Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.
Choosing Faith
This email that I received is a good follow-up to my last post about the Gospel In A Pluralistic World. The writer gave me permission to post it. A little background about him is helpful. TR retired as pastor of an American Baptist church in a college town. He was also my pastor when I was in college, so our dialogue about theology goes back over 40 years. He also has a PhD in history, and has taught university classes in history. All this is to say that this email comes after much thought and broad exposure to life outside the church.
______
Hi Rudy:
After reading your lessons pertaining to the views of Jesus, my thinking has been re-stimulated about our Messiah. Given my teaching courses (one of which is Comparative Religion for senior honors students), I have been led into a serious study of textual criticism of all religious documents--our scriptures, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc. Given the enormous variations in the texts, I have come to the conclusion, for now at least, that "proving" one's faith by empirical physical validation is not in one's best interest.
To quote your quote of Edwards: "The conclusions of the Jesus Seminar about Jesus-indeed, anyone's conclusions about any figure of history-are ultimately questions of faith based on the best evidence possible. That being the case, the proper question to ask is which reconstructions best fit the evidence we possess."
I have had a tendency in recent years as I study ever more intensely to question physical, intellectual knowledge and rely on/depend on my personal faith. Robert Penn Warren, a fine writer wrote some thing that connects with me: "But with the willing suspension of dis-belief life is thus the richer, even if we are fed, and know it, on a meat of shadows."
There is much of shadows in our biblical texts, conflicting theologies, and religious traditions, but I come back to choosing Jesus as my personal faith. I agree with your statement "For me the choice is whether to believe almost 2,000 years of Christian faith and doctrine from those who tend to believe the Bible is reliable, rather than almost 200 years of the faith and doctrine of those who tend to believe the Bible is not reliable." Sometimes the reliability of certain scriptures comes into question, but what I accept is that God in Christ reconciling the world is that which is behind the thrust of the scriptures and I choose to follow that God.
So, I continue to move from the proving, knowledge, and claims of absolute Truth, to "Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief"--periods of questioning and doubt.
Thanks for the series of lessons. I feel spiritually rejuvenated by turning faith-inwardly.
TR
_________
In a phone call after receiving this message, TR and I talked more about the relationship between faith and knowledge, coming to the conclusion that since there is so little that we can "prove" about our faith, we ultimately must rely on pistis over epistemology.
How true again the scripture sounds: "We live by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7) We all go through the experience of questioning and doubting. All the study of this summer about the theories and opinions of various scholars is interesting and challenging, but it is not ultimately satisfying. What is satisfying for me is how the questions are put into perspective when I choose faith in Jesus Christ.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 14)
Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.
Two Worlds, One Gospel
The seventh chapter of Edwards’ book is entitled “Can the Gospel Compete in a Pluralistic World?”. The answer is, “Yes. It already did.”
The gospel not only competed, it succeeded in being widely accepted; and it therefore changed the world.
This chapter is a wake-up call to our arrogance and historical ignorance. We act as if our situation is unique—that for the first time the gospel is too offensive to others in our pluralistic world, so it must be “updated” in order to compete for acceptance.
This is said to be “a multiethnic, multicultural, multifaith world in which is seems simply untenable and perhaps even immoral to believe in one absolute truth against which everything else is to be measured and judged.” (Edwards, page 116)
There is no question that the message (“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6) is offensive to lots of people. Those whose creed says there are “many paths” and “many truths” are put off by such statements. They feel that the gospel, as traditionally preached, is too offensive to be accepted today.
I was in a church meeting when one member took offense at a reading from John 17, about the unity of the believers with Christ. That member said, “That reading troubles me because I believe that more than just Christians will be saved.”
The gospel is offensive to many today; and it was when it was first spoken. Our world and that world are not that much different.
On the West entrance to Norlin Library at the University of Colorado in Boulder is an inscription suggested by the former president of the University and professor of Greek, Dr. George Norlin. It reads, “Who knows only his own generation remains always a child.” The phrase is original with Dr. Norlin, but it is similar to something he quotes from Cicero. "To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child."
