Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost."
Matthew 20:28 “The Son of Man [came]… to give his life as a ransom in exchange for
many…."
Matthew 26:28 "For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the
forgiveness of sins.”
Luke 24:46-47 “Thus it is written, that the Messiah should suffer and on the third day rise
from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in
his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
John 1:29 "“Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
Hebrews 9:12-14 “[Christ] entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood
of goats and calves but by his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if
the blood of goats and bulls sanctify... how much more will the blood of Christ
who... offered himself without blemish to God?”
Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."
74 comments:
You cite Luke 19, ripping it out of context.
IN context, we see it's in the story of penitent, rich Zaccheus...
"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.”
What literally saved Zaccheus in this story?
That rich man repenting and returning stolen money to the poor.
WHERE does Jesus' magic forgiveness blood factor in this story?
It doesn't. It's not in that story at all.
Dan
Your second, ripped from context quote is from Matthew 20. IN context of the full passage, which is speaking of wealth and power, poverty and grace, we see this...
"When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said,
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave
— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Is this some reference to magic sin-saving blood?
No. Not at all. It's speaking of embracing grace via humility. It's about grace as commonly understood, literally not magic blood or blood payments.
Dan
Your Luke 24:46-47 appears to be a misquote, or from some other passage.
Luke 24 says...
"He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Fyi.
And no blood payment to appease an angry God is there, either.
Dan
Your John 1 quote is correct that John said of Jesus that he'd come to take away the sin of the world. But again, in context, there's no mention of a blood payment. Instead, we find this explanation...
"(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”)
Out of his fullness
we have all received grace
in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses;
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Thanks for making my case for me, even if only accidentally, in citing these excellent passages.
Dan
Don't you know these are all figurative metaphors for...uh...something?
It could not be more plain that Christ was sacrificed for our sins. He offered Himself up for the task. Atheists and progressive Christians from Jeff St (same thing) can describe God all they like as a moral monster, but they're unlikely to be among the saints in heaven, anyway, so...
The question remains:
Jesus states repeatedly in the Gospels that he and his disciples WERE preaching the gospel.
Given that textual reality, WHY are there zero recorded instances of Jesus preaching this Penal Substitutionary theory in the Gospels that modern evangelicals theorize?
Can you agree, at least, that this is a reasonable question?
Dan
Well, Dan discovers context as a thing and promptly uses it as an excuse to advocate for salvation by works.
1. What "literally saved" Zaccheus is the same thing that "literally saved" every single person throughout history. The finished work of Jesus. Or, more succinctly, the answer is Jesus. Zaccheus was not saved by his actions or by giving away half of his stuff.
2. To suggest that the quote from Jesus "The Son of Man has come to seek and save the lost" somehow ONLY applies to Zaccheus and ONLY is effective because of Zaccheus' works is simply bizarre.
3. You seem to be suggesting that Zaccheus' household was saved because of Zaccheus' works. How can one person's works save others?
4. Your ignorance (intentional or not) of the role of blood in scripture is your problem, not mine. As noted elsewhere, I'll be posting more on the topic by an expert (or at least significantly more expert than you) at some point.
But great job of arguing for a works based salvation, which removes Jesus entirely from salvation.
No, it's not. But I appreciate you showing your ignorance.
I'll simply note that your assertion doesn't actually prove anything in regards to your hunch about "salvation". It's literally Jesus pointing out that He came to "give His life as a ransom for many". Again, I'll be posting a more information from an expert at some point. Your choice to separate Jesus and His purpose from the larger context of the rest of Scripture as well as you choice to apply modern definitions to the words and concepts represented in Scripture, is an interesting one. No doubt you'll (if you bother to actually watch what I post) fail to offer anything of substance in rebuttal.
My bad, it was a typo. It's fixed. Of course, your obsession with making shit up blinds you to the fact that it literally contradicts your version of "the gospel".
But hey, you got me on a typo, well done.
Again, well done. Re framing an argument to "prove" something that isn't actually being asserted.
1. That you think that this self own on your part (because it doesn't support the "gospel" you claim) is some big win for you because it is only part of a larger picture is funny.
2. Even with your added "context" it doesn't make you case as to why Jesus came and that your "gospel" is the only possible "gospel".
3. It's good to see you acknowledging that Jesus existed before John and HIs deity.
Art, it's refreshing that you understand the point being made here.
I agree that it's a "reasonable question" based on your preconceptions, prejudices, and biases.
That you impose something on Jesus after the fact is what I find unreasonable. That you've chosen to limit Jesus to having to communicate only using certain words or phrases that you've decided are necessary is your problem. That you've chosen to ignore and exclude the reality that Jesus was a 1st century Jew, communicating to other 1st century Jews and that all were steeped in the language and symbol of the sacrificial system which YHWH laid out in the Torah, is your choice. Yet, the rest of us are not bound by your choices and limitations.
Craig irrationally and falsely stated:
Dan discovers context as a thing and promptly uses it as an excuse to advocate for salvation by works
A. Dan has ALWAYS been talking about context. What's being discovered, apparently, is that Craig is finally recognizing what Dan has been clear about for years with Craig.
B. I literally am not advocating a salvation by works. I've been abundantly clear on this point for years with you. Again, understanding words in the context of other conversations is important for adult level readers and reasoners.
Craig:
1. What "literally saved" Zaccheus is the same thing that "literally saved" every single person throughout history. The finished work of Jesus.
What I'm clearly noting is that IN CONTEXT OF THIS STORY, Jesus does not speak of a PS sort of theory. At all. It's entirely NOT there. In the context of THIS story, Jesus notes that Zaccheus has been saved when he repents of his abuse of wealth and power and mistreatment of the poor.
In THIS story.
Now, in the greater context of Jesus' teachings and preachings to the masses, we see repeated references to the good news for the poor and marginalized. We see repeated references to the good news of the realm/kingdom/beloved community of God. We see repeated references to God seeking to welcome and save the lost, the whole world, the poor and marginalized.
We see NO sermons to the masses where he preaches the "good news of the theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, wherein SOME small portion of humanity is 'saved' by Jesus 'paying' for their 'sins' with his 'blood...'"
Neither a simple salvation by God's grace (my theory) nor the PSA theory (your collective human theory) are mentioned directly and clearly in Jesus' teachings, but my theory (and those who think likewise) is rationally and directly found within Jesus' teachings to the masses, whereas your human theory is not.
That's all I'm noting.
Craig, somewhat bizarrely, stated...
To suggest that the quote from Jesus "The Son of Man has come to seek and save the lost" somehow ONLY applies to Zaccheus and ONLY is effective because of Zaccheus' works is simply bizarre.
It's bizarre, insofar as I quite literally didn't say that, did I?
As always, it begs the question of how you all can read words and reach conclusions that are nowhere at all suggested in those words? If you can do that so easily and repeatedly and consistently with MY words, why would you have any confidence that you can understand Jesus' words?
Craig:
3. You seem to be suggesting that Zaccheus' household was saved because of Zaccheus' works. How can one person's works save others?
I'm not saying that, though, am I? Quite literally, I am saying what I've ALWAYS said about salvation: That it is by God's grace and God's love. Period.
I've always been quite clear that I'm NOT speaking of or suggesting a salvation by works. That is, after all, in part why I'm opposed to your collective human theories that suggest that misunderstanding the "right" way to be saved and to believe being a path to hell, that thinking is, itself, a "salvation by works" scheme.
