By Jim Fletcher
What is emerging in the modern Church? In America - historically Israel's greatest friend - there is a growing dislike of the Jewish state among certain Christian groups. This follows a downturn in interest in Bible prophecy teaching in U.S. churches.
What are the reasons for that decline? There are many, but a major one is the emergence of the "Emerging Church."
Emergents still identify themselves as evangelicals, which is clever since they share many of the same views as radical scholars like Marcus Borg or John Spong (who don't believe any of the fundamentals of the faith).
Emergents, though, embrace many views that have always been the domain of left-wing Christians. It is not surprising, then, that Emergent leaders like Brian McLaren really don't like dispensationalists and supporters of Israel. Not that McLaren would put it that way.
McLaren, former pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church in Maryland, defines himself as an "activist," and is now so popular on the speaking circuit that he has become entrenched in the publishing houses of Zondervan and Jossey-Bass, high-powered Christian and secular companies. With a BA in English from the University of Maryland, McLaren is articulate and seemingly self-effacing.
These qualities make him a star with the Christianity Today crowd, but they also put him at odds with Bible-believing Christians that he considers do not practice "careful thinking" where theology is concerned. In the world of moderate/liberal Christians, careful thinking is code for rejecting young-earth creationism or Christian Zionism.
In an interview with Virgil Vaduva of "Preterist Planet," McLaren makes the following statement, when discussing what he calls the "eschatology of abandonment":
"The rights of Palestinians are ignored in favor of the Israeli state - as if God is happy to bless some people at the expense of others."
30 comments:
Well what is even worse is that Planet Preterist website is actually a hyperpreterist website. Hyperpreterism is even worse than Emergent. Hyperpreterism claims 3 things in contradiction to ALL forms of Christianity:
Hyperpreterism claims:
1. Jesus came back once & for all in the year AD70.
2. That the resurrection of the believers happened in or around AD70.
3. That the judgment of wicked & righteous happened in or around AD70.
Virgil Vaduva is the defacto leader of hyperpreterism & has been trying for years to latch his "movement" onto the Emergents. Hyperpreterist desperately want to be seen as legitimate & I guess they thought their best shot at mainstream was to piggy-back on Emergents.
Just when you think it can't get worse...then you get "Hyper"preterism!
Yep & now the hyperpreterists are complaining that I have posted on your blog Diana. Yet NOTHING I posted about them is untrue. They do indeed affirm the 3 things I posted AND it is a FACT that Virgil Vaduva has been trying to hook hyperpreterism & Emergent up for years.
These guys are so arrogant that Virgil at one time even tried to trademark a theological term, see here: Vaduva tries to trademark preterism
Whether I agree with your theology or not Diana, I can agree that hyperpreterism is nothing like any kind of Christianity that has ever been -- how fitting then that they want to be part of a group that claims they are "a new kind of Christian".
Well, I don't know that I have any "theology". I'm just a dumb 'ole sheep. I just read my bible, (the whole book) and then I listen for His voice. I try to stay away from the false teachers. Sometimes they're really hard to spot! But this guy is easy!
Gasp! Considering scripture in the context of how and by whom they were written (i.e. Preterism)! Who would fall for all that craziness? Surely the prophecy in the ancient near-east references the modern western world!
Read early Acts: 1:6 most specifically; even the apostles, who'd been taught for years directly, living and traveling with Jesus, asked him the "stupid question", "NOW are you going to take over the world and show them all who's in charge?". If even they didn't "get it", then what arrogance is it that so many read some out-of-context excerpts of an english translation of ancient texts, then claim others wrong, or even heretical, to suggest differing possiblities for understanding theology that even Gods direct students couldn't figure all out?