Those who might think that the gospel cannot compete today (because the world is smaller, communication is quicker, and we are more sophisticated now) are simply ignorant of the world into which the gospel first spread. There are reasons why some of the early Christians were martyred. That world was not friendly to the messengers of such an “exclusive” message.
What kind of world did the gospel first enter? It was a world which was dominated by one superpower; where roads and ships made travel easier and quicker than in previous generations; where there was one major language of commerce known by almost everyone; a world where old religions were passing and new religions and philosophies were vying for attention and adherents. It was also a dangerous world where human life was not highly valued; and a corrupt world where “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” were rampant. Sound familiar?
Into that kind of world Christians took the gospel and won converts in spite of the competition it faced. Edwards elaborates on that competition as it took three major forms: Torah, the Emperor Cult, and Mystery Religions.
For the Jews, Torah provided the law necessary for a moral society.
The Caesars promoted a civil religion centered in themselves. This Emperor Cult was a growing phenomenon, starting with just veneration of the Emperor and reaching its apex when Domitian (the emperor from 81-98 AD) mandated that everyone worship him as “Master and God”.
A multitude of “mystery religions” were encountered as the gospel penetrated Greek and Roman societies. These groups were attractive for their “secret” knowledge, their emphasis on spiritual and emotional experience, and the status of being accepted into a unique group.
All three of the major competitors to the gospel had something attractive to offer. However, the Torah couldn’t save from sins, the civil religion of the Emperor cult offered no transcendent deity or hope for the future, and the experience offered by the mystery religions was shallow and transitory.
Can a gospel that is accused of being “exclusivist” compete in a pluralistic world? Yes. How? By offering substance instead of just form. Christians preached about a crucified Jesus Christ who vicariously died for our sins (so forgiveness was possible), who rose from the dead (so life after death was now a possibility), and who, though gone to be with the Father, was present in the person of the Holy Spirit (so daily comfort, guidance, and power for living were possible). See I Corinthians 15:1-5 for a summary of the kerygma (the message that was preached), and I Corinthians 15:58 for the reason the early Christians kept preaching that gospel in spite of hardship and persecution.
When people in the pluralistic 1st Century world who lived shallow, fearful, and guilt-ridden lives compared the options available in religions and philosophies of the day, many chose to accept Jesus Christ as their own savior—and they joined a body of believers who were on the way to changing the world.
The Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ is still attractive, even in our pluralistic 21st Century world. When those who live shallow, fearful, and guilt-ridden lives compare the options available in religions and philosophies of our day, many still chose to accept Jesus Christ as their own savior. The gospel still competes, and succeeds.
Two Worlds, One Gospel
The seventh chapter of Edwards’ book is entitled “Can the Gospel Compete in a Pluralistic World?”. The answer is, “Yes. It already did.”
The gospel not only competed, it succeeded in being widely accepted; and it therefore changed the world.
This chapter is a wake-up call to our arrogance and historical ignorance. We act as if our situation is unique—that for the first time the gospel is too offensive to others in our pluralistic world, so it must be “updated” in order to compete for acceptance.
This is said to be “a multiethnic, multicultural, multifaith world in which is seems simply untenable and perhaps even immoral to believe in one absolute truth against which everything else is to be measured and judged.” (Edwards, page 116)
There is no question that the message (“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6) is offensive to lots of people. Those whose creed says there are “many paths” and “many truths” are put off by such statements. They feel that the gospel, as traditionally preached, is too offensive to be accepted today.
I was in a church meeting when one member took offense at a reading from John 17, about the unity of the believers with Christ. That member said, “That reading troubles me because I believe that more than just Christians will be saved.”
The gospel is offensive to many today; and it was when it was first spoken. Our world and that world are not that much different.
On the West entrance to Norlin Library at the University of Colorado in Boulder is an inscription suggested by the former president of the University and professor of Greek, Dr. George Norlin. It reads, “Who knows only his own generation remains always a child.” The phrase is original with Dr. Norlin, but it is similar to something he quotes from Cicero. "To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child."
Those who might think that the gospel cannot compete today (because the world is smaller, communication is quicker, and we are more sophisticated now) are simply ignorant of the world into which the gospel first spread. There are reasons why some of the early Christians were martyred. That world was not friendly to the messengers of such an “exclusive” message.
