If a significant part of one's gospel, is "anti-legalism", and one constantly refers to "legalism" as one of the primary evils of others, the isn't there a point where "anti-legalism" simply becomes "legalism" of a different stripe?
110 comments:
Anonymous
said...
You might do well to read a couple of famous anti-legalists to get their views on it. Try reading Paul and Jesus.
This is like the faux complaint against those who advocate inclusive welcoming... some complain that these inclusive types are not inclusive of those who exclude. The complaint reveals a lack of understanding of the problem and the words/concepts involved.
If you say so, although it doesn't really address the point of the post. But these off topic comments are more and more your stock in trade as we're seeing.
Jesus seemed pretty clear that He didn't come to abolish or get rid of the law, while actually raising the standards of the law and teaching that obeying His commands was the highest form of showing love for Him.
That's irrelevant, because the topic of the post is whether or not anti-legalism becomes legalism at some point.
Those who preach "inclusion" are preaching sin and perversion. To pretend anyone is being excluded simply for being compelled to sin, as opposed as opposing the tolerance, enabling or minimizing of sin is a lie. But that's the preaching of "inclusion". God is very exclusionary. Jesus was very exclusionary. Paul is very exclusionary. Gracefully embracing sin and perversion results in being excluded from heaven.
When inclusion is a concept that is inherently exclusionary, you are correct. I don't understand the concept of a square circle either. Where you might get confused is that I have no interest in understanding the warped logic that demands inclusion, yet excludes at the same time. It's almost like inclusion has this legalistic component that determines who gets excluded.
As Art notes, YHWH through Jesus actually seems pretty exclusionary. The difference is that YHWH expects certain things from His heirs, and those that choose not to do those things exclude themselves.
Inclusion, as it is commonly used for progressive christians, doesn't include the notion of repentance. It's "Y'all can be included here no matter what (well not really) and we're perfectly happy to allow you to stagnate as long as you want.", or something like that. At least from my experience.
It's "Comfort the afflicted" without "afflicting the comfortable". As long as someone is comfortable in certain behaviors, there's no real sense of urgency to change those behaviors.
So, do you think a person who is dedicated to his spouse would also embrace cheating on their wife?
Do you think a pacifist should also endorse brutal slaughter of children?
Notions like these are ideals. So, of course the pacifist would exclude slaughter as a policy. And of course, the inclusive would reject exclusive policies and people who promote them.
What that might look like at my church, for instance, is that someone who thinks "god hates gays!" would be welcome to attend, they'd be included in that way. But they would be excluded from preaching and exclusivity sermon, for instance. Because that's in opposition to inclusion, welcome, love and grace.
Not sure what's confusing to you about that.
Likewise for believers in grace. By definition, you're opposed to legalistic thinking.
No, but I'm not the one touting inclusion as the be all and end all. I realize that exclusion makes perfect sense in all sorts of areas of life. I believe, for example, that it is perfectly acceptable to exclude those who are ineligible to vote from voting. You are the one touting this exclusive inclusion, not me.
I don't think anyone should "endorse" a "brutal slaughter of children", yet I also realize that in the fallen and sinful world we live in that sometimes there might be more to consider beyond your simplistic, vague question.
Then we agree, your "inclusive world" clings to a legalistic exclusion of those who are somehow not acceptable to be included. Got it. It's not, I perfectly understand why your inclusive ideal rests on a legalistic exclusion of those who don't pass your purity test. The untermensch as it were. Those who don't check the right boxes get excluded, you've been very clear.
Speaking as someone who you'd likely exclude, I say thanks. I have no desire to be in any inclusive group that so legalistically excludes people.
Somehow, I'm supposed to blindly accept the fact that Jesus excluded the "goats" from the same reward as the "sheep" because the "goats" failed to meet a legal standard based on their failure to do the right things, in the right way, to the right people as the gospel, while simultaneously being expected to accept that Jesus included everyone with absolutely zero exceptions. Great theology, that.
"Then we agree, your "inclusive world" clings to a legalistic exclusion of those who are somehow not acceptable to be included. Got it."
In a worldview based upon grace, love and forgiveness, literally ALL are welcome.
But because we support living lives of grace and inclusion, if someone comes along and starts kicking people out of the community, or intimidates/terrorizes some people away, we would invite them NOT to do that and to step aside if they can't stop from terrorizing or intimidating others. Precisely because we value grace and inclusion.
Again, I'd point you to the Jesus who came to welcome all, but began with the poor and marginalized and if you were going to fight against grace, Jesus said they'd be cast out.
If you have a free Republic but put fascists, oligarchs, racists and other exclusivists in charge, you won't have a free Republic. One set of ideals are antithetical to the other and can't coexist.
"So, do you think a person who is dedicated to his spouse would also embrace cheating on their wife?"
Serious question: What the burning hell does this mean in the context of this post and even the context of Dan's off-topic drivel? A dedicated spouse doesn't cheat or else such a spouse isn't dedicated at all.
"Do you think a pacifist should also endorse brutal slaughter of children?"
YOU do, Dan...both your unflinching support for abortion...which is the brutal slaughter of children not yet born... and your anti-Semitic support for Gazans who also brutally slaughter children.
"Notions like these are ideals."
Yeah, sure.
"So, of course the pacifist would exclude slaughter as a policy."
Unless they're the conceived yet unborn or Israelis. Because...you know...embrace grace.
"And of course, the inclusive would reject exclusive policies and people who promote them."
And of course this means "the inclusive" aren't really inclusive at all.
"What that might look like at my church, for instance, is that someone who thinks "god hates gays!" would be welcome to attend, they'd be included in that way. But they would be excluded from preaching and exclusivity sermon, for instance. Because that's in opposition to inclusion, welcome, love and grace."
No. That's not. That's exactly what inclusion is: allowing for all thoughts, ideas and opinions. Honest people call it "diversity" and strong people can handle opposing opinions being presented in the spirit of generating understanding.
"Not sure what's confusing to you about that."
You're contradicting yourself and presenting examples as if you oppose them when you clearly don't.
"Likewise for believers in grace. By definition, you're opposed to legalistic thinking."
That's not the definition of grace, nor does it reflect how we come to be blessed with God's. This "legalistic thinking" is just a false attack on people who abide the Will of God, rather than pretending they can pick and choose which behaviors to indulge and write off those who abide God as "legalistic" for reminding the sinner of the consequences the sinner is inviting. Indeed, that's not "grace" no matter how you try to redefine it. It's just lying.
As we're steered further and further off topic, we now get to the semantic nitpicking portion of the afternoon.
In a "worldview based on grace" the "goats" don't get sent to "outer darkness where there is weeping a gnashing of teeth". In a "world of grace" y'all wouldn't be so legalistic in excluding those who don't kowtow to your hunches. In your 'worldview based on grace" you've just articulated universalism.
So, if people don't abide by your arbitrary, legalistic, rules you'll exclude them. Gotcha.
Except,as you regularly point out, Jesus did NOT "welcome all". If we limit ourselves to your favorite bit of eisegesis, we see that Jesus EXCLUDED the "GOATS". Jesus EXCLUDED the "foolish virgins". Jesus EXCLUDED the guy who buried the gold. The list of people that Jesus excluded isn't particularly short.
The list you exclude also isn't short.
Again, I'm not the one advocating inclusion. However, your "free republic" example is too good to ignore.
In this, hypothetical "free republic" one would assume that the freedom is limited.
In this hypothetical "free republic" one would assume freedom of speech is protected, including speech that some might find offensive.
In this hypothetical "free republic" one would assume free and fair elections.
So, if the people of the "free republic" vote in free and fair elections and choose to elect people you don't like isn't that part and parcel of a "free republic"?
This objection to "oligarchs", seems strange since the DFL has more "oligarchs" supporting it than does the GOP, and one "oligarch" in particular has been buying elective offices (particularly prosecutors) for years and I've never heard you object.
But really excellent. You've gone from simply ignoring the original premise and question asked in the post, to a thinly veiled screed against Trump in such a very few comments. Well played.
As Dan chose not to deal with my problem with his stupid example, I doubt he'll deal with yours. The concept of a "dedicated spouse" is antithetical to Dan's gospel of inclusion. Perhaps he's secretly hardcore LDS.
Dan's example of "his church" simply demonstrates that they preach inclusivity, but practice a legalistic exclusivity.
My church would open it's doors to anyone, yet they would be confronted with The Gospel and expected to repent, follow Jesus, and become His disciple. Those that don't want to do that, will leave. But they wouldn't be excluded.
Jesus seemed pretty legalistic with that who "love Me/obey My commandments-lust=rape-hate=murder thing".
Dan is legalistic as hell, he just hides it behind piles of bullshit. For example, I'm excluded from commenting at his blog, yet he claims to be inclusive. Inclusivity at his blog only comes if you follow his unwritten, arbitrary, and legalistic demands.
"Jesus seemed pretty clear that He didn't come to abolish or get rid of the law, while actually raising the standards of the law and teaching that obeying His commands was the highest form of showing love for Him."
You misunderstand Jesus. He was not "raising the standards of the law," at least in the sense of adding more and more rules on the backs of humans, setting life-depleting joyless drudgery to weigh people down. That was the legalistic Pharisaical Way that leads to death.
He was helping expand our minds - especially those of the legalistic Pharisees and those under their geaceless thumbs - that laws and rules are not about counting steps or measuring work units and keeping ritualistically "clean." It was about love and welcome and love and grace and love and welcome... it was summed up, Jesus said, by Love.
Again, I can't recommend reading Jesus' teachings, just by themselves, enough.
The question I'd ask you, Craig, is if you knew nothing of Christianity or the Bible and you were introduced to the four Gospels, do you think the notion of PSA theory would... could possibly pop into your mind?
"Oh! Jesus is speaking of a very angry God that can't abide humans in their imperfections and 'sin.' Jesus is saying he's going to PAY to get you in heaven by dying in your place to appease this God who won't... can't!, be appeased in any other way!"
Do you agree that one just would not get that from Jesus' teachings and HIS sermons of Good news?
You are, of course, welcome at my blog. As I've repeatedly noted. I do have some expectations. No vulgar, racist, sexist or otherwise harmful to others comments, for example. And, I expect you to answer reasonable questions asked of you.
If YOU choose to stay away because of these rules, that's YOUR decision. Same thing as with the Excluders.
But don't say, I'm not willing to abide by your rules, therefore, Dan is not inclusive. Having some basic rules is not being exclusive or unwelcoming.
It's certain BEHAVIORS that are not welcome. And just as with Jesus' goats, they self-selected out.
You made it quite clear some time ago that I was not welcome at your blog, and I have abided by your demand. That you now say that I am "welcome", as long as I bow to your arbitrary rules at the risk of being deleted and lied about, is hardly welcoming or inclusive. But you can run your blog according to whatever random, arbitrary, legalistic rules you want. Just acknowledge your exclusivity.
What criteria you use to exclude is immaterial, that you exclude is material.
Well, if you say so. I can see how declaring that hatred=murder was lowering the standards. But since you've made your pronouncement, I guess the matter is settled. Well, if you define ""raising the standard" to mean what you want it to, then sure. The problem is that "hate=murder" is not adding to the law as much as clarifying the law.
Your obsession with changing the subject and going further and further off topic is appalling. That you count on my extending you grace that you will not extend me to pull this bullshit is messed up.
My problem is that I don't subdivide and rank the scriptures the way you do. I don't pull Jesus earthly ministry out of the context of what He did during the OT, and I don't pull it out of the context of the teachings of His closest followers in the rest of the NT.
If you cut off a tree from it's roots, you end up with problems, If you cut Jesus' earthly ministry off from His work from Alpha to Omega (so to speak)(Creation to New Creation, etc), then you've taken the middle of the story out of the bigger context.
You are free to do as you wish, but when you arrogantly pretend like this bullshit is the only right way to look at scripture, you look stupid.
Your "rules" are fluid and constantly altered when you can't stand the heat your idiocy brings upon you. You hide behind your goofy, arbitrary rules which are never applied equally to all, most specifically yourself and you don't abide them when visiting other blogs. You are exclusive not based on any rule other than one mustn't ever disagree with you.
"If you cut off a tree from it's roots, you end up with problems, If you cut Jesus' earthly ministry off from His work from Alpha to Omega (so to speak)(Creation to New Creation, etc), then you've taken the middle of the story out of the bigger context."
From where I sit, this is precisely the problem with more modern conservative evangelicals. You all seem to have just cut out the core story and gospel of Jesus at the heart of Christianity. As a result, you all have all sorts of ethical and literal biblical problems, not to mention rational problems.
Who proclaims a person as their leader and then virtually ignore that leader's teaching?
Which is why I keep asking the ever-unanswered question: do you see the virtual literal absence of your human traditions on PSA theories in his sermons? Do you recognize that people reading the Gospel witness would NOT conclude a PSA theory?
"If you cut off a tree from it's roots, you end up with problems, If you cut Jesus' earthly ministry off from His work from Alpha to Omega (so to speak)(Creation to New Creation, etc), then you've taken the middle of the story out of the bigger context."
If, in that, you're suggesting interpreting the whole of biblical witness through the lens of Jesus is a problem, I'd disagree. Interpreting the whole through the lens of Jesus, our clearest representation of God, is a long and rational approach to biblical exegesis.
When you start out by announcing that you are merely spewing fantastical, made up hunches, you lose me.
What "seems" so to you is not reality because of how it "seem"s to you. That your biased, prejudiced, imperfect, mind believes that something "seem"s a certain way does not make your "seem"s into reality.
Well, you seem to for a start.
Since none of us (who waste our time with your bullshit) is doing so, who cares?
You keep up with this "unanswered question" bullshit, when I just answered it after having seen it for the first time.
What some small minority of people, who (as I noted) rip parts of the 4 Gospels from their rightful place in the context of the entirety of scripture, conclude is irrelevant to the Truth. That you (hiding behind this alleged "people") choose to interpret parts of parts of the Gospels in a certain way does not make your interpretation correct. That you seem to think that your personal, subjective, biased, eisegesis is somehow correct and that others should blindly accept your eisegesis is one more demonstration of your arrogance.
I'm suggesting that pulling a few of Jesus' quotes out of both their immediate context, as well as out of their larger context, to support a gospel that doesn't align with the whole of scripture is a problem.
Interpreting scripture through your personal, biased, subjective, eisegisis by pulling a few of Jesus' teachings out of context, and blithely assuming that you know what Jesus really meant ( or didn't mean) is hardly enough to inspire confidence in your works based gospel.
It's not at all obvious that few would fail to understand PSA by actually reading the Gospels, particularly the words of Jesus Himself. Indeed, one must intentionally disregard His words to pretend He never spoke of that which is now referred to as "PSA". We've been through this hundreds of times before and Dan absolutely dismisses Christ's words in order to pretend He didn't speak of it. And while Dan likes to drone on about the "Good News" without ever defining it, the fact is that PSA IS the Good News.
Given that one of the final things Jesus said while on the cross, which we might conclude is pretty important, was "tetelestai". It's usually translated "it is finished", but it is actually a business/legal term which means "the debt has been paid in full". Why would Jesus conclude His earthly ministry by telling His followers this, if He did not in fact mean it? How could one conclude that He really meant something other than what He said.
As Stan noted, Dan's stock "gospel" proof text ( Jesus quoting/validating Isiah) ends with "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.". Yet even the most idiotic among us can see that the scripture was NOT actually fulfilled on that day. That all of those things continued after that day.
Now Jesus was known to use future perfect tense, and it's possible that He was in that instance. That He was saying that all of those societal ills will be redeemed in the future, because Jesus came for that purpose. That we can count on the future fulfillment of Isiah's prophecy in it's entirety because of Jesus work on earth.
Dan's selective use of out of context snippets of Jesus' words to form his own works based gospel is kind of amusing as it suggests that no one but him is smart enough to figure this out and the he must condescend to bless us with his truth.
