Monday, September 04, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 19-A)
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.
Christianity and Other Religions
We are now getting to the heart of the matter in our study of “Is Jesus The Only Savior?” Edwards states it clearly with a quote from Oprah Winfrey: “One of the biggest mistakes we make is to believe there is only one way. There are many diverse paths leading to God.” (page 203)
In addition to what we’ve already covered (the “dictatorship of relativism” and the danger of religious differences) there is another reason people make a statement like Oprah’s. We have an aversion to elitism. We don’t want religions to be unique. We are so sensitive to charges of nationalism, racism, sexism, and other forms of political incorrectness that we rush to harmonize all religions and downplay any differences.
There are similarities in various religions, of course. All religions have doctrines (teachings). All religions have rituals (worship practices) that express their beliefs about and relationship with the supernatural. All religions have ethical standards. If you look on the web for information about world religions, one site that comes up is an online adaptation of the book “Religion for Dummies ”. There you find,
“At its core, a religion is a belief in divine (superhuman or spiritual) being(s) and the practices (rituals) and moral code (ethics) that result from that belief. Beliefs give religion its mind, rituals give religion its shape, and ethics give religion its heart. Of the three elements that make something a religion (beliefs, rituals, and ethics), beliefs are the most important because they give rise to and shape the ethics and the rituals of a faith.”
When someone says, “All religions are the same”, they are probably thinking only about ethics. Ethics among religions are quite similar, often centering around some variation of The Golden Rule. Christians quote Jesus (in Luke 6:31) “Do to others as you would have them do to you” or His capsule summary of the Old Testament in the phrase “Love your neighbor as yourself”.
Yet when we look at the product of those religions—the societies that result when one of the religions is dominant—we have to admit there must be something else going on besides similar ethical teachings. Some ethical teachings are different. What is even more different are the ways the religions handle problems and violations of the ethical standards. What causes suffering? How do they deal with evil? Is there such a thing as “sin”. Is forgiveness possible? If so, how can one obtain forgiveness?
Now we get to the title of the book. Let’s ask the question another way: What religions claim to have a “Savior”?
Other religions have teachers and prophets.
Other religions have guides and models.
Other religions have law-givers and/or law-receivers
Other religions have way-showers.
Other religions have holy men and women.
Other religions have “spirit persons” (people in touch with “God”, the “Spirit”, the “Force”, or some other title.
Christianity proclaims a Savior.
(continued in part 19-B)
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 18-B)
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.
Does an Exclusive Savior Threaten World Peace? (continued)
I discussed the first part of this chapter in the last post (Part 18-A). The major reason this question is asked inside the church as well as outside the church is that after 9/11 “we fear that the misuse of one religion or ideology will lead to violence, and that the violence of one jeopardizes the peace and unity of all.” Therefore, some feel, “If Jesus can be demoted from the sole savior of the world to one savior among others, that is one less match to ignite the powder keg.” (page 185)
The question, “Does an exclusive savior threaten world peace?”, is vital to ask and answer if we are to avoid the extremes of either a theocracy or a watered-down, lowest-common-denominator gospel of a Jesus who could never be a threat to anyone. And, let’s face it, the message of the Gospel can be divisive. Even Jesus said it could be divisive (see Luke 12:51 where Jesus predicted division over Him even within families). We’ve seen instances even today of someone being ostracized from his or her own family, or even killed in some societies, because they became a Christian.
Any religion that claims exclusivity perceives a threat when another exclusive religion is preached. Sometimes adherents react violently. In this regard, presenting Jesus as the Savior of the world does threaten world peace. So the way Jesus is presented is important.
Having shown the perceived danger which keeps many Christians from presenting Jesus as an exclusive savior, Edwards shows in the last half of chapter 10 how that danger is minimized by focusing on grace, Jesus as redeemer of all, and how the Gospel is God’s message of peace for all.
God’s grace is not the privilege of a few, but the gift God offers to all peoples. “The entire New Testament declares and repeats that in the particularity of Jesus, Israel reduced to one, that salvation has been accomplished for and is now offered to all creation.”
The term “offered” comes up again and again. Some Christians claim that grace and salvation are given to all with no response required. For them the question of free will is answered by saying that somehow in the end God will save everyone whether they accept Christ now or not. Edwards says the gift is offered to all, but that the gift must be received. God does not force it on anyone (and, of course, we should not use force in evangelistic efforts either). Thus the threat to peace is lessened.
Six pages are devoted to the New Testament concept of God offering salvation to everyone. Special care is taken in the New Testament to show that not only Jews could receive salvation through Jesus. “The Cornelius episode [in Acts 10 and 11] entered the bloodstream of the early church, and has never left it. It illuminated something that in the long history of Israel had lain in the shadows: the offer of salvation to all peoples.”
Walls were broken down for the Church to receive all who would come, not only from other nations, but “all people—“Jews and Greeks, slave and free, male and female—may be baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:12-18; Colossians 3:11).”
We should notice also that God’s redemption through Jesus is intended for all creation, including “the elemental spirits of the universe” (Colossians 2:20). That, of course, is a mystery we won’t solve, but it is important to know that Jesus is Lord of all.
