Tell Me If This Is Oh So Radical Christianity.....

Originally posted by wittywonka
Your point makes sense, but I must ask how do we explain (the numerous) contradictions already found in the bible? It is impossible to accept contradictory messages, accounts, and philosophies as a whole...

I forgot to ask: do you have any contradictions in mind?

Originally posted by ballsofsteel
These scholars make it more difficult than it really is. There is no gray area or confusion in the gospel. Christ says plainly, "you are either with me or against me," and, "no one comes to the Father except through Me." It's either heaven or hell, mercy or condemnation; no half-ways or inbetweens. If these scholars were filled with the Spirit they would not feel compelled to compromise God's word. Beware of anyone who does so.

Ah yes, everyhting is simple and "nuance is of the devil"; we have heard it all before and it is intellectually lazy to hold to such a belief.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ah yes, everyhting is simple and "nuance is of the devil"; we have heard it all before and it is intellectually lazy to hold to such a belief.

I don't believe nuance is of the devil. Where there is nuance there is nuance, no doubt. But definitely no nuance regarding the fate of those who reject the Son of God, Jesus Christ. You can be as intellectually robust as the best of them, but if you can't see the simple truth, how well has your intellect served you? Not all nuance is 'of the devil', only the nuance which fails to maintain the integrity of the word of God. Sometimes a hat is just a hat, and sometimes everlasting fire is really everlasting fire.

Originally posted by ballsofsteel
I don't believe nuance is of the devil. Where there is nuance there is nuance, no doubt. But definitely no nuance regarding the fate of those who reject the Son of God, Jesus Christ. You can be as intellectually robust as the best of them, but if you can't see the simple truth, how well has your intellect served you? Not all nuance is 'of the devil' ...[text shortened]... . Sometimes a hat is just a hat, and sometimes everlasting fire is really everlasting fire.

So, nuance is only "of the devil" if it contradicts or calls into question your understanding of scripture.

I would like you to check out a book if you have the time called "Remedial Christianity - What every Christian should know about the faith but probably doesn't." by Paul Alan Laughlin.

I think it would be an eye opening read for you.

Originally posted by ballsofsteel
These scholars make it more difficult than it really is. There is no gray area or confusion in the gospel. Christ says plainly, "you are either with me or against me," and, "no one comes to the Father except through Me." It's either heaven or hell, mercy or condemnation; no half-ways or inbetweens. If these scholars were filled with the Spirit they would not feel compelled to compromise God's word. Beware of anyone who does so.

> John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by means of me.”

The Greek word dia, generally translated as “through,” means here “by means of” or “by way of.” And Jesus is speaking as ho Christos, “the Christ,” the logos tou theou—the logos of God—not in terms of his human person. It is that “means,” not yours or mine or someone else’s (not even by means of right-thinking/belief), that is the point.

> John 12:32 Kago ean hypsotho ek tes ges pantas elkuso pros emauton.

“And whenever lifted-up [I] from earth, everyone / all / all kinds (pantas) [I] will draw to / toward / with / in-company-with myself.”

Once again, it matters which verses take precedence; which statements can be diminished in their import by contextualization, and which cannot. Hermeneutics is inescapable.

The authors cited in my above post are arguing the earliest views of Christianity—before latter-day Protestant understandings based on sola scriptura and literalistic readings that pay no attention to the original languages, and treat the Biblical texts as if they were a “self-interpreting” whole. Once again soterias means curing/healing, not pardon by the judge—as it has come to mean in the overly juridical notions of “salvation” that have become dominant in the West, sometimes based on a radical “theology of the cross” that neglects the salvific content of the incarnation. Further, by a reduction of pistis to mere “belief,” they have often turned salvation into a “work of the head.”
_______________________________

As Clement noted, for example, the parable of the wheat and the tares cannot be read in terms of whole persons, unless takes the heretical viewpoint that “the evil one” can generate (sow) whole persons.

> 1st John 4:8 ...hoti ho theos agape estin

“...for the/this God is love.”

Note, this is a declaration of God’s very essence. It does not say something like “God is loving, but God is also....”

How many people wind up in eternal condemnation before God’s agape is “conquered by the wickedness of creatures”? Especially if God does not wish for any to perish?

_________________________________

Note that the orthodox neither deny the existence of a condition called “hell,” nor proclaim the necessity of universal salvation as a doctrine. Once soterias is properly understood as healing, however, the question arises as to whom God would not heal. This, I think, is answered in the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which we are seen as the man in the ditch, too injured even to call out for help, unconscious in fact; God is the Good Samaritan (a person not well-respected by Jesus’ Judean listeners) who binds up our wounds anyway.

I really don’t see how any of this is that complicated...