Is PSA perfect, no. Is PSA the theory of the atonement that best aligns with scripture, yes. Is Dan predisposed to dismiss PSA based on his prejudices, biases, worldview, and arrogance, also yes.
I've read the article, when Stan posted it. They still don't even begin to touch the eisegetical, backwards problem that you all are hating.
WHERE IS the "gospel" - as you all imagine Paul is teaching - in the sermons of Jesus?
It's literally not there and y'all ignore that reality.
Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you are saying that it doesn't matter to you that the evangelical PSA theory is missing from Jesus' teachings. But if so, then say that. Just be clear about it.
"It's not at all obvious that few would fail to understand PSA by actually reading the Gospels, particularly the words of Jesus Himself."
Then do it. Jesus begins his ministry by saying he came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. From there, we have multiple teachings and sermons from Jesus. Name even ONE PASSAGE where Jesus himself said anything remotely like your PSA theory.
Mind you: Jesus is clear he's preaching good news to the crowds at large. So set aside your two off topic favorite ripped from context proof text passages where Jesus says to the 12 alone "ransom" or "body and blood as sacrifice..." and point to even ONE sermon where he's preaching to save the poor and lost where he says anything that would cause someone to think, " Oh, he's talking about a blood payment to appease an angry god to secure salvation for some in a business transaction " (which is not, of course, grace.
When you can't find even one passage, then have the intellectual honesty to admit, at least, that Jesus nowhere preached a clear message of PSA.
Stunning refutation of the article, the grasp of scripture and depth of your criticisms astound me. Your ability to dismantle and debunk that well researched piece packed with scripture and the work of the early Church fathers is spectacular.
That you manage to couch it is nonsensical terms "backwards problem that you all are hating." makes your criticism that much more devastating.
The problem is that we don't limit our study to only Jesus' "sermons". That you ignore the author's references to Jesus' teachings, seems to indicate that you didn't pay much attention, just skimmed it because your preconceived notions are all you really need.
As usual, you either "don't understand...correctly" or you simply make shit up and pretend like your made up bullshit is our position.
Hell, you even acknowledge "two" instances where it occurs in Jesus' teachings (what is it, sermons or teachings? Be consistent), yet somehow you've decided (all by yourself) that two mentions equals "missing".
That all you can do is play this bullshit game of telling us we're wrong, without providing specific examples instead of making a case that you are right, says all I really want to hear about this off topic bullshit.
Your comment now belies your claim that you read the article, because it absolutely demonstrates that the BIBLICAL (not "evangelical" as if it was made up later) PSA theory is clearly in the teachings of Jesus, as well as throughout Scripture, acknowledged by early church fathers (including Paul and Peter) and is indeed what the "Good News" is. That is to say IT LITERALLY AND ABSOLUTELY IS THERE IN THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST despite your anti-Christ insistence to the contrary.
This notion that Christ's public sermons to hordes of followers MUST include PSA in order for PSA to be a Biblical concept of which Christ spoke often enough for true Christians is absurd and a very, very weak angle to play. There are public sermons and there are other teachings spoken by Christ to His disciples. What's most important is that the term refers to an obvious and unmistakable truth of Christ's primary purpose while on earth: to die that we might live. All who understood Jewish law at the time knew precisely what John the Baptist was referencing when he said of Christ: "Behold! The Lamb of God!"
"So set aside your two off topic favorite ripped from context proof text passages"
This. coming from someone who literally has one passage that he's ripped from it's context and is the only passage he regularly uses to "prove his point", is spectacularly arrogant and the height of both hubris and hypocrisy. The double standard exhibited here is impressive, as is the conceited notion that he gets to make demands at my blog.
Jesus concludes you pet proof text with "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.". As all of the societal ills Jesus mentioned persisted beyond that day, it seems as though your big "gotcha" proof text is an indication that Jesus failed.
That you think that you can put artificial limits on the authority of Jesus' teachings by arbitrarily limiting authority to His "sermons" , reeks of arrogance and hubris. The notion that Jesus' words to His disciples (the people who He charged with preaching His Gospel to all the world), His words on the cross, or His words in more intimate gatherings are somehow less than His words on His "sermons" is absurd. It's like you're making some bizarre "ex cathedra" argument or some other absurd nonsense that you've made up.
As has been noted, the PSA theory has been around since Athanasius (prior to 373 AD), so to suggest that it's an "evangelical" (18th century) invention is simply not supported by the evidence.
As also noted, this new, arbitrary limitation on Christ's teachings being authoritative is absurd.
Given how often He spoke in parables or other figurative language that the crowds didn't understand, it's likely that He did speak of it in His "sermons" just not as explicitly as Dan would like.
Excellent point regarding John. As the entire OT sacrificial system was pointing to Jesus in His role as the perfect sacrificial lamb, for John to open his recognition of Jesus in this way is certainly strongly suggestive.
"It's not at all obvious that few would fail to understand PSA by actually reading the Gospels, particularly the words of Jesus Himself."
"Then do it"
It's been done. As Craig states well, limiting His teachings to "sermons" as if "sermons" are somehow more meaningful and important than any other expression of what He conveyed is absurd and a cheap attempt to dismiss His reason for living as man among the world.
"Jesus begins his ministry by saying he came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized."
You don't even know what that means, despite how often you default to saying it. Indeed, I can't recall at any time in the, at least, 17 years we've been going at it where you've attempted to give your understanding of what that means, and certainly not an intelligent, coherent explanation. It's just something you say as if it is THE message of greatest importance, without explaining what message is being conveyed.
"From there, we have multiple teachings and sermons from Jesus. Name even ONE PASSAGE where Jesus himself said anything remotely like your PSA theory."
That's been done countless times over that 17 years and you just disregard, dismiss and pretend it's nowhere to be found after having it pointed out for your edification. But here, you now mix "sermons" with "teachings", which reduces your chances of proving your position. You were better off with sticking to just "sermons".
Fortunately, real Christians don't pretend there's a difference when dealing with the Words of Christ and the context or scenario in which they are expressed by Him. Only a fake like you would think it's a significant point.
So...put your big boy pants on, stop your rote repetition of fake christian talking points ("Good New", "Grace") for which you give no explanation, and saying something that actually reflects Christian teaching in the same way all of our links and resources over the years have demonstrated and affirmed.
"When you can't find even one passage, then have the intellectual honesty to admit, at least, that Jesus nowhere preached a clear message of PSA."
Fortunately, we've done it countless times over the years, but as the liar you are, you pretend otherwise. The problem seems to be that what He preached isn't clear to YOU, while it's been crystal clear to Biblical scholars going all the way back to His Apostles. What you universalists need to believe in order to preach your heresy is of even lesser importance when you can't explain yourself.
I've pointed out the flaw in limiting the gospel to one passage, and the flaws in Dan's interpretation of that passage. Strangely enough, Jesus never expresses His mission or The Gospel in that way again. Obviously, to focus on that one passage without acknowledging the fulfilled prophecy is a problem, as is ignoring the possibility that Jesus was speaking in future perfect tense.
As we approach Easter, the passage of the Last Supper becomes a focus. It's strange that Jesus most clearly enunciated something that supports PSA at the same time as He instituted the only "sacrament" that He expected His followers to continue to engage in. He tied together the OT threads of redemption and the first covenant being sealed with the shedding on blood, and instructed His followers to continue to celebrate the shedding of His blood as the perfect Passover lamb.
So much of Dan's eisegesis seems intended to confirm his personal feelings and he never seems to come to any conclusions that diverge from his personal and political views, that I suspect that you may be correct.
"As Craig states well, limiting His teachings to "sermons" as if "sermons" are somehow more meaningful and important than any other expression of what He conveyed is absurd and a cheap attempt to dismiss His reason for living as man among the world."
Y'all continue to completely miss the point.
A. Jesus repeatedly makes clear he and his disciples are out "preaching the good news" to the people.
B. We have multiple instances where Jesus' teachings and sermons are recorded. That is, we know at least SOME of the teachings of Jesus' good news as recorded by the gospel authors... these sermons of good news to the people.
C. AND YET, in ZERO instances do we have Jesus giving his good news with words that include PSA. ZERO times.
D. Therefore, if you accept that Jesus' sermons and teachings are recorded AND if they don't even hint at PSA, then you all are literally affirming a different gospel than what Jesus taught.
Do you affirm that Jesus's recorded teachings and sermons DO contain Jesus' Gospel?
Or, is it the case that you think, Whoopsie! Jesus accidentally left out all mentions of your gospel on accident?
Or that the Gospel authors accidentally left it out?
WHERE in Jesus' recorded teachings does he definitively offer you PSA theory?
A. Yet He does not limit the communication of The Good News merely His preaching. Did His interaction with the Rich Young Ruler not communicate The Good News?
B. We also have multiple instances where Jesus words/teachings/comments are recorded in other circumstances, are those less important?
C. Since, in your own post on the topic, you acknowledge "two", I guess you'll have to pick which one it is. Zero or two.
D. Since we have no reason to blindly accept your hunches about limiting Jesus communication of The Good News to only His sermons, who cares.
I affirm that every thing Jesus said throughout scripture, OT/NT points towards The Gospel. I don't limit Jesus communication of The Gospel to merely His sermons.
No, Jesus did not leave out anything necessary for salvation.
No, the writers of the gospels did not leave out anything necessary for salvation.
Multiple instances have been pointed out, and you haven't demonstrated those to be false or incorrect, why would anyone add more for you to ignore? Where does He contradict PSA? Where does He explicitly offer your Moral Example theory of the atonement?
He does, you just want to exclude those times because they aren't in sermons.
It's almost like you think that Jesus' primary mission on earth was to complete your litany of tasks that constitute the gospel. "Free,feed, give sight, liberty". Yet, He clearly failed to fulfill your mission while He was on earth. All of those things still persist 2000+ years later. (at least in the physical realm)
So, perhaps that wasn't Jesus' mission (eliminating social ills), perhaps He wasn't here to spread The Gospel as much as to prepare His disciples to spread The Gospel after His death. Perhaps, you're selling Jesus short by limiting His impact to only His sermons.
"So much of Dan's eisegesis seems intended to confirm his personal feelings and he never seems to come to any conclusions that diverge from his personal and political views,"
You continue to forget: I believed what you all believe. It was Scripture (along with the biblically irrational and intellectually dishonest views of conservative Dan) that drove me away from the human traditions I grew up with. From where I stand, conservative ideology is stunted and rife with eisegesis. It's a rationally vapid and biblically shallow approach to "Bible study," almost entirely dependent upon human traditions to fill in the gaping holes in their biblical and rational logic.
My "personal feelings" are that we should love God, love ALL of humanity, love God's creation and thus, be kind, compassionate, helpful and rational. And I get that from the Bible, not merely my personal feelings.
My religious philosophies DID diverge from sound biblical teaching and I had to change my beliefs to be more in alignment with God, love, justice, decency and reason. And I continue to change when I learn better.
At any rate, reality shows what it shows. I read the Bible and DID change my personal and political views to better alignment with God and reason.
So, no. You don't see the problem you all are having. Got it. I mean, it's obvious, I was just wondering if you were sufficiently self-aware to even acknowledge it.
No, I don't forget that you've repeatedly made this claim. I do doubt that you "believed as I believe", for two reasons. You repeatedly misrepresent the beliefs of others, and you have almost zero idea of what I believe. You do seem to hold a view of what "conservatives" believe that is more of a caricature than an accurate representation.
I don't care about your "personal feelings" or hunches. They have no value and are not representative of any objective standard. That you take things "from the Bible" and use eisegesis to mold those things in ways that make you feel comfortable and align with your worldview isn't the big win you seem to think it is.
As you can prove none of this objectively, who cares.
No, I don't see this mystery "problem" you've conjured up.
Strangely enough, you don't see the problem you have when you limit Jesus' authoritative teachings to only His "sermons", and in you ignoring the examples that don't fit with your subjective hunches.
"Since we have no reason to blindly accept your hunches about limiting Jesus communication of The Good News to only His sermons"
The reason we have is what Jesus literally said. HE SAID he was here to preach good news to the poor and marginalized.
Do you think Jesus is recorded as preaching good news to the poor, etc?
Jesus told John the Baptist that he was preaching good news to the poor, etc.
Do you think Jesus is recorded as preaching his good news to the poor, etc?
Jesus in multiple places that he was preaching good news to the people.
Do you think Jesus is recorded as preaching his good news to the people?
Presumably you agree that, Yes, Jesus DID preach good news to the poor, to the marginalized, to the people, right?
AND, it is your personal opinion and human tradition that "the gospel" that Jesus was preaching was something like PSA, right?
Then WHERE is Jesus recorded as preaching your PSA to the poor, the marginalized, the people? Where is it? The two verses that could even slightly be considered PSA-adjacent were NOT in sermons to the people, they were in private meetings, right?
So where, then, is Jesus recorded even ONE time preaching this PSA theory of yours to the masses that Jesus said he was preaching it to?
At the very least, do you understand why this is a rational biblical question for those who affirm some sort of allegiance to the inerrancy theory?
"You repeatedly misrepresent the beliefs of others, and you have almost zero idea of what I believe. You do seem to hold a view of what "conservatives" believe that is more of a caricature than an accurate representation."
And yet, you can't point to ONE single instance of me misrepresenting the beliefs of evangelicals. That would give a rational person pause.
And yes, I get that you probably honestly think you have or can. And yet, in reality, you can't.
"you don't see the problem you have when you limit Jesus' authoritative teachings to only His "sermons", and in you ignoring the examples that don't fit with your subjective hunches."
Because I haven't ever, in any words I've written limited Jesus' authoritative teachings to only His "sermons."
I have said that we objectively can identify the words spoken by Jesus that have been recorded by the Gospel writers by looking at them and seeing, "Oh, yes. Jesus is literally recorded as having said he'd come to preach good news to the poor, etc" but that's just stating the obvious and observable. That isn't limiting Jesus' authority.
Likewise, when some humans read Paul's words and conclude, "Here is Paul describing Jesus' Gospel as being PSA..." When y'all put forth that human opinion and I disagree, pointing out that Jesus didn't literally say anything like that, that isn't limiting Jesus' authoritative teachings. It IS, however, rightly limiting some HUMAN'S teachings and opinions as not equal to Jesus' own words.
And, of course, it's pointing to the "it's not IN there" problem that you don't even understand.
Dan, who still can't master posting under his actual account or replying to specific comments, is wrong again.
Yes, He did direct some of what He said while on earth to the "poor and marginalized", but that wasn't the entirety of His message. Of course, you totally miss the point of the comment you responded to.
This practice of asking the same question repeatedly, in slightly different ways, is one of the stupidest tactics you use. Especially as it ignores the point I was making.
So to be clear and to answer multiple questions (again) with one response. Yes, Jesus did talk about the "poor and marginalized" in some instances. He did not talk about or to them exclusively, nor did He promise that their temporal poverty and marginalization would magically end due to His work on earth. In fact, He almost totally failed to accomplish any of that during His 3 year earthly ministry.
It's not "my personal opinion", but yes Jesus did clearly communicate that He was the fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system. The "perfect lamb", the "Passover lamb" the "fulfillment of the law", etc. So I do agree with the prevailing view of Church history that Jesus' gospel was not limited to merely alleviating temporal suffering for a portion of the population.
That you are left with limiting Jesus' authoritative teaching to only His "preaching" just shows how desperate you are to eliminate anything Jesus might have said that doesn't fit your preconceived notions from consideration. That I've addressed this previously and that you've ignored that, speaks volumes as well.
No. That you now feel the need to bring up inerrancy as a way to drag this post further off topic just reinforces my conclusions about your hunches.
I've repeatedly pointed out multiple instances of you doing exactly this. It's not my problem if you ignored those and didn't address them at the time. I'm certainly not going to enable you in taking this thread further off of the topic of the post that you already have.