For general knowledge, the word "heresy" does not in fact pertain to speech or concepts against God, or the doctrine of any church, but "heresy" actually means "divisiveness." I am not a huge fan of Virgil, and definitely not of the Emergent movement, but Virgil is as much God's child as I am, and as much as you are. The issue is not that anyone would dare offer differing ideas on any "Biblical subject", as it has been made out to be, but that God's own children would argue, degrade, and even persecute each other as elementary children boasting over their accomplishment, "I'm better than you because of...", or more specifically, "God loves me because I read this one book and think this one idea from reading it (after being told to think that by the best paster/preacher/priest/self-help book), and he doesn't love you because your ideas from reading that same book are wrong (I could back up that you are "wrong", but I don't actually know the proof myself, I just do what I already believe). You'll see I'm right when I'm sitting on a big shiny throne next to God, watching you, and all that would believe your lies, burning in Hell!"
The harshness there is not intended malicously, but to make the point that we all hold on to our set beliefs as our idols, worshiping dogma, rather than reaching out in love, to better understand, and then help each other. God is love, and love isn't devisive. And who knows what we'll all learn along the way, if we just open up to each other, rather than close off our hearts and minds? I know I have come to see the child I had been, boasting over my own supposed knowledge of the truth, judging others, so God didn't have to bother, being as sanctimonious as the above comments here. If God can humble me to admit this to you, then can he humble you enough to maybe look in to why it is that so many people are turning to a "different" understanding of what the scriptures are trying to tell us?
After repetance and belief in Jesus Christ and following Him and all his instructions and commandments, the walk of faith is a personal, intimate walk with the Master. We each will give an account of the deeds we have done in the body. I follow after no man. I hear His voice and I follow Him and Him alone. I need no man to teach me anything. I don't judge anyone, that is left to God. I must, however, live in the light He has given me. Of course, there are pitfalls, distractions, and the enemies of God lurking at every step along the narrow path. His light is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. If I come across something that I feel needs commenting on within the body, I will speak up. Jesus did say that we will know them by their fruit. I am just trying to be a fruit inspector. Again, I am not passing judgment on anyone. Each person will give an account to the Lord at the end of his life. He will answer to the Lord, not to me. And I need only please my Lord and not be afraid of what any man or woman may say to me concerning my relationship with the Lord. No one need accept anything I say. Go to the Lord and see what He has to say about the matter. It's only His opinion that matters anyway.
There are a few things I'd like to respond on Dianak, but I feel there isn't enough room here to get into it, without seeming like I'm attacking. That's the flaw of comment-based discussion, I guess.
However, very often, we see in scripture following God as a community affair. And, very rarely, as singular, offset from society. Jesus said, "Where-ever two or more...", not "Where-ever any one person that believes is, so will I be." He made the point of two or more to show a need for fellowship. When a person believes something so much that they cannot hear a family member speak without arguing, calling names, or refuting in any other way that degrades the involved parties, then the community is split. Sides are taken, and people become divided. The church is written of as a single body, not of many bodies, the divisiveness of dogma prevents us from coming together, which is where God is. The loving together is God, not the arguing. This isn't to say debate over truth is wrong, but losing love over debate definitely is.
This is my point: It sounds like your response is mostly oriented with yourself, but the early church found God in their meetings with each other. Therefor, it would seem more likely that we should not walk seperately from each other, but with each other, along with God.
I have lots and lots of fellowship! I meet daily with other believers. I pray daily with other believers. I just do not go to a building once or twice a week. I am living and functioning within the body of Christ. My religion is not only in my tongue. I try to obey Christ and be a doer of the Word and not a hearer only. Thank you for your concern and advice.
I'm going to put out another point, DianaK, that I hope you will consider. You said you need no man to teach you anything. Is this a reference to Jer. 31:34? If so, I urge you to notice the entirety of the passage, moving back to verse 33, where God says he will put his law in the hearts of Israel, which, of course, leads to no man teaching his neighbor.
Now, I ask that you look at Hebrews 10:16, which is a reference to that prophecy. And look at the context around it. Before this quote, the author is speaking of all of the enemies of God being made a footstool for Jesus, and "after those days" will the law be established in their hearts. So, in order for us to be in a state now that God has "come in to our hearts", we must accept that ALL enemies have been conquered for/by Jesus.