I'm merely noting in THIS story, there is zero mention of salvation via blood payment for sin and that in THIS story, Jesus notes Zaccheus (and his household) are saved by his repentance for his abuse of power and wealth, his abuse of the poor and his accepting the notion of Jesus' beloved community which begins with the poor and marginalized.
In the greater scheme of Jesus' teachings, then, that is in fitting with a salvation by Grace model, but not at all in fitting with a salvation by blood payment model.
"My version of the gospel..."
I wonder if you can even articulate what you think my "version of the gospel" is? Even though it's an exceedingly easy concept to understand and even though I've been exceedingly consistent on the point, I don't think you know what I'm advocating.
Why not try?
If, after all, you can't understand my very clear and consistent words over all these years you've known me and read my words - and I'm a fellow who was raised as you were in the century you were in the same language as you use (religious language as well as English) - if you can't understand and explain my simple direct understanding of salvation, why would you have confidence in your ability to understand biblical words written lo, all those centuries ago?
As to the typo, I know it was a typo. That's why I alerted you to it. I THEN proceeded to guess that maybe you were citing the passage you actually cited (in spite of the words you quoted) and noted that it does not speak of any blood payment theory.
What we have here is a great example of two of Dan's more charming traits.
1. His tendency of imposing his conclusions on a given post or topic. He's decided that this list of scripture passages must be about his "magic blood" hunch and therefore has decided that his straw man is that these don't specifically mention his "magic blood".
2. His tendency of selectively imposing his hunches about context on things. He's decided that he's qualified to read his projections into the larger context, which doesn't actually contradict the scripture I quoted.
It's simply Dan battling against straw men.
Dan: "I'm not advocating salvation by works"
Also Dan when replying to his own question about what saved Zaccheus: "That rich man repenting and returning stolen money to the poor."
But "repenting and giving money to the poor" is somehow not an example of a "work".
"What I'm clearly noting is that IN CONTEXT OF THIS STORY, Jesus does not speak of a PS sort of theory."
1. Well that's your straw man, innit?
2. Fortunately "the context" is much greater than this story.
3. Nonetheless, the "seek and save the lost", is not limited by your hunches nor does it even hint at salvation by "repent and give away".
"That's all I'm noting."
That you are "noting" something carries virtually zero value. Your obsession with a specific formulation and your limiting of this formulation to only parts of scripture is bizarre and absurd. That there is context beyond your imposed limits might be difficult for you to grasp.
"It's bizarre, insofar as I quite literally didn't say that, did I?"
No, you just ignored it and twisted the context to support your hunches about some "gospel" based solely around "the poor". Which is the point. You simply ignored the one part that doesn't agree with your hunch and imposed your own limiting context on the passage.
More words, nothing of value to parse. Simply you battling with a straw man and something you've inserted into the post.
Yes, I can. Your version of a "gospel" is based entirely on Luke 4:21 and involves some sort of primacy of "the poor and oppressed" and focuses on the meeting of their temporal needs as some requirement to be followed.
As always, your condescending self aggrandizing is appreciated.
Craig...
"Your version of a "gospel" is based entirely on Luke 4:21 and involves some sort of primacy of "the poor and oppressed" and focuses on the meeting of their temporal needs as some requirement to be followed."
So, no, you literally can't articulate what my understanding of the gospel is. And yet, you don't appear to even understand that you don't understand.
Wanna try again or should I make it precisely clear to you?
Dan
Given your repeated reference to the Luke 4:21 passage (although likely not the Isiah passage being referenced or the implicit endorsement of Isiah by Jesus) as your proof text for your "gospel" and your inability to "make clear" what your "gospel" really is, I'm content.
You've been abundantly clear that your "gospel" is centered around the "poor and marginalized" and some (undefined) "table" and various euphemisms to avoid the term "Kingdom of God".
That you cannot prove that your "gospel" is The Gospel, and that Paul and the rest of the NT got it wrong, is enough for me to dismiss your "gospel" as one more of you unproven hunches.
Finally, I reject you limits on where The Gospel can be found. I refuse to play by your arbitrary rules. If given the choice between Jesus, Paul, John, and the rest of the NT authors, and you, the choice is easy.
One last thought. There are two aspects to this conversation.
1. To demonstrate your inability to definitively prove that your hunches about what The Gospel is.
2. To provide evidence that leads in the direction of Jesus being the fullest and most complete sacrifice for the sins of humanity. That Jesus self sacrifice was the culmination of the OT system and rendered the previous covenant fulfilled. That Jesus did not come primarily to offer temporary, temporal, partial, removal of the sufferings of the materially "poor" and politically "oppressed". That Jesus came to "...save His people from their sins" and to "take away the sin of the world". That limiting Jesus' sacrifice to merely offering some limited succor to the materially "poor" and politically "oppressed" is to miss the vastness of the work of Jesus.
Given those two things, anything that casts doubt on your hunches is valuable.
Because Craig doesn't understand what I think about salvation and how we are saved (even though I've talked consistently about it for the nearly two decades we've been talking via blog...), I'll make it clear. Again.
HOW does Dan think we are saved?
By God's grace. Period. I believe we are saved by God's grace, God's love, God's kindness, God's mercy, God's forgiveness.
But by what MECHANISM or method or theology are we saved?
? I believe we are saved by God's grace. Period.
But how does that work?
Grace? That is, I think God WANTS all of humanity to be saved and welcomes us to the beloved community of God. By God's love, grace, kindness, decency. Grace.
A. Do you disagree? (I know that some in the evangelical world believes God does NOT want all people to be saved... that God creates some humans - the vast majority of humans, in fact - for the sake of being destroyed, wiped out, sent to hell for an eternity of torment).
AND, I think that because that's what God wants, God has an open invitation to ALL to welcome that salvation, that grace, that love and forgiveness.
B. Do you disagree?
AND that because God does love us all and does not want ANY to perish, that we are welcomed by God, by grace, by God's love and decency, to be saved. HOW? By God's love, by God's grace.
Period.
But HOW does God save us?
By God's decision to be gracious. That is, even though we are imperfect and even do bad things sometimes, and some of us even do VERY bad, harmful things sometimes, God simply welcomes us and forgives us, if we want to be welcomed and forgiven.
You know, grace. Grace as it is normally defined. Grace: Kindness, a gift, courteous good will. Unmerited divine assistance. ALL the typical definitions of grace. You know, grace. Period.
https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-grace.html
More...
Because Dan is incapable of believing that the fault could lie with his vague explanations he's going to be condescending. How grown up of him.
Dan's grand "explanation" is simply a repetition of one word with nothing else of value.
In Dan's world "God wants" to save everyone, but He just can't. He's foiled by the very humans He created and is completely unable to get what He wants. It's either that or Dan's arguing for Universalism. Given that Dan has previously claimed he's not a Universalist, and that he believes that not all are saved, I fail to see a way out of the dilemma he's created for himself. But hey, I understand the appeal of a god who is so impotent that he can't achieve the end that he "wants".
Dan does, however, completely underestimate Sin and it's effects on the relationship between YHWH and humans.
I understand, Dan has a unique, novel, "gospel" which is full of his little catch phrases and not one bit of scripture, and we're just supposed to agree that he's correct on this and that the vast majority of Christians have disagreed with his fanciful invention.