I understand the power of your delusions, but I can't help you with them, nor will I reinforce them.
Really? Are you just writing crap without having any idea of what you've written? Is your entire new narrative based on only considering what Jesus preached in His "sermons"? Absolutely hilarious.
Yes, you have. You've done so while placing those limited instances above other things Jesus said, and you've repeatedly emphasized Jesus' "sermons" as being of more value that anything else. Of course you "misunderstand" the point being made. I've not said that you are "limiting Jesus' authority", only that you are "limiting" which teachings of Jesus you consider authoritative or more authoritative. That you're obvious observations focus in on a small portion of Jesus' total communication and then only in His "sermons" might seem Reasonable to you, unfortunately not so much to others.
As Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to white what he did, heard from Jesus' closest confidants what The Gospel was, and was commissioned directly by Jesus to take The Gospel to the gentiles, I'm not sure how it's possible to relegate Paul's writings to a lower tier. But then again, so much of what you do and say makes no sense.
I do understand your hunch, I just don't agree with it.
"Is your entire new narrative based on only considering what Jesus preached in His "sermons"? Absolutely hilarious."
No. You can tell by the way I've never said that.
Pathetically sad, this inability to read and correctly understand them.
I doubt it's your fault entirely. I think it's the infection of pharisaical, conservative extremism that causes so many - including myself once upon a time - to read for understanding.
"You've done so while placing those limited instances above other things Jesus said, and you've repeatedly emphasized Jesus' "sermons" as being of more value that anything else."
Sigh.
Again, literally not what I've said or suggested.
Take a breath, calm your mind. Read for understanding. Consider...
Ralph, a former parishioner of Reverend X says, "Reverend X was always going on about chocolate ice cream! They preached 100 sermons in their lifetime. In each one of them, they clearly affirmed their love for chocolate ice cream. Read them yourself, you'll see it's true!"
And so, you read Rev X's sermons, all 100 that they had written down.
However, in not ONE SINGLE LINE in one single sermon did the Reverend state they loved chocolate ice cream. They never mentioned ice cream or desserts, either. They gave no preferences for any foods in any sermons. In ONE line, they mentioned coffee beans growing on a coffee tree, as a metaphor. But love of ice cream is literally not in any sermons.
Now, when the topic comes up Ralph states authoritatively, "So, we know as a fact that Rev X loved that chocolate ice cream." If you then clarify and state factually, "No, the Reverend never did say that or anything like that."... you are just being factually correct. You're not limiting Rev X or anything, you're just stating the actual, observable facts.
That was probably too long a metaphor to help. What I'm saying that you clearly aren't understanding is that IF someone is saying... Idea ONE appears in THIS SPECIFIC BOOK, And IF you read that specific book and Idea ONE is not in that book THEN, you would correctly state, No, Idea ONE is not in that specific book,
In that case, you're not limiting anyone or anything. You're just stating an observable fact.
PSA is not found in the sermons of Jesus to the crowds, where Jesus said he'd preached the good news.
Or I can tell by the fact that you keep pointing out that Jesus never mentioned it in His "sermons".
Anything to avoid the implications of it possibly being your fault. Acknowledging that you've moved the goalposts from the red letters in the Gospels, to Jesus' "sermons", would make you look bad so you pretend.
Again, I'm just reading your words and taking them at face value. If there's some secret meaning to ferret out, that's your problem. But, by all means repeat what you just said in the previous comment again.
No, because "sermons" are only part of the totality of one's communication.
But thanks for demonstrating that I was correct in your obsession with sermons to the diminishment of all else.
By my quick research, there are five distinct verses from the Gospels which confirm the teaching of PSA. Of those, four are presentations of the words of Christ Himself. The fifth is the that said by John the Baptist, "Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world!" As Jesus did not rebuke him ("No no, John! That's not why I was born!"), He thus affirms His purpose. Scripture doesn't say how many people were on the banks waiting to be baptized by John...maybe not enough to be regarded as a sermon.
Once again, PSA is the Gospel, as nothing else said in it matters to us without Jesus dying in our place to pay the wages of our sin. The reason we're to believe in Him is because He did die in our place. THAT was the reason for His life on earth, not to provide a touchy-feely marxist slimmed down moral law to abide which takes out all that which Dan and his kind no longer wish to regard as sinful and displeasing to God.
I don't think it's illogical to include John 3:16 as evidence of the PSA concept being taught, given what it means with regard to why God sent His Only Begotten Son. I regard Dan's human tradition as akin to the idea that few want to know how the sausage is made.
"You continue to forget: I believed what you all believe."
We never forget you keep saying this as if it's true. We never forget how you demonstrate an incredible lack of understanding about conservatism, and as Craig says, what we believe, and this is demonstrated with every false assertion you make about us and what we believe...which are pretty much all of them.
" It was Scripture (along with the biblically irrational and intellectually dishonest views of conservative Dan) that drove me away from the human traditions I grew up with."
No it wasn't. It was your personal preferences failing to align with the truth of Scripture which drove you away from Scripture (not "human traditions", which is a term you use as an insult when actual Scripture is presented to you. Indeed, you've simply replaced "human traditions" which are no less an adherence to the Word and Will of God for your own "human traditions" which are adhere to what Dan Trabue finds personally pleasing.)
"From where I stand, conservative ideology is stunted and rife with eisegesis. It's a rationally vapid and biblically shallow approach to "Bible study," almost entirely dependent upon human traditions to fill in the gaping holes in their biblical and rational logic."
Not that you've ever been able to prove. "Nyuh uh" isn't an argument Dan, though it's the best we get from you.
"My religious philosophies DID diverge from sound biblical teaching and I had to change my beliefs to be more in alignment with God, love, justice, decency and reason."
Your "religious philosophies" are superficial adaptions of very limited aspects of the faith, purposely rejecting all you find personally problematic and based far too heavily on what you demand "God, love, justice, decency and reason" must look like in order to be any of those things, rather than aligning yourself with how Scripture represents them.
You can say you're more aligned with God's Will all you like. You prove constantly that isn't really true.
I'll take your word for it, although I'll bet that there are more that are not particularly blatant. Any "Lamb of God" reference could be considered at least a nod to PSA. Certainly the Passover supper in the upper room is pretty direct as well.
I'd argue that PSA is the explanation of the Atonement that most closely aligns with scripture. It's part of The Gospel, but not the entirety of it.
I'd argue that the entire third chapter of John supports the notion of PSA. It certainly doesn't support Dan's gospel.
Given that Dan's "theology" is based on eisegesis of cherry picked, out of context, proof texts it's hard to take his criticism seriously. Especially as he's not paid attention to conservative scholarship in the last 30 years.
When Dan places"decency" and "Reason" along with attributes of YHWH, that seems like a problem. For Dan to place his subjective, flawed, prejudiced, Reason on the same level as YHWH's love and justice is just one more example of his hubris and arrogance.
"Did not Jesus communicate "Good News" to Zacceus when He dined with Hi, or to Nicodemus, or the Roman Centurion?"
Zaccheus story, as a reminder:
"But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord,
“Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
YES. Jesus DID preach the good news to the poor when he talked with Zaccheus. And Zaccheus got it, as you see in his response. THAT is precisely the response one gives when one understands a gospel of grace that begins, as Jesus taught, with the poor and marginalized.
But WHERE is any mention of PSA in that story?
(Hint: it's not there...)
Same with Nicodemus, to whom Jesus said that he had not come into the world to condemn it, but to save it! Good news, indeed. And PSA? It's simply not there.
I've been quite clear that I'm talking about Jesus sermons AND teachings to the masses. That's different than two one-off comments to his already saved (if you will) followers. You're still not getting the point.
"AND, it is your personal opinion and human tradition that "the gospel" that Jesus was preaching was something like PSA, right?"
It's neither "personal opinion" or "human tradition" (which you clearly regard as the same thing and is thus redundancy). But as you can't seem to explain what "the gospel" is, or what "the Good News" is, except in the most vaguely ambiguous terms, you've neither refuted what we say, nor supported your objection to it.
"Then WHERE is Jesus recorded as preaching your PSA to the poor, the marginalized, the people?"
I would cite His reading of Isaiah in the Temple in Nazareth. Here's why:
As you like to remind us, He came to preach the "Good News" you can't define to the poor. Well, this is where He stated that as His mission by citing that passage. And given He was in a place where the Torah is read and studied routinely, Isaiah would be among the Books studied and read, wherein the Messiah is prophesied, including a very detailed rendering of what is now regarded as PSA in Chapter 53. By reading the scroll from Chapter 61, Jesus identifies Himself as the on referenced in that Chapter and thus the Messiah described in Chapter 53 as well. The only way this doesn't work for you is by dismissing what Jesus said about the prophesy being fulfilled by His presence. Isaiah either speaks of Christ's coming and subsequent sacrifice on our behalf...washing away our sins by the shedding of His Blood...or it doesn't.
Now...the question is just how big a crowed is necessary for you to regard this brief episode as a sermon in which He proclaimed His ultimate reason for having been born to us?
"The two verses that could even slightly be considered PSA-adjacent were NOT in sermons to the people, they were in private meetings, right?"
So, I mentioned five places where Jesus speaks of PSA to which the above makes six. But again, unlike actual Christians, you have some fluid number of mentions in Scripture that must be identified in order for something to be true, without which you choose to reject and dismiss what doesn't please you.
But as if that wasn't enough, your constant nonsense about how many times Jesus spoke of it and to whom is absurdly dishonest, because what matters most is whether or not PSA is a Biblical doctrine, which it most clearly is. As to whom Jesus spoke of this "work of the Father" He came to do, it must be understood that not everything He stated was stated so plainly that it was easy for everyone to understand it, and this reality of His reason for living among us was not fully understood by His Apostles until it happened. But He told them not to speak of it, because it was required that He be given up to the authorities and arrested in order for God's Will to be done. Some of His followers regarded Him as the Messiah without fully understanding just what that meant, and He kept it that way until His time had come to make it clear to them.
Indeed, Craig. Dan is notorious for pretending what had been done many times had never been done at all, so that he doesn't have to accept that he's been thoroughly schooled about the truth of whatever the issue on the table. That way, he can continue providing no substance for his own positions by demanding we once again support and prove what for honest people would be regarded as a settled issue.
And yet, "It" is indeed "in there" as I've shown. Dan downplays it because he now insists that Christ was required to preach in a manner which satisfies Dan, which is goofy because Dan doesn't even believe that which is pronounced throughout the entirety of Scripture, both directly and implicitly.
I love when Dan tries to compose an analogy. He really, really sucks at it.
But I know what he's saying there. He's saying if Jesus didn't speak of PSA before crowds of 5000, then PSA isn't Biblical. But Dan's problem (one of so many) is that what is "Biblical" doesn't require that Jesus said something specific about it. This isn't like the Koran where what Mo said on page 72 obliterates what he said on page 13. PSA runs throughout Scripture, Jesus spoke of it, His Apostles taught it. It's Biblical despite how it's presence in Scripture fails to meet Dan's self-serving standards.
PSA appears in the first three Gospels, revealed by Christ Himself and alluded to in John. Whether or not it was revealed to large crowds or just a handful of people is irrelevant to the fact that PSA is Biblical teaching.
It's interesting. Dan insists that the only time Jesus shares the "good news" is when He does so in "sermons" in from of large groups. So, I point out examples where Jesus shared the Good News in smaller, more intimate groups, and not in sermons. Dan then concludes that the story of Zaccheus is about "the poor" receiving "good news" when they have no idea what's transpired. Further, Dan pretends as though I offered the example as one where Jesus more explicitly communicates something akin to PSA, which was not the intent at all.
It's so much fun having these discussions with Dan because he's simply going to take anything I say and repurpose it into some bizarre support for his hunches.
I know you've been talking about "sermons to the masses" as the only place Jesus shared "good news". That's why I pointed out examples where Jesus shared the "Good News" in more intimate contexts.
Of course, both texts Zaccheus and Nicodemus make it clear that neither was "saved" in any context. But nice try.
Well, I don't know. Dan seems pretty adamant, so I guess the one who's most adamant is always right. Bonus points for using ALL CAPS, that means he's really right.
Of course it's not there because he's eisegeted it out, not because Jesus didn't affirm it.
He very much sucks at it because his analogies are always constructed so as to force people to agree with his preconceived notion, and therefore end up being tortured.
You are correct in that he's giving some sort of extra weight to Jesus "sermons", despite the fact that Jesus often spoke to large crowds in parables and with less clarity than to His disciples.
The concept of a perfect, blameless, sacrifice to atone for sin runs through the entirety of scripture and culminates in Jesus. Paul then articulates the concept with clarity as he spreads the Gospel to the gentiles.
"I know you've been talking about "sermons to the masses" as the only place Jesus shared "good news"."
I literally am not. I'm noting that JESUS SAID that he and his disciples were preaching and teaching good news to the poor. That COULD be individually, but it certainly suggests in his sermons to the crowds/masses is where it would occur, as well. In ANY case, whether to small groups, individuals or crowds, WHERE is Jesus found teaching PSA? Other than those two times it COULD be read into what Jesus said, it was with his followers who'd already been hearing the literal good news to the literal poor.
So, with individuals or crowds, WHERE is PSA?
The rich young ruler you cited? That was in a crowd, and he understood the good news to the poor that Jesus was preaching and he wasn't willing to give up his wealth and privilege, so he self-selected out. Nicodemus? No PSA.
Excellent point. Jesus reading of the passage from Isiah 61 in front of a relatively small group in a local synagogue (not a sermon, just a reading with a brief comment therefore inadmissible according to the Dan rules of evidence) is obviously linked with Isiah 53, which His audience would have known. The problem with this is that Dan likes to pick and choose which scriptures he wants to interpret in a woodenly literal manner. For him it makes total sense to interpret Luke 4:21 (even though it doesn't appear in any other gospels) in a woodenly literal manner, despite the ample evidence that Jesus did not end all of the ills He said he would. That obviously means that he's taking Isiah 61:1-2 in a woodenly literal manner, but who knows if the rest of Isiah 61, let alone 53 and the intervening chapters are taken in an equally woodenly literal manner.
He clearly picks passages out of context to take in a woodenly literal manner with no rhyme or reason other than that they fit his unique, subjective, theology.
Or maybe let me ask it this way: is it the case that you all theorize that Jesus did NOT preach the "PSA Good News" very often and not in crowds to the poor and marginalized?
At the very least, do you agree that a clear teaching of PSA is not prominent in most of Jesus' teachings?
Do you not read what you write? When you literally contradict yourself within a single sentence, you look like a moron.
1. Your bizarre interpretation of one out of context, cherry picked phrase to indicate that the only place Jesus shared the "good news" was in sermons is so far beyond the bounds of normal interpretation I can't even begin to understand what you hope to gain.
2. Multiple instances of Jesus articulating claims that support PSA have already been provided.
3. You acknowledge two instances, yet claim that there are zero instances.
4. Is not two instances enough? How many instances are necessary for a "teaching" to be authoritative.
5. Do you not freaking read before you spew? The Zaccheus, Nicodemus, and RYR examples are offered to demonstrate that Jesus did, in fact, share the "good news" in smaller groups that were not sermons. I only offer them to counter your stupid insistence that the "good news" was reserved for "sermons" and "large groups".
6. The RYR might have been in a "crowd", yet it clearly was NOT a "sermon", nor was His interaction with anyone but the RYR.
I have to admire your commitment to the bit, off topic or not, goal posts moved or not, you are committed to read your eisegesis into every single passage whether it's there or not.
Matthew 8:5-13. Jesus speaks "good news" to a Roman Centurion. He does so individually or in a small group (no sermon), He does not say a single word about "the poor", He offers the healing solely on the basis of the "faith" of the Centurion.