My point here is that you have offered, as evidence against taking a stance on theological issues, a reasoning that can only be preterist in nature. If all the enemies are gone, then we've already jumped past the first 20 (or so) chapters of Revelation. Are you prepared to allow for that possiblity? If not, then you do need men teaching you, as that was the contrast made between the old and new covenants (i.e. how one receives the knowledge of the "law"). Are you prepared to consider you can't know the truth on your own, and must consent to others having a greater place in the spiritual heirarchy? It looks to me, that if you consider all the ramifications of what you believe(as established in the comment above), then you will end up at least slightly leaning toward the "maybe preterism isn't entirely wrong" view.
I am interested to hear your response on this.
DianaK,
You don't attend a building weekly? You should probably know that that's what pretty much all preterists view as correct. Few, if any, believe the church building is a better place of meeting than the home. Why is it you don't attend "church services" on sunday morning?
And, so you know, I do not as well. And the reason I don't, is because of the teaching that goes on there. The misleading of God's children, to believe that we all must show up sunday, or else. The lack of dialogue, discussion, and genuine fellowship has killed the average pew-filler's critical thinking of scriptural discernment.
Please don't call me any names, or try to put a label on me. I am a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ. I don't want to argue with you and I have not attended any religious schools that teach men's doctrines. God made a covenant with the Nation of Israel. God does not break his promimes. He will deal with the Nation of Israel in His time, in His way. I support the establishment of the Nation of Israel. I do not always agree with everything they do. That's about it in a nutshell. I do not care to discuss endless suppositions with you. If you have a web site, please share it with me and I will take a look at it. I don't remember the thief who was crucified next to Christ entering into any philosophical discussions. He simply asked the Lord to remember him. Jesus so graciously replied, "This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Or words to that effect.
I very much apologize for anything I said that came across as calling you names. I, in no way, meant to offend.
I have no website, or any other such collection of views and attitudes I've espoused, or agree with. I just jump around sometimes online, looking for discussion of a civilized nature about these truths. Any friends I've had were unable to ignore the churches disapproval of my "crazy beliefs", and none of the new churches I've tried to interact with have been willing to look beyond their rules, so it's pretty hard to come across anyone willing to discuss ideas without getting crazy about it.
I like your scriptural reference, as it makes my original point, that negative interraction over theology is absolutely unnecessary, and detrimental. Ironically, Jesus' reference to Paradise, and "that same day" are great proof toward the spiritual symbolism of early Genesis, as "paradise" was originally the word for "garden" (i.e. Eden).
There I went again, off into another discussion. Sorry to have bothered you.
Roderick Edwards is an adulterer. He admitted in public that he had sexual intercourse with another woman while married to his wife. This is the loser who writes about the specks in everyones eyes when he has 10 beams in his.
No offense taken! You have not bothered me at all. I just sometimes get frustrated discussing doctrinal issues that I really know nothing about. Thank you for the explanation of the word Paradise. I have often wondered what the difference is between heaven and Paradise. The bible says that God dwells in Heaven. Is Paradise (the Garden) another place?
Sometimes I tend to get a little defensive when dealing with the internet. There are just so many out there that are not looking to share, they just want to attack and push their views on others.
Sometimes it is a lonely walk, and I do miss fellowship with others. I don't go to a "church" building anymore because I can't stomach what goes on in them. They have turned to apostate entertainment centers.
I have fellowship with a small group of people in a retirement community. I just met these people and they're elderly and I don't know where they stand doctrinally. I believe this is where the Lord wants me right now. So, that's that.
Please feel free to write anytime. I will go back now and re-read what you have written. It may take me awhile to respond but I will get back to you.
God bless you. Have a nice day!
Well, how about that, Anonymous. You just did the very same thing that you accused Mr. Roderick of doing. Have you had your own eyes checked lately!
Jason, I have tried to comment on your comments:
"Read early Acts: 1:6 most specifically; even the apostles, who'd been taught for years directly, living and traveling with Jesus, asked him the "stupid question", "NOW are you going to take over the world and show them all who's in charge?". If even they didn't "get it", then what arrogance is it that so many read some out-of-context excerpts of an english translation of ancient texts, then claim others wrong, or even heretical, to suggest differing possiblities for understanding theology that even Gods direct students couldn't figure all out?"