In the section “Jesus the Peacemaker of God” Edwards re-emphasizes that there is no coercion behind the redemption of all. The focus is on Jesus breaking down the walls that divide so there is now nothing that artificially separates people. By breaking down the walls that divide, Jesus created the peace.
It’s important to know, however that:
- the “peace” Jesus created is not what the world thinks peace is (the absence of conflict or a state of tolerance)
- this peace is created by Jesus; it is not something humans make
- this peace is not a personal mental state or attitude—it’s corporate rather than individual
- peace refers to the reconciliation between God and His creation, and
- it refers to the corporate peace Jesus creates within His Body
In one long sentence Edwards summarizes all of this: “The peace that attends the proclamation of the gospel is thus the announcement of a condition produced and delivered by God, not by human effort; it is a condition effected by the work of Jesus and declared in his name; and finally, it is communal rather than private or primarily emotional, affecting in material ways the relations of Christians with the world.” (page 200)
Since the point cannot be made too often, Edwards repeats the concept (on page 202): “The peace announced in the gospel is not achieved by an imposition of power on others but by the self-sacrifice of Jesus…The Gospel does not destabilize and threaten the world. It reconciles the world.”
In spite of this truth, we are often reluctant to talk about the gospel, the self-sacrifice of Jesus, and the salvation He offers to the world. Because we personally now encounter people from other religions, we would like to focus on the Great Commandment (to love God and each other) and forget about the Great Commission (to go and make disciples of all peoples). We don’t want to disturb the peace. If only all paths did lead to the same place, all would be well. So in the next post we will move on to the next chapter, “How should Christians think about other religions”.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 18A)
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.
Does An Exclusive Savior Threaten World Peace?
When I first saw that title to the 10th chapter of Edwards’ book I thought it a strange question. I hadn’t seen the Gospel (the good news that God through His Son Jesus Christ was reconciling the world unto Himself) as something divisive. I should have remembered how violently some people reacted to Jesus and to the early church as it spread into various countries.
I should also have remembered how certain political leaders (especially totalitarian ones) felt threatened by a religion that promotes freedom. I also should have noticed how threatened some feel within the church today by those who adhere very strongly to their beliefs (the once positive term “fundamentalist” has been made into a pejorative by some).
Of course we have seen what can happen when rigid and self-righteous Christians use the power of the state to impose their religion on others. We are wise to be wary of any state-sponsored religion (or ideology) which can easily become a coercive force of conversion. The Inquisition is a stain on the Church, and, as a Baptist, I’m very aware of the role Baptists played in the development of the Bill of Rights for our Constitution. Baptist preachers were often persecuted by state-sponsored religions in the colonies, so they were highly involved in religious-freedom issues.
Such coercion is not limited to the Church, though. Millions have been slaughtered by an attempt to instill communism in different countries. Jihadist Muslims who are driven to impose Sharia law in every country are a prime example today of the danger of the merger of fanatical religious belief with the power of political and military force.
The world is getting smaller, so diverse people with strongly held beliefs are living closer together. As Edwards notes, “How can the increasing interdependence of the world and the persistence of religious truth claims be harmonized? Universal religious claims, especially as they appear in the West, are not obviously compatible with the many and diverse cultures, nations, and social systems of the world.” (page 183)
Edwards identifies one cause of the very strong desire of many today to question the doctrine of the uniqueness of Christ and to promote “soteriological pluralism” (i.e. the idea that there many ways to salvation). That cause is that after 9/11 “we fear that the misuse of one religion or ideology will lead to violence, and that the violence of one jeopardizes the peace and unity of all.” Therefore, some feel, “If Jesus can be demoted from the sole savior of the world to one savior among others, that is one less match to ignite the powder keg.” (page 185)
After reading the first half of the 10th chapter, I saw more clearly the reason for the title to that chapter. The question, “Does an exclusive savior threaten world peace?”, is vital to ask and answer if we are to avoid the extremes of either a theocracy or a watered-down, lowest-common-denominator gospel of a Jesus who could never be a threat to anyone. I don’t see much danger of a Christian theocracy in America. There are too many interest groups who will resist (and sue to stop) such attempts. I do see the opposite danger (as does Edwards) of those within the church who act as if all will be well if we just get along with others, promote tolerance, and accept each other’s diverse beliefs as all being equally valid (in other words, not preach Jesus as the unique revelation of God and God’s only provision for salvation).
Edwards devotes the last half of the chapter to grace, Jesus as redeemer of all, and how the Gospel is God’s message of peace for all. I’ll finish this chapter in the next post.
Does An Exclusive Savior Threaten World Peace?
When I first saw that title to the 10th chapter of Edwards’ book I thought it a strange question. I hadn’t seen the Gospel (the good news that God through His Son Jesus Christ was reconciling the world unto Himself) as something divisive. I should have remembered how violently some people reacted to Jesus and to the early church as it spread into various countries.
I should also have remembered how certain political leaders (especially totalitarian ones) felt threatened by a religion that promotes freedom. I also should have noticed how threatened some feel within the church today by those who adhere very strongly to their beliefs (the once positive term “fundamentalist” has been made into a pejorative by some).
Of course we have seen what can happen when rigid and self-righteous Christians use the power of the state to impose their religion on others. We are wise to be wary of any state-sponsored religion (or ideology) which can easily become a coercive force of conversion. The Inquisition is a stain on the Church, and, as a Baptist, I’m very aware of the role Baptists played in the development of the Bill of Rights for our Constitution. Baptist preachers were often persecuted by state-sponsored religions in the colonies, so they were highly involved in religious-freedom issues.
