https://x.com/wesleylhuff/status/2031395762941100478?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"The term "theological liberalism" is thrown around a lot. When push comes to shove though, it still boils down to Richard Niebuhr's summation of what theological liberalism truly is: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross" (Kingdom of God in America, 193). Liberal/progressive Christianity is more than that but it is no less than that, and it will always come down to it. Niebuhr's words 89 years ago are just as applicable in 1937 as they are today."
"As Machen wrote in "Christianity and Liberalism" "The chief modern rival of Christianity is ‘liberalism.’ An examination of the teachings of liberalism in comparison with those of Christianity will show that at every point the two movements are in direct opposition""
"Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity—liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative; liberalism appeals to man's will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God.” - J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism
About as perfect an explanation of the difference as I've ever seen. I'm going to steal this.
ReplyDeleteFeel free. I do think that it is a good, concise, explanation.
DeleteFyi, we believe in a God that is angered by oppression, by slavery, by rapes, assaults, robbing - especially the poor and marginalized. As God is regularly depicted by biblical authors.
ReplyDeleteWe just dostinguish between that and a notion that angry irrational outbursts are central to God's nature.
We think God is best defined by love, grace, forgiveness and justice.
We don't think god is defined by hatred or anger.
Quite rational.
Do you disagree?
It's always impressive the amount of hubris to takes to presume to speak for an entire movement. Your inability to simply speak for yourself and stop pretending is strange, but shows chutzpah.
DeleteYes.
By all means, FIND EVEN ONE progressive Christian who actually says that God does NOT get angry at oppression and harm of innocents.
ReplyDeleteFind ONE and I'll gladly admit our view isn't universally monolithic, but I doubt that you can find even one progressive who would say that.
I can speak confidently of the dozens of my closest progressive church friends that there is 100% agreement on this point. I've seen nothing anywhere to suggest this is a mainstream progressive belief in a God that isn't angered by harm.
But, sure, it's arrogant/hubris for me to speak with confidence of what we actually think but NOT arrogant for you to proclaim on behalf of others, as a group, what we believe.
There certainly is arrogance here, just not where you're finding it.
And when you say, Yes, is that your answer to my question and you DO think God is defined by anger??
If so, holy shit, that explains a lot.
The solution here is simple. You just need to stop making these absurd pronouncements as if you speak for others. Simply change “we” to “I”, and the problem is solved.
DeleteNo.
[Rolls eyes.]
ReplyDeleteDon't speak for others NOT in your "group", then demand that others actually IN the group not to speak with some reasonable authority to speak to what that group thinks.
It's embarrassing for you.
What should be embarrassing is your inability to simply speak for yourself instead of trying to pretend you speak for others.
DeleteAs for your false claims, I’m used to those just like I’m used to you trying to speak for me.
Maybe the problem is that you didn’t read for understanding.
ReplyDeleteBUT I AM SPEAKING FOR OTHERS.
ReplyDeleteALL progressive Christians in my personal connections agree on this point.
Look, do you feel comfortable in saying, ALL conservative Christians are opposed to rape! ... as a reliable summary of conservative theology?
There are some things that are a given.
IF you are an orthodox conservative or liberal Christian, THEN you are opposed to rape. Period. One need not hem and haw and speak in vague, worthless banalities.
You work too hard at being obtuse and divisive. Conversation should not be this difficult.
Yes, you are. That’s my point.
DeleteI don’t feel comfortable speaking for “all” on anything. It’s not my role to make statements for others. Especially not definitive statements. Assuming that you do have the right to speak for some group of people you know, then be clear.
Because saying clearly and directly that you don’t speak for every progressive christian on the planet is confusing or unclear to you.
Ah...once again we see Dan choosing the most outrageous thing and pretending that we'd be "like him" to presume or imagine or suppose conservatives in general oppose it, too. But again, the "in general" part is the difference. We actually can't say definitively that everyone who claims to be conservative believes EXACTLY as we do. We have no need to do so, as the rare dissenter isn't typical anyway. But we can say without hesitation what each of us believes without suggesting anything about anyone else as if numbers makes our positions truer and more accurately Christian.
DeleteConversely, it is absolutely appropriate to speak of a group (lefties/progressives/marxists/Democrats...same things) in general terms which do in fact reflect the group well enough, knowing that there those who do not fit the description perfectly. Those exceptions do not mitigate the rule in any way.
You'll note that he is now speaking for all "orthodox Christians" on this issue. It's likely that the vast majority agree with him, but it's still quite a bold claim.
DeleteGot it. So, while I and rational people are entirely comfortable in saying, I and people like me are always opposed to rape, YOU are not comfortable stating clearly that people like you are ALL opposed to rape.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder you're not worried about having a likely rapist and pedophile defender as your candidate.
Says more about you than us, though.
Because I do not know “all people like me”, nor what they think, hence I don’t presume to speak for them.
DeleteGiven the number of Evolutionary scientists who believe that rape is an acceptable act under their Evolutionary framework, and that those who hold strongly to that worldview are more likely to be leftist, I’m not sure how far you want to take this.
Am I comfortable saying that the majority of “people like me” oppose rape, absolutely.
Am I appalled when rape runs rampant and often unpunished, absolutely.
Your quick resort to lies is even less surprising than your arrogance.
This whole thing boils down to who has more credibility. Machen and Neibuhr or Dan.
DeleteIt’s amusing to watch you put so much effort into ignoring and refuting the actual quotes.
DeleteInstead you make unproven/unprovable claims about what other people think.