Absolutely! They walked and talked with Jesus every day and they had no idea of what He was all about. Jason, do you think that when Adam and Eve were in the garden and were told not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; that they were wanting to know everything like God. And that’s sort of what some folks still do today. They can’t trust Him with the faith they were given and walk in the light that God has given them for this hour. They want to know more, just for the sake of knowledge! We are nosey creatures by nature.
"For general knowledge, the word "heresy" does not in fact pertain to speech or concepts against God, or the doctrine of any church, but "heresy" actually means "divisiveness." I am not a huge fan of Virgil, and definitely not of the Emergent movement, but Virgil is as much God's child as I am, and as much as you are."
I am not really that concerned with what the word heresy means. I cannot speak for Virgil’s standing with God; only the Lord can know that. The bible says in 2 Peter 1:10
10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall.
"The issue is not that anyone would dare offer differing ideas on any "Biblical subject", as it has been made out to be, but that God's own children would argue, degrade, and even persecute each other as elementary children boasting over their accomplishment, "I'm better than you because of...", or more specifically, "God loves me because I read this one book and think this one idea from reading it (after being told to think that by the best paster/preacher/priest/self-help book), and he doesn't love you because your ideas from reading that same book are wrong (I could back up that you are "wrong", but I don't actually know the proof myself, I just do what I already believe). You'll see I'm right when I'm sitting on a big shiny throne next to God, watching you, and all that would believe your lies, burning in Hell!"
I absolutely agree with you here. It’s awful the way the people that call themselves Christians would engage in this kind of conduct. This is another reason why I left the “institutional church”. And another reason why I don’t like reading books other than the bible, (different translations) but I prefer the King James, but I’m not a fanatic about it. I read some commentaries and historical books.
God bless you, brother. Have a nice day!
DianaK,
It sounds like you and I aren't that far apart on our basic ideals. My point in commenting here was originally in relation to the way this article, and an above commenter, make unnecessary division of God's children by saying, "Those people over there don't agree with us on this topic," as though agreeance is our what keeps us in right standing with God. Solomon said (Prov. 25 maybe?) that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out that matter, and in Revelation, we all called kings, so it is our perogative to find the deeper meaning of God's truth, I think. The fault falls with ourselves, as we base our pride on our personal claims to understand that truth better than others, even in the face of decisive proof. I understand your desire to be a peacemaker, by avoiding the issues altogether, and I think your thief reference earlier shows there is great merit in that attitude. I know I have pulled back considerably from my "have it all figured out" attitude I used to have. In fact, I have even come to the point, at times, that I simply felt that maybe we'd all be better off without the theology, without the access to scripture that we do have. Maybe I do search out more "why"s than I should, trying to fill in gaps in my own faith. That is definitely something to ponder.
The reason I brought up the word heresy was to point out that the divisive speech above (not by you) is a greater negative for us all than for some of us to offer differing opinions. I'm still unsure if I explained that well.
I mentioned before that you have a more preterist-like view on some things than you realize. With the house-church style worship, and the distaste for what the "institutional church" has become. I submit to you that, if you were to look past the King James translation, into more of what the Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic actually say, that you most likely would find yourself moving much more toward the preterist, or at least pantelist, view of scripture. The loving God we all seek is found better in the accomplishment of Jesus in the first century, dying for the world, and then giving them all a chance to hear about it before the covenant change, rather than dying a while back, then punishing everyone in the future for not accepting the basic idea, but not the entire lifestyle attitude of a preacher of any of a couple thousand random denominations of people who invoke his name. I got all wordy there, but what I meant is that you should look in to what a lot of the words mean, and what the people who wrote them meant by them. For example, what does "hell" mean? It's an old english word in common use in late 16th century. It means "to cover". Farmers "helled" their seeds. And, more to the point, dead bodies were "helled" in the grave. They were covered. Knowing this, reread all those "hell" passages, inserting the simple english word "cover" or "grave". Suddenly a whole new view comes in to play.
