NC

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but, if not, Amen.

Where I agree dialogue is very important, there is an ultimate truth, and it is found in the inspired Word of God. Those of us who read and study it for a living, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can understand what it says regarding certain subjects, on which we can speak with certainty.

Unlike what Rob Bell says, Jesus was the only begotten son of God, not the son of Larry.

Unlike what Doug Pagitt says, everyone is not going to be reconciled and restored on the day of judgement.

If we do not study the Word of God regularly, we can be assured that we will be deceived. If we do not agree that it is God’s Word, then we will question it continually. The issue is not dialogue, it is an issue of trust, of faith, and of believing God and taking Him at his Word. Everything else is irrelevant.

Unlike what Rob Bell says, Jesus was the only begotten son of God, not the son of Larry.

Seriously, John?

Politics – I love this type of stuff. It provides such amusement and showcases man’s fallen nature.

Connecting any part of Christianity with the government is a felony in some states! And that’s the way it is…

BTW – I am in favor of drilling every drop of oil everywhere on the planet. We need to drill immediately in Indian burial grounds, cemetaries, parks, lakes, your back yard, and all other areas that happen to lie above any oil. Our thirst for energy dictates we rape the earth starting now!

Question: How many people who are against drilling in Anwar would turn down 10 million dollars to allow drilling in their own back yard? I am currently digging with a Craftsmen drill in my own backyard looking for oil. No bubblin’ crude yet!

And that further demonstrates how broken and sinful you really are.

Well you either have “thus says the Lord” or you have the Hegelian Dialectic. I choose to work with the former, flawed delivery and all, instead of the alternative which is why we are where we are today.

My favorite is the environmentalists that object to wind power because it is noisy or detracts from the view. Here is Texas we stick ‘em out on the range. (You know where the deer and the antelope play). They only annoy the cyotes.

My keyboard is made of soy beans!

Also, you present a false dichotomy. The two are not only not by nature in opposition to eachother, they are also not the only options. Is there such a thing as a double false dichotomy? If so, you’ve presented it.

Although Chris P does an excellent job trying to out-do John’s false dichotomies here and in his linked article…

I guess the logic goes, “If you can’t refute their argument, rather than agree or just leave it lie, make up a different argument and refute it, instead…”

–This is important for ministers and teachers who can no longer say “Thus saith the Lord” and expect everybody to agree. –

More to be pitied, then, are the ‘everybody’, not the ministers and teachers who really do teach what the Lord has really said.

If end result is suppose to be some kind of measure of the truth, then it may be fairly asked, why were the words that God gave through the prophets and the apostles so often not heeded? And worse yet, the messenger often suffered or was killed?

Should Jeremiah have not delivered the messages God gave to Him, because the people didn’t listen? Was it Jeremiah’s fault that the people didn’t accept his message?

The hidden message seems to here be that if the church lived godly, the world will listen. But by the Bible, that is not so. “If they hated me (Jesus), they will hate you because you love me” and “all those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution”.

More to be pitied, then, are the ‘everybody’, not the ministers and teachers who really do teach what the Lord has really said.

I guess we’re just going to keep ignoring what Christian P actually wrote and continue down the straw-man path of “oh no, he’s denying truth!” instead of recognizing that so many ministers and teachers may SAY “The Lord has said…”, but get the interpretation totally botched, based on their own systematic lenses rather than the original meaning of Scripture, and that it is THIS which Christian is addressing…

Oh well, keep beating the strawmen, Chris P & Jazz/EP, that’s about all you seem capable of doing…

“This is important for ministers and teachers who can no longer say “Thus saith the Lord” and expect everybody to agree.”

We should not be looking for people to agree. Our spirits should be loving and redemption, but the Lord has spoken and we cannot but speak the things that we have both seen and heard. Many times a dialgoue is philosophy in disguise.

If we do not have the Words of God we have nothing but hot air. I do not care what men say regardless of their oratorical prowess or their ecclesiastical stature or even their proficiency in Greek or Hebrew, what does God say? And all of us must subjectively seek the objective Word of God for ourselves.

If people “accept the voice of the church as authoritative” or any man for that matter, then they are spiritually lazy and deceived and will not grow past infancy. And that is what passes today as discipleship. Some follow MacArthur, some follow Bell, some follow Warren, and some follow Calvin, and some follow their local pastor.

Only God knows how much time and labor they expend pursuing the Risen Christ personally.

–You may not realize it yet, but the moment you take that attitude on any issue, you immediately become irrelevant, regardless of whether you are right nor not.–

Thank you for so succintly stating the (post)modern problem. Right and wrong do not matter among such as those, only how nice and compromising one seems.

pillage,
does the tone of my answer matter?
or is only the answer important?

Sometimes I imagine that if Christian P posted a recipe for Chocolate Chip Cookies, he would still get railed on for things he didn’t say in his article…

OK – If Christian is saying that we do not have to self righteously couch everything we say in “Thus sayth the Lord” verbiage, but we can say and believe the same truth, then I agree.

A. “All have sinned – and that means YOU!!

B. All of us have sinned, including me.

Yes, a difference in tone and maybe effectiveness.

Christian – you should include your last comment in your post, it was completly illuminating.

“John, I have no problem with what God says. In fact, I live my life based on what He has said.”

Ok, me too. And that’s how I know Rob Bell is a false prophet and you guys who write at this site are wrong in your view of Christianity.

emergent pillage.

You are all over the board… you seem to be against the emerging church then seem to talk just like it at times… By being all over the board you seem very post modern which is what I deal with daily. You seem to miss that you are also living in the postmodern age and must find a way to live out your faith in it. That is what the Conversation is about… it is not about embracing PM rather it is about teaching the lost who have.

You seem to agree greatly with Brian McLaren… who also quotes Chesterton a lot.

iggy

an emergent pillager for Jesus

Ken – your comments have become less and less poignant and many times just a one sentence commentary without any productivity to any issue. The last one is a perfect specimen.

Rick,

O, excuse me. I’m so very sorry that if in your great humility your intellect has suffered. My point is really pretty simple though, so you just try and follow along, k.

Christian P. pontificates: “I have no problem with what God says. In fact, I live my life based on what He has said.”

But if one of us so-called ODMs says this, then by default we immediately have this from Chris L. right on cue: “your writing and “discernment” make it appear that the God you are listening to isn’t the one that wrote the Bible…”

The truth is: “ODMs” think we have a proper hermeneutic concerning what God has said. However, the postevangelcials and postliberals here at this site think that they are the ones who do.

So my point is: Since we are essentially diametrically opposed it’s becoming increasingly difficult to think we are both speaking from the same Spirit.

There that wasn’t so hard, was it Rick.

However, the postevangelcials and postliberals here at this site think that they are the ones who do.

Ken,
This is a serious question. What does the prefix “post-” mean to you? “Post-evangelical” – I can understand to some extent. I probably wouldn’t mind that label so much. I have no idea what “post-liberal” means, though. Does that mean you think we used to be liberals, but now we’re past it? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

The very problem with the modern American Church is what you state here as a problem with Christians, only it is the opposite. I agree with Emergent Pillage (whoever that is) when he says that the problem is not allowing the Bible to speak to us, instead we reconstruct everything to our own liking, thus creating a god and a theology that we are quite comfortable with. Recent examples on this site:

Discussion of Imago Dei
Justification of crude talk
Non-biblical view of Homosexual behavior
Non-biblical view of women in church
Anti-biblical theories of atonement

The last example is the support of people on this site of Brian McLaren’s view that PSA is ‘cosmic child abuse’ and the death of Christ as punishment of sins gives a false view of God and is like kicking a dog for a child’s wrongdoing.

We need to get back to ‘God says it, I’ll follow it, that settles it.” It is not up to deconstruction. Follow the clear instructions by the power of the Holy Spirit, seek God’s face in the unclear.

I agree with Emergent Pillage (whoever that is) when he says that the problem is not allowing the Bible to speak to us, instead we reconstruct everything to our own liking, thus creating a god and a theology that we are quite comfortable with.

“Please pull over sir. You’ve just committed serious act of unintended irony. I’m gonna have to see your license and registration…”

They create their own god, with an exciting mix of hinduism, Roman Catholic mysticism, islam, judaism, and a teensy bit of liberal Christianity to make it all palatable.