I'm quite comfortable in saying that I and others like me have a far more accurate understanding of Christianity than Dan or anyone remotely resembling him and oppose his heretical misrepresentations and corruptions. That's quite bad enough and I don't need to come up with some vile behavior to make the point.
DeleteCraig:
ReplyDeleteBecause I do not know “all people like me”, nor what they think, hence I don’t presume to speak for them.
??? Do you EVER read for understanding? Do you KNOW what you, your own self think in your own head? Do you KNOW if you are opposed to rape?!
IF you know what you think, then you know what "people LIKE YOU" think. IF they think that rape is fine, then they are not like you, are they? (Assuming you can come out clearly against rape!)
I always read for understanding. I responded to the question you posed. I speak for myself and don’t presume to speak for others in the definitive manner you do.
DeleteAs I’ve clearly opposed rape, regularly in this blog, and spoken against the rape culture currently overwhelming Europe and the UK, and against religious leaders justifying rape. I’ve been doing this for months, maybe the reading problem isn’t mine.
How does one know with absolute certainty what others...even those who seem very much like ourselves..."think"? I would certainly like to believe that those who appear to be most like me think like me as well and thus would have the same likes and dislikes. But I can only go by what they say and how they act when I'm around (or in public). It's totally absurd to presume I can know with certainty just exactly what they think.
DeleteAt the same time, I can only go by what Dan says on these here blogs...which doesn't serve him well at all...and the fact that he more than suggests that those he runs with believe as he does. Thus, while I can't know their thoughts, either, Dan speaks for them as being of like mind with him and thus, I'm compelled to believe that those with whom he runs are lying heretical defenders of perversions. This is the risk Dan takes by speaking for some unknown group of people who "think like" him or are of his "tribe"...they get painted with the same brush.
Good point. So much of these claims of Dan hinge on him assuming that he knows with 100% accuracy what other people think. I am surprised on occasion that we disagree on things that I would have assumed we'd agree on. Yes, what Dan writes on Blogs and FB don't seem to paint him in the light he seems to want to paint himself.
DeleteThe problem for speaking for a group is that the larger group you claim to speak for the higher the likelihood there is that people won't agree with you.
"The actual quotes"...
ReplyDeleteWhat your source claimed, with NO support:
"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross" (Kingdom of God in America, 193).
Liberal/progressive Christianity is more than that but it is no less than that, and it will always come down to it. Niebuhr's words 89 years ago are just as applicable in 1937 as they are today.
That is, YOUR SOURCE (and you, by citing him) are saying that "THIS is what liberals think at the turn of the century, in 1937" ...and you all are repeating that false - stupidly false and unsupported - charge today. Liberals do not believe in a God of wrath... But we DO believe that God expresses wrath, because of course, we do.
Do you recognize that reality?
THAT is a claim but his only source for it is Niebuhr who was critiquing "progressive Christians," as if they were a monolith who all believed thusly. Niebuhr does not provide support for his claim.
The problem is, of course (for those who read for understanding), a problem of understanding nuance. Liberal Christians DO very much believe in a God who is angry at oppression, etc. Of course, we do. How daft would one have to be to think that progressive types DON'T think that? Have you all read NOTHING from progressives?
BUT, while we believe in a righteous anger, from God, from ourselves, we do not believe that God is DEFINED by anger, but rather by love.
That is an incredibly rational view point, IF one affirms a loving God. So, once again, I ask you to give a clear answer:
DO you believe that God is defined by anger? That ANGER is one of God's primary traits?
Because, of course, progressives don't. Do you? Answer directly and demonstrate a good faith at trying to actually understand.
As to his unsupported claims (and stupidly false):
"The chief modern rival of Christianity is ‘liberalism.’ An examination of the teachings of liberalism in comparison with those of Christianity will show that at every point the two movements are in direct opposition""
That is a stupid claim, not supported by reality. The teachings of Jesus have NO more devoted disciples than those crazy "red letter" liberal Christians. That we disagree with some of your human opinions and traditions does NOT mean we are opposed to the teachings of Jesus (ie, Christianity). And that's another problem you all have - conflating your traditions with Christianity, as if anyone who dares disagree with your human interpretations and opinions about Jesus are also disagreeing with Jesus.
Arrogance is not of the realm of God, you know?
If by “source” you mean theologian Reinhold Neibhur, then sure.
DeleteNo.
No. No.
Given your arrogance, that’s quite the claim. By all means, though, prove your claims.
"And that's another problem you all have - conflating your traditions with Christianity, "
DeleteAnd once again, there's been 17 years of accurate presentation of Scripture which you choose to diminish as "human tradition" because you don't like what Scripture truly says. We defend our understanding with evidence, both from Scripture itself (specific context and overall context) as well as scholarly explanations referencing the original languages, etc.
You rationalize your heresies.
Here's a response from progressive, Brian McLaren about Niebuhrs quote...
ReplyDeletehttps://brianmclaren.net/q-r-niebuhrs-famous-quote-part-2/
So?
DeleteThe ridiculous and clearly unsupported claim of Machen:
ReplyDelete"The chief modern rival of Christianity is ‘liberalism.’ An examination of the teachings of liberalism in comparison with those of Christianity will show that at every point the two movements are in direct opposition"
Problem 1: He's assuming that what HE says is Christianity, IS Christianity, as opposed to his personal human tradition. How is that mistaken? HAS he given anything to PROVE his personal human traditions that he calls "christianity" IS Christianity? He certainly has not provided that here.
Problem 2: He doesn't define his notion of Christianity, just asserts that liberals disagree with what he calls Christianity, with NO support or specifics. Is that not literally correct?