_________________________________

“But God is just, the moralists answer, and he must grant justice and punish transgression. But from what do they derive this ‘must’ to which they subordinate even God? Does there exist, then, some necessity which limits the love of God, limits his freedom? If there is, then God is not God or at least he is not the God that the Church knows.”

—Christos Yanneras, Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology

As is a grain of sand weighed against a large amount of gold, so, in God, is the demand for equitable judgment weighed against his compassion. As a handful of sand in the boundless ocean, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison to God’s providence and mercy. As a copious spring could not be stopped up with a handful of dust, so the Creator’s compassion cannot be conquered by the wickedness of creatures.

Do not say that God is just…David may call him just and fair, but God’s own Son has revealed to us that he is before all things kind and good. He is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

—St. Isaac the Syrian (quoted in Olivier Clement, The Roots of Christian Mysticism)

Originally posted by TheSkipper
So, nuance is only "of the devil" if it contradicts or calls into question your understanding of scripture.

I would like you to check out a book if you have the time called "Remedial Christianity - What every Christian should know about the faith but probably doesn't." by Paul Alan Laughlin.

I think it would be an eye opening read for you.

Are you trying to tell me that not all of those who reject Jesus Christ in this life will go to hell? My understanding of the gospel is that we are saved by faith in Christ. If you have a different gospel, why don't you come right out and say it.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
So, nuance is only "of the devil" if it contradicts or calls into question your understanding of scripture.

I would like you to check out a book if you have the time called "Remedial Christianity - What every Christian should know about the faith but probably doesn't." by Paul Alan Laughlin.

I think it would be an eye opening read for you.

Or The Mystery of Christ...And Why People Don’t Get It, by Robert Farrar Capon (or Capon’s works on the parables; Capon is an Episcopal priest and theolgian).

Originally posted by ballsofsteel
Are you trying to tell me that not all of those who reject Jesus Christ in this life will go to hell? My understanding of the gospel is that we are saved by faith in Christ. If you have a different gospel, why don't you come right out and say it.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace (charis, in itself a word rich in meaning, far beyond “gift” ) you have been saved—6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith (pisteos), and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast.

Not your grace, not your faith (but in this case, God’s faithfulness), not your doing—not even “a doing of believing.”

Nevertheless, your confidence in the gospel message (pistis means confidence, trust, reliance—not belief) can begin the process of soterias.

Originally posted by Tyto
Witty, on what basis are you picking and choosing which bits of the Bible to take as literal truth?

He's probably doing this on the basis that it's better to think about these things and interpret in an intelligent way than just take an all or nothing approach about it. There is no religious requirement that I know of that the whole of the Bible has to be taken as literal truth. Infact the Bible wasn't even put together until after Jesus came and went.

Basically he's thinking about his faith . If he wasn't you would be accusing him of being a mindless fundie. It's a heads I win , tails you lose argument.

Originally posted by knightmeister
He's probably doing this on the basis that it's better to think about these things and interpret in an intelligent way than just take an all or nothing approach about it. There is no religious requirement that I know of that the whole of the Bible has to be taken as literal truth. Infact the Bible wasn't even put together until after Jesus came and went.

Well said.

EDIT: You know, a lot of times when I leave an argument or debate on here, it’s not because I think I’ve “won” or “lost,” but simply because I’ve reached a point where I have to go think and study some more.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I have loved at least two people in my life that certainly did not want it, seems a shame God can't accomplish the same feat. Furthermore, just because those people did not love me back I did not condemn them to anything...much less hell.

Furthermore, just because those people did not love me back I did not condemn them to anything...much less hell.SKIPPER

You have over complicated this. God does not condemn people because they don't allow his love to permeate their lives. Primarily hell is a state of mind not a "place" as such. Think of it like this. Imagine God is water. The water wants to be drunk in order to alleviate a man's thirst. If the man refuses to drink the water , does the water then condemn that man to thirst? How can the water help the man if he won't drink ? Is it not the man who is condemning himself to thirst? What will happen to the man if he keeps refusing to drink? What can the water do other than watch the man wither and suffer , even though that is not what the water wants?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Furthermore, just because those people did not love me back I did not condemn them to anything...much less hell.SKIPPER

You have over complicated this. God does not condemn people because they don't allow his love to permeate their lives. Primarily hell is a state of mind not a "place" as such. Think of it like this. Imagine God is water. The water ...[text shortened]... other than watch the man wither and suffer , even though that is not what the water wants?

Now give the water the ability to be omni-everything and you may have a point.

Originally posted by knightmeister
He's probably doing this on the basis that it's better to think about these things and interpret in an intelligent way than just take an all or nothing approach about it. There is no religious requirement that I know of that the whole of the Bible has to be taken as literal truth. Infact the Bible wasn't even put together until after Jesus came and we ...[text shortened]... be accusing him of being a mindless fundie. It's a heads I win , tails you lose argument.