The Interrogator:
But Dan, you've mentioned God's grace specifically for the poor and marginalized... what does that have to do with Grace?
i. I believe that we are all loved by God - every one, red, yellow, black, white, poor, rich, privileged, oppressed. Everyone.
ii. I believe that just because God desires to save us all by God's grace, that doesn't mean that God is blind or deliberately turning a blind eye to acts of oppression or harm. We do harm to one another and pretty regularly. God doesn't love that.
iii. And those who are most likely to be harmed, maltreated, ignored, oppressed, killed, enslaved, etc are those who are the poorest and the more marginalized.
iv. And so, this wise God of love and grace makes it abundantly clear (if you think the various biblical authors and Jesus' own words are trustworthy) says, when Jesus began his ministry, for instance, that he'd come to save specifically the poor and marginalized.
With me so far?
But why would a God of grace and love who welcomes all. say that?
Because this wise God knows that when the least of these, the poor and marginalized, the disabled, the immigrants, those with no homes or families... when the least of these are welcomed and accounted for and loved by God's grace, that we ALL are welcomed and loved.
Because God knows that there is this tendency amongst humans (imperfect as we are) to be more self-satisfied and less concerned if we're privileged and well-off. And so, when we ALL are watching out for the poor and marginalized, when ALL are welcomed, included, supported and given the grace and dignity due to God's own children, then that is when we are most likely to be most effective and gracious and loving.
When we love and ally with and include the so-called "least of these," we are welcoming and loving God's own Self, because God is IN the poor and marginalized, in a very real way.
And so, we are saved by God's grace, by God's desire to be loving, kind, giving, inclusive, welcoming AND that grace begins with the poor and marginalized in the prophets and teachings of Jesus and others in the biblical record.
And so, what is my answer to HOW we are saved? By what scheme or process or plan or system?
My answer is we are saved by God's grace. By God's love. By God's welcome. By God's justice. By God's kind gift, even to the undeserving.
We are saved by God's decision to be gracious to God's children.
Because even we mere mortals recognize that's something that we can and should do, EVEN IF we didn't have the Biblical witness. Or at least, that's what is recorded in the pages of the Bible.
So, we're not saved by some scheme to "pay off" a "debt" we allegedly "owe" to God (or maybe the devil??, as in a ransom??) whereby Jesus "purchases" our forgiveness from a "god" who wouldn't willingly just forgive us because of Love?
I don't think so. I think we are saved by Grace. Period.
NOW do you understand how I think we are saved?
Craig:
Because Dan is incapable of believing that the fault could lie with his vague explanations he's going to be condescending. How grown up of him.
Dan, hundreds of times over the last two decades:
I believe we are saved by God's Grace. PERIOD.
That is, God WANTS to save us and God LOVES us and God WELCOMES us to the beloved community, to be God's children. That is, we are saved by GOD'S GRACE. PERIOD.
I'm not sure what part of "We are saved by God's grace. Period." you find to be a vague explanation. Seriously. WHAT is confusing to you?
I love my children and my friends and my family because I LOVE them. I treat them with love as a conscious decision because of Grace, kindness, love. It's just that simple. And if I, poor imperfect mortal that I am, can understand I can and should love my beloved, then why would we think God is impotent to do the same?!
What's vague or confusing to you?
Craig, appearing to be confused by something as simple love and grace, said:
In Dan's world "God wants" to save everyone, but He just can't. He's foiled by the very humans He created and is completely unable to get what He wants.
I love my children. I welcome them to my home, to my circles, to go on walks or to dinners or to play games or to meet with other friends or to go play music together... to read books together. To BE together, and love each other.
I imagine you do, too.
But have you ever once FORCED them to "love you..."? Have you demanded that they speak to you or bow to your desires? Have you punished them until they, in fear of more punishment, acquiesced to your demands?
God almighty, I hope not!
That's part of the deal with grace and love, my dear man. One can't FORCE love from another. One can't demand that they bow to your demands to love them. Why not?
Because that isn't love. That isn't grace. That's tyranny and sort of the opposite of grace. I mean, right?
You recognize that much in human interactions, don't you?
Dan is now having a conversation with himself. It's one that is carefully curated to allow his answers to hold together based on his unique hunches. It's not a real "interrogation" in any sense of the word as the "questions" are merely vehicles designed to support the answers.
Dan's lack of understanding of the context (the entirety of scripture, not just a few cherry picked snippets and proof texts) explains so very much.
No, your fake "conversation" with yourself, in which you merely repeat the same old pablum is not any more clear than it ever has been.
It's like you've just thrown together a bunch of catch phrases and slogans and pretend like it's some coherent, high level, interpretation.
You're still stuck on God being unable to achieve what you claim He "wants" because some humans have so much power to thwart YHWH's "want" that they get to choose their own fate.
Your ignorance of the entire scriptural context when it comes to sin, holiness, atonement, forgiveness, and sacrifice, is disturbing for someone who prides themselves on their biblical expertise. I'll admit that it's amusing to see you flailing so desperately to turn this incoherent bunch of word salad into something of substance.
You do you.
It's incoherent. Either YHWH can use His grace to achieve what you claim He wants "to save everyone" or He is so impotent that humans can thwart what you claim he "wants".
Chanting "grace" as if it's some sort of magical spell that still isn't able to save everyone, and simply repeating yourself are the source of my "confusion". It's not really "confusion" as it is pity for your ignorance and sympathy for your attempts to reconcile two contradictory claims.
If, as you claim, YHWH's grace "saves" us then from what are we "saved"? What is so bad that only YHWH can "save" us, and why is He so impotent that He can't do what He "wants"?
Craig falsely claimed with no support (because it's false):
Your ignorance of the entire scriptural context when it comes to sin, holiness, atonement, forgiveness, and sacrifice, is disturbing for someone who prides themselves on their biblical expertise.
And yet, you can't point to ONE place where I have demonstrated ignorance of the entire scriptural context. NOT ONE PLACE.
You see, the problem is, in your own lack of grace and human imperfection, you are conflating, "Dan disagrees with my opinions about how I understand texts found in the Bible" with "Dan is ignorant of the Bible."
Disagreeing with Craig does not demonstrate ignorance of the Bible.
However, making an unsupported claim of ignorance of the Bible when I disagree with your opinions DOES demonstrate a good bit of hubris, arrogance and presumption.
Will you, at the least, admit to the reality that you can't point to ONE place where I've demonstrated an ignorance of the Biblical texts on some topic?
(which is not to say that I have COMPLETE knowledge of all biblical texts - no matter how many times I've read through it prayerfully and carefully - just noting the reality that you can't support this stupidly false claim.)
Dan equates himselef with YHWH. That's perfectly normal. He assigns his motives to YHWH and demands that YHWH behave as Dan behaves.
So, if YHWH "wants" to save everyone yet allows some people to thwart His "want" then does He really "want" the salvation of everyone in any meaningful sense? Why can't He get what He wants? Or does He not know that what He "wants" is impossible for Him to achieve?
What I see here is functionally no different from Predestination. YHWH "wants" to save everyone, but He can't because He's not able to, so His "wants" go unfulfilled and He's left in despair because He failed.
Again, I get it. Grace is you magical "get out of jail free card" issued by a god who's unable to either get what you claim he "wants" or is so bad at communication and persuasion that humans can ignore him.
In the words of the Hulk, "Puny god.".
Craig complained and claimed - with NO support to back his opinion:
Either YHWH can use His grace to achieve what you claim He wants "to save everyone" or He is so impotent that humans can thwart what you claim he "wants".
Why must it be either/or?
WHY is it not possible to love someone or even ALL people
AND YET
not within the realm of grace to force that salvation and love and grace?
Do you think perfect grace FORCES itself on others?
THAT would be confusing and irrational and, frankly, internally inconsistent.