Problem 3: Where he alleges (with NO support) "An examination of the teachings of liberalism..." It's literally an unsupported claim. That much is an objective fact. Do you agree? If not, WHERE is his support? Not in your quotes.
Now, it may well be that on many points, progressive Christian traditions disagree with conservative human opinions/traditions about Christianity, but who is he to declare HIS opinions correctly identify Christianity?
Questions for you ignore.
You do understand that this is a quote, and that no one is required to exhaustively and completely summarize their entire theological position in every sentence or paragraph, don’t you.
DeleteYour complaint seems to be that I didn’t copy/paste the entire original manuscript.
You do agree that the term Christianity has a specific meaning don’t you?
Problem 2 is just a repeat of problem 1. Maybe a bit of proofreading and editing is called for.
Problem 3 is resolved by my answer to problem 1. It’s clearly insane to demand that he provide every bit of information you want in one quote. This probably wouldn’t be a problem if didn’t act as if this quote exists in a vacuum.
All of the quotes are attributed and sourced, if you don’t want to find out more from those primary sources, that’s fine. But don’t demand that I find information you are quite capable of finding.
DeleteCraig...
ReplyDeleteYou do agree that the term Christianity has a specific meaning don’t you?
No, or at the very least, I don't think YOU have THE meaning. But by all means, provide what you personally think "the meaning" of Christianity is.
I'll wait while you don't even try to answer.
But, if you do try, it won't be a meaning that Jesus claimed. Probably just some human tradition that you happen to REALLY like, personally.
Interesting, if Christianity has nothing to distinguish it from any other belief system, then how does anyone know where Christianity ends and anything else begins?
DeleteI’d argue that the ancient creed found in 1 Corinthians 15 would be a good place to start.
If Christianity has no meaning, how do you know that you are Christian?
If one looks at Christianity and compares it to any other world religion, there are things that differentiate them. At a minimum, one could catalog those differences and use that as a basis for arriving at a specific meaning for the term Christianity.
DeleteI'll note a couple of things here.
You are flatly denying that Christianity has any specific meaning, yet you somehow make your denial the basis for demanding things from me. By all means expand on your insistence that Christianity has no specific meaning which differentiates it from other religions.
Your straw man in pretending that I, personally, claimed to have "THE meaning". Noting the reality that the term "Christianity/Christian" has a specific meaning, is not the same as claiming that I have perfect knowledge of that meaning.
As far as what Jesus said, I'd think that His "I am" statements would be one aspect, The Great Commission, would be another, The greatest commandment as well. Strangely enough, the dictionary has no problem with this, yet you do. "the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices."
"3. Rather, Jesus came to proclaim God's Way... to preach good news to the poor and marginalized about the welcoming, loving realm of God."
DeleteJesus came to proclaim of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." and "“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies." and "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
This is the essence of Christianity. It is the "Good News" He proclaimed to ALL...not just the materially poor....about as specific a meaning as anyone needs and true Christians acknowledge and accept.
"3. Rather, Jesus came to proclaim God's Way... to preach good news to the poor and marginalized about the welcoming, loving realm of God."
DeleteJesus came to proclaim of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." and "“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies." and "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
This is the essence of Christianity. It is the "Good News" He proclaimed to ALL...not just the materially poor....about as specific a meaning as anyone needs and true Christians acknowledge and accept.
Jesus, as in "You shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins" (a pretty significant mission statement if I do say so myself), did exactly that. He came to proclaim that He, Himself, was The Way. As I noted earlier the "I am" language in those statements was a clear claim to divinity, and the "Son of Man" language was a direct reference to a prophecy.
DeleteJesus didn't preach "a way" He preached "The Way".
The irony in this is that the very concept of a "way" implies boundaries, yet Dan doesn't seem like he's willing to acknowledge that Christianity has boundaries that separate it from other religions and worldviews. Imagine a "way" with no map, no road signs, not directions, no guardrails, no nothing. It's kind of like being dropped in the middle of the Sahara and being told to make your way to Cairo with nothing to guide you.
Briefly...
ReplyDeleteIf Christianity has no meaning, how do you know that you are Christian?
I would suggest that
1. Jesus, himself, did not claim to create a new religion. He never made any such claims. Right?
2. He never taught anything like, Here are the tenets of my religion. Right?
3. Rather, Jesus came to proclaim God's Way... to preach good news to the poor and marginalized about the welcoming, loving realm of God.
He taught a Way, not a religion.
4. Thus, I didn't say Christianity has no meaning. Just that I doubted YOU had "the meaning" in any way you could/would enumerate. And you haven't. Understand?
5. The meaning of Christianity is this Way of Grace, of Love... the Realm of God. Not a bunch of human tenets, but the Way Jesus taught.
Out of time.
1. That is one opinion. Given His Great Commission, it is clear that He intended for the Apostles to spread The Gospel and "make disciples" across the globe. Given that the Apostles then formed Ecclasia or churches, and that those churches held teachings and doctrines in common, it seems suspiciously like "a religion". Of course, Jesus came from a religious tradition and The Church was built on the foundation of Judaism. It seems clear that Jesus intended to form a Church that would encompass those who followed Him that was intended to spread far beyond the Roman Empire. I guess you could play semantic games and argue about form of The Church, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. If it helps, I'd argue that "religion" is probably not the most accurate term to describe Christianity, yet that is the term that is most commonly used.
Delete2. No. Did He enumerate the details of what the Ecclasia was supposed to look like and things like what form of governance, no. Did He teach the principles that under gird Christianity, sure.