The word "paradisa" is Sumerian I think. It's an ancient language word of some sort, at least. And it means "garden". It was a term for an area the rich people of the time (generally kings) had in their homes or palaces. This area was a walled off region of greenspace that we can all understand today as a garden. Now, apply that picture to Eden. But think of it spiritually. Eden was God's garden. It was a "place" God had made, and he placed people in it. This garden was a safe "wilderness", where man could be with God. Now, what if this is spiritual in nature, that the garden is a covenant with man. God set up a way for man to become close to him (through love perhaps?), and man disobeyed the "rules" that applied to his allowance in the garden. Man left God's presence by "taking matters in to his own hands". Man boasted, "I don't need God to know what is good", and so man left God's presence to persevere without his guidance. Alrighty, got all that? Now, Jesus came to give us a way back to God's presence, by becoming the sacrifice needed to attone. So, when he told the thief that he'd be in paradise, he was referencing Eden. The theif, due to Jesus actions, was going to be in God's presence. I would submit that being in God's presence is indeed "Heaven".
"Maybe I do search out more "why"s than I should, trying to fill in gaps in my own faith. That is definitely something to ponder."
We are curious by nature. But we shouldn’t let that get in the way of the gift of Faith that was freely given to us by God. Paul said that we look through a glass dimly.
We will never have all the answers. The bible says who can know the mind of God.
I believe that these arguments are distractions to get us off the Path. Jesus said that not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. There are a lot of false teachers in the world.
Your responsibility is to read God’s Word and let His Spirit interpret it for you. If there is something that you don’t understand, ask the Holy Spirit to open your mind so that you will understand it. Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.)
Again, this is a personal thing. If the Lord shows you some truth, keep it in your heart. It’s meant for you. Don’t expect others to see it your way because they won’t.
"I mentioned before that you have a more preterist-like view on some things than you realize
Preterism is a false gospel. I would never consider myself a Prederist.
The loving God we all seek is found better in the accomplishment of Jesus in the first century, dying for the world, and then giving them all a chance to hear about it before the covenant change, rather than dying a while back, then punishing everyone in the future for not accepting the basic idea, but not the entire lifestyle attitude of a preacher of any of a couple thousand random denominations of people who invoke his name. I got all wordy there, but what I meant is that you should look in to what a lot of the words mean, and what the people who wrote them meant by them. For example, what does "hell" mean? It's an old english word in common use in late 16th century. It means "to cover". Farmers "helled" their seeds. And, more to the point, dead bodies were "helled" in the grave. They were covered. Knowing this, reread all those "hell" passages, inserting the simple english word "cover" or "grave". Suddenly a whole new view comes in to play.
The word "paradisa" is Sumerian I think. It's an ancient language word of some sort, at least. And it means "garden". It was a term for an area the rich people of the time (generally kings) had in their homes or palaces. This area was a walled off region of greenspace that we can all understand today as a garden. Now, apply that picture to Eden. But think of it spiritually. Eden was God's garden. It was a "place" God had made, and he placed people in it. This garden was a safe "wilderness", where man could be with God. Now, what if this is spiritual in nature, that the garden is a covenant with man. God set up a way for man to become close to him (through love perhaps?), and man disobeyed the "rules" that applied to his allowance in the garden. Man left God's presence by "taking matters in to his own hands". Man boasted, "I don't need God to know what is good", and so man left God's presence to persevere without his guidance. Alrighty, got all that? Now, Jesus came to give us a way back to God's presence, by becoming the sacrifice needed to attone. So, when he told the thief that he'd be in paradise, he was referencing Eden. The theif, due to Jesus actions, was going to be in God's presence. I would submit that being in God's presence is indeed "Heaven".
Where does all this information that you have written come from? What in the world has all of this got to do with the Gospel of Christ?
It sounds more like somebody’s philosophy. It also sounds like some of the religious leaders that Jesus encountered.
Can you answer this question in one sentence?
What is the Gospel of Christ?
What is the Gospel of Christ?
"There is now no more condemnation in Christ." (I forget the verse.)
The Bible says "Who can know the mind of God?"