As to the rest of this comment, ARE you able to directly and clearly answer the question: "HOW does Dan think we are saved?" with a simple and clear repetition of my actual answer ("Dan thinks we are saved by God's grace and love.")?
THAT is my actual answer to the question. Do you understand that much?
And it's NOT confusing in and of itself, right? HOW does Dan think we are saved? By God's grace, by God's kindness, by God's love.
Isn't that abundantly clear and straightforward?
Now, you apparently might want to say, "But I, Craig, personally don't see how that works... HOW can God save us simply by a decision to love and welcome us by grace?" But you can't really say it's vague or unclear.
I think sometimes being so thoroughly indoctrinated by some set of religious dogma and human traditions makes even the most simple and direct answers hard to understand.
I never can understand the vehemence so many conservatives have against the simple concepts of love and grace, welcome and forgiveness.
I'd argue that the very fact that you've created a "salvation" that is completely divorced from the OT, that your "proof" for your hunch is limited only to "Jesus' sermons", and that you have not once addressed the fact that Jesus' audience was 1st century Jews who's entire view of atonement was through the sacrificial system instituted in the Torah, indicates that you are either ignorant on the topic or willfully choose to disregard it.
Again, when you say precisely zero on a topic that is so heavily referenced in the gospels and by Jesus, I choose to conclude that it's ignorance rather than choosing to dismiss the fuller context of Jesus' earthly ministry. By concluding ignorance, I'm actually showing grace to you by hoping that it's simply a matter of you lacking knowledge as opposed to having knowledge and disregarding that knowledge.
Pride, is one such topic. Your continued insistence of pridefully claiming some sort of knowledge about things that no one else seems to have.
Speaking of unsupported lies, here's a whopper.
Disagreeing with your vague, unsupported hunches about things is not disagreeing with the thing itself. That I choose not to blindly accept your hunches about grace is irrelevant. But it's always nice when you do the things you bitch about.
"Why must it be either/or?"
Because being "saved" is an either/or. YHWH being powerful enough to achieve what He "wants" is an either/or.
I suspect a goal post move coming up next.
"WHY is it not possible to love someone or even ALL people
AND YET
not within the realm of grace to force that salvation and love and grace?"
Either YHWH has failed to property communicate His love for "all" or He's unable to get what He "wants". Perhaps you're mistaken about what YHWH "wants". I know you can't imagine being mistaken, but it's possible.
I think that a "perfect grace" that "wants" "all to be saved" yet fails to achieve that is hardly "perfect".
Yet, after all of that, Dan was quite clear that Zaccheus was "saved by repenting and giving to the poor".
The problem is that I don't see grace, atonement, forgiveness, salvation, and sin as so simplistic that it's just a matter of saying a magic word. I'm saying that a cursory look at the nature of a supremely Holy God, and the nature of the first covenant He made with Israel, combined with that very language being part and parcel of Jesus' ministry, might indicate something less simplistic.
But you continue to believe what you want to believe, ask "Did YHWH really say...?", and rely on your personal, individual, flawed, imperfect, (yet vaunted) Reason above all else is that's what makes you feel good and powerful.
Craig...
"The problem is that I don't see grace, atonement, forgiveness, salvation, and sin as so simplistic that it's just a matter of saying a magic word."
1. I agree that this is certainly one of the problems... you do not appear to think that love and forgiveness can be as simple as a decision to simply love and forgive. I do think it's as simple as that.
One question is, Why can the decision of choosing to simply love and forgive be as simple as that?
[Note: I'm saying Simple, as in clear and comprehensible, NOT Easy. Something can be simple and straightforward, but that doesn't necessarily mean, Easy.]
That seems to be a reasonable question.
I mean, for your own loved ones, is it NOT as simple as the simple decision to love, welcome and forgive them?
[Note: This kind of analogy is, of course, direct from Jesus and other biblical teachings. It doesn't mean we're saying we are the same as God.]
2. I said nothing about a magic word.
Dan
Well, you certainly got that wrong. But I'm sure you felt superior as you made that up.
Only YHWH can answer why, I'm not Him. I suspect that if you looked at how He views things like sin, atonement, forgiveness, and the first covenant He instituted you'd get a glimpse. I think the disconnect is in your view on sin and how little seriousness and weight you give to the problem of sin. But that's just what I think based on what you've said.
Further, I'd argue that the decisions to love and forgive are two separate decisions. Unless you are arguing that to love is to automatically forgive regardless of the offense. Of course to blithely forgive someone for something, while not doing the same for everyone makes a mockery of justice does it not? How is it just to forgive one murder and not forgive another?
One other problem is that you seem to believe that what is "reasonable" to you must be objectively reasonable to everyone (including YHWH). As your version of "reasonable" is subjective, you applying your subjective hunch as if it's objective/universal seems problematic to say the least.
If, for example, there was an overwhelmingly compelling Biblical case to be made that there must be some sort of atonement before forgiveness, then your position becomes less "reasonable".
Again, love and forgiveness are not synonymous nor are they automatically connected. If one of my children viciously murdered my wife and was completely unrepentant, I might still love them, but I'm not sure I'd automatically forgive them.
You're right you didn't say "magic word" (much like I've never said "magic blood", yet you continue to use the term "magic blood"), you simply treat "grace" as if it was a magic word. That by simply invoking some version of "grace" you can get what you want.
It's always nice to see you act so hypocritically. You either get like this when others appropriate your words, phrases, and attitudes or you allow yourself to do things you bitch about when those things are done by others.
It's the double standard that always bites you in the ass.
Craig...
"You're right you didn't say "magic word" (much like I've never said "magic blood", yet you continue to use the term "magic blood"), you simply treat "grace" as if it was a magic word."
You're right. I use "magic blood" to refer to the belief...
A. that our "sins"
B. cause us to be "deserving of eternal punishment " and
C. the only thing that can save us (SOME of us)
D. Is God's "grace"
E. WHERE "God's grace" requires shedding Jesus "blood" (his literal blood...?)
F. To "pay for" our "sin debt"
G. SO THAT "god" will be willing to forgive our "sin debt..." and
H. Without which, God is either unwilling or unable to forgive sin and "save us" from our "sin punishment..."
That is, I use magic blood as a sacrilegious (to some humans) way of referring to your actual beliefs.
Do I have your actual belief roughly correct (acknowledging some slight differences in how various conservatives theorize salvation.)?
On the other hand, when I use the terms, Love and Grace and Forgiveness, I'm just referring to their actual typical definitions. And there's nothing literally magical in just the notions of love, grace and forgiveness, so, you're using it to misrepresent what I'm speaking of.
Got it?
I'm using my silly term to represent what you actually believe.
You're using your silly term to misrepresent what I've said.
See the difference?
Dan
And still, I wonder, do you or do you not simply decide to love and forgive people because it's the right thing to do, a good and holy thing to do? Do you just decide to love your family and decide to forgive them as a matter of will/personal choice without any sort of sacrifice to "pay" for their misdeeds before you're willing to forgive them?
( And yes, Love, Grace and Forgiveness are all distinct but connected words. If you love someone, you are prepared to be gracious, grace-giving towards them.
And if you love someone, you can stand ready to forgive them and, indeed, will be desirous to forgive them, hoping to see a right relationship restored.
Dan
I had asked:
One question is, Why can the decision of choosing to simply love and forgive be as simple as that?
And you responded, I THINK, in response to that question:
Only YHWH can answer why, I'm not Him. I suspect that if you looked at how He views things like sin, atonement, forgiveness, and the first covenant He instituted you'd get a glimpse. I think the disconnect is in your view on sin and how little seriousness and weight you give to the problem of sin.