What kind of world did the gospel first enter? It was a world which was dominated by one superpower; where roads and ships made travel easier and quicker than in previous generations; where there was one major language of commerce known by almost everyone; a world where old religions were passing and new religions and philosophies were vying for attention and adherents. It was also a dangerous world where human life was not highly valued; and a corrupt world where “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” were rampant. Sound familiar?
Into that kind of world Christians took the gospel and won converts in spite of the competition it faced. Edwards elaborates on that competition as it took three major forms: Torah, the Emperor Cult, and Mystery Religions.
For the Jews, Torah provided the law necessary for a moral society.
The Caesars promoted a civil religion centered in themselves. This Emperor Cult was a growing phenomenon, starting with just veneration of the Emperor and reaching its apex when Domitian (the emperor from 81-98 AD) mandated that everyone worship him as “Master and God”.
A multitude of “mystery religions” were encountered as the gospel penetrated Greek and Roman societies. These groups were attractive for their “secret” knowledge, their emphasis on spiritual and emotional experience, and the status of being accepted into a unique group.
All three of the major competitors to the gospel had something attractive to offer. However, the Torah couldn’t save from sins, the civil religion of the Emperor cult offered no transcendent deity or hope for the future, and the experience offered by the mystery religions was shallow and transitory.
Can a gospel that is accused of being “exclusivist” compete in a pluralistic world? Yes. How? By offering substance instead of just form. Christians preached about a crucified Jesus Christ who vicariously died for our sins (so forgiveness was possible), who rose from the dead (so life after death was now a possibility), and who, though gone to be with the Father, was present in the person of the Holy Spirit (so daily comfort, guidance, and power for living were possible). See I Corinthians 15:1-5 for a summary of the kerygma (the message that was preached), and I Corinthians 15:58 for the reason the early Christians kept preaching that gospel in spite of hardship and persecution.
When people in the pluralistic 1st Century world who lived shallow, fearful, and guilt-ridden lives compared the options available in religions and philosophies of the day, many chose to accept Jesus Christ as their own savior—and they joined a body of believers who were on the way to changing the world.
The Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ is still attractive, even in our pluralistic 21st Century world. When those who live shallow, fearful, and guilt-ridden lives compare the options available in religions and philosophies of our day, many still chose to accept Jesus Christ as their own savior. The gospel still competes, and succeeds.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 13)
Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.How Jesus Became “Savior of the World”
The New Testament, read in its entirety, appears designed to convey two seemingly incompatible ideas—that Jesus was divine and that in Jesus God became a human being. Those two ideas later were married into a surprising new concept.
It’s not just that Jesus did things and said things that one would only expect of God. The “great surprise” of the gospel is also the “great scandal”. It is summed up in one word, incarnation. “God chooses in Jesus Christ to be rejected and to suffer and die. It is not in heavenly splendor, but in one like us that we see the saving heart of God.” (Edwards, page 115)
In the gospels, and especially in John, Jesus is spoken of with language reserved for God: Lord, Light, Life, Savior. But it’s not because the early church elevated Jesus to divine status. “…God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36)
Again, it’s not the elevation of Jesus to divinity that is the great surprise (although that too is a wonder since these were all monotheistic Jews). Rather, it is the condescension of God to human form, His incarnation, that makes Jesus uniquely the savior of the world.
That is why the dual emphases in the classic creeds are essential. Only Jesus, fully God and fully man, could be worshipped as Lord and Savior and followed as our Master Teacher.
For the Jews, God was transcendent and allowed no one but the High Priest to come into His presence in the holy of holies. For Greeks, the gods were super-human. For pagans the gods were everywhere, but inimical to a peaceful life or in need of being placated lest they wreak havoc. For Muslims, God did not become human, he dictated a book to a human.
For Christians, though, God took the initiative to reach out in person and reconcile us to Himself, even though we were hostile to Him. It is because God humbled Himself and came down to save us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth that Jesus is lifted up.
In that great hymn Paul quotes in Philippians 2:6-11, the reason “every tongue (shall) confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” is that Christ Jesus emptied Himself of His divine glory and became a man.