Such coercion is not limited to the Church, though. Millions have been slaughtered by an attempt to instill communism in different countries. Jihadist Muslims who are driven to impose Sharia law in every country are a prime example today of the danger of the merger of fanatical religious belief with the power of political and military force.
The world is getting smaller, so diverse people with strongly held beliefs are living closer together. As Edwards notes, “How can the increasing interdependence of the world and the persistence of religious truth claims be harmonized? Universal religious claims, especially as they appear in the West, are not obviously compatible with the many and diverse cultures, nations, and social systems of the world.” (page 183)
Edwards identifies one cause of the very strong desire of many today to question the doctrine of the uniqueness of Christ and to promote “soteriological pluralism” (i.e. the idea that there many ways to salvation). That cause is that after 9/11 “we fear that the misuse of one religion or ideology will lead to violence, and that the violence of one jeopardizes the peace and unity of all.” Therefore, some feel, “If Jesus can be demoted from the sole savior of the world to one savior among others, that is one less match to ignite the powder keg.” (page 185)
After reading the first half of the 10th chapter, I saw more clearly the reason for the title to that chapter. The question, “Does an exclusive savior threaten world peace?”, is vital to ask and answer if we are to avoid the extremes of either a theocracy or a watered-down, lowest-common-denominator gospel of a Jesus who could never be a threat to anyone. I don’t see much danger of a Christian theocracy in America. There are too many interest groups who will resist (and sue to stop) such attempts. I do see the opposite danger (as does Edwards) of those within the church who act as if all will be well if we just get along with others, promote tolerance, and accept each other’s diverse beliefs as all being equally valid (in other words, not preach Jesus as the unique revelation of God and God’s only provision for salvation).
Edwards devotes the last half of the chapter to grace, Jesus as redeemer of all, and how the Gospel is God’s message of peace for all. I’ll finish this chapter in the next post.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 17)
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 One Way Instead Of Many
“There are many paths to God, and all of them are equally valid.” “I don’t think that just Christians will be saved.” Both of these statements reflect a philosophy that dominates 21st Century American culture. It’s got a name most people have never heard of; and those who have heard of it have trouble defining it. Yet everyone recognizes the concepts inherent in this philosophy, and we are confronted by them every day.
In Chapter 9 of “Is Jesus The Only Savior?” Edwards takes on this cultural bias, which goes by the name “Postmodernism”, and contrasts it with the gospel of Jesus. It’s a fairly long and complex chapter which I will attempt to cover briefly and simply (and hopefully not simplistically).
Postmodernism obviously refers to something that came after “modernism”. When we think about “modernism” in terms of Rationalism or the Enlightenment, with their emphases on logical or scientific answers to every question, we get a clue to its meaning. Postmodernism, which is something of a rebellion against the certainty of previous eras, says there are no answers, only opinions; no facts, only interpretations; no standards of right and wrong, only what’s right for me and what’s right for you; no objective Truth, only individual truths; no universal values, only moral and cultural relativism.
It’s easy to see, then, why the Gospel sounds harsh and arrogant to many, and why the two statements at the beginning of this post are heard today, even in Christian churches. This is why some have changed the unique Gospel message to one gospel among many. It’s seen clearly in this quotation from Marcus Borg in “Meeting Jesus Again For The First Time” (on page 37):
“Imaging Jesus as a particular instance of a type of religious personality known cross-culturally undermines a widespread Christian belief that Jesus is unique, which most commonly is linked to the notion that Christianity is exclusively true and that Jesus is ‘the only way’. The image I have sketched [of Jesus as a “spirit person” who knew God but was not God] views Jesus differently: rather than being the exclusive revelation of God, he is one of many mediators of the sacred.”
For Postmodernism, not only is Jesus not the only savior, there is a question of whether a savior is needed at all. If there are no universal values, then whatever is acceptable within a particular society is OK, even if it would not be acceptable within another society. If values and morals are relative to various cultures, it’s not a big leap to say that there is no such thing as sin which needs to be forgiven by some unseen “God”. In addition, it is totally unacceptable to say that God did something unique in sending Jesus to provide forgiveness and salvation through his vicarious sacrifice.
Yet that is our message: “The story of the Bible is the story of an unfolding drama in which God intervened from time to time by sending special actors on stage” and the focal point of this drama was that “in Jesus, the Son of God, God spoke the last word” (Edwards, page 174 & 175).
The title of Chapter 9, “The Gospel and Postmodernism” shows the conflict. The two concepts are polar opposites. The Gospel claims that Jesus is the unique revelation of God and the redeemer sent by God. Postmodernism claims that there can be no one Truth for all and that there can be many paths to many different “gods”. In other words, it would say that Jesus may be the savior for us, but we can’t claim Jesus as the savior for the world.
In contrast, when we preach the Gospel as it is presented in the Scriptures, we have to say “ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 NIV)
So, today there is the Gospel of Christ and the “gospel” of Postmodernism, and the two claims are irreconcilable. One who says “all paths to God are equally valid” is preaching Postmodernism, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Both “gospels” cannot be “equally valid”? Galatians 1:6,7 applies today just as it did when first written: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.”