If so, it SOUNDS like you're making the presumption... that your human theory that God is not willing/able to simply forgive sin and welcome people IS the same as God's position. But that would be question begging, would it not?
IF that's what you think, you might more correctly say, "IF I am correct in my theory that God is unwilling/unable/impotent to simply forgive sin and welcome people as a matter of will, THEN I THEORIZE that it might be because God views sin differently than we do..."
Is that fair/reasonable/more humble?
Craig:
I suspect that if you looked at how He views things like sin, atonement, forgiveness, and the first covenant He instituted you'd get a glimpse. I think the disconnect is in your view on sin and how little seriousness and weight you give to the problem of sin
Again, more correctly, you might say, "I SUSPECT AND THEORIZE that God views sin differently than other people do."
And you should know that I think I hold an appropriate, rational AND biblical view of "the problem of sin," one that is right-sized and makes sense in the context of a high view of biblical texts.
For instance, I recognize that biblical authors held to different scales and levels of sin. I, for instance, take seriously abusive/harmful behaviors like enslaving people, selling daughters into sex slavery, kidnapping the female survivors of an assault on an enemy and forcibly "wedding" them, etc... those are deadly serious crimes and I suspect they make God sick and outraged, and righteously so. Just as it should for all of us.
On the other hand, the "crime" of working on the Sabbath is largely contextual and not in any way comparable to slavery, rape or murder. The various biblical authors make clear that in some cases, it's a matter of attitude and motive, rather than the actual "sin" of working on Saturdays or healing people on the Sabbath or other cultural misdeeds.
There ARE, of course, more harmful/deadly/impactful crimes and lesser misdeeds and even lesser mere misunderstandings with no intent to do wrong.
I think to suggest otherwise and that even working on a Saturday is somehow worthy of eternal punishment is counter-rational and anti-biblical. And anti-Christ.
Before I even read Dan's latest round of nonsense, I have to note something. I realized last night that this entire thread is Dan addressing what he THINKS this post is about, not what this post is actually about. He's decided what the topic is, and how the exchange will go, without having a clue what he's talking about. The lengths he'll go to in order to exert control and divert are impressive.
"If so, it SOUNDS like you're making the presumption... that your human theory that God is not willing/able to simply forgive sin and welcome people IS the same as God's position."
Since it's not, I guess you'll have to find a new straw man.
"But that would be question begging, would it not?"
No, given that your initial premise(assumption) is wrong, the rest is the fruit of the idiotic tree.
"Is that fair/reasonable/more humble?"
Coming from someone who demonstrates none of those qualities, I'd suggest that you rewriting my answer to make it fit in your little box is likewise none of those things. That you have the arrogance to rewrite my answer and them demand that your version is somehow "better" than mine is the height of hubris and arrogance.
As I've told you multiple times, what you think/believe/ hope/theorize/suppose has no weight at all. It's just you making shit up and pretending like it's authoritative.
Thank you so much for highlighting your hypocrisy so clearly. Your ignorance of the significance of "blood" and it's role in the Hebrew sacrificial system (instituted by YHWH), and therefore your disrespectful mockery tells me so much about you. That you hold yourself above others in terms of the standards you demand of others as opposed to the standards you hold yourself to just magnifies your arrogance and hubris.
No, you do not have my "actual belief" characterized accurately. As you often do, you've invented a straw man, convinced yourself that the straw man is real, and battled bravely against your straw man to convince yourself how courageous you are.
Your self delusional, self serving, rationalizations boggle my mind coming from someone who claims to represent reality so often.
And still, I don't care. Your subjective hunches about "good, right, and holy" hold no interest for me.
That you've contrived a "connection" between those words based solely on your desire to support your hunches, is a cute gambit, but of little worth outside of the world you've constructed.
You mentioned at least twice, recently, having done some super secret, super special research on "blood and the old testament and bible" or some such and noted that you'd soon be talking about this penal substitutionary atonement theory that many humans hold to. I DID make the leap to the guess that this is your first installment in trying to deal with these human theories, by citing these verses.
I could, of course, by all means be mistaken. Is it the case that you did NOT cite these passages to begin a discussion on your pet theory/tradition? (That magic blood theory, I referenced earlier...)
If I misunderstood the intent of this post, I deeply apologize. Maybe you were trying to present the OTHER side (salvation by Grace, not magic blood theory) of the case (my side) by citing several passages that clearly aren't speaking of PSAT. By all means clarify your purpose in putting up these randomly selected passages.
I made that guess, in part, based on your suggestion that you'd soon be writing more about this theory, but also because these are the "grasping at straws" verses that many humans who hold to that PSA theory will point to in order to desperately try to find SOME place where Jesus actually teaches PSA (which, of course, he clearly, literally, observably did not).
It's so refreshing when you open a comment with such blatant lies.
Your inability to read doesn't bode well for you. Especially when you make up for that inability by making shit up and arguing against straw men.
Of course you jumped to a conclusion, and of course it was a wrong conclusion. Likewise, your inability to simply acknowledge your foolish blunder and move in is on display as you try to justify your idiocy.
It's not that you "could be mistaken" it's that you are mistaken. It's only taken you 46 comments to figure that out. But, you're ability to eisegete scripture is top notch, you're a damn expert.
Nice non apology.
My purpose was to demonstrate they your claim about Jesus' purpose for His ministry based on one passage in Luke is contradicted multiple other places.
The entirely predictable way you react to anything that might challenge your hunches about things is amusing as always.
I also love how you've already started you campaign to discredit my "expert" by making shit up, making racist/sexist pre-judgements, and mockery.
I did an entire post on his CV, you stayed silent. I assumed that a college professor with multiple degrees, a "scholarly" book coming out soon, and an facility with the original languages of the OT and NT might be accomplished enough to be considered an expert. I guess I was wrong, Dan is clearly more expert than him.
If I wasn't wasting time with your idiotic bullshit here I's be further along in getting the material into a form that can be posted on a blog. Instead I'm enmeshed in you idiotic assumptions, lies, racism and the lot.
I do admire your commitment to lying about others, projecting your prejudices on others, and dismissing scripture. Especially to dismiss or minimize the very words of Jesus because He has the temerity to agree with you.
What's interesting about my coming post(s) is Dan's reaction. He could have chosen grace and said something lke, "Hmmmmm I've never really given a lot of thought about hoe the OT sacrificial system might relate to Jesus death." or "Hmmmmmmm, I've never really studied the significance of blood in the covenant that YHWH made with Israel and how the sacrificial system worked.". You know, coming from curiosity and a willingness to be open to learning something.
That's how I'd think someone who was seeking the Truth, curious, and grace filled would react.
Instead we get mockery, racism, sexism, bias, an condescension from someone who's formal education and experience don't lend themselves to dismissing someone with significantly more expertise in the subject.
FYI, the use of the term "expert" was intentional. Due to your obsessive fawning over "experts" and credentialism I knew that referring to this person as an "expert" would provoke exactly this reaction. Again, predictable.
I guess it's just a sign of a closed mind who knows everything it needs to about "evangelicals" because it read a few books several decades ago.
Just a hint, there's no mention of PSA. I do wonder why the very mention of PSA as one possible acceptable theory of the atonement scares you so.
That you've contrived a "connection" between those words based solely on your desire to support your hunches
??? I believe that Love, Grace and Forgiveness are distinct but connected words (I and literally nearly everyone else). Are you possibly suggesting that there is NO connection between love and forgiveness? Between love and grace?