The reason we worship Jesus Christ as Lord and accept Him as our savior is not apotheosis (“The idea of ‘equating Jesus with God’ is called apotheosis: ‘to make someone godlike. See the blog post for Chapter 4 on July 1, 2006 and Edwards, page 52), but incarnation. We did not raise Jesus up, God did after He came to be one of us. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Jesus), and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” (Colossians 1:19,20)
The New Testament, read in its entirety, appears designed to convey two seemingly incompatible ideas—that Jesus was divine and that in Jesus God became a human being. Those two ideas later were married into a surprising new concept.
It’s not just that Jesus did things and said things that one would only expect of God. The “great surprise” of the gospel is also the “great scandal”. It is summed up in one word, incarnation. “God chooses in Jesus Christ to be rejected and to suffer and die. It is not in heavenly splendor, but in one like us that we see the saving heart of God.” (Edwards, page 115)
In the gospels, and especially in John, Jesus is spoken of with language reserved for God: Lord, Light, Life, Savior. But it’s not because the early church elevated Jesus to divine status. “…God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36)
Again, it’s not the elevation of Jesus to divinity that is the great surprise (although that too is a wonder since these were all monotheistic Jews). Rather, it is the condescension of God to human form, His incarnation, that makes Jesus uniquely the savior of the world.
That is why the dual emphases in the classic creeds are essential. Only Jesus, fully God and fully man, could be worshipped as Lord and Savior and followed as our Master Teacher.
For the Jews, God was transcendent and allowed no one but the High Priest to come into His presence in the holy of holies. For Greeks, the gods were super-human. For pagans the gods were everywhere, but inimical to a peaceful life or in need of being placated lest they wreak havoc. For Muslims, God did not become human, he dictated a book to a human.
For Christians, though, God took the initiative to reach out in person and reconcile us to Himself, even though we were hostile to Him. It is because God humbled Himself and came down to save us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth that Jesus is lifted up.
In that great hymn Paul quotes in Philippians 2:6-11, the reason “every tongue (shall) confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” is that Christ Jesus emptied Himself of His divine glory and became a man.
The reason we worship Jesus Christ as Lord and accept Him as our savior is not apotheosis (“The idea of ‘equating Jesus with God’ is called apotheosis: ‘to make someone godlike. See the blog post for Chapter 4 on July 1, 2006 and Edwards, page 52), but incarnation. We did not raise Jesus up, God did after He came to be one of us. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Jesus), and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” (Colossians 1:19,20)
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 12)
Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.
Did Jesus Consider Himself To Be God? (Section B)
In Section A of this topic (posted July 9th) we looked through a small window to see if we could see what was in Jesus’ mind as He went about doing God’s work.
It is real hard, though, to come close to understanding what someone thinks unless they reveal it openly. It is impossible to know all that is in someone else’s mind when they are in the same room, let alone someone who lived 2,000 years go. So, on the question of what Jesus thought about His self-identity, we just have to go on some clues He left for us.
Many of the clues to Jesus’ self-identity are in His authoritative actions. His actions were those that one (especially a Jew of Jesus’ time) would expect of God: forgiving sins; exorcism of demons; vanquishing Satan (see the last paragraph on page 83); His authority over nature with miraculous healings, raising from the dead, walking on water and calming the wind and waves; and more subtly His authority over social conventions such as establishing “the Twelve” (a clear analogy to the twelve tribes of Israel), and his acceptance of “outsiders” into His inner circle.
But perhaps in the Synoptic Gospels there is no better clue to Jesus’ self-identity than the way He spoke of His impending death. “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45) Of this Edwards says, “In presenting himself as a ransom otherwise offered by God, Jesus ascribed to himself the conclusive act in the divine drama of salvation.”
Another clue was Jesus’ re-casting of the Passover meal into a remembrance of the self-sacrifice which He was about to endure. Jesus’ interpretation of the bread and wine as His own body and blood of the new covenant which God was making with those who gave themselves to Jesus. “Jesus consciously assumed the role of the sacrificial Servant of Isaiah, whose ‘life is an offering for sin’ (Isaiah 53:10) and who ‘bore the sin of many and made intercession for transgressors’ (Isaiah 53:12).”