3. Now you're just putting words in Jesus' mouth.
4. Doubling down on your straw man, interesting tactic. Especially given that your hunch bears no relationship to what I actually said.
5. Please, be a bit more vague.
Thank goodness you're out of time. I don't know how much more of this self serving scubala I can take.
You clearly seem to have the very definition of Christianity, vague as it is.
C: "You do agree that the term Christianity has a specific meaning don’t you?"
DeleteD: "No,..."
You're literal first response to the question above was literally "No". That you added some unrelated nonsense after your definitive "No" is irrelevant.
This thread is an excellent example you you either choosing not to read for understanding, or of you understanding and choosing to impose your narrative over what I've said.
ReplyDeleteI was merely making the obvious and unremarkable point that Christianity has boundaries that separate it from all other belief systems or worldviews (religious and non religious). I did not articulate the boundaries, merely acknowledged that they exist. That you chose to make that statement into an excuse to demand from me something entirely beyond the scope of my statement is your problem not mine. This is even more egregious as you proceed to establish your hunches about what those boundaries are.
Try again. FYI, pointing to McLaren isn't the flex you seem to think it is.
Marshal:
ReplyDeleteJesus came to proclaim of Himself...
He said, without supporting it. Continuing:
A. “I am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me."
and
B. "“I am the resurrection and the life.
Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies."
and
C. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
This is the essence of Christianity.
I get that YOU are saying that this is the essence of Christianity, but Jesus did not say that, at least, not for the first two.
YOU are saying "he came to proclaim these things of himself..." That is, THE REASON HE CAME was to proclaim these things of himself.
But Jesus did not SAY proclaiming those words are the reason he came. That is something you are reading INTO Jesus' thinking, not Jesus' words or his proclamation.
Understand so far?
Now, in Mark 10:45, Jesus DID say that this:
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and
to give his life as a ransom for many.”
So, of the three passages you cited in THAT third passage alone, did Jesus say, "I came for this reason..."
Right?
So, according to Jesus, he came
i. to Serve (not be served)
ii. to give his life as a ransom...
But, he didn't even begin to explain what that meant, to be clear. Right? Just literally, objectively looking at that passage, he didn't say what that meant. Right?
More...
This is incredibly shallow eisegesis. To suggest that Jesus saying the words is somehow divorced from what those words represent, is ridiculous. Jesus didn't come just to say the words, He came to do what was necessary to bring the Kingdom of YHWH to fruition and to "seek and save the lost"/"save His people from their sins".
DeleteThe notion that He needed to explain terms that would have been familiar to His listeners in terms that satisfy you is absurd.
"He said, without supporting it."
DeleteAre you really this stupid? I supported it by saying what He proclaimed of Himself. What's more, aside from not supplying Book Chapter and Verse (which you almost NEVER do with your paraphrases), I gave you the very words He used according to my NIV translation.
"I get that YOU are saying that this is the essence of Christianity, but Jesus did not say that, at least, not for the first two."
Again with the "Jesus did not say", "God did not say", "the Bible does not say"
nonsense. He didn't have to specifically say "this is the essence of Christianity" in order for it to be so. Explain...using Scripture or a well known Biblical scholar's commentary...when it's necessary for Him to state the obvious.
Most everything else Jesus taught during His ministry was that which was already well known to the Jews. Here I'm referring specifically to the "care for the poor and marginalized" total package of yours, that which was there in Mosaic Law and only clarified by Jesus for the benefit of the Trabues of His time who corrupted and abused God's Law for the serving of their own agenda.
" But Jesus did not SAY proclaiming those words are the reason he came. That is something you are reading INTO Jesus' thinking, not Jesus' words or his proclamation.
Understand so far?"
Yeah. I understand you're contorting yourself in order to pretend Jesus wasn't proclaiming His purpose, which is the essence of Christianity.
"So, of the three passages you cited in THAT third passage alone, did Jesus say, "I came for this reason..."
Right?"
No, because all three are tied together.
"But, he didn't even begin to explain what that meant, to be clear. Right?"
More boldly and typical bad faith arguing. He explained what He meant elsewhere, such as during the Last Supper, which was later affirmed by Paul, Peter and John in their Epistles as well as in Hebrews.
Jesus literally made it clear that He was the exception to Jewish law about testifying for Himself. This notion that Jesus has is required to say "I came for this reason" is simply insane. It makes no sense. Dan takes one passage out of context and decides all by himself that Jesus meant one specific thing and absolutely nothing else, but multiple quotes from Jesus Himself mean absolutely nothing to him.
DeleteSo, in that passage, he had he'd come
ReplyDelete1. To serve, not be served
2. Give his life as a ransom (without explaining what that meant).
But there ARE other passages where he says something like, "I came for THIS reason. Those include:
3. "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5)
4. "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because God has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
5. God has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
6. and recovery of sight for the blind,
7. to set the oppressed free,
8. to proclaim the Day of God's good favor.
These are all reasons that Jesus says "I have come..."
And of ALL EIGHT, you are choosing only ONE of those and saying,
"This is the essence of Christianity."
But says WHO? Why do you select only one of eight and say "yeah, that ransom thing, THAT is the reason Jesus came..." and not the others? Based on what authoritative rubric? Anything beyond what you REALLY believe, perhaps because it's what other humans in your human tradition REALLY believe?
I'll wait for you to not answer.
But three through eight are all tied to the three (A,B,C) I presented, without which 3-8 don't happen. And like 3, 4-8 refer to sin which separates us from God. The "Good News" is that Christ will take our place and receive the punishment we deserve by sacrificial death on the cross so that we will be redeemed and regarded as God as sinless in order to re-unite with Him.