The perversion of the Gospel infiltrating the churches in Galatia that Paul was concerned about was the notion that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was of no use by itself to those who were gentiles. They wouldn’t be real Christians unless they also submitted to the Old Testament law and became a Jew.
The perversion of the Gospel infiltrating churches today is that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in of no use to us because we cannot be saved through the sacrificial death of someone else, especially someone who was in reality not God, but just a “spirit person” who knew God in a more profound way than others. We won’t be real Christians, they say, except by patterning our lives after Jesus who was our model.
These are, in the end, the same perversion—salvation by works instead of by grace through faith in the saving work of Jesus. Chapter 9 is a difficult chapter to read because for most of us it introduces a confusing philosophy; but it needs to be read in its entirety. The Letter to the Galatians is also a difficult book to read because it confronts some false prophets who weren’t named directly in the book (the Judaizers—those who thought all Christians should also be Jews). It also needs to be read in its entirety.
If you do read all of Galatians, you’ll see that it sounds incredibly harsh, especially Galatians 1:8-9. It probably sounded harsh in Paul’s day, too. The term “Postmodernism” wasn’t around then, but an attempt to change the Gospel to something that negated the cross was. In Galatians 6:12 Paul said, “Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised [i.e., to become a Jew]. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ “
As today, the Gospel first went out into a multi-cultural society where there were many competing religions and philosophies, including the one that tried to re-enslave Christians to a religion of works. It was important then to preach the Gospel as it had been received; and it is just as important today.
Today it’s possible to buy “knock-off” goods that appear to be the real thing. Do you want a “Rolex” watch, “Levis” jeans, or “Ping” golf clubs? No need to pay full price. You can get a pirated version that looks like the real thing for a fraction of the price. I heard a story this week of someone who bought a whole set of “Ping” golf clubs including the bag in China for less than $150. One real Ping club would cost that much in the U.S. Some people take the risk of less-than-perfect goods just to fit in with a certain crowd. So what if the watch doesn’t function quite like a Rolex, or the golf clubs aren’t exactly the same as the real Ping clubs. It doesn’t hurt anyone, does it?
It’s also possible to accept a “knock-off” version of the message of salvation. But do we want to bet our destiny on it? The real Gospel says Jesus is the only Savior. The “knock-off” version says Jesus may be a good model for us to follow, but each person can choose the model that fits them best in their own culture. One path or many? A Savior or just a model? Our choice.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 16C)
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.
The Results of Amazing Grace
“The costly counterpart to sin is divine grace.” So begins the section entitled "Three Effects of God's Grace in Christ" in chapter eight of Edwards’ book. It reminds us of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s famous book, “The Cost of Discipleship” in which he coined the phrase “cheap grace”, as in these two quotes:
Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God.
Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. "All for sin could not atone." Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. (See here for references.)
A gift that has no cost behind it has no heart in it. Lovers know this intuitively. That’s why people in love sacrifice their own desires to give something to the one they love. O. Henry’s short story “The Gift of the Magi” captures that truth with a poignant twist.
To speak of God’s grace without the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, and without asking us to give up our sinful ways, is to treat the sacrificial gift from God as if it were nothing. God’s gift was costly. And to give it the respect it is due will also cost us something—our freedom to do whatever we want with our lives.
“And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” And again, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (I Cor. 5:15 & 21) We are saved by the gift of God through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. Then we can do the good works God has for us to do in His power. “ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Eph. 2:8-10)
Edwards identifies three things that God’s grace through Christ does for us: (1) it gives us a standing where we are justified before God; (2) it enables us to experience God with the new life He gives us and continues to mature in us; and (3) it creates a new destiny of eternal life with God (see Rom. 6:23).
This gift of eternal life is not just a future existence “in heaven”. It starts the moment we receive Jesus Christ as our Savior. It continues throughout life on earth as we obey Him as our Lord and then beyond the grave as we rise with Him with not only new life but a new kind of body (see I Cor. 15:51-54). As Edwards says on page 160, “…Jesus’ resurrection experience is the destiny of all believers. The life Jesus now lives is the life that believers, by his grace, will live—free from death, living eternally with God.”
The chapter is neatly summed up in two sentences on page 162. “We have talked at length about sin in this chapter, because our culture is in denial about sin, despite the fact that sin, as G.K. Chesterton noted, is the only empirically provable doctrine of the Christian faith. The gospel insists on the severity of sin not to produce gloom and dread, but to establish the certainty of joy.”
Sin is serious business, and the wages it pays are serious. “Work hard for sin your whole life and your pension is death. But God's gift is real life, eternal life, delivered by Jesus, our Master. (Rom. 6:23 The Message). That’s why the gift of God’s grace was costly. Serious business demands a serious investment. Thanks be to God for providing what we need to obtain new life through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 16B)
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.
AMAZING GRACE
One of our most famous and popular hymns is “Amazing Grace”, written by John Newton. It is often played at funerals, although it is not primarily a funeral song. It is a song about the wonder of God’s grace in saving a sinner from his deserved fate and delivering him from the debilitating effects of sin. It’s first verse is:
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
John Newton, a former slave trader, probably wrote the hymn sometime between 1760 & 1770 AD, 15 years or so after he left his career as captain of a slave ship, and some 20 years after his conversion to Christianity. In calling himself a “wretch”, Newton was well aware of his own sin and his need to be saved from it. He knew he needed a savior, for being lost, he could not find his own way out of the mess of his life.