The Gospel of John is, of course, a special case. When reading John’s witness, it is no wonder that skeptics would want to exclude it or diminish its power by claiming it is the result of the church putting words into Jesus’ mouth. “…the Fourth Gospel shouts from the rooftops what elsewhere in the New Testament is whispered in the ear.” That is, to look for clear statements by Jesus about His relationship with God, John is the best place to start.
Consider just these statements of Jesus selected from many similar ones in John’s Gospel:
“Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.” (8:42)
“I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” (17:4.5)
“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.’" (14:6,7)
This fifth chapter in Edwards’ book is a transition from the first section (the foundation-laying chapters) to the second major section—the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and its relevance today. Edwards summarizes the first section with, “Our reasons for trusting the historical reliability of the New Testament look brighter than our reasons for complacent trust in the assumptions of naturalism.” A solid foundation is laid. Now the framing and finishing of the structure can be completed.
Jesus of Nazareth, who came to be called Savior and Lord by both monotheistic Jews and multicultural Gentiles who accepted the Gospel message, lived 2,000 years ago. His impact on His disciples was so great that the world was changed. We even mark our calendars by (what was later thought to be) the year of his birth.
Now we will see how that Gospel message (which was primarily about Jesus’ life, death on a cross, burial, and resurrection) is relevant in a world of competing ideas and philosophies, moral relativism, scientific and postmodern worldviews, and the explosion of communications and travel which put us all face to face with people of different religions.
“Jesus—the Savior of the world”—what a statement to make as we start the second half of this study. Our hope for this study that each of us can also say, “Jesus—Savior of the world, and my personal Savior.”
Did Jesus Consider Himself To Be God? (Section B)
In Section A of this topic (posted July 9th) we looked through a small window to see if we could see what was in Jesus’ mind as He went about doing God’s work.
It is real hard, though, to come close to understanding what someone thinks unless they reveal it openly. It is impossible to know all that is in someone else’s mind when they are in the same room, let alone someone who lived 2,000 years go. So, on the question of what Jesus thought about His self-identity, we just have to go on some clues He left for us.
Many of the clues to Jesus’ self-identity are in His authoritative actions. His actions were those that one (especially a Jew of Jesus’ time) would expect of God: forgiving sins; exorcism of demons; vanquishing Satan (see the last paragraph on page 83); His authority over nature with miraculous healings, raising from the dead, walking on water and calming the wind and waves; and more subtly His authority over social conventions such as establishing “the Twelve” (a clear analogy to the twelve tribes of Israel), and his acceptance of “outsiders” into His inner circle.
But perhaps in the Synoptic Gospels there is no better clue to Jesus’ self-identity than the way He spoke of His impending death. “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45) Of this Edwards says, “In presenting himself as a ransom otherwise offered by God, Jesus ascribed to himself the conclusive act in the divine drama of salvation.”
Another clue was Jesus’ re-casting of the Passover meal into a remembrance of the self-sacrifice which He was about to endure. Jesus’ interpretation of the bread and wine as His own body and blood of the new covenant which God was making with those who gave themselves to Jesus. “Jesus consciously assumed the role of the sacrificial Servant of Isaiah, whose ‘life is an offering for sin’ (Isaiah 53:10) and who ‘bore the sin of many and made intercession for transgressors’ (Isaiah 53:12).”
The Gospel of John is, of course, a special case. When reading John’s witness, it is no wonder that skeptics would want to exclude it or diminish its power by claiming it is the result of the church putting words into Jesus’ mouth. “…the Fourth Gospel shouts from the rooftops what elsewhere in the New Testament is whispered in the ear.” That is, to look for clear statements by Jesus about His relationship with God, John is the best place to start.
Consider just these statements of Jesus selected from many similar ones in John’s Gospel:
“Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.” (8:42)
“I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” (17:4.5)
“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.’" (14:6,7)
This fifth chapter in Edwards’ book is a transition from the first section (the foundation-laying chapters) to the second major section—the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and its relevance today. Edwards summarizes the first section with, “Our reasons for trusting the historical reliability of the New Testament look brighter than our reasons for complacent trust in the assumptions of naturalism.” A solid foundation is laid. Now the framing and finishing of the structure can be completed.