But Paul said to have "the mind of Christ". If you believe in the Trinity, then you must believe Jesus and the Father have the same mind, so Paul implies it is indeed possible to "know the mind of God", per Jesus. If you aren't strictly Trinitarian, then you could argue that Jesus does not have "God's mind" until the "Son of Man goes up to the Ancient of Days", thus the lamb will be on the throne, indicating he then will be God, or one with God, or maybe a "member" of God, however you may want to term it. But, since this is the conclusion of the events in Revelation, being a futurist, or even historicist, one would have to believe Jesus ain't God yet. Now, if one were not Trinitarian, and of the preterist persuasion, they could easily rectify the entirety of the issue. The Son of Man went to the Father, and the saints with him. The "parousa" (where parade comes from) was the bringing of the saints back into the city of God by the triumphant king. I submit that Paul tells us that knowing the mind of God was in reach all the way back in the first century.
Where does all this information that you have written come from? What in the world has all of this got to do with the Gospel of Christ?
The definition of the word "hell" definitely changes what people think of as "the gospel". Many view Jesus as a way to avoid Hell. If you come to the realization that we aren't trying to avoid condemnation, then we are open for positive news. Specifically: God loves you.
I am interested to know how what I've said here sound like what the Pharisees and Saducees were saying to Jesus.
1 Corinthians 2
Christ Crucified
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony[a] of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human[b] wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Spiritual Wisdom
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:
“ Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”[c]
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[d] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?”[e] But we have the mind of Christ.
You are taking “the mind of Christ” out of context. You must read the whole chapter and maybe the whole letter to understand what Paul is talking about.
Notice where Paul says in vs. 4 that his preaching is not with words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit…vs. 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but the power of God.
Please read the entire chapter. Paul is saying that no one knows the mind of the LORD. However, Christ came to show us the way. The mind of Christ was to do the will of the Father. We can never know the mind of the Father. That is impossible, as pointed out in the beginning of vs. 6. We can know the mind of Christ because Christ has revealed it to us through His Gospel.
Please read on where Paul talks about the natural man.
Unless you are born again from above you cannot discern the things of the Spirit.
“But Paul said to have the mind of Christ. If you believe in the Trinity, then you must believe Jesus and the Father have the same mind, so Paul implies it is indeed possible to "know the mind of God", per Jesus. If you aren't strictly Trinitarian, then you could argue that Jesus does not have "God's mind" until the "Son of Man goes up to the Ancient of Days", thus the lamb will be on the throne, indicating he then will be God, or one with God, or maybe a "member" of God, however you may want to term it. But, since this is the conclusion of the events in Revelation, being a futurist, or even historicist, one would have to believe Jesus ain't God yet. Now, if one were not Trinitarian, and of the preterist persuasion, they could easily rectify the entirety of the issue. The Son of Man went to the Father, and the saints with him. The "parousa" (where parade comes from) was the bringing of the saints back into the city of God by the triumphant king. I submit that Paul tells us that knowing the mind of God was in reach all the way back in the first century.”
Why are you talking about the Trinity and comparing it with what Paul said? You are doing just what Paul said not to do. You are assuming in your natural mind that since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one…blah, blah, blah….. you came to your conclusion. That is not how it works.
How about when Jesus said only the Father knows the day and the hour… not even the Son of Man knows when He will return.
Paul did not imply any such thing. You are implying that, not Paul. You are implying with your “natural, carnal mind.”
The rest of the stuff you wrote there, I have NO idea what you are talking about and I don’t want to know about any of that stuff either.
“I am interested to know how what I've said here sound like what the Pharisees and Saducees were saying to Jesus.”
By discussing all this superfluous stuff that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans and if you tell people that they need to study and learn all this stuff to know the will of God you are laying a burden on them that will never be lifted. I am 63 years old and I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. But I do understand the Gospel of Christ and so does my ten-year-old granddaughter.
The Gospel of Christ is simple:
It’s the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is not a ticket to heaven. It’s a life-style. Once you repent of your sins and believe in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved. This does not mean that you say a little prayer and ask Jesus into your evil, wicked heart and then go about your merry way. We are saved by God. We are saved by God the Father who gives us grace through faith; we are saved by the Son through His life and death, His blood and righteousness; and we are saved by the Holy Spirit who gives us illumination, renovation, and preservation.
