm wondering...
ReplyDeletedo you see any place in scripture where Jesus points his finger at the "sinners" and tells them how bad they are? he does point his finger at the religious folk for thinking they are better than anyone else. Jesus just hangs out with them and talks with them. he accepts them for where they are in their journey, and talks with them and guides to the right path. just something to think about.
and about the law...for us as Christians there is no law. Jesus fulfilled the law. we don't have to follow a list of rules any more, we follow Christ. again (and this is just semantics), the word "morality" doesn't contain anything spiritual for me. it has nothing in its definition that sounds like faith, or belief, it's just pure doing right or wrong, "rule keeping." that's just my take on the word. it reminiscent of how Socrates and plato would discuss piety. "what is pious?" that's just a word and i know what you're meaning by it, so there's no need to talk further on that.
when it comes to heaven and hell, i think there's some deeper things that would need to be talked through before we could discuss this. i don't think this "public" forum is the place. however, for me, God exists. period. "i am". 'nuff said. he is not contingent on the existence of anything else.
i just wonder, is it real love and real faith if we're only attempting to avoid/gain something after this life. what if God is wanting to give us something in this life, here and now? what if that's what he has for us? what if he's trying to get us out of the hell that we're living in when we live only for ourself? what if he's trying to show us a better way to live, and show us how to bring heaven to earth now?
i'm purposefully not making statements, just some questions to ponder. i don't have any answers :)