Grace is undeserved favor, a gift. One of the best descriptions I’ve heard of grace is the acrostic:
God’s
Riches
At
Christ’s
Expense
I like this acrostic for its clarity: anything I receive from God is not because of my having earned it, it is a gift from God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is not a “cheap” gift. It cost Jesus his life. Jesus died for my sins. His death paid the penalty for sin which had separated me from God.
When I worked with college students from other countries who were studying here, this was the major barrier that kept them from understanding, much less accepting, the gospel. They considered it unjust that one person could pay for another person’s sins. It is each person’s responsibility to pay his or her own debts. Justice demands that; and they would not be convinced that God would require any less. If anyone is to be “saved”, they must do it themselves.
I don’t think they had a problem with the idea of sin—they saw it in themselves and in others. They had a problem with the Christian remedy for sin. For them, they only way to deal with sin was to do something to offset it. The remedy for them is on works, not grace.
The latter part of Edwards’ 8th chapter concerns the concept of grace, which is provided by the sacrifice of Jesus. Edwards says that if Jesus ”were only the revealer (of God) he would be a source of knowledge and enlightenment about God, but not necessarily a source of power from God.” … “Jesus brings what we cannot find within creation, what we cannot offer ourselves. He brings grace—grace that accepts, forgives, and transforms.”
Referring to a number of New Testament passages, Edwards makes the point that Jesus died “on behalf of others”, “for us”, as our “paschal lamb” and “sacrifice”. In summary, Edwards says, “The idea that Jesus’ life, ministry, and death provided a vicarious covering ‘on behalf of others’ is the dominant template for the New Testament understanding of Jesus.”
In this, Edwards presents the classic, orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Jesus is not just our model, teacher, mentor, or example. Jesus is our Savior.
In the next post we’ll look at the final section of chapter 8 where Edwards talks about “three effects of God’s grace in Christ.”
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 16 A)
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.
Sin, A Savior, and Moral Relativism
Chapter 8 is entitled, “Is a Savior from Sin Meaningful In a Day of Moral Relativism?” To understand the question that leads this chapter, we first have to grasp the effect of moral relativism on the culture and the church. Edwards takes some time to explain what moral relativism is and how is has made inroads into the church.
Edwards is not the only Christian writer to treat the subject of moral relativism. In doing a quick search on Amazon.com, I found over 40 books on the subject. And looking on Google for “moral relativism” over 1.1 million sites were found. The first site on the list was on wikipedia.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism). It’s a good place to go for a quick introduction to the concept.
In April, 2005, one of the most famous statements on the subject was made by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who was quickly thereafter elected Pope Benedict XVI). The entire text of his sermon is at Vatican Radio and many other sites. Here is the paragraph with the memorable phrase “dictatorship of relativism”:
"How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires."
That is a great statement about relativism from the current Pope: (that “which does not recognize anything as for certain”). Edwards also has a very readable style, but unfortunately it is not easy in this chapter to find a simple definition of moral relativism. He seems to equate it with pluralism, but then does not provide a clear definition of pluralism either. One quote comes close to a definition: “In ideological pluralism, objective virtues are replaced by subjective opinions. When virtues are replaced by subjective judgments, then statements about virtue become like color preferences. One opinion of right or wrong, virtue or vice, beauty or ugliness is as valid as another.” (page 144)
Here is the crux of the matter for the church. If someone says there is no objective standard for morality (no right nor wrong, only different opinions), then for them there is no such thing as “sin”. If there is no sin but only mistakes or improprieties, then there is no need for a savior. And if there is no need for a savior, there is no salvation. “If sin and hell are merely metaphors, perhaps God, heaven, and salvation are metaphors too.” (p148)
Ironically, a favorite Bible verse of the moral relativist (who otherwise doesn’t accept the Bible as an objective moral authority) is, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (Matt. 7:1 KJV) It seems OK (or PC) to condemn someone for judging another (even though that in itself is judging another) because it is not OK to make someone feel bad about their sin. So, the topic of sin is avoided or changed into something more palatable.
If we get to the point in the church were we look at sin, salvation, heaven, hell, a Savior, and even God as metaphors, rather than reality, our message of Jesus Christ suddenly becomes meaningless and irrelevant. The Christian message (the gospel) is based on the historical events that changed the world—the incarnation of God in Christ, the death of Jesus Christ for the vicarious atonement of our sins, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
If none of those events were real and true, the message of the church for the past 2000 years has been a lie. And attempts to proclaim the “heart of the message” by claiming the events are true as metaphors, leaves us with a Jesus who is only a model or an example to follow. Personally, I need a savior, not a model.
More in the next post about how a savior from sin is meaningful in a day of moral relativism.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 15)
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.
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.
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?”
Thursday, June 29, 2006
What Is Meant By "The Authority of Scripture"?
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 9)
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.
I just finished reading “The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture” by N. T. Wright (Harper San Francisco, 2005). It wasn’t quite what I expected or wanted, but it led me in a new direction that I believe will take me to a refreshing destination.