I do not believe that anyone must know anything in order to be in God's presence. I don't accept you have to know the name "Jesus". I don't accept the same God that leads us to love in the face of hate would leave unknowing people to be forever outside his love. I think I may have left the wrong impression; that I personally think everyone must know all this that I know, or else... I did not mean to come across that way. In fact, as I just stated, I believe the opposite; that we need to know nothing, but love, for love is God.
That being said, Paul "scolded" the Corinthians for still only taking in spiritual milk, when they should be growing into the meat of the truth. I would argue that if we are not actively trying to understand God, then we will stay stagnant, and become complacent in our life, with the milk we become accustomed to. And, like I pointed out earlier, Solomon said it is good for us to search out God's truths.
I ran out of time at the moment, but I wanted to pose another question: Are you sure it's the death, burial, and ressurection of Jesus that is the good news, or is the gospel actually what those events meant for the people who would hear about it later?
Upon what do you base these statements:
"I do not believe that anyone must know anything in order to be in God's presence. I don't accept you have to know the name "Jesus". I don't accept the same God that leads us to love in the face of hate would leave unknowing people to be forever outside his love."
So, are you calling Jesus a liar?
It sounds like you have invented your own god. That doesn't sound, at all, like the God of the bible.
Your first statement is correct. A rock can be in the presence of God. So what?
I assume in relation to Jesus lying, you were refering to "the only way to the Father is through the son", or other such statements. But our benefits of being with God were only accomplished by Jesus' actions. The only way is through Jesus. Redemption isn't accomplished every time a person says "I'm a sinner, save me Jesus", but redemption was bought for everyone by Jesus by going through the crucifixion.
However, many people seem to think that to be with God (to be "saved") requires a person to "make a confession" of a sort. Basically, it still requires an action by a person. But the scripture, many times, points out that people were saved by God's grace, and not by the people's actions. To "accept" Jesus into one's heart is still an action taken by the person, it is a "work". If all are saved via grace, then you cannot put demands on a person to take any action. If you do, then you engage in legalism. This is why I am of the opinion that no one must ever hear the name of Jesus to be with God.
Oh, and I may not have well explained it, but what I mean by "presence of God" is to be "in the garden, or paradise". Also, I would argue that a rock cannot be in God's presence, as God is spirit, and I don't think there is any reason to assume that a rock has any spiritual nature.
My God may not seem like the God you find preached on Sundays, but I try very hard to be sure my God is the God that lines up with the most accurate copies of the scriptures I can search out. If you made your statement based on "the only way is through me" concept, may I point out the king of Tyree, who God was happy with, until he "fell from grace" by becomig boastful (Is 12 I think). What would you say of a king of another land, who never followed the Law of the Mosaic covenant, who was in high esteem by God? And, what of the gentiles Peter was sent to baptize? God told Peter those gentiles were already "on God's good side", but it is clear they didn't know Jesus, so how can this be, unless oe can know God well enough by love, even without knowing names and dates of certain people long ago (including Jesus himself)?
Two things I ran out of time for earlier:
With the understanding of the preterist view, that the parousa took place in the generation that Jesus told he would return before they died, then we can see that what Paul said about the mystery of God being revealed, was indeed revealed. 70 AD was the point when they (the first century Christians) would leave the old age, and enter the new. What Paul wrote to first century Christians was about what was happenning then. This is why it is good to research, as we can see that Paul was not talking to us, but to them. The truth changes when you change who it's said to. This is the flaw of any translation, or any "preacher's" interpretation; that the context gets lost along the way. The symbolic nature of Hebrew thought on spiritual matters gets lost in our scientific age, and we all start looking for literal understandings.