DeleteThe insanity of pretending that Jesus' audience didn't know what He meant by ransom, is nuts. That Dan arbitrarily excludes the quotes he doesn't like is also nuts.
DeleteIt's like he can't grasp a Jesus that was multifaceted. He's obsessed with one aspect of Jesus ministry and arbitrarily excludes any other possible additional reasons.
Just to be clear, my comment should have said, "regarded BY God as sinless in order to re-unite with Him.
DeleteCraig:
ReplyDeleteThe insanity of pretending that Jesus' audience didn't know what He meant by ransom, is nuts.
I DO think they knew what Jesus meant, at least roughly. I don't think YOU know what Jesus meant. I SURE as hell don't think your human theory that Jesus meant he'd come to provide a "blood sacrifice" to "pay" for our "sins" (the sins of some of us who "come to Jesus" in just the right way... but not most of humanity) because without that "blood payment" God would find us "unworthy" of being in God's presence and would allow us/send us to hell for an eternity of torment for having a "sin nature," ie, being an imperfect human... I don't think they would have guessed Jesus meant YOUR human theory about salvation.
That Dan arbitrarily excludes the quotes he doesn't like is also nuts.
I don't exclude any quotes. They're all there. But I DO think it's best if we strive to understand what Jesus was and wasn't saying.
Is it not the case that, in spite of never preaching it even ONE time in any recorded sermon in all his life, that it's your personal human opinion and tradition that Jesus' PRIMARY main salvific teaching was something alone the lines of Penal Substitutionary Atonement? And thus, because you think that/hold that opinion, you think that's the primary starting point for understanding the whole of Jesus' teaching? And then, you interpret other passages from Jesus in light of that (what you consider) primary teaching?
Who, then, is excluding quotes?
Regardless, all of this gets back to the point that you all are missing your magic rubric that differentiates between Jesus' teachings and the rest of biblical texts. YOU read Jesus' words and your human conclusion is something like PSA is the starting point and, with that as an unsupported given (ie, Jesus did not SAY that this is the starting point, nor does reason demand it and, indeed, Jesus never taught PSA), you interpret other passages/teachings from Jesus, etc?
Whereas, given the overwhelming textual support of a God of a Beloved Community, of grace, of Jesus coming to preach good news to the poor, etc... I read all of that and reach the human conclusion that this is a primary starting point: Understanding that Jesus came, just as he said, to preach good news to the poor and marginalized... that Jesus came that all might be saved from the hells we create... that Jesus came preaching a Way of Grace and Welcome and the Realm of God (all of which Jesus says over and over in many ways)... That THIS is the primary starting point and the small outliers in Jesus' words (the one time suggestion of "ransom," for instance) needs to be interpreted through THAT primary understanding.
And yet, neither of us have a Golden Rubric to in any way objectively PROVE our understanding is the right one. In the Way of Grace and welcome, love and humility and the Realm of God... admitting that we can't prove our various human theories objectively is an important starting point.
And yet, it seems like for you all in the way of PSA and depraved and utterly dead humanity, the starting point is insisting your understanding is the right one and you don't need to prove it because it's right. Is that correct (even if you wouldn't put it that way)?
And if so, do you see how your way is beginning with arrogance, not grace, with hubris, not welcome or love? And that maybe that is, itself, a clue that you're on the wrong way?
What a bizarre response. Jesus' Jewish followers would have immediately understood the direct link between Jesus' statement and thousands of years of Jewish law and practice. Strangely enough, we too have access to the very same information that Jesus' followers had and are perfectly capable of following the record preserved for us.
ReplyDeleteFYI, if you are going to act as if something you've conjured up out of thin air is my "human theory", at least prove that your made up claims align with what I've actually said.
To be fair, you didn't exclude any quotes you wanted to include, you just imposed an arbitrary limit of what quotes you'll accept. Likewise your imposing of arbitrary limits and making shit up and attributing that shit to me isn't helping you at all.
No. No.
I'm not excluding anything.
"..you interpret other passages/teachings from Jesus, etc? "
This massive, run on, sentence makes absolutely no sense and it doesn't even appear to be phrased as an actual question.
When you speak of "overwhelming support" do you mean that you draw this support only from the passages of Jesus which you alone have decided are appropriate to consider? (ie only Jesus public "sermons" and nothing else)
Great, you can't prove your hunch, you have to arbitrarily limit the passages that support your hunch, yet you act as if your hunch is True regardless. Then you misrepresent what I believe and argue against your straw men.
No, your last two sentences are based entirely on false premises.
It's strange that you acknowledge that you can't prove that your hunch objectively, yet insist that you can somehow prove others conclusions to be "wrong". But your insistence is an excellent example of your hubris and arrogance.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteWhen you speak of "overwhelming support" do you mean that you draw this support only from the passages of Jesus which you alone have decided are appropriate to consider?
I'm saying that, once you begin to accept and recognize the notion of a gospel/good news of Grace, Welcome and a Loving God that begins with good news for the poor and marginalized, THEN you find overwhelming support for that notion throughout the Bible and certainly within Jesus' teachings. THAT, as opposed to the literal NO support for PSA in Jesus' teachings and the complete missing the point of "God does not demand sacrifice, but mercy." taught throughout both testaments.
Craig:
What a bizarre response. Jesus' Jewish followers would have immediately understood the direct link between Jesus' statement and thousands of years of Jewish law and practice. Strangely enough, we too have access to the very same information that Jesus' followers had and are perfectly capable of following the record preserved for us.