Wright spends a good bit of time on the meaning of “the authority of Scripture”, which he says “is a shorthand for ‘God’s authority exercised through Scripture’”. That is, the Bible is not the authority itself, God is; and God exercises His authority through the reading and preaching of the scriptures, through the telling of the Story (more about that later), and through the Church carrying the gospel into the world in work and witness. For more about this see his article, “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?” on his web site: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/ .
In the story, of course, it is necessary to see how Israel and God’s Kingdom-people play out their parts, how Jesus was the climax of the story, and how over the years the Church has fared in taking the play on the road into various cultures. In other words, Wright goes into a lot of Church history as it involves God’s use of the scriptures to bring about His will and the Church’s interpretations (“improvisations” as Wright calls them) of the scriptures to meet its challenges.
A central focus of Church history concerning the Scripture is the Enlightenment, the 18th century explosion of Rationalism and reason, and how it continues to affect study of the Bible. In chapter 7, “Misreadings of Scripture”, Wright points out how both the “right wing” and the “left wing” of Christianity have taken positions based on misreadings of Scripture. It’s a helpful exercise to read both lists and see how many of one’s own positions are based on faulty readings of Scripture.
It is tempting to jump to Chapter 8, “How To Get Back On Track”, and get to the heart of his argument. It really got tempting for me as I read through the foundation-laying sections in the previous chapters. But in the end I could see the necessity for not skipping the foundation-laying parts.
Wright presents the storyline of the Scripture as a 5-Act play (recapitulating some of his writing in his book, “The New Testament and the People of God” (Fortress Press, 1992).
The five Acts are: Creation, the Fall, Israel, Jesus, and the Church. Living in and acting out Act Five, we are bound to be true to Scene One in Act Five (and that’s where the Church remembered, retold, and wrote down what occurred in Act Four with Jesus).
The heart of his argument is on page 127 under “Strategies for Honoring the Authority of Scripture”. Here I can only summarize his strategies by quoting him on page 127, “How can we be sure that our understandings and ‘improvisations’ of scripture facilitate the Spirit’s working in and through us, as individuals, congregations, and the larger church? We do so by a reading of scripture that is (a) totally contextual, (b) liturgically grounded, (c) privately studied, (d) refreshed by appropriate scholarship, and (e) taught by the church’s accredited leaders.”
Wright, himself a bishop in the Anglican Communion (Bishop of Durham, England) insists that for the church to get back on track its teachers and pastors (and bishops) must be able to teach scripture so as to ably lead the church in its mission to the world. He points to the “various crises in the Western church of our day—decline in numbers and resources, moral dilemmas, internal division, failure to present the gospel coherently to a new generation…” as the impetus for us to “open the Bible in the power of the Spirit…for God’s word to do its work in the world…”.
The destination to which this book led me was not to Athens but to Jerusalem. On page 77 Wright quoted Tertullian (a second century theologian), “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” and goes on to explain “in other words, what has unaided philosophical reason to do with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ? This book led me not to more scholarship for scholarship’s sake, but to a re-reading of the Bible with his 5-Act Play in mind, being reminded of his five strategies for honoring the authority of scripture, and allowing God through the Spirit to work out His authority in me and through my teaching of His Word.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 8)
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.
The Reliability of the New Testament
In 1943 F. F. Bruce first published “Are The New Testament Documents Reliable?”. Still relevant and popular, later editions, which are still being printed, are now titled, “The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?” This 135 page paperback, available for about $9.25 online, is packed with evidence that the answer is “Yes!”.
I believe I first read that book while in college. I’ve since referred to it numerous times because the question keeps being asked. Another way to phrase it is to ask, “Can we rely on the New Testament for credible information about Jesus?”.
The New Testament is understood as a Historical Document
Edwards has an interesting way to approach the question in Chapter 3: he discusses examples of the various types of literature in ancient and modern religious texts.
So, the New Testament documents are seen to be historically reliable in those instances where people and places are mentioned.
Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament
Another point made by Edwards and F. F. Bruce is that the New Testament documents are vastly superior in comparison to other ancient writings at the point of manuscript evidence.
“Caesar’s Gallic War, which was written between 58 and 50 BC, has only ten manuscripts of worth, the oldest dating from nine hundred years after Caesar. Tacitus’s Histories, written about A. D. 100, and his Annals, written slightly later, depend on only two manuscripts, one ninth-century and one eleventh-century.”
By contrast, there are over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. Some of these date from the early to late 2nd century. We have two copies of Greek manuscripts of the entire New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) which date from about 350 to 400 A. D.
See this link for a table of manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability when compared to other ancient documents.
And, this link to Oxford University’s manuscript collection which states, “Oxford’s most important manuscript of classical philosophy is the Clarke Plato (MS. E. D. Clarke 39), the oldest surviving manuscript for about half of Plato’s dialogues, which was acquired by the University in 1809: it was written in Constantinople in A.D. 895.”
Reliability of hand-copying of the New Testament
Another argument for the reliability of the New Testament documents comes from overwhelming evidence that the manuscripts (hand-copied texts) were carefully and meticulously copied, with only minor variations over centuries. That evidence came in 1947 when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Comparing those scrolls (from 100 B. C. or so to no later than 70 A. D.) to the Leningrad Codex (from about 1,000 A. D.), there is virtually no difference.