Even your pet proof text of Luke 4:21, is not in a sermon in front of a large group of people. It's clearly in a local synagogue, and it's prior to Jesus actually starting His ministry.
Further, if that one instance was so very important that it forms the entirety of Jesus' earthly message, why is it only found in one of the synoptics and not referenced in John? Was Luke (not one of the 12) the only one who knew this foundational Truth?
"Your bizarre interpretation of one out of context, cherry picked phrase to indicate that the only place Jesus shared the "good news" was in sermons is so far beyond the bounds of normal interpretation..."
And...
"The Zaccheus, Nicodemus, and RYR examples are offered to demonstrate that Jesus did, in fact, share the "good news" in smaller groups that were not sermons."
Etc
Read slowly, breathe, read for understanding and understand.:
1. I am NOT saying that Jesus only preached the good news in crowds.
2. I am NOT saying that Jesus preached the good news in sermons.
Do you understand those words?
I'm being as direct and clear as I can be and think the meaning of my words is abundantly clear.
3. I am noting that Jesus said in multiple places that he was preaching the good news to the poor and marginalized, that he was preaching the good news to the lost, to the people... that his followers went out preaching the good news. That was likely in sermons to groups of people but could also be in small groups and in individual conversations.
Do you understand that and accept it as reasonable and an obvious understanding of the many times (not one time) that Jesus referred to preaching the good news?
1. I do not impose and artificial separation of Jesus' teaching based on the size of the group He was speaking to.
2. Jesus regularly spoke to large crowds in parables and using less specifics and clarity than He did with His disciples.
3. The fact that Jesus only spoke of His atoning sacrifice to His disciples does not minimize or invalidate what He said, nor does it make it less True or authoritative.
4. Clearly Jesus did not come to alleviate all of the social ills you cite during His earthly ministry. We know this because He literally said so, and because we have no record of those social ills being solved on a large scale. While Jesus did share the "Good News" while on earth, He was clearly also preparing His disciples by reminding them under who's authority they operated “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Because of that fact (operating under Jesus' authority) they were told "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”.
It's almost like Jesus chose to limit the scope of His earthly ministry to a small geographic area, and to equip a small group of His closest followers to go beyond Israel, rather than to do so Himself.
Therefore, if we look at The Gospel that Jesus' closest disciples preached after Jesus' ascended, we don't see your gospel, we see something else. Clearly they were mistaken, and you are correct.
Of course, offering succor to those in need was a part of the early Church, but they focused (per Acts 4) primarily on believers first before others.
If you understand, now, that I've never been limiting Jesus' message only to sermons or crowds (you can tell by the way I never said that and by the way I've repeatedly told you very specifically that isn't what I'm saying), then move on and understand what I am saying.
Here's a list of 10 or 20 times Jesus mentioned that he was preaching good news - variously referred to as good news to the poor and marginalized, good news of the realm of God, good news of the realm of heaven, good news for the lost...
Now, GIVEN that Jesus and his followers were out in the world, please list at least five or so instances featuring your strongest case that this gospel to the poor and marginalized was the same as your human tradition of PSA. Can you do that? Can you find even three?
Also, if it was a gospel for the poor and marginalized that Jesus referred to at least twice clearly, or even just a good news for the lost, then HOW is PSA in any substantive way good news for the lost and poor?
At the very best, as PSA is usually theorized, wouldn't it be potential good news for a minority of the poor, lost and marginalized?
1. Then why bring it up at all? Why make it such a focal point of your argument?
2. You literally have said exactly that multiple times. " but it certainly suggests in his sermons to the crowds/masses is where it would occur". FYI that's a quote from you.
I do understand them, however I'm compelled to take them in the context of all of the other off topic verbal vomit you've spewed here, which tells a different story. Or, this is an admission that your earlier remarks and claims are either wrong or poorly worded.
3. Yes, you've just made this shit up and pretend like it is some authoritative imperative.
I've never said that He didn't. I have said that His communication of the "Good News" was not limited to "sermons" in front of "crowds".
I've also never said that Jesus explicitly taught PSA every time He spoke.
Yet both of these off topic distractions have certainly gotten you all riled up.
At your blog, you simply and proudly delete "off topic" comments. Here, you experience the grace of having your off topic comments posted and replied to.
I could go back and copy/paste the quotes that suggest otherwise, but it's not worth it. You'll simply adjust reality to fit your narrative of the moment.
I've given you multiple examples, as has Art. Until you deal with those, I'm not giving you anything else.
You do realize that your entire argument, doesn't falsify PSA in the least. Your "only mentioned it a few times in private" hermenutic isn't actually a thing beyond your tiny little brain.
Leaving aside the fact that you haven't definitively proven your "gospel for the poor.." as being either the only or primary "gospel". I'd venture a guess that the "poor and marginalized" live as "slaves to sin" just like everyone else, and a Gospel that offers them freedom from sin would seem to be good news that includes everyone regardless of their economic status.
Yeah, because forgiveness for sin is shitty news for some people.
Strangely enough, the actual poor and marginalized Haitians I've spent time with seem to be very satisfied with The Gospel that Jesus lived and died for the forgiveness of their sins. But what do they know? They aren't rich, old, white, southern guys who know what Jesus really meant.
"1. Then why bring it up at all? Why make it such a focal point of your argument?"
The point I've continually been making is that
A. Jesus proclaimed he'd come to bring/teach good news to the poor, marginalized, and lost.
B. THEREFORE, one could reasonably expect to see Jesus teaching clearly about PSA IF that was the "good news," as you all theorize.
C. And so, I continue to ask yall the reasonable, Where is PSA in his preachings and teachings to the crowds and to the individuals?
As to your suggestion that you two HAVE given me "multiple examples in Jesus' teachings of PSA, all I can say is, Where?
I see this from Marshal...
"PSA appears in the first three Gospels, revealed by Christ Himself and alluded to in John. "
...but that is just an empty claim.
I've seen you say...
"Jesus did clearly communicate that He was the fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system. The "perfect lamb", the "Passover lamb" the "fulfillment of the law", etc."
And
"the entire third chapter of John,"
But those, too, are empty claims. WHERE in John 3 does Jesus say anything directly about PSA?
WHERE is a passage mentioning lamb that speaks directly of PSA?
"no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again..."
And...
"no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit."
And...
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him."
And...
"God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
And...
"whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."
WHERE in ANY of that is there any mention of a sacrificial blood offering to "pay" for some (but not all!) people's "sin" so that God is then willing to accept that "payment" so God can forgive them?
And, as always, where is the grace in that blood payment?
Where is the justice of one man paying for another man's sin?
For what it's worth, I think the salvation by Grace that I affirm is clearly in there, but PSA? Not so much.
A. That is your assumption, based primarily on one out of context proof text, cherry picked because it fits your preconception. B. This assumes, without proof, that A is unequivocally and definitively True beyond all doubt. C. We've given you examples. Of course we don't exclude Jesus' teachings because it doesn't fit your arbitrary categorizations. That you ignore them and keep asking, isn't our problem.
Thank you ever so much for demonstrating your complete lack on knowledge of the context of scripture. To a first century Jewish audience referring to the "Lamb" could only have meant one thing.
These games might be fun for you, but they get old for everyone else. This notion that the only possible evidence is that you get to impose your hunches and definitions on scripture and are the final arbiter of what things mean is the height of hubris and arrogance.
Art has provided examples, I've provided examples, the link provided examples, you haven't interacted with one single example provided and demonstrated anything definitively.
Until you do, how about you lay off the bullshit, off topic comments.
Excellent job, cherry picking random out of context snippets and playing games with them.
Where, in any of that is any mention of some specific "gospel for the poor and marginalized"?
How does "no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and The Spirit" help the "poor and marginalized/
The grace in the blood payment is in the fact that the blood of Jesus was spilled as the final sacrifice that fulfilled the first covenant.
One man voluntarily paying the debt of another is grace, not justice.
Since PSA is literally a formulation that is entirely based on grace, I fail to see your point.
It's interesting, in an off topic diversionary sort of way, that you all of a sudden have come around to acknowledging that sin does require some sort of "payment".
Of course, as always, what you think is worth nothing as it's merely a hunch you dreamed up.
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?"
Jesus pointing out that Nicodemus should have known what he was being told by Jesus from his expertise in the Jewish scriptures (the OT), which would have included the sacrificial system which Jesus was the fulfillment of .
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
Clear reference both the the Moses story (validating the Jewish scriptures), and a foreshadowing of His death on the cross. Further, connecting the dots between His death on the cross and "eternal life in Him".
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
Strangely enough, no mention of "saving" the poor and marginalized.
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
Clearly articulating that not all will be "saved", that some will be "condemned". Further solidifying the premise that salvation comes only through Christ.
Anyway, I've indulged this particular bit of off topic diversion enough to demonstrate that even the snippets you provided don't support your "poor and marginalized gospel" hunch.
""Where, in any of that is any mention of some specific "gospel for the poor and marginalized"?"
Nowhere. But I didn't say that it was. As a reminder, YOU claimed that PSA was all throughout John 3. I was just reasonably asking for you to show me where. Because, frankly, I think you're clearly mistaken.
Right?
As a reminder, I'm a believer in a gospel of salvation by Grace.
Jesus noted, and writers throughout the biblical witness have noted, that this good news, this salvation, this loving welcome always begins with the poor and marginalized. Come to me, ALL who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Etc, etc. God loves ALL of humanity and is not willing that any should perish, as Jesus notes there. Thus, salvation by grace, not works, not some literal blood payment/ransom.
Craig...
"How does "no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and The Spirit" help the "poor and marginalized..."?
I didn't say it did, did I?
But God so loved the world and isn't willing that ANY should perish, THAT helps the poor and others who have long been left out. Right?
Given that we're 98 comments in and you haven't answered the question that was the very premise of the post, instead choosing to engage in these off topic bullshit diversions, you're hardly a paragon to be emulated.
Interesting, Jesus clearly lays out what is necessary for salvation, to "enter the Kingdom of God", to a man who is one of the "rich oppressors" you prate on and on about, and does so without ever mentioning the "poor and marginalized", yet you still insist that "the gospel" is centered on the "poor and marginalized".
Yes, I stand by my observation, that John 3 points toward salvation thorough Christ's atoning death on the Cross. Is it an exhaustive 3 points and a conclusion sermon, no. Is it there, yes.
I give up. You are clearly a master at picking and choosing out of context snippets as your proof texts, and unable to see beyond your preconceptions. feel free to continue, but I'm done with this out of context bullshit.
"Where is the justice of one man paying for another man's sin?"
If it's not justice for one man to pay for another's sin, then does it not follow that each pays for their own sins? Or are you suggesting that there is no "payment" for sin?
I'm not going to waste time with this, but the whole serpent thing is a direct reference to Jesus being crucified for our salvation, just as Moses raised up a metal serpent to provide "salvation" from the plague of snakes.
"Or maybe let me ask it this way: is it the case that you all theorize that Jesus did NOT preach the "PSA Good News" very often and not in crowds to the poor and marginalized?
At the very least, do you agree that a clear teaching of PSA is not prominent in most of Jesus' teachings?"
I don't know about Craig (actually, mostly I think I do), but I've been focused on Dan's original falsehood that PSA isn't Biblical but just something made up by some dudes a few centuries after the Resurrection. Dan, as usual, zig-zags to the notion the concept must be present in Christ's sermons to large crowds (before or after the fish sandwiches he doesn't say) in order for the concept to be a Biblical teaching. Then he'll zig-zag from that to how many times Jesus mentioned it at all as if that matters to the truth that PSA is a Biblical teaching. Through it all, he doesn't acknowledge that his questions have been answered with actual Biblical evidence to thwart his intention to dismiss and reject PSA.
Dan's "gospel for the poor" remains unexplained. And even if Jesus didn't distinctly mention His atoning sacrifice on the cross as part of that "gospel for the poor", it remains an essential part of it, because Christ spoke of His death as His reason for being born. If the "gospel for the poor" is one of redemption and accessibility to heaven, it includes the means by which we are blessed having God's Grace (a word Dan also never explains) poured out for us. PSA is counter to Dan's universalism. He can't have it or else his universalism is worthless and all those Dan believes are worthy of heaven based on Dan's standards will find themselves outside looking in.
Once again, PSA is a label applied to a concept or principle or teaching. As such, that PSA isn't mentioned by that label in no way means the concept is not present. And now, he again zig-zags to "WHERE in John 3 does Jesus say anything directly about PSA?" I'm pretty certain when I mentioned the Gospel of John that it "alluded to" PSA.
I have to say again that Dan continues to prove his claim of having "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture is constantly belied by his comments and questions such as those he poses. If he has actually studied as he claims to have studied, he could cite chapter and verse every instance when Christ speaks of dying to pay our debt to God...dying to wash us of our sins so that we may present before God as sinless.
He explains it, but he just references his pet proof text and makes circular arguments based on what he reads into things.
The problem with this off topic distraction is that simply saying PSA doesn't get at the depth and breadth of scripture as it talks about the atonement. It's like judging a redwood forest by looking an a pine seedling. That Dan then wants soundbites to describe something so broad only makes it worse.
Of course he does, that's how he roles. He's gone from "It's recent", which has been disproved, to "it's not there", to "it's only in a couple of places", to " it's not in sermons", to whatever bullshit is next.
Jesus only said "Today you will be with Me in paradise" once, He only said "Tetelestai" once, yet only an imbecile would argue that the number of times those things were said somehow makes them less.
Yup. The concept of atonement for sin and of some sort of blood sacrifice for that atonement first shows up in Genesis, and flows throughout the rest of the Bible. When you remove something like "The Lamb of God" from it's context and play the "How does mentioning a lamb...", it doesn't make sense. Without knowing that, in the 1st century Jewish context, the lamb carried significant meaning, it doesn't make any sense to refer to Jesus as "The Lamb of God". Dan, of course, rips things from context on the one hand and goes extremely, woodenly literal on the other.
You could, and Dan would find excuses as to why they can't mean what they mean.
110 comments:
You might do well to read a couple of famous anti-legalists to get their views on it. Try reading Paul and Jesus.
Dan
This is like the faux complaint against those who advocate inclusive welcoming... some complain that these inclusive types are not inclusive of those who exclude. The complaint reveals a lack of understanding of the problem and the words/concepts involved.
Dan
If you say so, although it doesn't really address the point of the post. But these off topic comments are more and more your stock in trade as we're seeing.
Jesus seemed pretty clear that He didn't come to abolish or get rid of the law, while actually raising the standards of the law and teaching that obeying His commands was the highest form of showing love for Him.
That's irrelevant, because the topic of the post is whether or not anti-legalism becomes legalism at some point.
No. It's a question not a complaint.
Of course you are correct, that many who preach "inclusion" are actually very exclusive which does seem contradictory.
Those who preach "inclusion" are preaching sin and perversion. To pretend anyone is being excluded simply for being compelled to sin, as opposed as opposing the tolerance, enabling or minimizing of sin is a lie. But that's the preaching of "inclusion". God is very exclusionary. Jesus was very exclusionary. Paul is very exclusionary. Gracefully embracing sin and perversion results in being excluded from heaven.
Which goes to show you don't understand the concept of inclusion. As I said. Thanks for proving the point.
D
When inclusion is a concept that is inherently exclusionary, you are correct. I don't understand the concept of a square circle either. Where you might get confused is that I have no interest in understanding the warped logic that demands inclusion, yet excludes at the same time. It's almost like inclusion has this legalistic component that determines who gets excluded.
As Art notes, YHWH through Jesus actually seems pretty exclusionary. The difference is that YHWH expects certain things from His heirs, and those that choose not to do those things exclude themselves.
Inclusion, as it is commonly used for progressive christians, doesn't include the notion of repentance. It's "Y'all can be included here no matter what (well not really) and we're perfectly happy to allow you to stagnate as long as you want.", or something like that. At least from my experience.