Jesus of Nazareth, who came to be called Savior and Lord by both monotheistic Jews and multicultural Gentiles who accepted the Gospel message, lived 2,000 years ago. His impact on His disciples was so great that the world was changed. We even mark our calendars by (what was later thought to be) the year of his birth.
Now we will see how that Gospel message (which was primarily about Jesus’ life, death on a cross, burial, and resurrection) is relevant in a world of competing ideas and philosophies, moral relativism, scientific and postmodern worldviews, and the explosion of communications and travel which put us all face to face with people of different religions.
“Jesus—the Savior of the world”—what a statement to make as we start the second half of this study. Our hope for this study that each of us can also say, “Jesus—Savior of the world, and my personal Savior.”
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Teachings Have Consequences
What a church teaches has consequences. Resolutions a denomination approves have consequences. They will either help people grow spiritually, and therefore attract people; or they will confuse and inhibit spiritual growth, and therefore drive members elsewhere.
We’ve been looking at differing approaches to the Bible and traditional Christian teachings as background to answer the question, “Is Jesus the only Savior?” We’ve seen that some people who go by the name “Christian” not only think that Jesus is not the only Savior, they think there is no such thing as a “savior” at all. They present a Jesus who was invented by the early church rather than the Jesus of the New Testament who was faithfully remembered and recorded by the church.
This article in the Los Angeles Times shows what happens when churches (or whole denominations) depart from “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (Jude 1:3) Here are some key sections:
“The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity. … as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.”
And again, “When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million).”
And this critical piece, “When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.”
The ABC-USA is not one of the “mainline churches” mentioned in the article. However, the story sounds familiar with what has been going on in the ABC-USA recently.
For the sake of our study, I would like some help. Would someone who disagrees with the article please point out what you see as errors.
Help us, who have concerns about our own denomination’s future, understand alternate explanations for the decline of “mainline churches”.
From the data, it appears that today “mainline” no longer means “mainstream”. Why?
The article presents one explanation. Is there another?
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 11)
Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.
Did Jesus Consider Himself To Be God? (Section A)
What did Jesus think about Himself as He was growing up? As He started His public ministry? As He was teaching, healing, and training His disciples? As He hung on the cross? Did He at any time think of Himself as Divine?
The question of Jesus’ self-image may, or may not, be one that everyone who reads about Him asks, but it seems to be central to the arguments in the quests for the historical Jesus. This is the longest chapter in Edwards’ book. We’ll look at it in sections.
The fact that the New Testament does not have any record of Jesus saying, “I am God.” does not answer the question. Edwards makes a good point that such a statement would have ended His mission immediately with both the Jews and the Romans.
In fact, the New Testament does not present a psychological profile of Jesus. It is not written as a novel with a protagonist revealing his thoughts as he moves from scene to scene. About the only way we can discern what Jesus thought is to see what He did and what He said as He interacted with others.
There are two main questions Edwards presents that get to the heart of the matter: (1) “Why does Christianity alone exalt its founder to the status of God?”; and (2) did the early Christians, or we, “have any way of knowing whether their statements about Jesus re-present Jesus’ own self-understanding?”
One section of Chapter five is entitled, “A Window Into Jesus’ Soul”. In it Edwards shows both that some of the people opposed to Jesus believed that Jesus committed blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God (John 10:36 & 19:7 and Matthew 27:43). Then there is Jesus Himself in Matthew 11:25-27 and the parallel passage in Luke 10:21-22 "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
If others around Jesus (not His disciples) said that He claimed to be the “Son of God”, and if Jesus’ prayers, in Matthew above and in John 17, show that He believed that He had a special relationship as the unique “Son of God”, then perhaps there is a small window with frosted glass, at least, that gives us a peek into Jesus’ mind.
We really can’t read Jesus’ mind, though—and those who use long-distance psychology to try to pinpoint what He thought end up only revealing what they themselves think. The best we can do is to read the Gospels and, from what Jesus did and said, come to some conclusions about why His contemporaries believed He was uniquely the Son of God.
N.T. Wright argues in “Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense”
(HarperCollins, 2006) that Jesus probably didn’t “know” that He was divine, but He knew that the mission He was called to involved doing some things only God was supposed to be able to do (e.g. forgive sins, defeat evil) and involved revealing God in the most personal and intimate way possible. More on this next time.