The printing press was invented in 1455 A. D. Those who hand-copied the scrolls and codices of the Bible in the prior 14 centuries took great care to be exact. And with so many documents to compare, our confidence in their reliability grows even more.
Edwards concludes “The historical framework of the New Testament is not only corroborated by Jewish and pagan sources. It is, in fact, the primary source document for first-century Palestine.” (page 44)
In this short article I can’t do this subject justice. I can only point you to do some research on your own. If this subject interest you at all, by all means get F. F. Bruce’s book in addition to reading chapter 3 of Edwards’ book. You can also read what Mark D. Roberts wrote in his 3 volume (30-part) blog series on this topic. It will be worthwhile, I guarantee. And chapter 3 of the book I mentioned in my last post by Douglas Groothuis “Searching for the Real Jesus in an Age of Controversy” is also a good brief source.
In summary, for every argument against the reliability of the New Testament there is at least one book, if not scores of books with answers that can provide intellectual support for trusting its historicity. Find one and prepare your own argument.
The Reliability of the New Testament
In 1943 F. F. Bruce first published “Are The New Testament Documents Reliable?”. Still relevant and popular, later editions, which are still being printed, are now titled, “The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?” This 135 page paperback, available for about $9.25 online, is packed with evidence that the answer is “Yes!”.
I believe I first read that book while in college. I’ve since referred to it numerous times because the question keeps being asked. Another way to phrase it is to ask, “Can we rely on the New Testament for credible information about Jesus?”.
The New Testament is understood as a Historical Document
Edwards has an interesting way to approach the question in Chapter 3: he discusses examples of the various types of literature in ancient and modern religious texts.
- Some are understood to be myths. The Bhagavad Gita and the stories of Greek and Roman mythology, for example, do not claim to be based on actual historical events.
- Some are simply collections of wise sayings (the Analects of Confucius), again making no claim to historicity.
- Some make claims to state historical fact, but for which there is no historical or archeological evidence (the Book of Mormon).
- The Bible, though, claims to be genuine history and its claims can be validated by research and comparison to other known historical documents (e.g. Tacitus’ Annals, or Josephus’ Wars).
So, the New Testament documents are seen to be historically reliable in those instances where people and places are mentioned.
Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament
Another point made by Edwards and F. F. Bruce is that the New Testament documents are vastly superior in comparison to other ancient writings at the point of manuscript evidence.
“Caesar’s Gallic War, which was written between 58 and 50 BC, has only ten manuscripts of worth, the oldest dating from nine hundred years after Caesar. Tacitus’s Histories, written about A. D. 100, and his Annals, written slightly later, depend on only two manuscripts, one ninth-century and one eleventh-century.”
By contrast, there are over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. Some of these date from the early to late 2nd century. We have two copies of Greek manuscripts of the entire New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) which date from about 350 to 400 A. D.
See this link for a table of manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability when compared to other ancient documents.
And, this link to Oxford University’s manuscript collection which states, “Oxford’s most important manuscript of classical philosophy is the Clarke Plato (MS. E. D. Clarke 39), the oldest surviving manuscript for about half of Plato’s dialogues, which was acquired by the University in 1809: it was written in Constantinople in A.D. 895.”
Reliability of hand-copying of the New Testament
Another argument for the reliability of the New Testament documents comes from overwhelming evidence that the manuscripts (hand-copied texts) were carefully and meticulously copied, with only minor variations over centuries. That evidence came in 1947 when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Comparing those scrolls (from 100 B. C. or so to no later than 70 A. D.) to the Leningrad Codex (from about 1,000 A. D.), there is virtually no difference.
The printing press was invented in 1455 A. D. Those who hand-copied the scrolls and codices of the Bible in the prior 14 centuries took great care to be exact. And with so many documents to compare, our confidence in their reliability grows even more.
Edwards concludes “The historical framework of the New Testament is not only corroborated by Jewish and pagan sources. It is, in fact, the primary source document for first-century Palestine.” (page 44)
In this short article I can’t do this subject justice. I can only point you to do some research on your own. If this subject interest you at all, by all means get F. F. Bruce’s book in addition to reading chapter 3 of Edwards’ book. You can also read what Mark D. Roberts wrote in his 3 volume (30-part) blog series on this topic. It will be worthwhile, I guarantee. And chapter 3 of the book I mentioned in my last post by Douglas Groothuis “Searching for the Real Jesus in an Age of Controversy” is also a good brief source.
In summary, for every argument against the reliability of the New Testament there is at least one book, if not scores of books with answers that can provide intellectual support for trusting its historicity. Find one and prepare your own argument.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 7)
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.
Excursus: Resources for this Study
The first two chapters of Edwards’ book (which dealt with the Quest for the Historical Jesus and The Jesus Seminar) looked at the skepticism of some New Testament scholars since the enlightenment.
From what I have read, those scholars’ answers to the question “Is Jesus the only savior?” is essentially to say “No, and in fact Jesus is not even a savior. No savior exists, only sages, teachers, models for living, etc. We can’t know enough about the real Jesus to know what he was, other than a teacher and maybe a healer. All we can know is what the early church wrote about Jesus.”
In effect, then, if the New Testament is as unreliable as claimed, we can’t know very much about the “real” Jesus at all. So how do we answer the skeptical scholars’ claims? We need to examine the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament as a credible source of information about Jesus.