It's "Comfort the afflicted" without "afflicting the comfortable". As long as someone is comfortable in certain behaviors, there's no real sense of urgency to change those behaviors.
So, do you think a person who is dedicated to his spouse would also embrace cheating on their wife?
Do you think a pacifist should also endorse brutal slaughter of children?
Notions like these are ideals. So, of course the pacifist would exclude slaughter as a policy. And of course, the inclusive would reject exclusive policies and people who promote them.
What that might look like at my church, for instance, is that someone who thinks "god hates gays!" would be welcome to attend, they'd be included in that way. But they would be excluded from preaching and exclusivity sermon, for instance. Because that's in opposition to inclusion, welcome, love and grace.
Not sure what's confusing to you about that.
Likewise for believers in grace. By definition, you're opposed to legalistic thinking.
Dan
No, but I'm not the one touting inclusion as the be all and end all. I realize that exclusion makes perfect sense in all sorts of areas of life. I believe, for example, that it is perfectly acceptable to exclude those who are ineligible to vote from voting. You are the one touting this exclusive inclusion, not me.
I don't think anyone should "endorse" a "brutal slaughter of children", yet I also realize that in the fallen and sinful world we live in that sometimes there might be more to consider beyond your simplistic, vague question.
Then we agree, your "inclusive world" clings to a legalistic exclusion of those who are somehow not acceptable to be included. Got it.
It's not, I perfectly understand why your inclusive ideal rests on a legalistic exclusion of those who don't pass your purity test. The untermensch as it were. Those who don't check the right boxes get excluded, you've been very clear.
Speaking as someone who you'd likely exclude, I say thanks. I have no desire to be in any inclusive group that so legalistically excludes people.
Well, if you say so.
Somehow, I'm supposed to blindly accept the fact that Jesus excluded the "goats" from the same reward as the "sheep" because the "goats" failed to meet a legal standard based on their failure to do the right things, in the right way, to the right people as the gospel, while simultaneously being expected to accept that Jesus included everyone with absolutely zero exceptions. Great theology, that.
Craig...
"Then we agree, your "inclusive world" clings to a legalistic exclusion of those who are somehow not acceptable to be included. Got it."
In a worldview based upon grace, love and forgiveness, literally ALL are welcome.
But because we support living lives of grace and inclusion, if someone comes along and starts kicking people out of the community, or intimidates/terrorizes some people away, we would invite them NOT to do that and to step aside if they can't stop from terrorizing or intimidating others. Precisely because we value grace and inclusion.
Again, I'd point you to the Jesus who came to welcome all, but began with the poor and marginalized and if you were going to fight against grace, Jesus said they'd be cast out.
If you have a free Republic but put fascists, oligarchs, racists and other exclusivists in charge, you won't have a free Republic. One set of ideals are antithetical to the other and can't coexist.
Dan
"So, do you think a person who is dedicated to his spouse would also embrace cheating on their wife?"
Serious question: What the burning hell does this mean in the context of this post and even the context of Dan's off-topic drivel? A dedicated spouse doesn't cheat or else such a spouse isn't dedicated at all.
"Do you think a pacifist should also endorse brutal slaughter of children?"
YOU do, Dan...both your unflinching support for abortion...which is the brutal slaughter of children not yet born... and your anti-Semitic support for Gazans who also brutally slaughter children.
"Notions like these are ideals."
Yeah, sure.
"So, of course the pacifist would exclude slaughter as a policy."
Unless they're the conceived yet unborn or Israelis. Because...you know...embrace grace.
"And of course, the inclusive would reject exclusive policies and people who promote them."
And of course this means "the inclusive" aren't really inclusive at all.
"What that might look like at my church, for instance, is that someone who thinks "god hates gays!" would be welcome to attend, they'd be included in that way. But they would be excluded from preaching and exclusivity sermon, for instance. Because that's in opposition to inclusion, welcome, love and grace."
No. That's not. That's exactly what inclusion is: allowing for all thoughts, ideas and opinions. Honest people call it "diversity" and strong people can handle opposing opinions being presented in the spirit of generating understanding.
"Not sure what's confusing to you about that."
You're contradicting yourself and presenting examples as if you oppose them when you clearly don't.
"Likewise for believers in grace. By definition, you're opposed to legalistic thinking."
That's not the definition of grace, nor does it reflect how we come to be blessed with God's. This "legalistic thinking" is just a false attack on people who abide the Will of God, rather than pretending they can pick and choose which behaviors to indulge and write off those who abide God as "legalistic" for reminding the sinner of the consequences the sinner is inviting. Indeed, that's not "grace" no matter how you try to redefine it. It's just lying.
As we're steered further and further off topic, we now get to the semantic nitpicking portion of the afternoon.
In a "worldview based on grace" the "goats" don't get sent to "outer darkness where there is weeping a gnashing of teeth". In a "world of grace" y'all wouldn't be so legalistic in excluding those who don't kowtow to your hunches. In your 'worldview based on grace" you've just articulated universalism.
So, if people don't abide by your arbitrary, legalistic, rules you'll exclude them. Gotcha.
Except,as you regularly point out, Jesus did NOT "welcome all". If we limit ourselves to your favorite bit of eisegesis, we see that Jesus EXCLUDED the "GOATS". Jesus EXCLUDED the "foolish virgins". Jesus EXCLUDED the guy who buried the gold. The list of people that Jesus excluded isn't particularly short.
The list you exclude also isn't short.
Again, I'm not the one advocating inclusion. However, your "free republic" example is too good to ignore.
In this, hypothetical "free republic" one would assume that the freedom is limited.
In this hypothetical "free republic" one would assume freedom of speech is protected, including speech that some might find offensive.
In this hypothetical "free republic" one would assume free and fair elections.
So, if the people of the "free republic" vote in free and fair elections and choose to elect people you don't like isn't that part and parcel of a "free republic"?
This objection to "oligarchs", seems strange since the DFL has more "oligarchs" supporting it than does the GOP, and one "oligarch" in particular has been buying elective offices (particularly prosecutors) for years and I've never heard you object.
But really excellent. You've gone from simply ignoring the original premise and question asked in the post, to a thinly veiled screed against Trump in such a very few comments. Well played.
As Dan chose not to deal with my problem with his stupid example, I doubt he'll deal with yours. The concept of a "dedicated spouse" is antithetical to Dan's gospel of inclusion. Perhaps he's secretly hardcore LDS.
Dan's example of "his church" simply demonstrates that they preach inclusivity, but practice a legalistic exclusivity.
My church would open it's doors to anyone, yet they would be confronted with The Gospel and expected to repent, follow Jesus, and become His disciple. Those that don't want to do that, will leave. But they wouldn't be excluded.
Jesus seemed pretty legalistic with that who "love Me/obey My commandments-lust=rape-hate=murder thing".
Dan is legalistic as hell, he just hides it behind piles of bullshit. For example, I'm excluded from commenting at his blog, yet he claims to be inclusive. Inclusivity at his blog only comes if you follow his unwritten, arbitrary, and legalistic demands.
Craig...
"Jesus seemed pretty clear that He didn't come to abolish or get rid of the law, while actually raising the standards of the law and teaching that obeying His commands was the highest form of showing love for Him."
You misunderstand Jesus. He was not "raising the standards of the law," at least in the sense of adding more and more rules on the backs of humans, setting life-depleting joyless drudgery to weigh people down. That was the legalistic Pharisaical Way that leads to death.
He was helping expand our minds - especially those of the legalistic Pharisees and those under their geaceless thumbs - that laws and rules are not about counting steps or measuring work units and keeping ritualistically "clean." It was about love and welcome and love and grace and love and welcome... it was summed up, Jesus said, by Love.
Again, I can't recommend reading Jesus' teachings, just by themselves, enough.
The question I'd ask you, Craig, is if you knew nothing of Christianity or the Bible and you were introduced to the four Gospels, do you think the notion of PSA theory would... could possibly pop into your mind?
"Oh! Jesus is speaking of a very angry God that can't abide humans in their imperfections and 'sin.' Jesus is saying he's going to PAY to get you in heaven by dying in your place to appease this God who won't... can't!, be appeased in any other way!"
Do you agree that one just would not get that from Jesus' teachings and HIS sermons of Good news?
Dan
You are, of course, welcome at my blog. As I've repeatedly noted. I do have some expectations. No vulgar, racist, sexist or otherwise harmful to others comments, for example. And, I expect you to answer reasonable questions asked of you.
If YOU choose to stay away because of these rules, that's YOUR decision. Same thing as with the Excluders.
But don't say, I'm not willing to abide by your rules, therefore, Dan is not inclusive. Having some basic rules is not being exclusive or unwelcoming.
It's certain BEHAVIORS that are not welcome. And just as with Jesus' goats, they self-selected out.
Dan
As long as you continue to ignore the examples I've given of Jesus excluding people, I see no reason to waste time with idiocy.
That you continue to insist that exclusion is an integral part of inclusion, in addition to ignoring the above, tells me how serious you are.
You made it quite clear some time ago that I was not welcome at your blog, and I have abided by your demand. That you now say that I am "welcome", as long as I bow to your arbitrary rules at the risk of being deleted and lied about, is hardly welcoming or inclusive. But you can run your blog according to whatever random, arbitrary, legalistic rules you want. Just acknowledge your exclusivity.
What criteria you use to exclude is immaterial, that you exclude is material.
Well, if you say so. I can see how declaring that hatred=murder was lowering the standards. But since you've made your pronouncement, I guess the matter is settled. Well, if you define ""raising the standard" to mean what you want it to, then sure. The problem is that "hate=murder" is not adding to the law as much as clarifying the law.
Your obsession with changing the subject and going further and further off topic is appalling. That you count on my extending you grace that you will not extend me to pull this bullshit is messed up.
My problem is that I don't subdivide and rank the scriptures the way you do. I don't pull Jesus earthly ministry out of the context of what He did during the OT, and I don't pull it out of the context of the teachings of His closest followers in the rest of the NT.
If you cut off a tree from it's roots, you end up with problems, If you cut Jesus' earthly ministry off from His work from Alpha to Omega (so to speak)(Creation to New Creation, etc), then you've taken the middle of the story out of the bigger context.
You are free to do as you wish, but when you arrogantly pretend like this bullshit is the only right way to look at scripture, you look stupid.
It would be right and just, not to mention totally Biblical, to cast out the unrepentant sinner.
Dan,
Your "rules" are fluid and constantly altered when you can't stand the heat your idiocy brings upon you. You hide behind your goofy, arbitrary rules which are never applied equally to all, most specifically yourself and you don't abide them when visiting other blogs. You are exclusive not based on any rule other than one mustn't ever disagree with you.
Mm hmm. But, do you agree that one just would not get that from Jesus' teachings and HIS sermons of Good news?
Dan
Why is it that you all don't even acknowledge that you're not acknowledging this absence of Jesus in your gospel.?
Dan
Craig...
"If you cut off a tree from it's roots, you end up with problems, If you cut Jesus' earthly ministry off from His work from Alpha to Omega (so to speak)(Creation to New Creation, etc), then you've taken the middle of the story out of the bigger context."
From where I sit, this is precisely the problem with more modern conservative evangelicals. You all seem to have just cut out the core story and gospel of Jesus at the heart of Christianity. As a result, you all have all sorts of ethical and literal biblical problems, not to mention rational problems.
Who proclaims a person as their leader and then virtually ignore that leader's teaching?
Which is why I keep asking the ever-unanswered question: do you see the virtual literal absence of your human traditions on PSA theories in his sermons? Do you recognize that people reading the Gospel witness would NOT conclude a PSA theory?
Dan
Craig...
"If you cut off a tree from it's roots, you end up with problems, If you cut Jesus' earthly ministry off from His work from Alpha to Omega (so to speak)(Creation to New Creation, etc), then you've taken the middle of the story out of the bigger context."
If, in that, you're suggesting interpreting the whole of biblical witness through the lens of Jesus is a problem, I'd disagree. Interpreting the whole through the lens of Jesus, our clearest representation of God, is a long and rational approach to biblical exegesis.
Dan
No.
First, I would not agree that you can take one portion of Jesus existence out of the context of His entire existence.
Second, I cannot see how you can take parts of four books of scripture out of the context of the entire scripture.
Third, if it's your eiesgesis I automatically disagree with it.
Fourth, no.
Because there is no "absence of Jesus" in The Gospel. Jesus is central to The Gospel.
When you start out by announcing that you are merely spewing fantastical, made up hunches, you lose me.
What "seems" so to you is not reality because of how it "seem"s to you. That your biased, prejudiced, imperfect, mind believes that something "seem"s a certain way does not make your "seem"s into reality.
Well, you seem to for a start.
Since none of us (who waste our time with your bullshit) is doing so, who cares?
You keep up with this "unanswered question" bullshit, when I just answered it after having seen it for the first time.
What some small minority of people, who (as I noted) rip parts of the 4 Gospels from their rightful place in the context of the entirety of scripture, conclude is irrelevant to the Truth. That you (hiding behind this alleged "people") choose to interpret parts of parts of the Gospels in a certain way does not make your interpretation correct. That you seem to think that your personal, subjective, biased, eisegesis is somehow correct and that others should blindly accept your eisegesis is one more demonstration of your arrogance.
I'm suggesting that pulling a few of Jesus' quotes out of both their immediate context, as well as out of their larger context, to support a gospel that doesn't align with the whole of scripture is a problem.
Interpreting scripture through your personal, biased, subjective, eisegisis by pulling a few of Jesus' teachings out of context, and blithely assuming that you know what Jesus really meant ( or didn't mean) is hardly enough to inspire confidence in your works based gospel.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/appeasement-of-a-monster-god-a-historical-and-biblical-analysis-of-penal-substitutionary-atonement/
Once you do an extensive analysis and demonstrate how this article is completely wrong, then I'll consider your claims.
It's not at all obvious that few would fail to understand PSA by actually reading the Gospels, particularly the words of Jesus Himself. Indeed, one must intentionally disregard His words to pretend He never spoke of that which is now referred to as "PSA". We've been through this hundreds of times before and Dan absolutely dismisses Christ's words in order to pretend He didn't speak of it. And while Dan likes to drone on about the "Good News" without ever defining it, the fact is that PSA IS the Good News.
Given that one of the final things Jesus said while on the cross, which we might conclude is pretty important, was "tetelestai". It's usually translated "it is finished", but it is actually a business/legal term which means "the debt has been paid in full". Why would Jesus conclude His earthly ministry by telling His followers this, if He did not in fact mean it? How could one conclude that He really meant something other than what He said.
As Stan noted, Dan's stock "gospel" proof text ( Jesus quoting/validating Isiah) ends with "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.". Yet even the most idiotic among us can see that the scripture was NOT actually fulfilled on that day. That all of those things continued after that day.
Now Jesus was known to use future perfect tense, and it's possible that He was in that instance. That He was saying that all of those societal ills will be redeemed in the future, because Jesus came for that purpose. That we can count on the future fulfillment of Isiah's prophecy in it's entirety because of Jesus work on earth.
Dan's selective use of out of context snippets of Jesus' words to form his own works based gospel is kind of amusing as it suggests that no one but him is smart enough to figure this out and the he must condescend to bless us with his truth.
Is PSA perfect, no. Is PSA the theory of the atonement that best aligns with scripture, yes. Is Dan predisposed to dismiss PSA based on his prejudices, biases, worldview, and arrogance, also yes.
While I realize that this thread has been dragged irretrievably off topic, and that the original question pf the post remains unanswered, I press on.
Can a Muslim repent of their sin, acknowledge Christ as the only way to YHWH, and become a Christian?
I've read the article, when Stan posted it. They still don't even begin to touch the eisegetical, backwards problem that you all are hating.
WHERE IS the "gospel" - as you all imagine Paul is teaching - in the sermons of Jesus?
It's literally not there and y'all ignore that reality.
Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you are saying that it doesn't matter to you that the evangelical PSA theory is missing from Jesus' teachings. But if so, then say that. Just be clear about it.
Dan
Marshal...
"It's not at all obvious that few would fail to understand PSA by actually reading the Gospels, particularly the words of Jesus Himself."
Then do it. Jesus begins his ministry by saying he came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. From there, we have multiple teachings and sermons from Jesus. Name even ONE PASSAGE where Jesus himself said anything remotely like your PSA theory.
Mind you: Jesus is clear he's preaching good news to the crowds at large. So set aside your two off topic favorite ripped from context proof text passages where Jesus says to the 12 alone "ransom" or "body and blood as sacrifice..." and point to even ONE sermon where he's preaching to save the poor and lost where he says anything that would cause someone to think, " Oh, he's talking about a blood payment to appease an angry god to secure salvation for some in a business transaction " (which is not, of course, grace.
When you can't find even one passage, then have the intellectual honesty to admit, at least, that Jesus nowhere preached a clear message of PSA.
Dan
Stunning refutation of the article, the grasp of scripture and depth of your criticisms astound me. Your ability to dismantle and debunk that well researched piece packed with scripture and the work of the early Church fathers is spectacular.
That you manage to couch it is nonsensical terms "backwards problem that you all are hating." makes your criticism that much more devastating.
The problem is that we don't limit our study to only Jesus' "sermons". That you ignore the author's references to Jesus' teachings, seems to indicate that you didn't pay much attention, just skimmed it because your preconceived notions are all you really need.
As usual, you either "don't understand...correctly" or you simply make shit up and pretend like your made up bullshit is our position.
Hell, you even acknowledge "two" instances where it occurs in Jesus' teachings (what is it, sermons or teachings? Be consistent), yet somehow you've decided (all by yourself) that two mentions equals "missing".
That all you can do is play this bullshit game of telling us we're wrong, without providing specific examples instead of making a case that you are right, says all I really want to hear about this off topic bullshit.
Your comment now belies your claim that you read the article, because it absolutely demonstrates that the BIBLICAL (not "evangelical" as if it was made up later) PSA theory is clearly in the teachings of Jesus, as well as throughout Scripture, acknowledged by early church fathers (including Paul and Peter) and is indeed what the "Good News" is. That is to say IT LITERALLY AND ABSOLUTELY IS THERE IN THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST despite your anti-Christ insistence to the contrary.
This notion that Christ's public sermons to hordes of followers MUST include PSA in order for PSA to be a Biblical concept of which Christ spoke often enough for true Christians is absurd and a very, very weak angle to play. There are public sermons and there are other teachings spoken by Christ to His disciples. What's most important is that the term refers to an obvious and unmistakable truth of Christ's primary purpose while on earth: to die that we might live. All who understood Jewish law at the time knew precisely what John the Baptist was referencing when he said of Christ: "Behold! The Lamb of God!"
"So set aside your two off topic favorite ripped from context proof text passages"
This. coming from someone who literally has one passage that he's ripped from it's context and is the only passage he regularly uses to "prove his point", is spectacularly arrogant and the height of both hubris and hypocrisy. The double standard exhibited here is impressive, as is the conceited notion that he gets to make demands at my blog.
Jesus concludes you pet proof text with "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.". As all of the societal ills Jesus mentioned persisted beyond that day, it seems as though your big "gotcha" proof text is an indication that Jesus failed.
That you think that you can put artificial limits on the authority of Jesus' teachings by arbitrarily limiting authority to His "sermons" , reeks of arrogance and hubris. The notion that Jesus' words to His disciples (the people who He charged with preaching His Gospel to all the world), His words on the cross, or His words in more intimate gatherings are somehow less than His words on His "sermons" is absurd. It's like you're making some bizarre "ex cathedra" argument or some other absurd nonsense that you've made up.
As has been noted, the PSA theory has been around since Athanasius (prior to 373 AD), so to suggest that it's an "evangelical" (18th century) invention is simply not supported by the evidence.
As also noted, this new, arbitrary limitation on Christ's teachings being authoritative is absurd.
Given how often He spoke in parables or other figurative language that the crowds didn't understand, it's likely that He did speak of it in His "sermons" just not as explicitly as Dan would like.
Excellent point regarding John. As the entire OT sacrificial system was pointing to Jesus in His role as the perfect sacrificial lamb, for John to open his recognition of Jesus in this way is certainly strongly suggestive.
https://voxchurch.org/page/688?Item=486#:~:text=The%20Greek%20word%20%E2%80%9C%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%AD%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%B9%E2%80%9D%20(,end%2C%20finish%2C%20or%20complete.
"It's not at all obvious that few would fail to understand PSA by actually reading the Gospels, particularly the words of Jesus Himself."
"Then do it"
It's been done. As Craig states well, limiting His teachings to "sermons" as if "sermons" are somehow more meaningful and important than any other expression of what He conveyed is absurd and a cheap attempt to dismiss His reason for living as man among the world.
"Jesus begins his ministry by saying he came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized."
You don't even know what that means, despite how often you default to saying it. Indeed, I can't recall at any time in the, at least, 17 years we've been going at it where you've attempted to give your understanding of what that means, and certainly not an intelligent, coherent explanation. It's just something you say as if it is THE message of greatest importance, without explaining what message is being conveyed.
"From there, we have multiple teachings and sermons from Jesus. Name even ONE PASSAGE where Jesus himself said anything remotely like your PSA theory."
That's been done countless times over that 17 years and you just disregard, dismiss and pretend it's nowhere to be found after having it pointed out for your edification. But here, you now mix "sermons" with "teachings", which reduces your chances of proving your position. You were better off with sticking to just "sermons".
Fortunately, real Christians don't pretend there's a difference when dealing with the Words of Christ and the context or scenario in which they are expressed by Him. Only a fake like you would think it's a significant point.
So...put your big boy pants on, stop your rote repetition of fake christian talking points ("Good New", "Grace") for which you give no explanation, and saying something that actually reflects Christian teaching in the same way all of our links and resources over the years have demonstrated and affirmed.
"When you can't find even one passage, then have the intellectual honesty to admit, at least, that Jesus nowhere preached a clear message of PSA."
Fortunately, we've done it countless times over the years, but as the liar you are, you pretend otherwise. The problem seems to be that what He preached isn't clear to YOU, while it's been crystal clear to Biblical scholars going all the way back to His Apostles. What you universalists need to believe in order to preach your heresy is of even lesser importance when you can't explain yourself.
Dan doesn't care about what Scripture says, but only that which serves him.
I've pointed out the flaw in limiting the gospel to one passage, and the flaws in Dan's interpretation of that passage. Strangely enough, Jesus never expresses His mission or The Gospel in that way again. Obviously, to focus on that one passage without acknowledging the fulfilled prophecy is a problem, as is ignoring the possibility that Jesus was speaking in future perfect tense.
As we approach Easter, the passage of the Last Supper becomes a focus. It's strange that Jesus most clearly enunciated something that supports PSA at the same time as He instituted the only "sacrament" that He expected His followers to continue to engage in. He tied together the OT threads of redemption and the first covenant being sealed with the shedding on blood, and instructed His followers to continue to celebrate the shedding of His blood as the perfect Passover lamb.
So much of Dan's eisegesis seems intended to confirm his personal feelings and he never seems to come to any conclusions that diverge from his personal and political views, that I suspect that you may be correct.
Marshal...
"As Craig states well, limiting His teachings to "sermons" as if "sermons" are somehow more meaningful and important than any other expression of what He conveyed is absurd and a cheap attempt to dismiss His reason for living as man among the world."
Y'all continue to completely miss the point.
A. Jesus repeatedly makes clear he and his disciples are out "preaching the good news" to the people.
B. We have multiple instances where Jesus' teachings and sermons are recorded. That is, we know at least SOME of the teachings of Jesus' good news as recorded by the gospel authors... these sermons of good news to the people.
C. AND YET, in ZERO instances do we have Jesus giving his good news with words that include PSA. ZERO times.
D. Therefore, if you accept that Jesus' sermons and teachings are recorded AND if they don't even hint at PSA, then you all are literally affirming a different gospel than what Jesus taught.
Do you affirm that Jesus's recorded teachings and sermons DO contain Jesus' Gospel?
Or, is it the case that you think, Whoopsie! Jesus accidentally left out all mentions of your gospel on accident?
Or that the Gospel authors accidentally left it out?
WHERE in Jesus' recorded teachings does he definitively offer you PSA theory?
He doesn't. Not one time.
Dan
A. Yet He does not limit the communication of The Good News merely His preaching. Did His interaction with the Rich Young Ruler not communicate The Good News?
B. We also have multiple instances where Jesus words/teachings/comments are recorded in other circumstances, are those less important?
C. Since, in your own post on the topic, you acknowledge "two", I guess you'll have to pick which one it is. Zero or two.
D. Since we have no reason to blindly accept your hunches about limiting Jesus communication of The Good News to only His sermons, who cares.
I affirm that every thing Jesus said throughout scripture, OT/NT points towards The Gospel. I don't limit Jesus communication of The Gospel to merely His sermons.
No, Jesus did not leave out anything necessary for salvation.
No, the writers of the gospels did not leave out anything necessary for salvation.
Multiple instances have been pointed out, and you haven't demonstrated those to be false or incorrect, why would anyone add more for you to ignore? Where does He contradict PSA? Where does He explicitly offer your Moral Example theory of the atonement?
He does, you just want to exclude those times because they aren't in sermons.
It's almost like you think that Jesus' primary mission on earth was to complete your litany of tasks that constitute the gospel. "Free,feed, give sight, liberty". Yet, He clearly failed to fulfill your mission while He was on earth. All of those things still persist 2000+ years later. (at least in the physical realm)
So, perhaps that wasn't Jesus' mission (eliminating social ills), perhaps He wasn't here to spread The Gospel as much as to prepare His disciples to spread The Gospel after His death. Perhaps, you're selling Jesus short by limiting His impact to only His sermons.
Craig...
"So much of Dan's eisegesis seems intended to confirm his personal feelings and he never seems to come to any conclusions that diverge from his personal and political views,"
You continue to forget: I believed what you all believe. It was Scripture (along with the biblically irrational and intellectually dishonest views of conservative Dan) that drove me away from the human traditions I grew up with. From where I stand, conservative ideology is stunted and rife with eisegesis. It's a rationally vapid and biblically shallow approach to "Bible study," almost entirely dependent upon human traditions to fill in the gaping holes in their biblical and rational logic.
My "personal feelings" are that we should love God, love ALL of humanity, love God's creation and thus, be kind, compassionate, helpful and rational. And I get that from the Bible, not merely my personal feelings.
My religious philosophies DID diverge from sound biblical teaching and I had to change my beliefs to be more in alignment with God, love, justice, decency and reason. And I continue to change when I learn better.
At any rate, reality shows what it shows. I read the Bible and DID change my personal and political views to better alignment with God and reason.
Dan
So, no. You don't see the problem you all are having. Got it. I mean, it's obvious, I was just wondering if you were sufficiently self-aware to even acknowledge it.
You're not.
More's the pity.
Dan
No, I don't forget that you've repeatedly made this claim. I do doubt that you "believed as I believe", for two reasons. You repeatedly misrepresent the beliefs of others, and you have almost zero idea of what I believe. You do seem to hold a view of what "conservatives" believe that is more of a caricature than an accurate representation.
I don't care about your "personal feelings" or hunches. They have no value and are not representative of any objective standard. That you take things "from the Bible" and use eisegesis to mold those things in ways that make you feel comfortable and align with your worldview isn't the big win you seem to think it is.
As you can prove none of this objectively, who cares.
No, I don't see this mystery "problem" you've conjured up.
Strangely enough, you don't see the problem you have when you limit Jesus' authoritative teachings to only His "sermons", and in you ignoring the examples that don't fit with your subjective hunches.
Craig, missing the point entirely, said...
"Since we have no reason to blindly accept your hunches about limiting Jesus communication of The Good News to only His sermons"
The reason we have is what Jesus literally said. HE SAID he was here to preach good news to the poor and marginalized.
Do you think Jesus is recorded as preaching good news to the poor, etc?
Jesus told John the Baptist that he was preaching good news to the poor, etc.
Do you think Jesus is recorded as preaching his good news to the poor, etc?
Jesus in multiple places that he was preaching good news to the people.
Do you think Jesus is recorded as preaching his good news to the people?
Presumably you agree that, Yes, Jesus DID preach good news to the poor, to the marginalized, to the people, right?
AND, it is your personal opinion and human tradition that "the gospel" that Jesus was preaching was something like PSA, right?
Then WHERE is Jesus recorded as preaching your PSA to the poor, the marginalized, the people? Where is it? The two verses that could even slightly be considered PSA-adjacent were NOT in sermons to the people, they were in private meetings, right?
So where, then, is Jesus recorded even ONE time preaching this PSA theory of yours to the masses that Jesus said he was preaching it to?
At the very least, do you understand why this is a rational biblical question for those who affirm some sort of allegiance to the inerrancy theory?
Dan
Craig falsely claimed...
"You repeatedly misrepresent the beliefs of others, and you have almost zero idea of what I believe. You do seem to hold a view of what "conservatives" believe that is more of a caricature than an accurate representation."
And yet, you can't point to ONE single instance of me misrepresenting the beliefs of evangelicals. That would give a rational person pause.
And yes, I get that you probably honestly think you have or can. And yet, in reality, you can't.
But we've been all through that before.
Dan
Craig...
"you don't see the problem you have when you limit Jesus' authoritative teachings to only His "sermons", and in you ignoring the examples that don't fit with your subjective hunches."
Because I haven't ever, in any words I've written limited Jesus' authoritative teachings to only His "sermons."
I have said that we objectively can identify the words spoken by Jesus that have been recorded by the Gospel writers by looking at them and seeing, "Oh, yes. Jesus is literally recorded as having said he'd come to preach good news to the poor, etc" but that's just stating the obvious and observable. That isn't limiting Jesus' authority.
Likewise, when some humans read Paul's words and conclude, "Here is Paul describing Jesus' Gospel as being PSA..." When y'all put forth that human opinion and I disagree, pointing out that Jesus didn't literally say anything like that, that isn't limiting Jesus' authoritative teachings. It IS, however, rightly limiting some HUMAN'S teachings and opinions as not equal to Jesus' own words.
And, of course, it's pointing to the "it's not IN there" problem that you don't even understand.
Dan
Dan, who still can't master posting under his actual account or replying to specific comments, is wrong again.
Yes, He did direct some of what He said while on earth to the "poor and marginalized", but that wasn't the entirety of His message. Of course, you totally miss the point of the comment you responded to.
This practice of asking the same question repeatedly, in slightly different ways, is one of the stupidest tactics you use. Especially as it ignores the point I was making.
So to be clear and to answer multiple questions (again) with one response. Yes, Jesus did talk about the "poor and marginalized" in some instances. He did not talk about or to them exclusively, nor did He promise that their temporal poverty and marginalization would magically end due to His work on earth. In fact, He almost totally failed to accomplish any of that during His 3 year earthly ministry.
It's not "my personal opinion", but yes Jesus did clearly communicate that He was the fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system. The "perfect lamb", the "Passover lamb" the "fulfillment of the law", etc. So I do agree with the prevailing view of Church history that Jesus' gospel was not limited to merely alleviating temporal suffering for a portion of the population.
That you are left with limiting Jesus' authoritative teaching to only His "preaching" just shows how desperate you are to eliminate anything Jesus might have said that doesn't fit your preconceived notions from consideration. That I've addressed this previously and that you've ignored that, speaks volumes as well.
No. That you now feel the need to bring up inerrancy as a way to drag this post further off topic just reinforces my conclusions about your hunches.