Did Jesus Consider Himself To Be God? (Section A)
What did Jesus think about Himself as He was growing up? As He started His public ministry? As He was teaching, healing, and training His disciples? As He hung on the cross? Did He at any time think of Himself as Divine?
The question of Jesus’ self-image may, or may not, be one that everyone who reads about Him asks, but it seems to be central to the arguments in the quests for the historical Jesus. This is the longest chapter in Edwards’ book. We’ll look at it in sections.
The fact that the New Testament does not have any record of Jesus saying, “I am God.” does not answer the question. Edwards makes a good point that such a statement would have ended His mission immediately with both the Jews and the Romans.
In fact, the New Testament does not present a psychological profile of Jesus. It is not written as a novel with a protagonist revealing his thoughts as he moves from scene to scene. About the only way we can discern what Jesus thought is to see what He did and what He said as He interacted with others.
There are two main questions Edwards presents that get to the heart of the matter: (1) “Why does Christianity alone exalt its founder to the status of God?”; and (2) did the early Christians, or we, “have any way of knowing whether their statements about Jesus re-present Jesus’ own self-understanding?”
One section of Chapter five is entitled, “A Window Into Jesus’ Soul”. In it Edwards shows both that some of the people opposed to Jesus believed that Jesus committed blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God (John 10:36 & 19:7 and Matthew 27:43). Then there is Jesus Himself in Matthew 11:25-27 and the parallel passage in Luke 10:21-22 "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
If others around Jesus (not His disciples) said that He claimed to be the “Son of God”, and if Jesus’ prayers, in Matthew above and in John 17, show that He believed that He had a special relationship as the unique “Son of God”, then perhaps there is a small window with frosted glass, at least, that gives us a peek into Jesus’ mind.
We really can’t read Jesus’ mind, though—and those who use long-distance psychology to try to pinpoint what He thought end up only revealing what they themselves think. The best we can do is to read the Gospels and, from what Jesus did and said, come to some conclusions about why His contemporaries believed He was uniquely the Son of God.
N.T. Wright argues in “Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense”
(HarperCollins, 2006) that Jesus probably didn’t “know” that He was divine, but He knew that the mission He was called to involved doing some things only God was supposed to be able to do (e.g. forgive sins, defeat evil) and involved revealing God in the most personal and intimate way possible. More on this next time.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Support for "Jesus--As The Gospels Portray Him"
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 10)
Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.
Most Christians assume that the person named Jesus of Nazareth who is portrayed in the New Testament was accurately portrayed. That is, the Jesus of the New Testament is the same as the “real” Jesus of history.
However, the scholars of the various “Quests for the Historical Jesus” over the past 200 years (including those of The Jesus Seminar) see it differently. For them, the Jesus of the Gospels is, for the most part, an invention of the early church. Their argument: as a Jew, Jesus would not have equated himself with God.
Nor would the earliest church (which was almost totally Jewish) have equated Jesus with God. They were fiercely monotheistic. It was only as the church spread into Gentile cultures, and needed to accommodate its message to those people, did they come up with the idea of Jesus being divine. Presumably this was to make him more acceptable to devotees of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses.
Therefore, the hypothesis goes, anything in the Gospels that appears to confer deity upon Jesus was a projection of the church back into the Gospels. It didn’t originate with Jesus.
This hypothesis of the Quest scholars is based on the assumptions of the philosophy of Naturalism. If you start with the assumption (or pre-condition) that we live in a “closed system” (where no miracles or divine interventions are possible), then not only your conclusions, but also your research, will be pre-determined. “Jesus couldn’t have come from God, so he didn’t; and our research demonstrates that the Jesus of the New Testament was invented by the church,” they seem to say.
The idea of “equating Jesus with God” is called apotheosis: “to make someone godlike”. Would the church have tried to apotheosize Jesus in order to appeal to the Gentiles? Edwards says “No”, and extensively develops his argument. I can only list his main points.
Everybody agrees that there was a period of oral transmission of the life and teachings of Jesus before they were written down. How can we know that the Gospels accurately depict what Jesus did and said, instead of being “freely invented stories and sayings that reflected the needs and experiences of the early church”?