Once we do that, then we will examine two more questions as we continue to lay the foundation for answering the book’s major question: (1) what specific claims does the New Testament make about Jesus?; and (2) what, if anything can be know about Jesus’ own self-understanding?
This is probably a good time for a brief excursus – to list some of the books and online sites I’ve been reading along with the major book for the summer, James R. Edwards’ “Is Jesus The Only Savior?”. These books give introductions to and different perspectives the major subjects in Edwards’ book: the reliability of the New Testament, the search for the “real” Jesus, and the message of the gospel in a pluralistic world.
My next post will treat the question of the reliability of the New Testament. For now, check out some of these resources. I don’t agree with all of them, but I feel a need to study all of them in order to come to informed conclusions.
Borg, Marcus J (site about his works) www.united.edu/portait/index/shtml
Borg, Marcus J. Meeting Jesus Again for The First Time
Borg, Marcus J. www.explorefaith.org/bio.borg.html
Borg, Marcus J. & Wright, N. T. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions
Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Edwards, James R. Is Jesus The Only Savior?
Groothuis, Douglas Searching for the Real Jesus In An Age of Controversy
Gundry, Okholm, Phillips, editors Four Views of Salvation In A Pluralistic World
Jesus Seminar www.westarinstitute.org/jesus_seminar/jesus_seminar.html
Lindsley, Art C.S. Lewis's Case For Christ
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology, An Introduction
Roberts, Mark D http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable.htm
Roberts, Mark D http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/knowaboutjesus.htm
Roberts, Mark http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/unmaskingthejesus.htm
Smith, Huston The World's Religions
Witherington, III, Ben The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth
Wright, N. T. The Contemporary Quest For Jesus
Wright, N. T. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
Wright, N. T. Simply Christian
Other than the Edwards book that we’re following as our text, the resources I would recommend for those just starting the study are:
Excursus: Resources for this Study
The first two chapters of Edwards’ book (which dealt with the Quest for the Historical Jesus and The Jesus Seminar) looked at the skepticism of some New Testament scholars since the enlightenment.
From what I have read, those scholars’ answers to the question “Is Jesus the only savior?” is essentially to say “No, and in fact Jesus is not even a savior. No savior exists, only sages, teachers, models for living, etc. We can’t know enough about the real Jesus to know what he was, other than a teacher and maybe a healer. All we can know is what the early church wrote about Jesus.”
In effect, then, if the New Testament is as unreliable as claimed, we can’t know very much about the “real” Jesus at all. So how do we answer the skeptical scholars’ claims? We need to examine the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament as a credible source of information about Jesus.
Once we do that, then we will examine two more questions as we continue to lay the foundation for answering the book’s major question: (1) what specific claims does the New Testament make about Jesus?; and (2) what, if anything can be know about Jesus’ own self-understanding?
This is probably a good time for a brief excursus – to list some of the books and online sites I’ve been reading along with the major book for the summer, James R. Edwards’ “Is Jesus The Only Savior?”. These books give introductions to and different perspectives the major subjects in Edwards’ book: the reliability of the New Testament, the search for the “real” Jesus, and the message of the gospel in a pluralistic world.
My next post will treat the question of the reliability of the New Testament. For now, check out some of these resources. I don’t agree with all of them, but I feel a need to study all of them in order to come to informed conclusions.
Borg, Marcus J (site about his works) www.united.edu/portait/index/shtml
Borg, Marcus J. Meeting Jesus Again for The First Time
Borg, Marcus J. www.explorefaith.org/bio.borg.html
Borg, Marcus J. & Wright, N. T. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions
Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Edwards, James R. Is Jesus The Only Savior?
Groothuis, Douglas Searching for the Real Jesus In An Age of Controversy
Gundry, Okholm, Phillips, editors Four Views of Salvation In A Pluralistic World
Jesus Seminar www.westarinstitute.org/jesus_seminar/jesus_seminar.html
Lindsley, Art C.S. Lewis's Case For Christ
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology, An Introduction
Roberts, Mark D http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable.htm
Roberts, Mark D http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/knowaboutjesus.htm
Roberts, Mark http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/unmaskingthejesus.htm
Smith, Huston The World's Religions
Witherington, III, Ben The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth
Wright, N. T. The Contemporary Quest For Jesus
Wright, N. T. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
Wright, N. T. Simply Christian
Other than the Edwards book that we’re following as our text, the resources I would recommend for those just starting the study are:
- The book by both Borg and Wright which clearly delineates the different approaches to the historical study of Jesus (The Meaning of Jesus:Two Visions).
- The web sites with materials by and about Marcus Borg (for the view held by scholars connected with The Jesus Seminar)
- The web site for N. T. Wright (for a view that represents scholars with a more traditional view of Jesus)
- The blog links for Mark D. Roberts (for a view of a scholarly pastor – PhD from Harvard, and Senior Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church in Irvine, California). He has written extensively on a multitude of subjects and posted them online, so they are accessible without having to go to a library or buy a bunch of books. He also teaches some classes at Fuller Theological Seminary (conservative) and San Francisco Theological Seminary (liberal), so he has to wrestle with subjects that are germane to Christians in the world today
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)