I've repeatedly pointed out multiple instances of you doing exactly this. It's not my problem if you ignored those and didn't address them at the time. I'm certainly not going to enable you in taking this thread further off of the topic of the post that you already have.
I understand the power of your delusions, but I can't help you with them, nor will I reinforce them.
Really? Are you just writing crap without having any idea of what you've written? Is your entire new narrative based on only considering what Jesus preached in His "sermons"? Absolutely hilarious.
Yes, you have. You've done so while placing those limited instances above other things Jesus said, and you've repeatedly emphasized Jesus' "sermons" as being of more value that anything else. Of course you "misunderstand" the point being made. I've not said that you are "limiting Jesus' authority", only that you are "limiting" which teachings of Jesus you consider authoritative or more authoritative. That you're obvious observations focus in on a small portion of Jesus' total communication and then only in His "sermons" might seem Reasonable to you, unfortunately not so much to others.
As Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to white what he did, heard from Jesus' closest confidants what The Gospel was, and was commissioned directly by Jesus to take The Gospel to the gentiles, I'm not sure how it's possible to relegate Paul's writings to a lower tier. But then again, so much of what you do and say makes no sense.
I do understand your hunch, I just don't agree with it.
Craig...
"Is your entire new narrative based on only considering what Jesus preached in His "sermons"? Absolutely hilarious."
No. You can tell by the way I've never said that.
Pathetically sad, this inability to read and correctly understand them.
I doubt it's your fault entirely. I think it's the infection of pharisaical, conservative extremism that causes so many - including myself once upon a time - to read for understanding.
Dan
Craig...
"You've done so while placing those limited instances above other things Jesus said, and you've repeatedly emphasized Jesus' "sermons" as being of more value that anything else."
Sigh.
Again, literally not what I've said or suggested.
Take a breath, calm your mind. Read for understanding. Consider...
Ralph, a former parishioner of Reverend X says, "Reverend X was always going on about chocolate ice cream! They preached 100 sermons in their lifetime. In each one of them, they clearly affirmed their love for chocolate ice cream. Read them yourself, you'll see it's true!"
And so, you read Rev X's sermons, all 100 that they had written down.
However, in not ONE SINGLE LINE in one single sermon did the Reverend state they loved chocolate ice cream. They never mentioned ice cream or desserts, either. They gave no preferences for any foods in any sermons. In ONE line, they mentioned coffee beans growing on a coffee tree, as a metaphor. But love of ice cream is literally not in any sermons.
Now, when the topic comes up Ralph states authoritatively, "So, we know as a fact that Rev X loved that chocolate ice cream." If you then clarify and state factually, "No, the Reverend never did say that or anything like that."... you are just being factually correct. You're not limiting Rev X or anything, you're just stating the actual, observable facts.
Do you agree?
Do you now see what I'm saying?
Dan
That was probably too long a metaphor to help. What I'm saying that you clearly aren't understanding is that IF someone is saying...
Idea ONE appears in THIS SPECIFIC BOOK,
And IF you read that specific book and Idea ONE is not in that book
THEN, you would correctly state,
No, Idea ONE is not in that specific book,
In that case, you're not limiting anyone or anything. You're just stating an observable fact.
PSA is not found in the sermons of Jesus to the crowds, where Jesus said he'd preached the good news.
Dan
Or I can tell by the fact that you keep pointing out that Jesus never mentioned it in His "sermons".
Anything to avoid the implications of it possibly being your fault. Acknowledging that you've moved the goalposts from the red letters in the Gospels, to Jesus' "sermons", would make you look bad so you pretend.
Again, I'm just reading your words and taking them at face value. If there's some secret meaning to ferret out, that's your problem. But, by all means repeat what you just said in the previous comment again.
No, because "sermons" are only part of the totality of one's communication.
But thanks for demonstrating that I was correct in your obsession with sermons to the diminishment of all else.
Long, stupid, and pointless.
This jumble of word salad is even more incoherent than your idiotic metaphor.
Again, thanks for confirming what I've said earlier. This notion that Jesus only "preached the good news" to crowds, in sermons, is absurd.
Did not Jesus communicate "Good News" to Zacceus when He dined with Hi, or to Nicodemus, or the Roman Centurion?
What's the "Good News", Dan? Be very specific and back it up with precise Scriptural citation.
By my quick research, there are five distinct verses from the Gospels which confirm the teaching of PSA. Of those, four are presentations of the words of Christ Himself. The fifth is the that said by John the Baptist, "Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world!" As Jesus did not rebuke him ("No no, John! That's not why I was born!"), He thus affirms His purpose. Scripture doesn't say how many people were on the banks waiting to be baptized by John...maybe not enough to be regarded as a sermon.
Once again, PSA is the Gospel, as nothing else said in it matters to us without Jesus dying in our place to pay the wages of our sin. The reason we're to believe in Him is because He did die in our place. THAT was the reason for His life on earth, not to provide a touchy-feely marxist slimmed down moral law to abide which takes out all that which Dan and his kind no longer wish to regard as sinful and displeasing to God.
I don't think it's illogical to include John 3:16 as evidence of the PSA concept being taught, given what it means with regard to why God sent His Only Begotten Son. I regard Dan's human tradition as akin to the idea that few want to know how the sausage is made.
"You continue to forget: I believed what you all believe."
We never forget you keep saying this as if it's true. We never forget how you demonstrate an incredible lack of understanding about conservatism, and as Craig says, what we believe, and this is demonstrated with every false assertion you make about us and what we believe...which are pretty much all of them.
" It was Scripture (along with the biblically irrational and intellectually dishonest views of conservative Dan) that drove me away from the human traditions I grew up with."
No it wasn't. It was your personal preferences failing to align with the truth of Scripture which drove you away from Scripture (not "human traditions", which is a term you use as an insult when actual Scripture is presented to you. Indeed, you've simply replaced "human traditions" which are no less an adherence to the Word and Will of God for your own "human traditions" which are adhere to what Dan Trabue finds personally pleasing.)
"From where I stand, conservative ideology is stunted and rife with eisegesis. It's a rationally vapid and biblically shallow approach to "Bible study," almost entirely dependent upon human traditions to fill in the gaping holes in their biblical and rational logic."
Not that you've ever been able to prove. "Nyuh uh" isn't an argument Dan, though it's the best we get from you.
"My religious philosophies DID diverge from sound biblical teaching and I had to change my beliefs to be more in alignment with God, love, justice, decency and reason."
Your "religious philosophies" are superficial adaptions of very limited aspects of the faith, purposely rejecting all you find personally problematic and based far too heavily on what you demand "God, love, justice, decency and reason" must look like in order to be any of those things, rather than aligning yourself with how Scripture represents them.
You can say you're more aligned with God's Will all you like. You prove constantly that isn't really true.
I'll take your word for it, although I'll bet that there are more that are not particularly blatant. Any "Lamb of God" reference could be considered at least a nod to PSA. Certainly the Passover supper in the upper room is pretty direct as well.
I'd argue that PSA is the explanation of the Atonement that most closely aligns with scripture. It's part of The Gospel, but not the entirety of it.
I'd argue that the entire third chapter of John supports the notion of PSA. It certainly doesn't support Dan's gospel.
Wow. I don't know how to help you further other than pointing out again that you are entirely missing the point.
Dan
Given that Dan's "theology" is based on eisegesis of cherry picked, out of context, proof texts it's hard to take his criticism seriously. Especially as he's not paid attention to conservative scholarship in the last 30 years.
When Dan places"decency" and "Reason" along with attributes of YHWH, that seems like a problem. For Dan to place his subjective, flawed, prejudiced, Reason on the same level as YHWH's love and justice is just one more example of his hubris and arrogance.
Coming from someone who's spent this entire thread "missing the point" of the post, this is absolutely hilarious.
The lack of interaction with the various scriptural examples, tells us all we need to know.
Craig...
"Did not Jesus communicate "Good News" to Zacceus when He dined with Hi, or to Nicodemus, or the Roman Centurion?"
Zaccheus story, as a reminder:
"But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord,
“Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor,
and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
YES. Jesus DID preach the good news to the poor when he talked with Zaccheus. And Zaccheus got it, as you see in his response. THAT is precisely the response one gives when one understands a gospel of grace that begins, as Jesus taught, with the poor and marginalized.
But WHERE is any mention of PSA in that story?
(Hint: it's not there...)
Same with Nicodemus, to whom Jesus said that he had not come into the world to condemn it, but to save it! Good news, indeed. And PSA? It's simply not there.
I've been quite clear that I'm talking about Jesus sermons AND teachings to the masses. That's different than two one-off comments to his already saved (if you will) followers. You're still not getting the point.
Dan
"AND, it is your personal opinion and human tradition that "the gospel" that Jesus was preaching was something like PSA, right?"
It's neither "personal opinion" or "human tradition" (which you clearly regard as the same thing and is thus redundancy). But as you can't seem to explain what "the gospel" is, or what "the Good News" is, except in the most vaguely ambiguous terms, you've neither refuted what we say, nor supported your objection to it.
"Then WHERE is Jesus recorded as preaching your PSA to the poor, the marginalized, the people?"
I would cite His reading of Isaiah in the Temple in Nazareth. Here's why:
As you like to remind us, He came to preach the "Good News" you can't define to the poor. Well, this is where He stated that as His mission by citing that passage. And given He was in a place where the Torah is read and studied routinely, Isaiah would be among the Books studied and read, wherein the Messiah is prophesied, including a very detailed rendering of what is now regarded as PSA in Chapter 53. By reading the scroll from Chapter 61, Jesus identifies Himself as the on referenced in that Chapter and thus the Messiah described in Chapter 53 as well. The only way this doesn't work for you is by dismissing what Jesus said about the prophesy being fulfilled by His presence. Isaiah either speaks of Christ's coming and subsequent sacrifice on our behalf...washing away our sins by the shedding of His Blood...or it doesn't.
Now...the question is just how big a crowed is necessary for you to regard this brief episode as a sermon in which He proclaimed His ultimate reason for having been born to us?
"The two verses that could even slightly be considered PSA-adjacent were NOT in sermons to the people, they were in private meetings, right?"
So, I mentioned five places where Jesus speaks of PSA to which the above makes six. But again, unlike actual Christians, you have some fluid number of mentions in Scripture that must be identified in order for something to be true, without which you choose to reject and dismiss what doesn't please you.
But as if that wasn't enough, your constant nonsense about how many times Jesus spoke of it and to whom is absurdly dishonest, because what matters most is whether or not PSA is a Biblical doctrine, which it most clearly is. As to whom Jesus spoke of this "work of the Father" He came to do, it must be understood that not everything He stated was stated so plainly that it was easy for everyone to understand it, and this reality of His reason for living among us was not fully understood by His Apostles until it happened. But He told them not to speak of it, because it was required that He be given up to the authorities and arrested in order for God's Will to be done. Some of His followers regarded Him as the Messiah without fully understanding just what that meant, and He kept it that way until His time had come to make it clear to them.
Thus, Scripture remains inerrant.
Indeed, Craig. Dan is notorious for pretending what had been done many times had never been done at all, so that he doesn't have to accept that he's been thoroughly schooled about the truth of whatever the issue on the table. That way, he can continue providing no substance for his own positions by demanding we once again support and prove what for honest people would be regarded as a settled issue.
But then, Dan isn't honest.
And yet, "It" is indeed "in there" as I've shown. Dan downplays it because he now insists that Christ was required to preach in a manner which satisfies Dan, which is goofy because Dan doesn't even believe that which is pronounced throughout the entirety of Scripture, both directly and implicitly.
For Dan, the goalposts are on wheels for easy movement from where it is to where he needs it to be to pretend he's not in error.
I love when Dan tries to compose an analogy. He really, really sucks at it.
But I know what he's saying there. He's saying if Jesus didn't speak of PSA before crowds of 5000, then PSA isn't Biblical. But Dan's problem (one of so many) is that what is "Biblical" doesn't require that Jesus said something specific about it. This isn't like the Koran where what Mo said on page 72 obliterates what he said on page 13. PSA runs throughout Scripture, Jesus spoke of it, His Apostles taught it. It's Biblical despite how it's presence in Scripture fails to meet Dan's self-serving standards.
"No, Idea ONE is not in that specific book"
PSA appears in the first three Gospels, revealed by Christ Himself and alluded to in John. Whether or not it was revealed to large crowds or just a handful of people is irrelevant to the fact that PSA is Biblical teaching.
It's interesting. Dan insists that the only time Jesus shares the "good news" is when He does so in "sermons" in from of large groups. So, I point out examples where Jesus shared the Good News in smaller, more intimate groups, and not in sermons. Dan then concludes that the story of Zaccheus is about "the poor" receiving "good news" when they have no idea what's transpired. Further, Dan pretends as though I offered the example as one where Jesus more explicitly communicates something akin to PSA, which was not the intent at all.
It's so much fun having these discussions with Dan because he's simply going to take anything I say and repurpose it into some bizarre support for his hunches.
I know you've been talking about "sermons to the masses" as the only place Jesus shared "good news". That's why I pointed out examples where Jesus shared the "Good News" in more intimate contexts.
Of course, both texts Zaccheus and Nicodemus make it clear that neither was "saved" in any context. But nice try.
Well, I don't know. Dan seems pretty adamant, so I guess the one who's most adamant is always right. Bonus points for using ALL CAPS, that means he's really right.
Of course it's not there because he's eisegeted it out, not because Jesus didn't affirm it.
He very much sucks at it because his analogies are always constructed so as to force people to agree with his preconceived notion, and therefore end up being tortured.
You are correct in that he's giving some sort of extra weight to Jesus "sermons", despite the fact that Jesus often spoke to large crowds in parables and with less clarity than to His disciples.
The concept of a perfect, blameless, sacrifice to atone for sin runs through the entirety of scripture and culminates in Jesus. Paul then articulates the concept with clarity as he spreads the Gospel to the gentiles.
Craig...
"I know you've been talking about "sermons to the masses" as the only place Jesus shared "good news"."
I literally am not. I'm noting that JESUS SAID that he and his disciples were preaching and teaching good news to the poor. That COULD be individually, but it certainly suggests in his sermons to the crowds/masses is where it would occur, as well. In ANY case, whether to small groups, individuals or crowds, WHERE is Jesus found teaching PSA? Other than those two times it COULD be read into what Jesus said, it was with his followers who'd already been hearing the literal good news to the literal poor.
So, with individuals or crowds, WHERE is PSA?
The rich young ruler you cited? That was in a crowd, and he understood the good news to the poor that Jesus was preaching and he wasn't willing to give up his wealth and privilege, so he self-selected out. Nicodemus? No PSA.
Where?
Dan
Art,
Excellent point. Jesus reading of the passage from Isiah 61 in front of a relatively small group in a local synagogue (not a sermon, just a reading with a brief comment therefore inadmissible according to the Dan rules of evidence) is obviously linked with Isiah 53, which His audience would have known. The problem with this is that Dan likes to pick and choose which scriptures he wants to interpret in a woodenly literal manner. For him it makes total sense to interpret Luke 4:21 (even though it doesn't appear in any other gospels) in a woodenly literal manner, despite the ample evidence that Jesus did not end all of the ills He said he would. That obviously means that he's taking Isiah 61:1-2 in a woodenly literal manner, but who knows if the rest of Isiah 61, let alone 53 and the intervening chapters are taken in an equally woodenly literal manner.
He clearly picks passages out of context to take in a woodenly literal manner with no rhyme or reason other than that they fit his unique, subjective, theology.
Or maybe let me ask it this way: is it the case that you all theorize that Jesus did NOT preach the "PSA Good News" very often and not in crowds to the poor and marginalized?
At the very least, do you agree that a clear teaching of PSA is not prominent in most of Jesus' teachings?
Dan
Do you not read what you write? When you literally contradict yourself within a single sentence, you look like a moron.