That would be an astoundingly weird and, frankly, "unbiblical" claim to make, if so.
From this exceedingly conservative-sounding website:
Love and forgiveness go together.
We tend to think, based on all that we absorb in our daily life in a fallen world, that love is mostly a feeling that is expressed primarily in erotic ways.
[ew... WHY do conservatives go There so often? DT]
https://www.boundless.org/relationships/the-power-to-love-and-forgive/
and...
https://welcomegrace.com/2018/04/why-forgiveness-helps-love-others/
and...
https://jesusistheanswersite.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/forgiveness-love-grace/
and of course, Jesus connects love and forgiveness (and, of course, Grace)...
Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.
and...
But I say to you who hear [Me and pay attention to My words]: Love [that is, unselfishly seek the best or higher good for] your enemies, [make it a practice to] do good to those who hate you, bless and show kindness [grace] to those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
Do you actually think I'm some weirdo because I acknowledge the close connection between love, forgiveness and grace? THAT would be truly weird. I've "contrived" no connection. It's just there. I can't imagine you actually disagree.
I'm guessing this is one of those cases where you go, "Oh, Dan said X, I MUST state unequivocally, then, NOT X!!" without really thinking about what you're saying.
Again, I don't care what you believe. The problem is not that there is some connection between the concepts, it's your treatment of them as synonyms that was problematic.
No, it's not one of those cases at all. It's more that you misunderstood my point and chose to unload a bunch more unrelated crap to make yourself feel better.
The reality is that is is absolutely possible to forgive, but not love. To love, but not forgive (less likely but possible). To show grace, but to not love or forgive.
But you do you and insist that they are 100% inextricably linked if it makes you feel superior.
Craig...
What's interesting about my coming post(s) is Dan's reaction. He could have chosen grace and said something lke, "Hmmmmm I've never really given a lot of thought about hoe the OT sacrificial system might relate to Jesus death." or "Hmmmmmmm, I've never really studied the significance of blood in the covenant that YHWH made with Israel and how the sacrificial system worked.". You know, coming from curiosity and a willingness to be open to learning something.
What's interesting about THIS silliness is your reaction. You could have said, "Well, Dan was thoroughly immersed in conservative, traditional, Southern Baptist evangelical teachings for the full first half of his life, so he probably DOES have some experience in reading about and considering the sacrificial systems in ancient Israel, AS WELL as the sacrificial systems of other cults and religions that believed in appeasing an 'angry god...'" ...but you didn't. You just try to assume that maybe I am truly ignorant of something SO VERY COMMON in evangelical teaching for well over a century and what I was raised with and immersed in from birth until, well, today (just because I was pushed away from conservative religiosity in my early 30s doesn't mean I have stopped studying it).
But you make that assumption from a place of ignorance and arrogance. OF COURSE, I'm familiar with traditional teachings about the OT sacrificial systems as well as their impact upon NT atonement theories (that is, human theories of atonement that some religious folks have devised based on their understanding of the NT).
I don't know, maybe it's the case that you were NOT raised in conservative circles and so you're imagining that other people would likewise not have been raised with this kind of thinking. But that would be a mistake to assume that for other people.
https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/on-the-necessity-of-penal-substitutionary-atonement/
and...
https://www.sbts.edu/news/new-sbjt-defends-classical-view-of-atonement-from-contemporary-attacks/
As to openness to hearing from another voice on the topic, I asked you about his name and link to his information. Is that not openness?
Speaking of openness, are you open to reading what at least some Jewish scholars have to say about OT sacrifice, atonement and Love?
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/tzav/understanding-sacrifice/
From Rabbi Sacks' writings on sacrifice in the OT, we read...
What, then, was sacrifice in Judaism and why does it remain important, at least as an idea, even today? The simplest answer ... is this: We love what we are willing to make sacrifices for.
That is why, when they were a nation of farmers and shepherds, the Israelites demonstrated their love of God by bringing Him a symbolic gift of their flocks and herds, their grain and fruit; that is, their livelihood.
To love is to thank.
To love is to want to bring an offering to the Beloved.
To love is to give.
Sacrifice is the choreography of love.
Beautiful.
That is why, in the biblical age, sacrifices were so important – not as they were in other faiths but precisely because at the beating heart of Judaism is love: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”
In other faiths the driving motive behind sacrifice was fear:
fear of the anger and power of the gods. In Judaism it was love.
Marvelous. Elegant. Telling.
And...
We see this in the Hebrew word for sacrifice itself: the noun korban, and the verb lehakriv, which mean, “to come, or bring close”. The name of God invariably used in connection with the sacrifices is Hashem, God in his aspect of love and compassion, never Elokim, God as justice and distance.
Can I get an Amen?
This is an excellent, rational and biblically astute way of considering the OT notions of sacrifice. NOT to appease an angry god we are to fear because that god is likely going to punish most of us for an eternity (NOT an OT theory), but out of an attitude of love and grace, welcome, community and forgiveness... being made Whole. And Holy.
Craig, missing the point entirely, asked...
I do wonder why the very mention of PSA as one possible acceptable theory of the atonement scares you so.
Scares me? I'm no more scared of the PSA theory than I am of the Flat Earth Theory. It's irrational and irrelevant. And I certainly don't find it biblical or Godly.
But the fact is, I'm not scared of any irrational theories. I am concerned when humans try to insist that they are the ones who can speak for God and say, "Yup, this is GOD'S theory of atonement, not ours."
That level of delusion and arrogance is concerning, wouldn't you agree?
A question for you: Can you affirm that the PSA theory IS a theory, and not a given fact?
the use of the term "expert" was intentional. Due to your obsessive fawning over "experts" and credentialism I knew that referring to this person as an "expert" would provoke exactly this reaction.
Your comments never cease to be irrational and pompously mistaken. What "reaction..."? Me asking who he is? Me noting that he is ONE expert, one among many (if, indeed, he is an expert)?
I respect any who have studied a topic and educated themselves on texts and contexts, on data and research. But any one "expert" is just that: One expert.
Too often, I find non-expert conservatives (and liberals, to be fair) citing "experts" NOT by way of supporting a point so much, but more to silence any opposition. "Well, my one Expert says that it IS okay to smoke cigarettes! Those who say differently are liars!"
This is not a good thing.
Craig:
The reality is that is is absolutely possible to forgive, but not love. To love, but not forgive (less likely but possible). To show grace, but to not love or forgive.
But you do you and insist that they are 100% inextricably linked if it makes you feel superior.
Sigh. They are connected. They are linked. They are NOT the same term nor is there some kind of perfect overlay. Of course, it's possible to love and not forgive (probably not a very good kind of love, though). And it's possible to forgive, I reckon, outside of love (but that would, at least to me, suggest a rationally loving person - someone who understands love in broad strokes is going to be more likely to forgive... do you disagree?) And I guess it's possible to show grace without forgiving (not a great grace, though) and outside of love, but again, I think that someone how is a gracious person is someone who understands Love at some deep level.
Feel free to disagree. But don't act like my finding connections between love, grace and forgiveness is some weird outlier view. It's almost certainly the more common view.
This seems to be a really strange hill to die on or debate in any serious manner.
Do you suspect that MOST people do not view love, forgiveness and grace to be closely related? Including most conservative Christians?
That's fascinating, I've never seen anyone with such a visceral reaction to the mere mention of an atonement theory as you with PSA. Your unwillingness to even acknowledge the potential that it is supported biblically, the vitriol you spew at anyone who disagrees with you sure sounds like fear to me. I seriously doubt that you spend even a second a year invested in attacking the flat earth theory, yet you demand and demonize anyone who deigns to hold that it is a reasonable conclusion to draw from scripture. You place limits on where scriptural evidence for it can be found, and cannot offer an alternate explanation (let alone a better explanation).