Edwards gives five points, three of which he calls “quality controls”, which argue for the faithfulness of the church in reproducing what they received from Jesus, rather than what they said about Jesus. Again I can only list them. This is very helpful material, and I encourage you to read the entire chapter yourself.
Most of these arguments have been made elsewhere for years, but Edwards does a great job of pulling them together in a readable and understandable format—and therefore a strong argument for the reliability of the Gospels for credible information about Jesus.
Next we will look at the question, “Did Jesus consider himself to be God?”
Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.
Most Christians assume that the person named Jesus of Nazareth who is portrayed in the New Testament was accurately portrayed. That is, the Jesus of the New Testament is the same as the “real” Jesus of history.
However, the scholars of the various “Quests for the Historical Jesus” over the past 200 years (including those of The Jesus Seminar) see it differently. For them, the Jesus of the Gospels is, for the most part, an invention of the early church. Their argument: as a Jew, Jesus would not have equated himself with God.
Nor would the earliest church (which was almost totally Jewish) have equated Jesus with God. They were fiercely monotheistic. It was only as the church spread into Gentile cultures, and needed to accommodate its message to those people, did they come up with the idea of Jesus being divine. Presumably this was to make him more acceptable to devotees of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses.
Therefore, the hypothesis goes, anything in the Gospels that appears to confer deity upon Jesus was a projection of the church back into the Gospels. It didn’t originate with Jesus.
This hypothesis of the Quest scholars is based on the assumptions of the philosophy of Naturalism. If you start with the assumption (or pre-condition) that we live in a “closed system” (where no miracles or divine interventions are possible), then not only your conclusions, but also your research, will be pre-determined. “Jesus couldn’t have come from God, so he didn’t; and our research demonstrates that the Jesus of the New Testament was invented by the church,” they seem to say.
The idea of “equating Jesus with God” is called apotheosis: “to make someone godlike”. Would the church have tried to apotheosize Jesus in order to appeal to the Gentiles? Edwards says “No”, and extensively develops his argument. I can only list his main points.
- Rather than making the Gospels attractive to Gentiles, the apotheosis of Jesus as God’s Son and savior was a very big problem for some non-Christian philosophers of the second and third centuries.
- It is “wildly improbable” that early Jewish Christians (including Paul, the “Apostle to the Gentiles”) would have compromised their own monotheism and proclaimed Jesus as Son of God just to appeal to Gentiles. Indeed the best explanation of their message that Jesus is the Son of God is that it came from Jesus himself, attested to by his bodily resurrection.
Everybody agrees that there was a period of oral transmission of the life and teachings of Jesus before they were written down. How can we know that the Gospels accurately depict what Jesus did and said, instead of being “freely invented stories and sayings that reflected the needs and experiences of the early church”?
Edwards gives five points, three of which he calls “quality controls”, which argue for the faithfulness of the church in reproducing what they received from Jesus, rather than what they said about Jesus. Again I can only list them. This is very helpful material, and I encourage you to read the entire chapter yourself.
- “Eyewitnesses were still alive when the tradition was being formed.”
- The “methodology of rabbinic teaching” would have ensured accurate memory and transmission of Jesus’ teachings.
- The “embarrassing material” in the Gospels is not what one would expect if the church was just making up stories about Jesus and his disciples (e.g. Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in Mark 8:33 “Get behind me, Satan.”).
- The content of Jesus’ teaching is not the same content as in the rest of the New Testament. If the church had projected its image of Jesus back onto the Gospels, you would expect to see the same language filling the rest of the New Testament (“Son of Man”, “Kingdom of God”, etc.). But there is little of that except in the Gospels themselves.
- The “Gentile question” was a major concern of the early church. “Could Gentiles be saved without first becoming Jews?” But you see nothing about this in the Gospels. That is incredible if the early church was projecting its ideas back onto Jesus.
Most of these arguments have been made elsewhere for years, but Edwards does a great job of pulling them together in a readable and understandable format—and therefore a strong argument for the reliability of the Gospels for credible information about Jesus.
Next we will look at the question, “Did Jesus consider himself to be God?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)