Oooh…

Just like John Calvin took a nice heaping tablespoon of Platonic philosophy, a half-cup of Augustinian theology, a teaspoon of anti-Semitism, and a healthy pinch of Roman Catholic sacramentalism to come up with Reformed theology.

When Reformed guys start acting like their system is the system, it cracks me up…

John,

That is what emergents do Phil…

They create their own god, with an exciting mix of hinduism, Roman Catholic mysticism, islam, judaism, and a teensy bit of liberal Christianity to make it all palatable.

This is slander against people like me… and you just keep doing it. It also shows the magnitude of your ignorance on the topic… you only sound foolish in your continual false accusations against this “imaginary” emergents you have created. I am glad I actually know some of the people you slander so I know the truth about them.

iggy

I never thought I’d live long enough to see a lesson in hermaneutics to Ken Silva on this blog.

John,
THAT’S NOT WHAT BRIAN MCLAREN SAYS, WRITES, TEACHES, OR BELIEVES!! I’m beginning to think that you really might have problems. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you consistently ignore quoted direct evidence. This makes you a liar and a slanderer. Repeatedly. Over and over. And over.

I find it difficult to ascertain exactly what Brian MacLaren believes on many issues. Just when it seems clear he stated a position, I’m told he did not mean what it seems he said.

And he seems to enjoy being doctrinally enigmatic on some things that should not be very controversial.

Too bad you lost to us in 2004. And didn’t even get to us in 2007….

It’s funny to watch the Sox be boo’ed at the allstar game in the yanks stadium. Sounds like the boo of JEALOUSY.

PS go Sox

26 – 2

DO THE MATH!!

Yeah…that ain’t nothing Rick….WHUTEVA!

Like I said, Yanks lose when it counts.

And the Sox have more than 2 Championships, just…they’re 86 years apart!

You sir, are 6 games behind. WHAT!?

Ruth, Gehrig, Dimaggio, Ford, Berra, Mantle, Munson, Scooter, Jackson, Jeter.

The Magisterium.

AF Video Game?

I’ve never heard that before. Really. What makes you think we play video games for duty?

Alls I’m saying is…2 words.

World Champs = Sox. Where are the Yanks now?

Ha, I have at least two friends who are in right now, and my tax dollars are paying for them to play NCAA 2009. If you really wanted to be a soldier you should have joined the Army. Then your chevrons wouldn’t hang limp.

Ken,

The culture someone lives in has zero to do with proper Biblical hermeneutics.

THis is the thing you are making it backwards. We are not saying the culture is good of godly… never have never will…but we should know something about it to better present the Truth Who is Jesus to the people caught in the lies of the culture. You even do this… and that is what the emerging conversazione is all about.

So, for you to twist this around shows the deep misunderstanding of what you attack on so many levels it would take an act of God to unravel your false created delusion you attack other with.

You need to stick with the Gospel and preach it… stop the hate attack on others and get a life…. His Life that is.

iggy

I joined the Air Force to fly. In addition to flight school, combat survival, etc etc, I was trained just as well as a soldier is for combat. Except, I’m not a ground pounding grunt, nor am I a soldier, and I’m fine with that . I didn’t join to be a soldier.

I love my sister services though.

The Army has no room to talk however. They get to use their cellphones in basic on the weekends, get to watch tv, and get a ’stress card’ which they can use to take a ‘time out’ when the Drill Sergeant is yelling at them too much and making them ‘feel bad’. AF don’t got that. That’s why the Marines hate the Army more than us! WHOOOO! We’re hated less!

Yanks stink

joe,

John,
I wonder if I were to post the audio of Rob using the ABC illustration of the gospel (Admit that you are a sinner, Believe that Jesus died for your sins, Confess that Jesus is Lord) would you let this Godly man alone? Or will you continue to create truth that fits your itching ears and do what is right in your own eyes for your own enjoyment?

There is no reconciliation with these guys, when they say that they lie. In fact their lies are more blatant and more outrageous. The more we point out their error, the more aggressive and hateful they get. John seems to be one of the worse as I have caught him in plagiarism against me as he did not site his sources when he quoted me. He seems to not care if he tells the truth nor if he sins against anyone, as he must justifies his sin right and left and not one of his “friends” demand he repents.

I see such egregious sin from that camp of people… it is as if they look in the mirror and see their own sin and cannot deal with it so go out and point out others to make themselves feel better.

iggy

After 8 years as a corpsman in the Navy I can say you are all wrong…thus saith the Lord.

it is as if they look in the mirror and see their own sin and cannot deal with it so go out and point out others to make themselves feel better.

Iggy- I believe this has become known as the Ted Haggard syndrome. But in keeping with our military theme this evening, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

We wouldn’t want that now, would we? My excuse is that I am on vacation

M.G.
I find that very interesting. Let us hope that Ken’s guiding hermeneutic principle is not numerology else he might say that since 11 is not 7 nor 3 or a combination thereof it is irrelevant.

The culture someone lives in has zero to do with proper Biblical hermeneutics.

Well, this is somewhat true. The culture the text was written in, however, has everything to do with proper hermeneutics. If you ignore the context, you’ll end up in left field, and totally miss a lot of stuff.

But even to say that the culture we’re living in has nothing to do with hermeneutics isn’t true. Unless you’re reading the texts in their original language, you’re applying a culturally-adjusted hermeneutic.

Certainly the culture the text was written within is vitally important to understanding its meaning. But the culture in which it is read plays a major role in how that meaning is appropriated. Give a Bible to a one person in America, one in Mexico, one in Ethiopia and one in former communist Russia and you will get 4 very different perspectives of the very same texts. None of us come to the text without our own prejudices. None of us is objective. To assume we are is like M.G says, blasphemous.

peace,
Chad

Excellent Crowder article, Christian!

most of the “opinion” one sound like the articles at Slice and CRN… substituting their opinions for truth… exchanging the Truth of God for a lie (or just self opinions)… so on and so forth.

Lots of opinions, but not much truth….

And that’s my opinion.

iggy

Dunkin’ is better than Starbucks – TRUTH

Culture transcends language, obviously. And you have to be aware, as much as is possible, of your own culture whenever you engage a text, recognizing that your cultural vantage point will have an effect on your interpretive decisions.

The problem is that a lot of believers think there’s something akin to a “view from nowhere,” which enables someone to approach a text from a God-like angle.

In my mind, though, that’s blasphemy.

Yes, that’s basically what I was getting at (although, I may have said it a little clumsily given I wrote my comment right before I went to bed).

I just don’t understand why people think we can read the Bible and not use the same common-sense type of reading skills that we use with other things. When people read Huckleberry Finn, they know that they have to understand some things about 19th century southern American culture. Yet, we think people can pick up the Bible and get the full story without knowing anything about the ancient near east or Greco-Roman culture by and to whom it was originally written. I’m sure people can get a lot of good out of reading the Bible without knowing this stuff, but they’re bound to miss a lot, too.

I’m not saying that we should treat the Bible as purely literature. It’s definitely inspired and authoritative. That doesn’t mean it’s always easy to understand, though.

Dunkin’ is better than Starbucks – TRUTH

lol…

I just can’t bring myself to like DD’s coffee (nor their donuts, either, for that matter). I guess I’m a corporate shill because I really do like Starbucks a lot better. I even like the Pike’s Place roast.

Brien McLaren on the atonement, in an interview:

McLaren: This is, one of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then—I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary—but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.

My e-mail address for your apology is listed above.

We need to say thus saith the Lord regardless of the response- because it is the TRUTH.

What if…

I was typing as Joe posted.

My e-mail address for your apology is listed above.

John C (or shall I say pastorboy),
That’s still not denying the atonement. He’s not denying the death and actual, physical resurrection of Christ. That would be heresy. I’ve read almost all of McClaren’s books (the only ones I haven’t are a couple of his earlier ones, like Church on the Other Side), and I can assure that in none of them does he deny that Christ died and rose from the dead.

I think if we take the position that we know the exact reason why Christ died, it’s just plain arrogant. Now we can say that the we know part of the picture, we see part of the mystery. But to say we know it all perfectly is just misguided.

Also, I would note, that McLaren makes a good point there. The crucifixion wasn’t God killing Christ as an act of punishment. It was Christ willingly offering His life as ransom for many.

Chad, I almost agree….