In this, are you suggesting that your human theory, first developed by Anselm in the 11th century, is what would make sense to ancient Hebrews or to first millennium Christians? That they would have taken Jesus ONE WORD "ransom" to mean something like Anselm's model 1,000 years later?
Or explain, please, what you're guessing at here (with no support).
Some background from some of the Christians and Jews who do NOT find Anselm and your human theory reasonable or biblical.
https://liveorthodoxy.com/en/2020/03/06/2020-03-07-penal-substitutionary-theory-is-a-poor-substitution-for-biblical-atonement/
https://skipmoen.com/2019/07/penal-theory/
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2092-atonement
Craig:
Then you misrepresent what I believe and argue against your straw men.
By all means (and, as always) SHOW me where I misrepresented what you believe and I can apologize and understand better. I said you all believe in PSA. Am I mistaken? Great! Just make that clear and I won't include you in the group of blasphemous PSA adherents.
Or is it you object to this summary of PSA theory?
I SURE as hell don't think your human theory that Jesus meant he'd come to provide a "blood sacrifice"
to "pay"
for our "sins"
(the sins of some of us who "come to Jesus" in just the right way...
but not most of humanity)
because without that "blood payment"
God would find us "unworthy" of being in God's presence and
would allow us/send us to hell
for an eternity of torment for
having a "sin nature," ie, being an imperfect human...
I don't think they would have guessed Jesus meant
YOUR human theory about salvation.
IF that's not a fair summary of this pernicious theory of many humans, praytell what I've gotten wrong?
Re: "your last two sentences are based on false premises..."
ReplyDeleteMy last two sentences were questions. Questions that begin with, IF SO... which is, of course, referencing my previous statements/question. Therefore, presumably, you're suggesting this sentence/question is the false premises...
it seems like for you all in the way of PSA and depraved and utterly dead humanity...
ARE you a psa theory believer? Then THAT is not a false premise, is it? Continuing...
the starting point is insisting your understanding is the right one
DO you insist your human PSA theory is right? Then it's not a false premise.
and you don't need to prove it because it's right. Is that correct?
Then the last line is a QUESTION, seeking clarification. And thus, not a false premise, but a question.
But, if you DO think your theory needs proving, by all means, Prove it.
But if you can't, then just say so.
Yes, that they are phrased as questions and based on your previous false claims, is why I identified them as being based on false premises.
DeleteYes.
No.
No.
It's not "my theory", I've never once claimed that it is "right", so why would you demand that I prove a claim that I've never actually made.
This is why you should prove your claims about by my quoting me, rather than simply substituting your straw men for what I've actually said.
No, I'm not going to repeat myself, I've been clear where I stand multiple times in multiple places. It's not my job to prove your claims. You can accept what I am saying about what I believe, or you can prove your claims. I'm not doing your work for you.
You do realize that you "saying" something isn't actually proof that what you are "saying" is True, don't you?
ReplyDelete"...is what would make sense to ancient Hebrews or to first millennium Christians?"
No.
"That they would have taken Jesus ONE WORD "ransom" to mean something like Anselm's model 1,000 years later?"
No.
Your straw man game is pathetic.
''Am I mistaken?"
I'm confused. For years you've maintained that the person who makes a claim is the one who must prove that the claim is True, yet now you make all these absurd claims and claim that they represent me. You made the claims, you prove them. It's not my job to prove or disprove your claims.
FYI, please demonstrate objectively that PSA is "blasphemous". Please demonstrate how, by your standards, anything is "blasphemous".
Yes.
You're obsessed with making me prove things about your claims. That you chose your won biased, and flawed "summary", when ample summaries from actual experts are available demonstrates your unseriousness.
Of course your determination to divert this thread into this discussion, reinforces your lack of seriousness.
Craig ...
ReplyDelete"It's not "my theory", I've never once claimed that it is "right""
So, to be perfectly clear:
You DO NOT believe in the PSA theory commonly held by many conservative evangelicals?
You DO NOT believe that this theory is correct?
1. Being "perfectly clear" is impossible.
Delete2. I don't know what your vague and undefined "many conservative evangelicals" believe and can't speak for them.
3. Define "believe in" in this context.
4. I've answered this multiple times and in multiple places over the years. I see no reason to answer it again simply because you choose to ignore those answers.
5. What about my above answer was not reasonably clear?
Craig:
ReplyDeleteplease demonstrate objectively that PSA is "blasphemous". Please demonstrate how, by your standards, anything is "blasphemous".
According to the traditionalists at GotQuestions? blasphemy in the Bible is defined as:
To blaspheme is to speak with contempt about God
or to be defiantly irreverent.
Blasphemy is verbal or written reproach of
God’s name, character, work, or attributes.
That is, blasphemy, by definition, is anything that is a reproach of God's character, works or attributes.
IF God is a God of perfect love and justice
AND IF some people claim that this perfectly loving, perfectly just God will torture/torment most of humanity for an eternity in a "hell" that is described as fiery and awful
and IF that is done because these humans are merely imperfect humans,
THEN, that is a rejection of the notion of a Just OR Loving God, because a loving parent does not torture their children for a lifetime for merely being imperfect or having a theoretical "sin nature." It's irrational and awful on the face of it, just the suggestion of such a thing.
How is that NOT reasonably called "blasphemous..."?
I'll entertain ANY serious, rational attempts to defend such a monstrosity.
"How is that NOT reasonably called "blasphemous..."?"
Delete1. I asked you to prove objectively that PSA was blasphemous. You haven't.