Considering the number of people imprisoned, ridiculed, killed, maimed or tortured over the 'instructions' found in various holy books it would seem that a great many people do take the instructions as being immutable.

The question remains, once you start to pick'n'mix your beliefs, you must be using some criteria. If you are using 'an intelligent' way to interpret, where do you stop? When does it stop being 'christianity' and become your own philosophy?

Originally posted by Tyto
Considering the number of people imprisoned, ridiculed, killed, maimed or tortured over the 'instructions' found in various holy books it would seem that a great many people [b]do take the instructions as being immutable.

The question remains, once you start to pick'n'mix your beliefs, you must be using some criteria. If you are using 'an intelligent' wa ...[text shortened]... here do you stop? When does it stop being 'christianity' and become your own philosophy?[/b]

I think part of the point—or at least part of my point—is that everyone “pix and mixes,” even if they stay within one set of texts. It’s inescapable. Of course, there have been a number of discussions on here about who are really the “true Christians” (TM), and that undoubtedly holds for other religions as well.

People often lay out interpretations of text as if they weren’t interpretations at all; and often they don’t think that they are “pixing and mixing,” simply because they got these readings from someone else. People say “the Bible says...,” and then simply quote an English text of scripture—and then get upset if someone comes along and says something like: “Well, you know, in the Hebrew [or the Greek], it really doesn’t say quite that....” I think some of us received incredibly inadequate Christian (or whatever) educations from the church (I did anyway; and I had pastors/teachers who had been educated in Greek and Hebrew, and had learned far more of it than I am ever likely to; they simply neglected to pass much of it on, settling instead for “formula theology,” in my case Lutheran).

I rely on particular textual scholars as I go along; I draw on my own judgment too. I’m not a sola scripturist, and I draw on tradition; I also still have enough of ye olde “protestant principle” in me (and enough “chutzpah” ), that I’m willing to argue with the tradition. I don’t claim any religious labels anymore (except, occasionally non-dualist, or “Zennist”—not Zen Buddhist—just by way of a shortcut description of my general approach), so whether or not my understanding accords with someone else’s idea of “true Christianity” (or true anything else) does not affect me. If I choose to call myself a Christian, it will not affect me either (besides, the Anglicans still accept me... 🙂 )

The best one can do, I think, is to lay out one’s criteria (you’re right on that score), their hermeneutical strategies, who they tend to rely on, etc. And then accept the notion that multiple interpretations are not only possible, but sometimes required by the text itself. For myself, I have a hard time accepting the notion that someone’s eternal salvation would depend on their getting the “right” one....

Your questions are very good ones; as is your observation about the people who take the “instructions” as immutable.

Originally posted by vistesd
> John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except [b]by means of me.”

The Greek word dia, generally translated as “through,” means here “by means of” or “by way of.” And Jesus is speaking as ho Christos, “the Christ,” the logos tou theou—the logos of God—not in ter ...[text shortened]... wicked.

—St. Isaac the Syrian (quoted in Olivier Clement, The Roots of Christian Mysticism)[/b]

Consider these passages:

"Because of the sinful things they say,
because of the evil that is on their lips,
let them be captured by their pride,
their curses, and their lies.
Destroy them in your anger!
Wipe them out completely!
Then the whole world will know
that God reigns in Israel" (Psalm 59:12-13).

"But as for me, I will sing about your power.
Each morning I will sing with joy about your unfailing love.
For you have been my refuge,
a place of safety when I am in distress.
O my Strength, to you I sing praises,
for you, O God, are my refuge,
the God who shows me unfailing love" (Psalm 59:16-17).

"The godly will rejoice when they see injustice avenged.
They will wash their feet in the blood of the wicked.
Then at last everyone will say,
“There truly is a reward for those who live for God;
surely there is a God who judges justly here on earth" (Psalm 58:10-11)

Frankly, I trust the Holy Spirit inspired words of David to more accurately portray the true character of God than your hermeneutics.

God is love, but He is also the God of justice who avenges the deeds of the wicked. The same God who shows the faithful 'unfailing love' also 'wipes out completely' His enemies.

How does God grant justice, yet also grant mercy, without limiting Himself or transgressing His own law? The answer is found in John 3:16 (remember, this isn't my oversimplified interpretation of scripture, it's the scripture itself, plain as day): "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Note: the Lord has created a condition: 'everyone who BELIEVES...' Yet you explain away the Lord's condition for salvation as if it were of no account. God is certainly kind to the ungrateful and wicked, and nothing is beyond His ability to forgive, but he pardons sinners on only one condition: whether or not they believe in Jesus Christ.

It is heretical to teach that God saves everyone, unconditionally.