Love your neighbor – TRUTH
Penal Sub. Atonement as the only Biblical view – OPINION (no one ever said it was the only biblical view….But it is the view that is based on the most biblical truth)
Adultery is a sin – TRUTH
Drinking Alcohol is a sin – OPINION (no one ever said drinking alcohol is a sin, least of all the apostle Paul~but getting drunk is, as well as not being concerned for the weaker brother…)
There is only one God and the way to him is through Jesus – TRUTH
Certain words are ontologically evil – OPINION (based on truth, Let NO UNWHOLESOME WORD proceed out of your mouth…I cannot see how dic#, f*&k,s*7t, etc. are wholesome….
Literal 6-day creation is the only Biblical view – OPINION (based on Biblical Truth)
Homosexual practice is a sin – TRUTH
Homosexual temptation is a sin – OPINION (temptation is not sin, no one ever said it was. It is the falling to temptation that is sin)
In depth teaching of sin and hell are required in presenting the gospel – OPINION (this is a straw man…no one I know goes into a detailed description of hell, however, if they do not know about sin, the cross is foolishness)
Proclaiming the gospel in words and deeds is a primary Christian activity – TRUTH
By grace we are saved – TRUTH
Catholics are going to hell – OPINION (anyone who goes after their own jutification by works is under a different gospel, Galatians 1:8)
Man cannot save himself – TRUTH
Calvinism – OPINION based on Biblical Truth
Arminianism – OPINION Based on Biblical Truth
Open Theism – OPINION Based on hyper-arminianism
ANY Systematic Theology – OPINION

Joe,

I know, it just goes to show. As I said, Rob’s quote was an illustration of bricks vs. springs. But, this is a CRUCIAL doctrine that Bell questions in his wildly ppular books that is read by people who have not yet come to faith in Christ, or have a weak faith, they can get confused and begin to believe some of the lies that people do talk about…like Jesus was just a human!

If you cannot see that, you may be in a cult, sorta like Red Sox Nation.

In the end, Chad, I would say your entrance into heaven is far wider than God’s…

And that is sad, because in the end, our OPINION does not matter. All that matters is the TRUTH.

And Bell, McLaren, Pagitt, and Jones are raising up a generation (or giving voice to it) that questions God’s truth and may end up outside of the very kingdom that they claim to embrace. And that scares me and drives me to fight for the truth.

Chad,

If you cannot see the importance of right doctrine, I fear for your church.

If Jesus was not born of a virgin, then

God is a liar
Isaiah is a false prophet
Jesus is a human only
Jesus as a human was born in sin
Jesus’ death on the cross is for him alone
The resurrection is a fairy tale
We are to be most pitied… because there is no forgiveness of sins!

Nice straw man, though, I do not come to people with a book of doctrine. My point with Bell is that many people who read his books are seeking, and take what he says as truth based on the Bible, because he , after all, is a pastor. They do not take the time to do the research in the Bible. They take VE as gospel.

And Bell, McLaren, Pagitt, and Jones are raising up a generation (or giving voice to it) that questions God’s truth and may end up outside of the very kingdom that they claim to embrace. And that scares me and drives me to fight for the truth.

When I read things like this, I wonder if Pope Leo X didn’t utter the same words about Luther. I just find it ironic that a movement that finds its roots in a radical revolt against authority has gotten to the point where it’s telling people to quit asking questions.

Well said Iggy, Phil and Nathanael.

John, like I said: Bell’s God is far bigger than your god.

take care.

Iggy,

It is great when questions affirm your faith, and that is my experience.

It is this emergent eternal conversation where the questions end in more questions and also in deconstruction of scripture to the point where it broadens the road, which is set by the Lord. It is His road, His door.

It is not ours. It is ours to find, by the drawing of God of us unto Himself.

peace.

It is His road, His door.

It is not ours. It is ours to find, by the drawing of God of us unto Himself.

The abuse done to the “narrow gate/road” sayings of Jesus is horrendous and just one more reason why understanding the culture and historical context of a text is so important.

John, this is not a statement by Jesus to be exclusionary. Jesus is not saying that only a few people can get to heaven whereas the majority will go to hell.

A wide gate is easy to get through and requires no change in one’s posture or constitution. A narrow gate requires one to UNLOAD the burdens they are carrying so that they may fit. It requires them to sacrifice and it requires that they let go of any baggage that they have long been carrying. It further illustrates Jesus’ invitation that ALL should come to him who are weary and HEAVE BURDENED and he will give them rest for his yoke (teaching, yet literally, a wooden frame used over one’s shoulders to carry a load) is EASY and his burden is LIGHT.

Jesus also said that he came to save the WORLD and that if he is lifted up he will draw ALL men unto him. Why do you insist to limit the grace and reach of God?

corey Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
John,
THAT’S NOT WHAT BRIAN MCLAREN SAYS, WRITES, TEACHES, OR BELIEVES!! I’m beginning to think that you really might have problems. This has been explained to you repeatedly and you consistently ignore quoted direct evidence. This makes you a liar and a slanderer. Repeatedly. Over and over. And over.

In Response, Brian McClaren’s own words:

Hansen: They want to know that there’s going to be some kind of, so to speak, hell to pay. Some sort of judgment. I think part of the problem that you and I both react to is that an infinite amount of punishment for a finite being and a finite amount of sin, there’s something that seems to question God’s just and loving nature.

McLaren: Yeah, it’s very true. And I think that creates a rational problem. And is that rationally sensible? Would it be—Does it make sense for a good being to create creatures who will experience infinite torture, infinite time, infinite—you know, never be numbed in their consciousness? I mean, how would you even create a universe where that sort of thing could happen? It just sounds—It really raises some questions about the goodness of God. And that, to me, is the deepest issue.

and again:

McLaren: This is, one of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then—I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary—but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.

And yet again:

The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive

And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.

And now…Jesus as just one example among many to avoid eliteism…

McLaren: Right. If I understand what you’re saying. These are important subjects. I understand you’re saying: Look, we could look at Ghandi’s live as an example of self sacrificial love or Martin Luther King Junior’s life. There would be a lot of people we could look at. And so wouldn’t it be better to just talk about Jesus as one among many, rather than lift Him up as some extraordinary example. Because by doing that we create, we perpetuate this Christian elitism and exclusivism, et cetera, et cetera.

Come on, Corey. I got 100 more. This is just ONE INTERVIEW!

Pastorboy,

You are stating what the emerging conversation is all about. It is not about deconstructing the scripture like say the Jesus seminar did… but to draw us into the eternal conversation that was started when God spoke all into being through Jesus and fulfilled in the Person of Jesus in his death burial and resurrection. You are attacking “points” in the conversation yet miss that these are not the stopping points or the main points.

To question the virgin birth is a good thing if one is approaching God in sincerity and humbly to learn from Him. This leads to deeper trust and knowledge of the Grace, mercy and kindness of God.

Yet, what you and so many others do is stop on “points” that people stumble and accuse people like me of causing confusion. The issue is that he confusion is already there and instead of lovingly leading the person out of the confusion, so many are just tossing out bible verses that add more to the confusion in that it sounds like people from your view point don’t care and don’t want someone to ask questions.

Emerging/emergent people want to questions out of the shadows of academia and thrust into the Light so that they are exposed for their strengths and weaknesses. If we do not do this then many will just keep their question and think them unanswerable.

Yet, it is not in giving the “right” answer, but leading someone to the Answer. Jesus is the Answer… but to have someone get there one must bear with patience and love (and not tolerance as that is not true love) so that Kindness from God can lead that person to God.

What I see and how you and many come across is that you just don’t really care about people. You care about doctrine and right belief. You seem to express that this is more important than Jesus Himself from whom all “sound doctrine” comes from.

I had someone very agree at me for putting down doctrine but could not grasp not all doctrine is good… some of it is bad… and does damage to the person. Yet, sound doctrine comes from Christ and in that the person must seek Jesus to get it. (And yes that is found in the bible but also in our daily living)

True sound doctrine is to be lived out and experienced as the person finds new life in Christ. Doctrine is not just a mental assent to some held beliefs…. to make it so brings us only to religion and works. It leads to a form of godliness but has no power.

iggy

Jesus is not saying that only a few people can get to heaven whereas the majority will go to hell.

First all, what Jesus offers is not heaven or hell, but life and death. But taking your comment above, how do you explain the below passage you refer to?