And I have to disagree with the concept that material logic inherently fails to understand the "mysteries" of God. I offer that the "carnal mind" Paul referenced was the attitude in the actions people take when not in love. An action taken without love is of the "superiority" mindeset. Such a world creates a "pecking order" based on "survival of the strongest". Using our brains is not giving in to the carnal mind, but living without love is. Love only exists via God. It is what "makes man unique". It is the thing that "seperates us from the animals". Love is God, and God is what elevates us above the "only survival" mindset that tries to over run us. Selfishness, or pride, is what we often call it. But using logic, understanding, and applying the natural world around us to better understand spiritual truths is exactly what Solomon was famous for. Very often in the scripture, we see reference to the material reality to better explain the spiritual, such as with Jesus' parables. When you discount all material reality as evidence of spiritual truth, you deny some teaching styles in the scripture. The "material bad, spiritual good" view is Gnostic-based. I'm not sure if you've heard of Gnosticism, but it was a huge problem amount the first-century church, and has influenced many over the millenia. We currently know many aspects of these attitudes in what is called "New Age" in our culture. It's what makes the Asian philosophies so popular these days, with their focus on moving "beyond the body".
"Redemption isn't accomplished every time a person says "I'm a sinner, save me Jesus", but redemption was bought for everyone by Jesus by going through the crucifixion."
Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."
This is saying that there takes an action on the part of the person who is asking how to be saved. The reply is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,"
Paul was talking to the jailer, one person.
This does not apply universally to everybody in the whole world.
Jason, I am sorry to tell you, but you are worshiping another god other than the God of the Bible. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life; no one can come to the Father but by Him.
My advice to you is to get rid of all these ideas about God and salvation that you have picked up over the years, and start all over again. Get yourself a King James Bible and start reading it with new eyes. I suggest that you start with the Gospel of John. Pray for God to open your eyes and ask him to reveal Himself to you.
It sounds like all your religion is in your head. I worship a God who is alive. I have Christ living in me.
1 Jn. 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
and every spirit that does not confess that* Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the [spirit] of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
I know exactly what this passage means. It means exactly what it says. Please don't try to twist it into something else. Jesus Christ is (present perfect tense) come in the flesh. This means that it is still ongoing.
I pray that God would open your eyes and reveal Himself to you.
But what was he being "saved" from? Many will say from Hell. But the answer is actually from the judgement at the conclusion of the age, at the Parousa of the Christ. Jesus said those there on the Mount of Olives that not all of that generation would pass before the entirety of what he'd prophecied of his parousa took place. The judgement at the end of the old covenant age came to pass by the end of that generation, and the apostles were charged with getting the word out about Jesus being the way to pass through the judgement at the end of the Law, and have God write his law on their hearts. Paul was speaking to a subject of the Law of the Old Covenant, not a member of the New Covenant. The "this generation" "coming" was the freeing of man from the condemnation their sin brought about by the Law. The high priests that performed the sacrifices for the sins of all of Israel didn't go about the land, asking who wanted to be included. All were included in the sacrificial sin covering. Hebrews shows us that Jesus is the eternal high priest who payed for all sin once. If new sin were coming about all the time, he would have to continually be sacrificed. So, I propose that we have nothing to be "saved" from now, as your example was referencing. "Not one jot or tittle" of the Law was lost until the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, the beginning of the New Covenant. If you aren't following every Law, observing the Sabbath, sacrificing doves, then are you living in the New? If the Law is written in anyone's heart, then the entirety of the Mosaic Law is passed, and thus the first-century "saving" is no longer a necessity to receive God's grace.
This would be an example of why deep theological study does indeed affect how we live. If we are free of worrying about attoning for our own sins, then we are free to love others, as was the "greatest comandment".
DianaK,
If you are reading "spirit" in 1 Jn 1:4 as a person, then what of the spirits that have never heard of Jesus, and thus cannot accept or deny?
Saved from the judgment to come. God will judge this world at the end of the age. If you die in your sins you will go to eternal damnation.
Jesus fulfilled all the law and the prophets.
The sacrifice offered by the priest was for the sins of the Nation of Israel.
Every spirit that confesses... If you have Christ in you, then you have the Holy Spirit in you. That "Spirit" confesses Jesus come in the flesh. If you don't have Christ's Spirit in you, then you must have another spirit, the spirit of antichrist living in you. You either have the Spirit of Christ or you have the spirit of antichrist. That's the best way I can explain it.
Post a Comment