Even in the above comment you lie about those you disparage, but you're not scared.
Yes, I would agree that your level of delusion, arrogance, and hubris is concerning.
Yes I've regularly affirmed that PSA is a "theory" in the sense that it has taken the evidence of the entirety of scripture and condensed it into a "theory". Is it perfect, no. Is PSA itself scripture, no, Is PSA 100% based on scripture, yes. Is PSA the most likey of the 4 atonement theories to be accurate, yes. Do all of the atonement theories contain some elements of truth, yes.
That you found some random Rabbi who sort of agrees with you on one subject and act as if the matter is settled because Rabbi Sacks says so.
In a simplistic way he has some good points, but one paragraph on a topic as vast as the sacrificial system seems inadequate. But I get it, simplistic is what you do.
Oh, lookie Dan pretends that his first response wasn't to engage in a racist, sexist, and anti-evangelical attack.
Yeah, your reaction which is (as usual) to demean, tear down, discredit, and dismiss anyone with a level of expertise beyond your own for reasons of no substance.
Again, you're the one who reveres "experts", I'm just playing your game.
Yeahm you regularly cite "experts" like that. You're especially fond of citing "experts" that have the possibility of financial gain based on the results of their research or their employment by advocacy groups.
Yet again with the lies, and made up straw men.
Again, you're wasting so much time with this bullshit that you're taking time from my getting the material posted. Which might be your point, it's easier to argue against something that doesn't exist and where you can make racist and sexist attacks as if race or sex somehow affects the quality of the scholarship.
I'll simply note that I've quoted extensively from highly qualified people on a number of topics, and I cannot recall one single instance where you actually read anything to the point of responding to the substance. Rather you've brushed them off because they're "too Calvinist or too evangelical".
I seriously doubt you'll sit through the entirety of the presentation, or that you will offer any one single specific criticism and along with ironclad proof that you are correct. I think it's safe to say that you've done so rarely enough that never would not be inaccurate.
Craig ridiculously, falsely lied, saying:
Unlike you, I regularly read all sorts of work by theologians with whom I don't agree,
? How many liberal theologians do you suspect I've read? I can give you a rough idea: Liberal THEOLOGIANS specifically?
Marcus Borg
Glen Stassen
Ched Myers
MLK (if you count him as a liberal)
Art Gish (if you count him as a liberal, or a liberal theologian)...
Maybe a handful of others.
Do you know how many conservative theologians I've read?
Leonard Ravenhill
Chuck Swindoll
Oswald Chambers
CS Lewis (if you count him as a conservative)
Billy Graham
Corrie Ten Boom
Al Mohler
Thomas Aquinas
RA Torrey
James Dobson
Chuck Smith
Josh McDowell
John Calvin
John Hus
John Foxe
John Milton
John Bunyan
John Wesley (and Charles)
John Wickliffe
Jonathan Edwards
(LOTS of Johns...)
Menno Simons
Watchman Lee...
...for starters. The point being, I've read a LOT of books and articles (that was mostly a book list, above) from conservative religionists and not many liberal theologians.
How about you? Which liberal writers and theologians are you studying?
Yes, blah, blah, blah, you've modified your original claim and are pretending like you never actually made the original claim, I get it.
It's not a hill I'm dying on, I'm merely pointing out that your original claim was in error and you continuing to put lipstick on that pig without acknowledging your error is a waste of time.
If I "falsely lied" doesn't that mean that I've told the Truth?
Yeah I get it, you can reel off a list of authors you consider "conservative" that you read decades ago as if those authors make you some kind of authority. Yet, you've also used the excuse of having a less than perfect memory at times. That raises the question of whether or not someone who read something decades ago, yet now has less ability to remember things is really as knowledgeable as they claim? Of course a lot of those aren't actually theology either.
When was the last time you read any book by someone even remotely conservative?
What was the name of the book and the author?
Have you read anything by anyone remotely conservative that is less than 5 years old?
Book name and author?
I've spent lots of time over the past 5 years reading books listening to lectures from people who are significantly to the left of me theologically.
Greg Boyd (I've sat in lectures with Boyd, really nice guy)
Brian McLaren
Rob Bell
Doug Pagitt
Tullian Tchividjian
NT Wright
Francis Chan
Beth Moore
Andy Stanley
Bob Goff
Louie Giglio
At one point I did a deep dive into the Copeland, Hinn, Osteen, porsperity gospel folks as well, but it's been a while and I'd have to brush up to say I'm familiar and I'm sure there's plenty more of late from them.
There's more, but this is enough. I'd guess that 30% of the Christian books on my Kindle are authors that lean to the left.
Like so many things, it's what you've done lately, not what you did 30 years ago.
My expressing an opinion, based on your previous statements and actions, that you disagree with or don't like is not a lie. It's not even a "false lie", it's an opinion. From someone who's so know for hiding behind "it's just my opinion" (or words to the effect) you lack of grace on this is troubling. But honestly your general lack of grace is troubling.
Craig:
My expressing an opinion, based on your previous statements and actions, that you disagree with or don't like is not a lie. It's not even a "false lie", it's an opinion.
What you said was demonstrably, a lie. It may be your uninformed opinion, but you stated it as a fact claim and the fact is, it's a lie.
Unlike you, I regularly read all sorts of work by theologians with whom I don't agree
Saying, I bet that you don't read conservative writers as much as I read liberal writers, THAT would be stating an opinion. You made a fact claim and as it turns out, you're just factually wrong.
Understand?
As to how many conservative books I read now? Not much in regards books. But I regularly read articles and opinion pieces from conservatives.
Here's the thing: I spent the first 30 years of my life immersed in conservative religiosity and was a true believer for all but the last few years there. What I eventually realized is:
1. I do not believe that conservative religionists understand biblical writing well;
2. I do not believe that conservative religionists understand God, morality or reasoning very well;
3. And I think that based on what they said and say, what I spent years reading and consuming voraciously, and time after time, I came to realize that they were engaged in presumptuous, unsupported eisegesis WHILE claiming that those who disagree with their opinions were wrong and either not recognizing the good faith disagreements on our side and that THEY were the ones who truly understood God and disagreeing with their opinions was tantamount to disagreeing with God. Because THEY were NOT wrong on this set of religious opinions... and yet, they weren't supporting it, they kept having leaps of logic and ignoring holes in their reasoning and theories...
4. So, after those decades of pouring through their useless, irrelevant and presumptuous books, I've reduced my reading to just articles from them to see if they are actually addressing the many holes in their theories. So far, I've only seen more of the same old religionist fantasies of barbaric gods needing to torture most of humanity forever to please themselves.
I don't read the writings of the KKK or misogynists or other people writing irrelevant ridiculous nonsense, either. I've not got so many years left now, as I did then and they've just not demonstrated having anything to say that's worth my time.
By all means, point to an article supporting these theories that you all hold that you think is saying something new or meaningful. I'm telling you: I've just not seen it. But I'm always prepared to find out I'm wrong. Just not by investing in a whole book.
Speaking of doing some reading, more Jewish scholarly thought on Atonement and Sacrifice...
"let's consider another point about what is, and what is not being said in Leviticus 17:11. The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, G-d has given it to us as a means of atoning for our sins. But does the verse clearly teach that it is the only means G-d has provided to make atonement?