The opposite of destruction = life
The opposite of many = few

Matt 7: “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

Jesus also said that he came to save the WORLD and that if he is lifted up he will draw ALL men unto him. Why do you insist to limit the grace and reach of God?

Who is limiting the grace and reach of God? Whereas you affirm that someone is saved even though they commit idolatry, pray to people who are dead, involve themselves in pagan rituals AS LONG AS THEY ALSO believe in Jesus, others would say that this is false.

The power of God to save, through the truth of His word, is still effective today. When people water down the message or add their own “religion” to it, then we limit the grace and reach of God.

I’ll get the quote that follws….<bMcLaren: Right. If I understand what you’re saying. These are important subjects. I understand you’re saying: Look, we could look at Ghandi’s live as an example of self sacrificial love or Martin Luther King Junior’s life. There would be a lot of people we could look at. And so wouldn’t it be better to just talk about Jesus as one among many, rather than lift Him up as some extraordinary example. Because by doing that we create, we perpetuate this Christian elitism and exclusivism, et cetera, et cetera. Is that what you’re saying?

Hansen: Bingo! Yeah, that’s really right on.

McLaren: Well, this is a subject that I am really interested in. And in fact, it’s going to be part of the book I am going to write this year that is, kind of will be sequel to this book of The Kingdom Seeker Messages of Jesus [NOT SURE IF THAT’S WHAT HE SAID] And it’s tentatively, right now, going to be titled Jesus and the Suicide Machine. And what’s it’s going to be is talking about how the message of the kingdom speaks to our contemporary situations. And to cut to the chase, I think what you’re reacting to is not, ultimately, the uniqueness of Jesus, but it is how the uniqueness of Jesus is used by a colonial, Roman Christianity.

Digging the hole deeper:

Hansen: I definitely am reacting to that on an emotional level. But on an intellectual level, I guess, I am also saying that there are some questions that got brought up when I was studying. You know, ranging from if we do say this, how can we not be elitist? Versus, you know—to be honest with you, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to me is Jesus’ being in a literal sense the Son of God, was finding out that Paul never once mentions the idea. And his writings are the earliest. And when I found that out, I was like—wait a second here.

McLaren: See, I think I can feel your pain, Leif. And part of what I feel is this: There is a whole package. And the package ultimately is this hell package. And here’s what I would say: I think the deeper problem here is a problem of the larger narrative. And when I think there’s another way of seeing the narrative where a lot of these problems disappear. In other words, I would say, I think we see the right problems in the narrative. But I think there are different understandings of the narrative that are very, very hard to get to. Because we’ve got so much of the old narrative so deeply rooted and so deeply influencing the way we read the Bible. And I feel like I can say this. I think I’ve got to a little rise on the journey, where I got a different view of the landscape. And I want to tell you, I think it’s going to be okay.

John/Pastorboy-

You are confusing this present salvation with God’s future salvation. Is it true that many do not want to let go of their burdens and their baggage (i.e. man-made doctrins) and rely solely on the grace of God? Yep. Many are in our churches and it is sad that they refuse to live into the abundant life that Jesus came to give us in the present. This does not mean it MUST be this way. Jesus, looking around him, notices what we all notice – not a whole lot of people really want to volunteer to take up a cross and follow.

Whereas you affirm that someone is saved even though they commit idolatry, pray to people who are dead, involve themselves in pagan rituals AS LONG AS THEY ALSO believe in Jesus, others would say that this is false.

Where have I “affirmed” this, PB? You misrepresent everyone you set yourself up and over against.

Where have I “affirmed” this, PB? You misrepresent everyone you set yourself up and over against.

You affirm this by claiming that it is OK to involve yourself in Catholic practices and still follow Christ:

- praying to saints: idolatry
- veneration of Mary: idolatry
- praying to dead people (ie: saints): just wrong
- pagan rituals: a plethora

Do you not affirm this? (Forgive me if I am incorrect).

So when you make statements about the bigness of your God compared with others, you are doing so through rose-colored glasses that have no basis in reality.

And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.

Who is it that has the incomplete view? I would say it is McLaren and Chris L setting up the strawman, here.

PSA cannot be summed up like this. It is blasphemous to God. The atonement DEMONSTRATES God’s complete love and forgiveness for those who would believe (not for everyone, Chad)

He loved the world, and desired to forgive those who would believe that he sent his Son. PSA demonstrates God’s attributes of
Love
Mercy
Grace

as well as
Truth
Justice

God is Love, but He is also just. If he allows sin to enter into heaven, he is not just. If he turns a blind eye to sin, he is not just.

But He is full of love and mercy, demonstrated by the fact that all of our sins can be forgiven because justice has been done, the sin is paid for.

Paul C-
I affirm that Catholics are not pagans. I affirm that salvation is not tied to works, positively or negatively. Don’t act as if Protestants do not have their idols. Doctrine and the Bible being only two of them.

What is deemed “idolatry” in your eyes is seen as liturgical and symbolic, drawing one deeper to the mystery of Christ, in anothers. Your judgment/condemnation of such practices does more to highlight the arrogance of some while diminishing the expansive mystery that is living into life with God.

I do not AFFIRM idolatary, as PB said I did. I simply disagree with what you guys call idolatry. Big difference.

Chad, Where did I say you embrace Idolatry?

I am reviewing a book by Tom Davis who has just had an article published on BeliefNet.com. As a favor to Davis I have posted a review of that article on my blog and was asked to spread the word. The article may be pertinent to this discussion and is titled Why Christians Suck.

Chad, Where did I say you embrace Idolatry?

PB- I didn’t say, “embrace” I said “affirm” (yet another example of your inability to properly cite others). And I was quoting you where you said:

Whereas you affirm that someone is saved even though they commit idolatry

Chad,

Check the posts.. I never said that.

Jose: Praying to saints = idolatry ( Catholics )
First commandment in the bible is what?
JOhn 14:6
I believ it says ” NO ONE “

John 14:6 (New King James Version) Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Read this vesre… It is not saying no one should pray to anyone but God. It says no one can come to the Father, i.e. now the way, the truth and the life except through Jesus Christ.
As for the first comandment(Worship God alone.): Praying ?Worship. Praying is to make earnest petition to (a person).
So to pray to a dead saint may be foolish but it is not sin. If you trust that saint for your salvation it is another story that in my opinion is not only foolish but sin.

The “not equal” sign doesn’t seem to work in wordpress.
“Praying ?Worship” should read: “Praying does not equal Worship.”

Chad – I never changed my name… not sure what that means.

Anyways, any Christian who claims there can be any other mediator outside of Christ is in the wrong. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Eugene said: So to pray to a dead saint may be foolish but it is not sin.

It is the same as the Hindu praying to Krishna. It is like praying to a stone. To pray to something that is “dead” is damaging because the whole concept of prayer includes an aspect of reliance and dependence.

My question is, why is this Hindu accused of idolatry and the Catholic is OK? Please clarify – I admit I might be in the wrong here…

Paul C,

There is no such thing as a “dead saint”. It does make an interesting oxymoron though.

There is no such thing as a “dead saint”.

Brett – when a believer dies, they await the resurrection which occurs when Jesus returns to establish His kingdom on the earth.

Paul alluded to this here:

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep [DEAD]… For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

Paul C,

If Paul wanted to say ‘dead’ he would have said ‘dead’ like he did so many times before. But instead, we have to wonder why he chose, or rather God inspired him to choose the mystical language he did to describe these saints as ‘asleep’.

Difference.

Eugene – what do you say about ‘Mary veneration’?

What would you say about praying to ‘Saint Rocco’ before I make a trip, asking for safety or praying to ‘Saint Dominic’, the patron saint of writing exams, to help me pass. (these are hypothetical patron saints, of course).

What do you think the Lord thinks about this?

Thanks for your insight.

Brett –
Thanks for that. No doubt the fact that Chesterton was Catholic will be lost on then.

Paul C – To be absent from the body is to be with Christ. There is no such thing as a “dead saint.” They are very much alive and awaiting the life after life after death – the resurrection of the body.

Catholics understand this better than we and see those who have gone before them not as dead nothings but as part of that great host of witnesses who are just beyond our reach.

I had no Idea those witnesses can hear our prayers.
My old pastor was a nice guy, maybe he can get a word to Jesus for me.