1. Your bizarre interpretation of one out of context, cherry picked phrase to indicate that the only place Jesus shared the "good news" was in sermons is so far beyond the bounds of normal interpretation I can't even begin to understand what you hope to gain.
2. Multiple instances of Jesus articulating claims that support PSA have already been provided.
3. You acknowledge two instances, yet claim that there are zero instances.
4. Is not two instances enough? How many instances are necessary for a "teaching" to be authoritative.
5. Do you not freaking read before you spew? The Zaccheus, Nicodemus, and RYR examples are offered to demonstrate that Jesus did, in fact, share the "good news" in smaller groups that were not sermons. I only offer them to counter your stupid insistence that the "good news" was reserved for "sermons" and "large groups".
6. The RYR might have been in a "crowd", yet it clearly was NOT a "sermon", nor was His interaction with anyone but the RYR.
I have to admire your commitment to the bit, off topic or not, goal posts moved or not, you are committed to read your eisegesis into every single passage whether it's there or not.
Matthew 8:5-13. Jesus speaks "good news" to a Roman Centurion. He does so individually or in a small group (no sermon), He does not say a single word about "the poor", He offers the healing solely on the basis of the "faith" of the Centurion.
Even your pet proof text of Luke 4:21, is not in a sermon in front of a large group of people. It's clearly in a local synagogue, and it's prior to Jesus actually starting His ministry.
Further, if that one instance was so very important that it forms the entirety of Jesus' earthly message, why is it only found in one of the synoptics and not referenced in John? Was Luke (not one of the 12) the only one who knew this foundational Truth?
Craig...
"Your bizarre interpretation of one out of context, cherry picked phrase to indicate that the only place Jesus shared the "good news" was in sermons is so far beyond the bounds of normal interpretation..."
And...
"The Zaccheus, Nicodemus, and RYR examples are offered to demonstrate that Jesus did, in fact, share the "good news" in smaller groups that were not sermons."
Etc
Read slowly, breathe, read for understanding and understand.:
1. I am NOT saying that Jesus only preached the good news in crowds.
2. I am NOT saying that Jesus preached the good news in sermons.
Do you understand those words?
I'm being as direct and clear as I can be and think the meaning of my words is abundantly clear.
3. I am noting that Jesus said in multiple places that he was preaching the good news to the poor and marginalized, that he was preaching the good news to the lost, to the people... that his followers went out preaching the good news. That was likely in sermons to groups of people but could also be in small groups and in individual conversations.
Do you understand that and accept it as reasonable and an obvious understanding of the many times (not one time) that Jesus referred to preaching the good news?
Dan
1. I do not impose and artificial separation of Jesus' teaching based on the size of the group He was speaking to.
2. Jesus regularly spoke to large crowds in parables and using less specifics and clarity than He did with His disciples.
3. The fact that Jesus only spoke of His atoning sacrifice to His disciples does not minimize or invalidate what He said, nor does it make it less True or authoritative.
4. Clearly Jesus did not come to alleviate all of the social ills you cite during His earthly ministry. We know this because He literally said so, and because we have no record of those social ills being solved on a large scale. While Jesus did share the "Good News" while on earth, He was clearly also preparing His disciples by reminding them under who's authority they operated “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Because of that fact (operating under Jesus' authority) they were told "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”.
It's almost like Jesus chose to limit the scope of His earthly ministry to a small geographic area, and to equip a small group of His closest followers to go beyond Israel, rather than to do so Himself.
Therefore, if we look at The Gospel that Jesus' closest disciples preached after Jesus' ascended, we don't see your gospel, we see something else. Clearly they were mistaken, and you are correct.
Of course, offering succor to those in need was a part of the early Church, but they focused (per Acts 4) primarily on believers first before others.
Luke 24:13-35, Jesus shared the "Good News" with two strangers, did He not?
If you understand, now, that I've never been limiting Jesus' message only to sermons or crowds (you can tell by the way I never said that and by the way I've repeatedly told you very specifically that isn't what I'm saying), then move on and understand what I am saying.
Here's a list of 10 or 20 times Jesus mentioned that he was preaching good news - variously referred to as good news to the poor and marginalized, good news of the realm of God, good news of the realm of heaven, good news for the lost...
https://allenbrowne.blog/2019/02/06/whats-the-good-news-in-the-new-testament/
Now, GIVEN that Jesus and his followers were out in the world, please list at least five or so instances featuring your strongest case that this gospel to the poor and marginalized was the same as your human tradition of PSA. Can you do that? Can you find even three?
Also, if it was a gospel for the poor and marginalized that Jesus referred to at least twice clearly, or even just a good news for the lost, then HOW is PSA in any substantive way good news for the lost and poor?
At the very best, as PSA is usually theorized, wouldn't it be potential good news for a minority of the poor, lost and marginalized?
Dan
1. Then why bring it up at all? Why make it such a focal point of your argument?
2. You literally have said exactly that multiple times. " but it certainly suggests in his sermons to the crowds/masses is where it would occur". FYI that's a quote from you.
I do understand them, however I'm compelled to take them in the context of all of the other off topic verbal vomit you've spewed here, which tells a different story. Or, this is an admission that your earlier remarks and claims are either wrong or poorly worded.
3. Yes, you've just made this shit up and pretend like it is some authoritative imperative.
I've never said that He didn't. I have said that His communication of the "Good News" was not limited to "sermons" in front of "crowds".
I've also never said that Jesus explicitly taught PSA every time He spoke.
Yet both of these off topic distractions have certainly gotten you all riled up.
At your blog, you simply and proudly delete "off topic" comments. Here, you experience the grace of having your off topic comments posted and replied to.
I could go back and copy/paste the quotes that suggest otherwise, but it's not worth it. You'll simply adjust reality to fit your narrative of the moment.
I've given you multiple examples, as has Art. Until you deal with those, I'm not giving you anything else.
You do realize that your entire argument, doesn't falsify PSA in the least. Your "only mentioned it a few times in private" hermenutic isn't actually a thing beyond your tiny little brain.
Leaving aside the fact that you haven't definitively proven your "gospel for the poor.." as being either the only or primary "gospel". I'd venture a guess that the "poor and marginalized" live as "slaves to sin" just like everyone else, and a Gospel that offers them freedom from sin would seem to be good news that includes everyone regardless of their economic status.
Yeah, because forgiveness for sin is shitty news for some people.
Strangely enough, the actual poor and marginalized Haitians I've spent time with seem to be very satisfied with The Gospel that Jesus lived and died for the forgiveness of their sins. But what do they know? They aren't rich, old, white, southern guys who know what Jesus really meant.
Craig...
"1. Then why bring it up at all? Why make it such a focal point of your argument?"
The point I've continually been making is that
A. Jesus proclaimed he'd come to bring/teach good news to the poor, marginalized, and lost.
B. THEREFORE, one could reasonably expect to see Jesus teaching clearly about PSA IF that was the "good news," as you all theorize.
C. And so, I continue to ask yall the reasonable, Where is PSA in his preachings and teachings to the crowds and to the individuals?
As to your suggestion that you two HAVE given me "multiple examples in Jesus' teachings of PSA, all I can say is, Where?
I see this from Marshal...
"PSA appears in the first three Gospels, revealed by Christ Himself and alluded to in John. "
...but that is just an empty claim.
I've seen you say...
"Jesus did clearly communicate that He was the fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system. The "perfect lamb", the "Passover lamb" the "fulfillment of the law", etc."
And
"the entire third chapter of John,"
But those, too, are empty claims. WHERE in John 3 does Jesus say anything directly about PSA?
WHERE is a passage mentioning lamb that speaks directly of PSA?
Dan
John 3 has Jesus saying...
"no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again..."
And...
"no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit."
And...
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him."
And...
"God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
And...
"whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."
WHERE in ANY of that is there any mention of a sacrificial blood offering to "pay" for some (but not all!) people's "sin" so that God is then willing to accept that "payment" so God can forgive them?
And, as always, where is the grace in that blood payment?
Where is the justice of one man paying for another man's sin?
For what it's worth, I think the salvation by Grace that I affirm is clearly in there, but PSA? Not so much.
Dan
A. That is your assumption, based primarily on one out of context proof text, cherry picked because it fits your preconception.
B. This assumes, without proof, that A is unequivocally and definitively True beyond all doubt.
C. We've given you examples. Of course we don't exclude Jesus' teachings because it doesn't fit your arbitrary categorizations. That you ignore them and keep asking, isn't our problem.
Thank you ever so much for demonstrating your complete lack on knowledge of the context of scripture. To a first century Jewish audience referring to the "Lamb" could only have meant one thing.
These games might be fun for you, but they get old for everyone else. This notion that the only possible evidence is that you get to impose your hunches and definitions on scripture and are the final arbiter of what things mean is the height of hubris and arrogance.
Art has provided examples, I've provided examples, the link provided examples, you haven't interacted with one single example provided and demonstrated anything definitively.
Until you do, how about you lay off the bullshit, off topic comments.
Excellent job, cherry picking random out of context snippets and playing games with them.
Where, in any of that is any mention of some specific "gospel for the poor and marginalized"?
How does "no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and The Spirit" help the "poor and marginalized/
The grace in the blood payment is in the fact that the blood of Jesus was spilled as the final sacrifice that fulfilled the first covenant.
One man voluntarily paying the debt of another is grace, not justice.
Since PSA is literally a formulation that is entirely based on grace, I fail to see your point.
It's interesting, in an off topic diversionary sort of way, that you all of a sudden have come around to acknowledging that sin does require some sort of "payment".
Of course, as always, what you think is worth nothing as it's merely a hunch you dreamed up.
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?"
Jesus pointing out that Nicodemus should have known what he was being told by Jesus from his expertise in the Jewish scriptures (the OT), which would have included the sacrificial system which Jesus was the fulfillment of .
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
Clear reference both the the Moses story (validating the Jewish scriptures), and a foreshadowing of His death on the cross. Further, connecting the dots between His death on the cross and "eternal life in Him".
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
Strangely enough, no mention of "saving" the poor and marginalized.
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
Clearly articulating that not all will be "saved", that some will be "condemned". Further solidifying the premise that salvation comes only through Christ.
Anyway, I've indulged this particular bit of off topic diversion enough to demonstrate that even the snippets you provided don't support your "poor and marginalized gospel" hunch.
To answer your question, to show how it's done...
""Where, in any of that is any mention of some specific "gospel for the poor and marginalized"?"
Nowhere. But I didn't say that it was. As a reminder, YOU claimed that PSA was all throughout John 3. I was just reasonably asking for you to show me where. Because, frankly, I think you're clearly mistaken.
Right?
As a reminder, I'm a believer in a gospel of salvation by Grace.
Jesus noted, and writers throughout the biblical witness have noted, that this good news, this salvation, this loving welcome always begins with the poor and marginalized. Come to me, ALL who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Etc, etc. God loves ALL of humanity and is not willing that any should perish, as Jesus notes there. Thus, salvation by grace, not works, not some literal blood payment/ransom.
Craig...
"How does "no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and The Spirit" help the "poor and marginalized..."?
I didn't say it did, did I?
But God so loved the world and isn't willing that ANY should perish, THAT helps the poor and others who have long been left out. Right?
Dan
Craig...
"The grace in the blood payment is in the fact that the blood of Jesus was spilled as the final sacrifice that fulfilled the first covenant.
One man voluntarily paying the debt of another is grace, not justice."
I get that this is your theory, but where is it all throughout John 3?
Craig...
"you all of a sudden have come around to acknowledging that sin does require some sort of "payment"."
Um, I haven't said that. Do not believe that. What?
Dan
Given that we're 98 comments in and you haven't answered the question that was the very premise of the post, instead choosing to engage in these off topic bullshit diversions, you're hardly a paragon to be emulated.
Interesting, Jesus clearly lays out what is necessary for salvation, to "enter the Kingdom of God", to a man who is one of the "rich oppressors" you prate on and on about, and does so without ever mentioning the "poor and marginalized", yet you still insist that "the gospel" is centered on the "poor and marginalized".
Yes, I stand by my observation, that John 3 points toward salvation thorough Christ's atoning death on the Cross. Is it an exhaustive 3 points and a conclusion sermon, no. Is it there, yes.
I give up. You are clearly a master at picking and choosing out of context snippets as your proof texts, and unable to see beyond your preconceptions. feel free to continue, but I'm done with this out of context bullshit.
"Where is the justice of one man paying for another man's sin?"
If it's not justice for one man to pay for another's sin, then does it not follow that each pays for their own sins? Or are you suggesting that there is no "payment" for sin?
I'm not going to waste time with this, but the whole serpent thing is a direct reference to Jesus being crucified for our salvation, just as Moses raised up a metal serpent to provide "salvation" from the plague of snakes.
But that's not important or relevant.
LOL!
"Or maybe let me ask it this way: is it the case that you all theorize that Jesus did NOT preach the "PSA Good News" very often and not in crowds to the poor and marginalized?
At the very least, do you agree that a clear teaching of PSA is not prominent in most of Jesus' teachings?"
I don't know about Craig (actually, mostly I think I do), but I've been focused on Dan's original falsehood that PSA isn't Biblical but just something made up by some dudes a few centuries after the Resurrection. Dan, as usual, zig-zags to the notion the concept must be present in Christ's sermons to large crowds (before or after the fish sandwiches he doesn't say) in order for the concept to be a Biblical teaching. Then he'll zig-zag from that to how many times Jesus mentioned it at all as if that matters to the truth that PSA is a Biblical teaching. Through it all, he doesn't acknowledge that his questions have been answered with actual Biblical evidence to thwart his intention to dismiss and reject PSA.
Dan's "gospel for the poor" remains unexplained. And even if Jesus didn't distinctly mention His atoning sacrifice on the cross as part of that "gospel for the poor", it remains an essential part of it, because Christ spoke of His death as His reason for being born. If the "gospel for the poor" is one of redemption and accessibility to heaven, it includes the means by which we are blessed having God's Grace (a word Dan also never explains) poured out for us. PSA is counter to Dan's universalism. He can't have it or else his universalism is worthless and all those Dan believes are worthy of heaven based on Dan's standards will find themselves outside looking in.
Once again, PSA is a label applied to a concept or principle or teaching. As such, that PSA isn't mentioned by that label in no way means the concept is not present. And now, he again zig-zags to "WHERE in John 3 does Jesus say anything directly about PSA?" I'm pretty certain when I mentioned the Gospel of John that it "alluded to" PSA.
I have to say again that Dan continues to prove his claim of having "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture is constantly belied by his comments and questions such as those he poses. If he has actually studied as he claims to have studied, he could cite chapter and verse every instance when Christ speaks of dying to pay our debt to God...dying to wash us of our sins so that we may present before God as sinless.
He explains it, but he just references his pet proof text and makes circular arguments based on what he reads into things.
The problem with this off topic distraction is that simply saying PSA doesn't get at the depth and breadth of scripture as it talks about the atonement. It's like judging a redwood forest by looking an a pine seedling. That Dan then wants soundbites to describe something so broad only makes it worse.
Of course he does, that's how he roles. He's gone from "It's recent", which has been disproved, to "it's not there", to "it's only in a couple of places", to " it's not in sermons", to whatever bullshit is next.
Jesus only said "Today you will be with Me in paradise" once, He only said "Tetelestai" once, yet only an imbecile would argue that the number of times those things were said somehow makes them less.
Yup. The concept of atonement for sin and of some sort of blood sacrifice for that atonement first shows up in Genesis, and flows throughout the rest of the Bible. When you remove something like "The Lamb of God" from it's context and play the "How does mentioning a lamb...", it doesn't make sense. Without knowing that, in the 1st century Jewish context, the lamb carried significant meaning, it doesn't make any sense to refer to Jesus as "The Lamb of God". Dan, of course, rips things from context on the one hand and goes extremely, woodenly literal on the other.
You could, and Dan would find excuses as to why they can't mean what they mean.
Post a Comment