As with any other Biblical study, we will have to examine this question in light of the Bible as a whole. But for now, we should note that our verse merely says that blood can serve as an atonement. It is an effective means of atonement, but
by no means the only form of atonement...
In the Torah, blood sacrifices were not the only path to atonement; there were other ways to achieve forgiveness. For example, incense served to atone for the people in Numbers 16:46-47, and giving charity is described in Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50 as `making atonement for your souls' - the same expression as in Leviticus 17:11. In reality, blood sacrifices were the least effective of all the means of atonement mentioned in the Bible...
Examining the Christian interpretation of Leviticus 17:11 generates some serious problems. What happens if someone can't afford to purchase an animal for his sin offering? Is it possible that G-d would institute a system of atonement that could only be used by the wealthy? The Torah took this into account and allowed the poor person to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons if he couldn't afford a lamb (Leviticus 5:7). However, what if someone was so destitute, that he couldn't afford even these small birds?
Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is clear that blood was not a prerequisite for atonement...
This seminal passage puts the spotlight on the Christian misunderstanding of Leviticus 17:11. The Bible is clearly teaching that sacrifices weren't necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are cited here as effective means for securing atonement. Certainly, when the Temple stood, and one could afford an animal, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins...
One wonders why the Greek Testament chose to type Jesus as a Paschal lamb rather than the sacrifice for the Day of Atonement. We know from Exodus 12 that the Passover sacrifice did not serve as an atonement for sins, it commemorates the exodus from Egypt..."
And more...
"One wonders why throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never speaks about his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. Is the idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty consistent with what the Bible teaches?" [No, they go on to say... DT]...
The Christian claim that our sins can only be forgiven if blood is shed on our behalf also seems to limit the power of G-d. It's ludicrous to say that G-d`s ability to forgive us is dependent on anything. One of the most basic teachings in the Bible is that since G-d is merciful, He often forgives us simply because He is merciful. "Who is a G-d like You,
who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act
of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because
He delights in unchanging love." (Micah 7:18)
Very good stuff, well worth reading. Extremely biblical, extremely rational. And it points out the many textual problems with this PSA theory.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/leviticus-1711
So again, you randomly find one Jewish writer that kind of agrees with you. Your ability to cherry pick was never in doubt.
Here's the difference between Dan and I when it comes to reading and interacting with people who differ from us theologically.
Dan throws out a bunch of random authors (many that are not even theology, and not one specific work) and then just brushes them all away with vague generalizations, and demeaning/dismissive terms.
I could pull out any book by any of the authors I mentioned and pull out one specific theological issue that I had with the authors work, and there's a 90% chance I could pull out at least one thing that I agreed with/found helpful/found valuable/enjoyed.
To simply dismiss a significant percentage of Christian theological scholarship based on such vague, general, and disparaging "criteria" seems childish to say the least. To do so based on some random books that were read decades ago, seems even more childish.
Ultimately I think Dan's inability to provide anything (beyond cherry picked crap he Googled) specific is curious to say the least. To be fair, it's not just that he can't come up with one specific "conservative" book and one specific theological aspect that he disagrees with (let alone proof that the author is wrong), it's that he can't/won't provide any "progressive" authors/scholars that explicitly support his positions.
With Dan it always seems to come back to what he "thinks", "believes", "guesses", or what his Reason tells him.
I've pointed to two Jewish scholars (I can point to others) who are speaking from a place of personal knowledge of Jewish viewpoints, noting some important ideas and understandings of Old Testament notions of sacrifice and atonement, as they may have been understood back then by the actual people involved.
How is that different than you citing some (presumably) modern evangelical who may disagree with those Jewish scholars? Is it cherry-picking when I point to experts who make reasoned cases for their positions but it's NOT cherry-picking when you find a modern evangelical who - surprise, surprise! - agrees with your personal opinions on the topic?
How so?
I've read other Hebrew scholars who have said that the Jewish notion of "blood sacrifice to literally pay for sin" should be taken quite literally - that it was actually the animals' BLOOD that physically, literally could "clean" the sin away. Somehow. That might (might) come closer to your personal human traditions.
But it wouldn't make it rational or right, would it?
The thing is, thousands of years ago, many religious traditions believed in blood sacrifices to appease an angry god. There's nothing that unusual in that, insofar as it goes.
But does that mean this is a fact, that "without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin..."? Or was that just their tradition (the ancient Jews and other god-appeasing blood sacrificers)?
Why? On what basis would we guess that it's a fact? OR, do we acknowledge it may very well have been the tradition of some then and now, but that being a human tradition doesn't make it a fact...?
As I'm not sure if you've ever answered this, I'd love to know your theory:
Did it actually require ACTUAL blood to forgive individual sin?
And actual Jesus-blood to forgive some portion of humanity?
OR, was the blood a metaphor, speaking of how god is willing to punish god's son in our place so that god's anger might be appeased (for some portion of humanity)? That god doesn't literally save and apply Jesus' actual blood to the lucky ones' actual souls?
I'm really interested in your personal human opinion on the mechanics of the "wipe your soul clean with Jesus' blood (if you're one of the lucky ones)" theory. HOW does it work? More literally or more metaphorically? And how do you know? Or do you NOT know?
Yes, you've cherry picked a couple of Jewish scholars who believe somehow "prove" something. We know little or nothing about them, and it's unlikely that you even really agree with them. I'll note that one of them actually agrees with the position that blood IS important in the sacrificial system.
"Rational" is a subjective term which has little to no relevance in this conversation, as you're specifically referring to that which is subjectively "rational" to you. Right is an objective term. In this case, the best way to determine right would be to look at how closely it aligns with scripture. As you diminish the value of the Torah (in the sense that you've questioned it's historicity, and implied that they were imagining YHWH speaking to/commanding them), it seems unlikely that you would ever accept anything as right based on appeals to the Torah and Jewish scripture in general.
"But does that mean this is a fact, that "without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin..."?"
That is a good question. It seems clear that you've decided that this concept is incorrect, right?
"Or was that just their tradition (the ancient Jews and other god-appeasing blood sacrificers)?"
Well, it clearly was something believed by first century Christians as well as one or more writers of the NT. So, I'd guess that the answer to this is no.
On the basis that it's taught in the NT, for starters.
If you are claiming that the author of Hebrews was wrong, by all means prove your claim.
Based on what we know from the entire context of scripture, the answer would have to be that blood was an essential component of atonement for at least some sin.
Based on (again) the entire context of scripture and specifically of Jesus', it seems safe to conclude three things.
1. That Jesus believed, and told His followers, that His purpose was to shed His blood for the atonement for all sin.
2. That the earliest existing creedal statement of Christians included this concept.
3. That Paul, who was in direct contact with many eyewitnesses to the life/death/resurrection of Jesus believed this.
4. That the Jewish scriptures both taught this concept, and prophetically pointed to Christ's atoning death.
Personally, based on those four things, I have no problem accepting that is the most likely conclusion.
There is absolutely zero reason to conclude that the use of the term blood was in any way metaphorical.
It is absolutely absurd to expect that I can or would provide you a book length treatise on the specific mechanics of how YHWH established His methods to atone for sin. Primarily because I'm not YHWH and I do not have that knowledge. Again, I apologize that I have a life beyond being at your beck and call to respond to your idiocy and answer your questions, and haven't been able to get anything posted. I know that patience isn't your strong suit and that in the absence of patience you start arguing preemptively based on your preconceptions, prejudices, biases, and proof texts. Perhaps you should chill out, be patient, embrace grace, and stop this diversionary bullshit.
Post a Comment