Chad,
Deaf? maybe dumb? no. ( witnesses )
Christiandum today? yea.

“Problem is, no one can hear your gospel over the growling of their stomachs.”

Can’t hear it over a full stomach either.
John 6

Christian P – very fair and open questions.

Here’s the issue. The saints that have died (fallen asleep) are in fact dead, awaiting the resurrection. Their souls are not alive, neither are their bodies (of course).

The point of the resurrection is the resurrection (or bringing back to live) of the soul – in a new body which can never corrupt again. This is called ETERNAL LIFE which is the promise of the gospel.

These “cloud of witnesses” referred to in this thread?

“And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise”

Paul mentioned this in 2 Timothy:

Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.

When Lazarus’ sisters lamented his passing to Jesus, what did they say? “Lord, we know you will resurrect at the last day.”

Death means death. But the gift of God is eternal life!

Paul,
I think a good case can be made that when people die on earth, they are in some sort of temporary state in heaven.

In Revelation 20, the souls of martyrs are shown in heaven during the Millenium (which according to an Amillenial view of eschatology, is now). John actually creates a parallel there, with the first and second death with the first and second resurrection, so it seems that the first resurrection is when a person becomes a Christian. The second resurrection will be at Christ’s return.

So Christians never really taste death. That being said, I don’t think we should be praying to dead saints or asking them to pray for us. I don’t see anyone doing such a thing in Scripture.

Phil,

I like the way St. Paul described it as seeing him “face to face”, as He truly is. Since He really wants to “be with us” right here and now (even given all of our imperfections).

Phil, thanks for the insight into how you see things, but in order for your view to be correct (that now we are in the first resurrection age) that would also mean the devil is bound – awaiting his release at the end of this period (whenever that would be).

I think we can all agree the devil is not bound. We definitely know the nations are still deceived as well, though the gospel is being spread.

Revelation 20 speaks of when Jesus Christ finally returns on this earth to establish His kingdom.

There is a first resurrection: for Christians and true believers/worshippers which occurs when Jesus returns. They rule with Christ for 1000 yrs on the earth.

The final resurrection (Great Throne judgment) occurs at the end of the 1000 yr period. This is where every man (whether you were Hindu, worshipped the sun God, were an athiest, etc) stands before Him in judgment to give an account of the things he did in his life.

Finally, death actually dies. With no death any longer, life – eternal life, which is the promise of those that believe in Christ – reigns. As Paul puts it in 1 Cor 15:

Death is swallowed up by life! (nothing about heaven and hell). Until Jesus returns, death reigns for all, but because we believe in Christ, it is viewed only as sleep.

Here’s a question: if we go to heaven, when did men like Abraham, king David and others go there?

As I understand it the practice of praying to saints comes from oral tradition, which for the Catholic is just as weighty as scripture.

That’s too bad because tradition might not be a very solid foundation, especially in retrospect looking at the RCC.

Actually, this practice didn’t develop until well after the apostles died off the scene. It is basically the morphing of idol worship (ie: literally praying to little gods, like the goddess of fertility) into Christianity. Similar to how we arrived at Christmas day, which was nothing more than a pagan feast celebration for the false god Mithras, that was simply adopted as the birthday of Christ (Dec 25).

It’s the exact same thing. There are dozens of traditions the Catholic church has adopted from pagans and morphed into Christianity, kinda how Bush morphed bin Laden into Saddam Hussein to justify going to war in Iraq.

Chad,

I don’t disagree with your explanation, but I’m sure you’re aware that there is a big difference between Sacred Tradition (the faith given by Christ to the apostles) and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. The Sacred Scriptures always have a primary of place in the church’s doctrinal development and teaching, and the 2 can never contradict.

Sacred Tradition – the Holy Trinity, Sunday as the day for Christian worship, which books belong in the bible, The Apostle’s Creed (including the “communion of saints”)

traditions of the Roman Catholic Church – celibacy of clergy, eating fish on Fridays, Marian devotions, mysteries of the Rosary, liturgical calendars, saint’s feast days.
(These things are indeed “traditions of men” and although binding for committed members are subject to change).

I may start another reformation if they ever try to take away St. Patrick’s Day though

In Christ, there is no condemnatoin

Curious? Where do you get that (Romans 8:1)?

Paul C-
All of Romans 8, for starters.

Here’s a question: if we go to heaven, when did men like Abraham, king David and others go there?

Well, it seems they were somewhere called “Abraham’s Bosom”. I would say they were in the presence of God. At the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appeared alive, in bodily form. I don’t think they were dead, brought back to life again, and then killed again. I think they were/are alive, and appeared in this dimension.

God is the God of the living.

Here’s a question: if we go to heaven, when did men like Abraham, king David and others go there?

Part of the problem here is our use of the word “heaven.” We do not go to heaven when we die. We go to what is perhaps better called “paradise” as we await the bodily resurrection of all the world and “Heaven” and Earth are joined as one….no longer separated but married forever.

So the question does not really made sense. Those who have gone on before us are in that blissful place, present with the resurrected Christ (who is also bodily in form) awaiting the Day of the Lord which all of creation is groaning for.

Well, it seems they were somewhere called “Abraham’s Bosom”. I would say they were in the presence of God.

So how would you reconcile this with what JESUS Himself said?

John 3:13 – No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Abraham’s bosom was simply a part of a parable to demonstrate the vast gulf between faith and religion. Moses, along with all the others fathers (and mothers) of the faith is still dead – awaiting the resurrection, as Hebrews 11 clearly states:

And all these [including Moses, Abraham and everyone else, even Enoch], having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise [or are not in heaven, but awaiting the ressurection, which is the promise], God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us [which happens when our Lord returns].

Again, because we are Christians, death has been reduced to sleep (a temporary state because of the power of the resurrection). To say “sleep” means we are not conscious (ie: “Stephen fell asleep” when he was stoned – not conscious, but awaiting the return of His Savior).

Chad,

Are you Catholic?

I’m sorry, I thought you asked me that a few weeks ago (must have been someone else).

Guilty as charged. I ‘m willing to share any small amount of knowledge I can impart, just don’t expect much. Especially all this end times stuff; He did say we know not the day nor the hour, right!

It is peaceful when you realize you don’t have to figure all of this stuff out for yourself. Faith, hope and love is enough for me. I’ll never understand why so many people who condemn a guy with a funny hat in Rome, have to set up shop and claim to be their own pope.

ER,
“Praying to the saints asking for help in my exam or whatever: Like asking my aunt for help who lives on the other side of the country in an exam – she’ll listen and be supportive but it won’t help me much. Unwise but not sin.”

difference is your aunt is alive.

difference is your aunt is alive.

Jose –
No, the difference is that most Christians believe death has been defeated and no one is really “dead.”

trying to make a point and they always only quote 50% of it.

Paul, sorta like you quoting only a portion of Acts 7: 59-60 to “make a point”?

should not perish but have everlasting life.

Which part of “shall not perish” do you not undestand?

Look, few of us know how to LIVE well let alone speak with any authority about the mysteries surrounding death and the life after. I will be happy to be proven wrong in the end because I know who is writing the end of the story. Yet I think scripture is quite clear that those of us who are in Christ will be with Christ when this present life is over.

One more time: What does St. Paul mean when he says to depart from the body is to be present with Christ?

peace,
Chad

Isn’t that what Jesus also said when He died on the cross? Yet, did He go to heaven to be with His Father?

So you believe Jesus what..ceased to exist? Did the Godhead change for those 3 days? Was it a duality instead of a Trinity? Or Was Jesus literally that day, with the father, the thief, and the patriarchs, in paradise like He said?

Me thinks there are some holes in your logic, friend.

So it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus believed Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were living.

This is a good point. Unless we’re ready to allegorize this and say they’re not literally alive (which destroys the point Jesus was making to them), this is pretty much golden words from the Messiah that to God, all are alive.

Me thinks there are some holes in your logic, friend.

Fair enough Joe C. But answer me this: If Jesus went to be with the Father when he gave up the spirit (his life), then why, 3 days later when Mary went to the tomb did he say:

“Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

Please provide a simple answer. My argument is that, as Isaiah says, he poured out His soul unto death. This is the power of the resurrection: to bring to life that which is dead.

Define “Soul”. I think your definition might differ from the Bible’s, but I’m not sure.