You arguing against your caricature of something isn't particularly impressive. You keep making unproven claims as if they must simply be accepted.
I am left with a choice, as always. Do I simply accept Dan's random ramblings or do I accept the entirety of what Scripture has to say?
Here's a good summary/explanation of how PSA is blasphemous/theologically grossly problematic, from a Christian point of view.
ReplyDeletehttps://forgingploughshares.org/2018/02/01/the-lie-behind-penal-substitution-and-divine-satisfaction/
If you say so.
DeleteWow. A very convoluted argument I have no doubt Dan doesn't understand. I'm going to read it again and see if I can get it to make any sense. There seems to be a mass of presumption in this guy's argument.
DeleteDan specializes in convoluted arguments based either solely or primarily on unproven assumptions, presumptions, and premises. That his source is clearly biased is almost beside the point.
DeleteI'll repeat:
ReplyDeleteIF God is a God of perfect love and justice
DO YOU AGREE?
AND IF some people claim that this perfectly loving, perfectly just God will torture/torment most of humanity for an eternity in a "hell" that is described as fiery and awful
DO YOU AGREE with those who hold this much of the theory?
and IF that is done because these humans are merely imperfect humans,
DO YOU AGREE?
THEN, that is a rejection of the notion of a Just OR Loving God, because a loving parent does not torture their children for a lifetime for merely being imperfect or having a theoretical "sin nature."
DO YOU AGREE?
It's irrational and awful on the face of it, just the suggestion of such a thing.
DO YOU AGREE?
Who cares what you repeat. Just because you repeat something doesn't make it accurate, correct, or True, just repeated.
DeleteJust because you repeat your inaccurate hunches, doesn't mean anyone is obligated to waste time answering again.
I'm repeating questions that you continually don't answer. You can't say "Dan doesn't accurately report my beliefs" on the one hand and refuse to answer clarifying questions on the other. It's irrational and not how adults have reasoned discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that I have answered them, you just don't pay attention, forget, or choose to ignore my answers. However, as a show of the grace that you refuse to show, I will answer them one more time and one more time only.
Delete"DO YOU AGREE?"
Mostly, yes.
"DO YOU AGREE with those who hold this much of the theory?"
I agree with what Jesus said about what happens to people after death. I'm fine with stipulating that the afterlife will be unpleasant for those who choose the path that is wide.
"DO YOU AGREE?"
No.
"DO YOU AGREE?"
No.
"DO YOU AGREE?"
No. Although with the caveat that many of Jesus' teachings seem irrational. (First/last, last/first, living sacrifice, take up your cross, body/blood-eat/drink, etc). Just because something seems irrational to you based on your personal, subjective, arbitrary metric doesn't mean that it is objectively irrational.
It's the who "My ways are not your ways. See through a mirror darkly" thing. You don't have enough information to be as certain as you are, yet you persist in your certainty.
There, answered once again. Now we're done with these questions for ever.
Art,
ReplyDeleteYour comment says it's been published, but I can't find it. I posted my prediction in another thread so that it is time/date stamped which will allow me to copy paste here at some point. It's clear that Dan chose an entirely different strategy than what I predicted, by simply ignoring his comment full of BS and pretending that it doesn't exist. Another stellar example of Dan choosing arrogance and hubris over grace and humility.
Slowly making progress. So, I had asked, of people "sent to" or "condemned to" something like "hell," or Craig's "afterlife will be unpleasant..." which is vague as mud... I had asked:
ReplyDeleteand IF that is done because these humans are merely imperfect humans,
DO YOU AGREE?
Craig's answer is NO. So, not because they're imperfect.
1. Is it because (you theorize) that they have a "sin nature"?
2. Is it because they, in their human imperfection, sin?
Merely sinning is sufficient, in your mind, for someone to be sent to an "unpleasant place" for an eternity to "face unpleasantness" because they either have a sin nature OR because they sin to some degree?
I'd suspect it's the latter, which is functionally the same as "They are imperfect and thus deserve to be sent to hell and WILL be sent to hell unless they repent the right way." They are imperfect = they make mistakes = they do wrong sometimes = they sin/are sinners.
I think you DO agree with the point, you just don't like to frame it as they are imperfect and you prefer to say "they're sinners and that's why they deserve hell."
But you tell me. Then we'll take up the rest of your NOs.
Clearly reading for understanding is not on your agenda.
DeleteYou had your chance, you asked your question, I answered it in a simple direct manner. Too bad, I'm done answering these same questions over and over again. You got grace from me when I answered them once more, but that was it.
I'm done indulging more of you making shit up, and expecting me to answer questions based on your BS.
And there it is. The full retreat from polite, reasoned adult discussion into your silos of sameness.
ReplyDeleteS'allright. I didn't really expect you would answer these reasonable questions any more than you ever do. You've long demonstrated a fondness of bland vague banalities.
THAT, interestingly enough, is part of what pushed me out of the conservative churches I was raised in. The vapid nature of conservative ideology and their retreat into their stained glass hiding places was just too much. Or rather, way too little.
It's strange that you making up this false narrative that I've never, ever, answered these questions isn't what caused the problem. That somehow after I did exactly what I said I would do, directly answer the specific questions you asked and told you before I did that after I answered those (again) that I was done you magically blame me. Typical. You got exactly what you demanded, again. I can answer your questions daily and it will clearly never be enough. I've answered them many times, it's not my fault that you pretend otherwise.
DeleteBeyond, that now it's my fault you left your "conservative" church. You must desperately need someone to blame for anything, because nothing could ever possibly be your fault.