Anyways, the simple answer is that He came back to His body, and had not returned again (which He did some 50 days later) to the Father.

But you didn’t address the point of the consequence and illogical nature of Jesus being totally gone for 3 days. The consequence to the very existence and nature of God Himself. Nor did you discuss that this problem is solved if He gives His Spirit to the Father, and is with Him in Paradise that very day.

I find the argument over the defintion of the word “virgin” in regards to the doctrine of the virgin birth to be a total red herring and mis-direction at its worse. Its various shades of meaning from the Hebrew to the Greek may make for an interesting acedemic study but do not bear one iota on the issue at hand. To dwell on the definition of the word TOTALLY ignores the surrounding narrative, i.e., Luke 1 – “Mary: how can this be since I am a virgin?” and Gabriel: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” and Matt 1:18 – “when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.”

The word “virgin” in both narratives is self defined by the context so it DOES NOT MATTER how the word is used elsewhre. But even this is a side issue. If Mary was not with child by the Holy Spirit then Scripture lies and if it lies here on this pivotal point how could I trust it ANYWHERE? I could care less about the defintion of the word virgin in this respect. Again, a total red herring.

Again, Hebrews 11 clearly bares out that they (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – all mentioned) are AWAITING the coming resurrection.

Paul, your not getting it, friend. The resurrection of the last day is when all who have died are BODILY raised from the dead, just as Jesus was from the grave. Until that day we are in “paradise” awaiting that day. We are not dead, as you keep wanting to say.

It is in two stages – there is life AFTER life after death.

What did Jesus mean when he said to the thief that TODAY he would be with him in paradise?

Also, another question that seriously needs to be addressed in your viewpoint, Paul, is…

Did the Godhead change when Jesus died on the Cross, in your view? If He was not with the Father, and He says He’s always with the Father…then what happened to God as we know Him?

“Sometimes we are wrong . But we try to hold on to so hard that we never learn…”

Very nice Joe C. Looks like you’ve come up with an excellent header for CRN.Info.

What did Jesus mean when he said to the thief that TODAY he would be with him in paradise?

The thief’s plea was that Jesus remember his when He comes into His kingdom. He understood that there would be a kingdom coming. In regards to Jesus’ response, it simply meant:

“I am telling you right now [or today], you will be with me in paradise.” He was confirming that when He returns to establish His kingdom, the thief will be a part of it.

Which you are equating to what, eternal life? This has already been shown to not be the case.

Eternal life is the promise – that death is defeated because of Christ. When we die, it is now simply sleep because of the power of the resurrection. This is what Paul was striving towards (Phil 3). This is the HOPE of those in Hebrews 11, who were seeking a better country. This is what is represented when God’s Kingdom is established in Revelation 21.

“I am telling you right now [or today], you will be with me in paradise.” He was confirming that when He returns to establish His kingdom, the thief will be a part of it.

Paul- this doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. How can the thief be present with Christ in paradise “right now, or today” and yet not be with Christ until he establishes his kingdom?

Where have you learned this idea? Me thinks you are just trying to get yourself out of a corner by making up all sorts of interpretations.

Chad: Just because I do not believe in a literal 6 day creation does not mean I cannot trust Scripture or that I don’t believe there is a deeper truth I need to learn. The same could be said about the virgin birth narrative.

Uh no Chad it could not. If the virgin birth narrative is myth (not saying you believe that) but for the sake of argument if others are saying it, it is a big deal. You argue there could be a deeper truth in a myth to ponder. What could be deeper than the mystery of the virgin birth, of God incarnate? The truth of the virgin birth is a pillar of Christianity. It cannot be compromised. It is literally “THE BABY” forget about the bath water! If Jesus is not Immanuel, God with us, then all the rest that follows is meaningless. If the virgin birth is myth then what of the resurrection? And if one does not believe in a literal virgin birth or resurrection then what right do they have to call themselves Christians?

And if one does not believe in a literal virgin birth or resurrection then what right do they have to call themselves Christians?

Maybe the same thing that qualified them to be Christians in the first century: Professing that Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord of heaven and earth? Nowhere do I find that belief in the virgin birth is a requirment to be called a Christian.

As for the resurrection, that is an interesting debate, one of which I am currently involved in with Mike Leaptrott over on my blog about N.T. Wrights book, Suprised by Hope. Mike is a Christian who does not believe in a literal bodily resurrection, as I do.

The point is that these things do not make us followers of Christ. Following Christ makes us a disciple of Christ – not how much we know or think we know about his birth.

peace,
Chad

Paul –
You are STILL avoiding the questions.

How can Jesus receive Stephens spirit if he is DEAD?

How can Paul say to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ if we are DEAD?

How do you avoid killing God on the cross and committing the heresy of patripassionism?

I know I said before that that was the last time I would ask, but this really is

Jose-
That is a fine pastoral interpretation and one I am not opposed to. To “cling” or to “hold on” or “embrace” are the same thing. All are very different from the “touch” that Jesus invites Thomas to do and are for different reasons.

I would add to your interpretation that Jesus is set on completing the rest of his mission which includes ascending to heaven to rule the heavens and the earth from the right hand of the Father (another way of saying he is Lord of all). Asking Mary not to “cling” to him is simply a way of saying I have much to do and little time to do it.

Chad (on a blackberry now so not sure if this works)

Jesus did not ascend to His father until AFTER his resurrection. That is plain from his words to Mary. I think you’re reading too much into it with the allegory you created just now.

Regarding Stephen, I answered that. Man is 3 parts; body, soul and spirit. He died that day – or fell asleep.

Scripture is clear: THE resurrection takes place at the LAST DAY which is the day of the Lord, when Jesus returns.

When Mary and Martha sorrowed about Lazarus death, Jesus did not say He was in heaven, nor are the scriptures filled with Lazarus’ recorded afterlife experience (not even 1 reference?) Why? Because he was DEAD. His sisters mentioned the resurrection at the last day because this was the teaching of Christ and the promise He offered.

…bringing a little levity…your all caps DEAD in your comment, Paul, reminded me of this scene from “Robin Hood Men in Tights.”

lol Nathanael. Or what about Monty Python’s “bring out your dead” scene?

Chad – please explain. What does the Bible mean by “sleep” or “asleep” in the NT?

Joe C: Stephen died, yes, his spirit going to God…but why in your mind do you eliminate the possibility that as spirit you can interact with God? Nothing in Scriptures says this is impossible.

Man is 3 parts (body, soul, spirit – as per Genesis 2 or 1 Thess 5:23). Agreed? Your body is the shell which perishes, the soul is dead without the spirit. When Christ comes back, we are resurrected – brought back to life. Until then, we are simply asleep or awaiting the resurrection.

If we were conscious, then “sleep” would not be the term used. Sleep is the time between waking. As David says, “I will rejoice when I awake in His likeness.”

It would be dangerous for Chad (or a Catholic) to admit this, because then it would blow a hole in the whole praying-to-saints thing. I understand.

That’s all for now folks – gotta run…

Paul,

Re: The millennium – your entire argument/timeline depends on the millennium being a literal 1000 years. What Phil has described is the amillennial view, in which much of Revelation is viewed as apocalyptic literature, where symbols and frameworks are interwoven and rarely taken literally.

Paul,
I understand you are on your blackberry and perhaps that is the reason for your silence on the questions I and others have posed numerous times. I don’t see any point in beating a dead horse (and I really mean dead) when questions continue to go unanswered. On this point I think you are mistaken as any scholarly write up on this subject would reveal.

peace,
Chad

John -

You might be right about that. I think you would find this conversation between Mike and I interesting. You can read it HERE.

That issue (bodily resurrection) is exactly what we are discussing. I am not sure I am ready to say with you that one is not saved if they do not believe in the bodily resurrection (a belief I do hold, btw).

grace and peace,
Chad

Igs,

Actually, it says he went to Tartarus (the only place the word is used in the Bible), the place of torment below Hades in Greek mythology.

Which has led some to question: Was Peter validating the Greek view of the afterlife or was he speaking in a cultural context? (I would say the latter).

Iggy,

Don’t come off so harsh on Paul C, he’s been very amicable in this conversation. He reads the same Bible we all do, we just have a disagreement with him, that’s all.

I do agree Paul has been very charitable in the midst of this discussion. That is commendable. It is a wonderful thing to have meaningful disagreements and still extend the hand of fellowship.

Joe M –

Not sure if that was directed to me or not but some mulberry bushes are worth going around a few times. The issue of eternal life and when it begins is, in my opinion, quite serious. Not everyone’s mulberry bush is the same. I think you might run around it a few times if someone were making audacious claims about Rob Bell and the teachings at Mars Hill (and I would run around with you arm in arm )

grace and peace,
Chad

I see the value in all of this but sometimes I confess it’s like watching the same baseball game over and over again.

I agree. Who’s on first?

He then speaks of unbiblical things as if he is right when in fact from this thread I even wonder if he knows Jesus at all! Not being harsh, but observant.

But you ARE being harsh, very harsh. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone has different views on different things, what is acceptable, and what is not. Show some mercy man. You’re being weird tonight.

Joe

Igs,

Some food for thought when dealing with such folk:

From John:

Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.

Or David:

For I said, “Do not let them gloat or exalt themselves over me when my foot slips.”

For I am about to fall,and my pain is ever with me.

I confess my iniquity; I am troubled by my sin.

Many are those who are my vigorous enemies; those who hate me without reason are numerous.

Those who repay my good with evil slander me when I pursue what is good.

O LORD, do not forsake me; be not far from me, O my God.

Come quickly to help me, O Lord my Savior.

Or

I am an object of scorn to my accusers;
when they see me, they shake their heads.

Help me, O LORD my God;
save me in accordance with your love.

Let them know that it is your hand,
that you, O LORD, have done it.

They may curse, but you will bless;
when they attack they will be put to shame,
but your servant will rejoice.

My accusers will be clothed with disgrace
and wrapped in shame as in a cloak.

With my mouth I will greatly extol the LORD;
in the great throng I will praise him.

For he stands at the right hand of the needy one,
to save his life from those who condemn him.

Or, even better yet, Jesus:

bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

When you play tit-for-tat with them, you just play into their hand. Or, my ag teacher used to say – be careful when you decide to wrestle with a pig – you’ll both get muddy, but only the pig enjoys it…

He had not yet gone to the Father as He explicitly states Himself (blowing away the argument about the thief being in paradise with Him, since He never went)

So Jesus lied to the thief? You’d rather make Jesus a liar and also kill God on the cross rather than admit that to be apart from the body is to be present and alive with Christ? Why do you keep avoiding that?

When we are dead we are awaiting the resurrection of the BODY. That is the crucial point of Christian orthodoxy that you continue to miss.

So Jesus lied to the thief?

No, I did not say that. I am simply saying that Jesus Himself did not go to paradise as per the reference in John 20: “I have NOT YET ascended to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Please explain this to me Chad/Chris L?

Did Jesus go (along with the thief) to paradise when He died?

If you can’t explain it, then you must admit that your interpretation of what Jesus said to the thief might be incorrect.

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”
So, let’s see…

1) I tell you the truth
2) Today
3) You will be with me
4) In paradise.

And who typically accuses whom of not taking the literal meaning of scripture seriously???

But, just for grins, let’s check the Greek, as well…

Literally (from Greek) – And he said to him Amen to you I am saying today with me you shall be in paradise.

So, in Greek, we have:

1) I tell you the truth (Amen to you)
2) Today (Today)
3) You will be with me (with me you shall be)
4) In paradise. (in paradise)

Now, are you arguing that the Greek version of Luke we have was translated from the Hebrew (which is a valid argument) and that there is a Hebraism that negates “today you will be with me in paradise” (which I can’t see as a valid argument)?

If not, Luke seems rather clear on this point, with Jesus specifically saying “I tell you the truth” before saying “TODAY I will be with you IN PARADISE”…

Paul you keep saying how your verses blow our ideas away…but that’s like putting Scripture against Scripture…and it’s just silly. How come you get to blow our arguments away without actually addressing half of our points? If you don’t have answers, say so, if you have to admit you have holes in your argument, that is more respectable than avoiding the issues.

People,

Paradise was the abode of the dead. It contained both the righteous (the bosom of Abraham) and the unrighteous. When Jesus descended he set the captives free and in that Paradise rose to the presence of God.

God did not lie and Jesus had not yet ascended to the Heavens though paradise did.

Jesus descending into paradise with the thief fulfilled the promise in and of itself. But there was more as Paradise was brought up.

iggy

I’ve rather enjoyed these trips around the mulberry bush. I’m not even dizzy.

I am so grateful for the fathomless grace of God in my own life.

There is so much I do not understand. I was with some friends last night, and we were talking about the spiritual realms and demonic influences and how little we know of these things. And I said, “It makes me so grateful that Jesus and the Spirit are making intercession for me. I need it.”

Be blessed and be a blessing today.
Shalom

Going back to the original thread, I think one of the things Christian was touching on (correct me if I’m wrong, brother) is the need for a teachable spirit.

I thank the Lord that my pastor, Phil Carnuccio, models that trait. He is a man who loves God’s Word and loves people and is always seeking, always listening, always ready to receive truth, no matter where it comes from. Leaders who are teachable clearly reflect our Lord’s command to wash one another’s feet. And it trickles down. Leaders who are teachable and approachable and transparent usher these godly traits into their flock.

…in my opinion.

“Odd” is putting it nicely.
It’s a shame.
When I, for a split second, comprehend just a fraction of the love of God for me, it melts all hatred and enmity from my spirit.

What I have said earlier is that it is quite possible (because Jesus did not ascend to heaven, either bodily or spiritually as Chad argues)

Paul, you are not making any sense. Jesus did not “ascend” into heaven – this is true. But that is NOT to say that Jesus is DEAD or that his spirit ceased to be. The ascension is an EVENT that happened at a specific time in history like the Incarnation. It is not something we ALL do when we die. You seem to be confusing the two.

it makes sense that Jesus was making an emphatic statement to this man that:

“I am telling you the truth today [ie: right now], you will be with me in paradise.”

No, this makes no sense at all, Paul. Are you suggesting that Jesus meant that RIGHT NOW, on the CROSS, the thief was in paradise? That is the only conclusion I can draw from your statement and if that is what you are saying, I find it crazy. Where have you heard this or read such a thing? I really am curious.

How do you deal with the heresy of patripassionism?

peace.

Paul – seriously, man, I really am interested to know where you are getting these ideas from. Did you read them somewhere? Your pastor? Some of the stuff you are coming up with (like the idea that Jesus ascended to heaven between the time Mary clung to him and Thomas touched him) are things I have never heard of.

thanks.

Some of the stuff you are coming up with (like the idea that Jesus ascended to heaven between the time Mary clung to him and Thomas touched him) are things I have never heard of.

Chad – to me it seemed logical. He told Mary not to touch Him. Why?

Because He had not ascended to heaven yet to present Himself to the Father.

He then tells her: “but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

What is so difficult to understand? The next thing we know, Jesus miraculously (because the doors were locked) just appears in the apostles’ presence. At that point they can touch Him.

It’s not that complicated. What don’t you understand from this reasoning?

I’m inclined to agree with Joe M. in 277. Let’s stop finding ways to make the narrow path even narrower.

There are plenty of orthodox apologists (Walter Martin, John Ankerberg, Fran Sankey, Lorri MacGreggor, et al) who have dealt with the issue of soul sleep and the state of the dead. If you are unwilling or unable to approach this matter here with gentleness and patience, go off-site and check out those folks.

I’m off to the Ann Arbor Art Fairs; I hope to still have money when I leave.

1. WHat happens to our soul when we die?

Psalm 49:15: “But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.”

There are a lot of scriptures that talk about the soul, which is mortal, dying. But one day, when we are clothed with a new body at the resurrection, this mortal shall put on immortality (see 1 Cor 15).

2. what happens to our body when we die?

This one is the easiest to understand. I don’t think anyone disputes that it simply decays/rots, etc. This is very plain.

3. what happens to our spirit when we die?

The spirit is simply life. All living beings have a spirit in this sense.

Ecclesiastes 12:7: “[At death] Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. ”

That’s also why Jesus said, “Into your hands I commend my spirit” and Stephen pretty much did the same.

Sandman… I’m not bothered by the back-and-forth, and I hope I’m not bothering anyone. I agree, we should discourse cordially in a spirit of kindness, honesty and humility.

Your interpretation is so far fetched that you totally dismiss the word TODAY and make it mean something completely different for your own purposes. Why?