Also:
ReplyDeleteI'm done indulging more of you making shit up, and expecting me to answer questions based on your BS.
? I'm LITERALLY asking questions to get clarification. WHAT is being "made up..."? And the open hostility at people daring to ask reasonable questions... that, too, is what pushed me out of conservative circles into the more grace-full loving welcome of Christians who love Jesus' teachings and the Beloved community of welcoming Love.
You'd think that, if nothing else, you all would want to be more open and accommodating to those who dare disagree with your traditions when they're asking good-faith questions. No wonder so many people are leaving churches.
You demanded answers to the specific questions you asked. I gave you simple direct answers (something pretty foreign to you), now your mad because you want another bite at the apple. I did exactly what you demanded, and I'm doing exactly what I promised.
DeleteYour ability to blame everyone but yourself for the results of your actions is impressive.
If I was being hostile, I'd play by your rules and delete your comments in moderation and misrepresent those deleted comments in the thread. I showed you the grace to answer, again, the questions you demanded I answer. Now you complain that you can't take advantage of the grace I showed you by demanding that I keep answering questions from you.
Hostility, that's hilarious. As noted elsewhere, I've posted multiple times with extensive compilations of your vitriol and hostility. I could do more, but choose not to.
It's hilarious how mad you get when I show you grace and give you what you demand.
Craig
ReplyDeleteyou making up this false narrative that I've never, ever, answered these questions isn't what caused the problem.
Allow me to restate the problem...
You never clearly , directly and clearly answered these questions.
You HAVE given vague, uncertain and wavering responses that seem to change from time to time, but you haven't made it clear what you believe, leading to me asking the questions again seeking more clarity. And when I ask you these questions, you then accuse me of "lying" and otherwise misrepresenting your position.
WHY not just answer directly and save us all time and just be transparent about what you think?
According to the conservatives at Got Questions? PSA theory is...
"The biblical doctrine
Holds that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross
Takes the place of the punishment
WE ought to suffer for our sins
(Because humans are totally depraved, it adds elsewhere)
As a result
God's justice is satisfied
And those who
Accept Christ
Can be forgiven and
Reconciled to God."
And, I'll add, the theory continues that
Those who do NOT
"Accept Christ"
Will suffer in hell forever.
Which is precisely what I said, just not using those words.
Do you agree with their wording and interpretation of psa?
"You never clearly , directly and clearly answered these questions."
DeleteProve your claim, or cease making it.
The reality is, as you acknowledge, that I have answered your questions multiple times. You just don't like my answers because your think they are "vague" or some such nonsense. I know contradicting yourself is par for the course with you, but maybe think a bit before you write nonsense like this.
"WHY not just answer directly and save us all time and just be transparent about what you think?"
I have, many times. That you don't remember or choose to ignore that isn't my problem.
If your approach was: "Hey, I know you've answered this before, but I can't remember what you said. Can you refresh my memory?". I might be more inclined to answer again. But when your starting point is "You never...", I'm not inclined to answer again and again.
"Which is precisely what I said, just not using those words."
Well, no it's not. I guess the meaning of "precisely" has you confused.
I think that their summary is fine. I quibble with the whole "Accept Christ" thing, but I suspect that they are just using the common term for salvation.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"How mad you get..."
? I'm not angry. I'm not demanding. I'm attempting in good faith to have a conversation with a conservative who continually acts in a hostile, belligerent and accusatory manner... and I'm demonstrating a fairly good amount of patience in the process.
I AM curious as to what I have said that makes you think I'm mad. This?
"? I'm LITERALLY asking questions to get clarification. WHAT is being "made up..."? And the open hostility at people daring to ask reasonable questions..."
That's not anger. It's light frustration in trying have a conversation with someone who is not directly answering reasonable questions.
Y'all read way too much into other people's words... things that just aren't there.
Well, you are certainly demonstrating quite a bit of pride and arrogance in your self congratulatory comments.
DeleteThe ALL CAPS, BOLD, short demanding questions. The insistence that I have not answered your questions before. Your insistence that I am engaging in "open hostility" when I have said nothing hostile at all.
Coming from someone who regularly attempts to put words in my mouth and who reads things into my words which are not there, this is hilarious.
Yes I am frustrated at answering the same questions, based on the same false premises, and misrepresentations over and over again. Yes the repeated lie that I've never answered questions which I've answered over and over again is frustration.
But you just keep yourself if your self congratulatory little cocoon, I'm sure it makes you feel good.
You may find this shocking, but I'll say it anyway.
ReplyDeleteI find the continued demands that I answer the same questions, over and over again, ridiculous and tedious. I find your repeated false claims about me to be unhelpful and annoying. I find that your regular attempts to control the narrative by driving comment threads off of the topic and on to one of your pet topics frustrating and unhelpful. Finally, I find your inability to understand that people react to you and that your behavior drives how people respond to you insufferable. Your arrogance and hubris displayed in your self congratulatory and constant referencing or yourself as some sort of authority ("I repeat", "I've said") to be detrimental to conversation.
Yet, unlike you, I don't delete your comments (with rare exceptions which I either explain beforehand or apologize for mistaken deletions) I allow you virtually unlimited freedom to comment here. I answer your questions repeatedly, and I often show you grace. I do so because my word is important to me and because I promised you this access to comment here.
That doesn't mean that I won't respond to your nonsense in frustration, derision, or mockery when appropriate. It doesn't mean that I won't point out your lies or ridicule your pomposity and arrogance.
Maybe try a little respect, humility, and the grace you demand of others and see if that changes how we respond to you.