I think I explained this fairly, especially when Chris L illuminated the verse in question by looking at the Greek. Not far-fetched at all.

I think the challenge you have here is that to admit that people are actually dead (body and soul) until the time of the resurrection puts the whole concept of praying to saints and other pagan practices into a whole other light. That’s the only reason I have spent this amount of time on the topic.

I don’t lambast Catholics or other Christians. I hope you don’t feel I’m lambasting you. If my comments came across as that, please forgive me. But I think we should try to understand this most wonderful promise of the Lord as clearly as possible and not allow false teachings to cloud our view.

I understand you feel I’m in the wrong, but I think the volume of scriptures (you seem to accuse me of handpicking just a few) support what I’m saying, all the way from the OT to the NT.

Chad – to me it seemed logical. He told Mary not to touch Him. Why?

Because He had not ascended to heaven yet to present Himself to the Father.

He then tells her: “but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

What is so difficult to understand? The next thing we know, Jesus miraculously (because the doors were locked) just appears in the apostles’ presence. At that point they can touch Him.

Paul –

You realize, by your “logic” you are claiming 2 ascensions? Jesus ascended after Mary saw him and again on day 50? This is why private interpretations or private Bible reading ought to be discouraged if not tempered by a community of faith.

This reasoning goes against every reading of these texts for 2000 years, Paul. That reason alone is good enough for me.

The fact that Jesus appears through locked doors is part of the mystery concerning what our resurrected bodies will be like. They will be transformed in some mysterious way, resembling what we see in the resurrected Jesus.

I have already given an explanation for why Jesus told Mary not to CLING to him (you keep saying touch, which is a misrepresentation of the text). The word Jesus uses in John 20 is “haptomai” whose primary meaning is “to attach oneself.” This is not the word he uses with Thomas when he tells him to reach out and touch his side.

Your own personal interpretation doesn’t work, Paul, and goes against everything Christians have been teaching on this topic for thousands of years.

Paul,
You state

I think the challenge you have here is that to admit that people are actually dead (body and soul) until the time of the resurrection puts the whole concept of praying to saints and other pagan practices into a whole other light.

Do you seriously believe that Chad is advocating praying to saints?
You have yet to answer his simple (oft repeated) questions of what did Paul mean when he said that to be absent from the body is to be present with Lord, and what happened to the Godhead if Jesus was spiritually dead (D-E-D) for three days.

Chad,
1. When jesus took his last breath, what happened to his body? to his soul and to his spirit?
Do we hold jesus the same as a human when he dies?

This is how I have always interpret this passage.
Jesus Dies on the cross ( body )
his spirit and soul can not be the same as man since he is life and God and all attirbutes.
between the 1 st and 3rd day bible saids he went to take the keys from death and hades ( correct me if I am wrong )
3rd resurrection stone is move, body is moved ( disappeared .how? mistery) Jesus tells mary not to cling ( hold ) as my interpretation is not to embrace him.
Jesus ascends as to the father as he is ( not human ) returns and re-appears as human.

Correct me if I am wrong. I am not a scholar.
Chad or Paul.
At the end what matter most is that he resurrected and he lives.

Paul c ,
Is there a difference with spirit and soul?
The spirit ( thief ) yea went to God it is his.
He’s soul went asleep.
Jesus can do what ever he wants.

I am having a hard time understanding why someone would see it impossible that Jesus could have ascended to heaven (to present Himself to the Father) and then re-appear back on earth to meet with the disciples.

Not impossible, Paul, just contra-scripture. When Jesus ascends to the Father he is not REascending. The ascension, once again, is an event in the life and ministry of Jesus that concludes his earthly ministry. You are the first and only person in all my studies who has advocated for 2 ascensions.

Some argue that only 1 ascension is possible (while still arguing Jesus ascended spiritually immediately after dying on the cross, along with the thief).

They argue this because this is the testimony of scripture, Paul. If this is the tact you really wish to take than I hope you can allow for others to have the same arguments, such as:

Some argue that purgatory is not possible which makes no sense to me because what is unholy cannot enter into the presence of God and there must be a time for that sinfulness to be purged.

Or,

Some argue that praying to the saints is not possible. Why? It makes perfect sense to me.

Or,

Some people argue that God is Triune and 3 in 1 which doesn’t make any sense if we believe in only one God and Jesus is God.

the list can go on and on, Paul.

I have had enough of thisI think. You still continue to ignore the very simple words of Saint Paul: to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ. By your own admission you are defending something that is purely individualized. I have no doubt you are a Christian and your heart is intent on following Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I only pray that when you run into others who have views about scripture and interpretations that you would call myopic or even far-fetched that you will grant them the grace that you have been shown by most everyone here.

peace,
Chad

Iggy – specifically, what have I said that is unbiblical?

You keep insisting Jesus ascended before he ascended…

Did he ascend twice… no… scripture is clear…

Hmmm… I’m being unscriptural by simply reflecting on a scripture from Jesus’ own lips:

“but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

He said this right after telling Mary that she should not touch Him because He has not yet ascended to the Father. This is what He then does… Why is this unscriptural or impossible, especially coming from His lips?

I think it is because it doesn’t mesh with your idea.

Tell me, where in scripture does it go against what I am saying?

Paul,

Where in scripture does it say Jesus ascended before he did in Acts 1?

It seems that Jesus had not ascended until after this time.

In fact Luke records this twice… As he refers to this in the last chapter of Luke.

Now, if you are saying that Jesus ascended then came down again, you have the issue that Jesus then has already returned. In fact Jesus ascended and is sitting on the Throne in heaven until he returns… you have him leaving the Throne and returning at least twice if not three times with your view.

iggy

Is “paradise” the same thing as “ascent to the Father”?
just asking…

I have a headache.

See “soul sleep” on Wikipedia and don’t get your psychopannies in a wad!

Consider:

Ephesians 4:8. This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.”
9. (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions ?
10. He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
19. through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison
20. who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Note also Jesus teaching in

Luke 16:22. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23. And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

THis was the before the Ascension… after Jesus descended, paradise was raised into the heavens as Paul teaches…

2 Cor 5:8. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

iggy

Chris L,
As to number 4, what do you think about N.T. Wright and others saying that instead of ascending with Jesus, heaven descends to earth (the new Jerusalem and all that).

this thread is still going?
amazing.
really.

Sandman,

If it’s true that Jesus ascended sometime between his encounter with Mary and came back later in his appearance later that day before the ten disciples, that would mean we all missed the boat with the Second Coming.

It seems this point is missed on Paul and Jose…

iggy

Rick: If it isn’t TAUGHT in the epistles, it cannot be TAUGHT with authority.

Well Rick what about Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount discourses for example? Why would those necessarily have to be exegeted in the Epistles to have authority? Or are you using a more restricted definition of “doctrine”?

Sorry Rick, I’m going to have to disagree. A major portion of the Church’s Christology doctrine, for example, is derrived from the Gospel narratives.

“I am the Truth”
“I am the Life”
“I am the resurrection”
“The Father and I are one”, etc.

Of course Paul’s Christological masterpiece of Colossians and the writer of Hebrews also expands this doctrine but I don’t think you can make the blanket statement that if it isn’t taught in the Epistles it can’t be taught with authority. Could you expound on that in light of the obviously copious amounts of doctrine containined the Gospel narratives?

Rick, I want to apologize. My morning held a few surprises for me that got me a little wound up and there you were as the release valve.

The narrative that Sandman used were recorded scenarios that he suggested could be used as foundational doctrine.

Actually, my giving an alternative view of the Jesus/Mary encounter was to show why we don’t make doctrine (foundational or otherwise) based on a single passage. It’s a position I’ve always held.

If something is true it will be found in the epistles as well. So all of Jesus’ teachings will show up in the epistles since He wrote them as well.

So that would include those subjects that some denominations have roped off and say end of discussion: Spiritual gifts, alcohol, role of women in ministry, slavery, tithing, and many others I don’t have time to list.

Technically, the epistles (and all the other books in the canon) were inspired by God, but still carry the personality, style, and sometimes opinions of the various authors.

(I still think you have to apply the eternal truths and principles to the culture to avoid canonizing a culture, but that’s for another discussion.)

The optimum point of dialogue resolution is when I feel conclusively everyone has acquiesced to my unassailable point of view. I consider that “settled law”.