Your emerging view(s) of Jesus, please?
23 Oct 2006
Let me ask you a question – is it me or do you think that an emphasis on Jesus is the centre of emerging church conversation/practice/theology/reflection? A focus on what Jesus is doing (rather than would do), an appreciation that he is intentionally incarnational and is the creator, completer, co-habitor and co-missioner of the creation narrative aka the Kingdom of God project?
I am doing some thinking about the emerging church conversation and what our own, dare I say it, emerging meme’s about Jesus are. But to help my wondering I am curious/intrigued/interested to know whether this is just my own perception/view and to hear what your thoughts/views on Jesus are, especially in the context of the emerging church conversation.
In part this is influenced by my own realisation that I am going through a process in my life that looks something like this… (my own personal focus/emphasis/ranking on the trinity so 1 is the chief/main/most important member of the trinity in shaping my faith focus at that time):
My Conservative Evangelical experience:
1. God the Father – Bad cop – throws the book at me, tough laws/tough love, distant, frowns and chain (holy) smokes, as well as thunders occassionally but ok because…
2. Jesus – Good cop – gently saving, lamb toting, all round nice guy/God and obedient loving son who is holding open the door of heaven for me (and the other nice folk he’s invited too).
3. The inspired word of God, aka the bible, aka the Holy Spirit – editor and original (holy) ghost writer.
My charismatic experience:
1. Holy Spirit – Blissed out summer of love, aka Tornoto Blessing, feelings ok, laugh, cry, connect to emotional centre. Need my Holy Spirit fix/experience – exploring experiential touchy feely God who can be known more than through just feelings. Speaking/interacting/involved in my life in the here/hear and now… more please.
2. Jesus – Not only the Word of God but does the works of God too. Motivation compassion, Modus Operandi naturally supernatural, heals sick, raises the dead and casts out demons. Still manages to get a quiet time in and disciples the disciples to do what he’s doing – I feel like a dazzled/dazed disciple.
3. Father – sender of Jesus, reconciliation as a loving Father/Father heart of God, focus on a Fatherless generation. Mostly though in the background.
My emerging church experience:
1. Jesus – missional/incarnate/involved. His mission is not just about heaven or having a good time but about saving the world, reconnecting creation, words, works but wounds as well. Not only about healing the sick and casting out demons but being good news for the poor, the oppressed – role of liberator extends beyond just saving the soul and floods/fills all of life to save us from all the effects of sin. Co-misisons us to join him in his Kingdom of God project and offers us a life now of eternal significance as well as an eternal life in heaven.
2 = Holy Spirit – key member of the team, presence of God, working not just in us but out in the world – calling us to what God is doing out there as well as changing me in here. Shaper, moulder, former, reflector – an artist, a dance instructor, a strategist, a yoda/mentor – ancient/wisdom/trainer, a revealer, as well as a hider – encourages seeking, finding, serving and loving…
2 = God the Father – creator, thinker, wild, untamed, unknowable, mysterious, loveable yet in a awe inducing way – a cross between Gandalf and Animal (from the Muppets) – the rhythm section of the trinity, setting the beat/tempo, initiating the dance, bringing in others, throwing open doors, issuing invites and embracing prodigals…
NB: I am not knocking any of these groups/expressions – indeed I am very grateful for my experiences/encounters/heritage/impact of these in shaping me. I merely draw it out to show how my views/emphasises have changed/are being shaped.
Please do share your own reflections about Jesus and the emerging conversations…
I’d really like you to join me in this brain storm, or mental shower as I hear it’s now meant to be called (the term brain storm can cause offense to people who have epilepsy).
Maybe to kick start your thinking you may be inspired, like me by Brian McLaren’s concept of seven Jesuses he has known (i.e. Jesus in the context of a generous orthodox and therefore the colours of Jesus that other Christian faith traditions bring out about him).
How do you think that the emerging church conversation views/interacts/encounters/and is shaped with/by Jesus? Maybe you think that my emphasis is wrong and want to push back at me, e.g. that in your experience the emerging conversation emphasises the Holy Spirit more or God the Father more – if so please do push back…
Some questions I’d like to ask you and listen to your thoughts/views/feelings on…
1. what emphasis do you think the emerging church conversation places on Jesus (your own ranking/reflections?) – how does Jesus (for you) shape/influence/impact the conversation?
2. what events/teachings/characteristics of Jesus (for you) are key thought shaping passages in the emerging church conversation?
3. how do you think it has affected the action/character/theology/focus of the emerging conversation?
4.what strengths do you think the emerging church brings/draws out in their view of Jesus and what problems/blindspots do you think are being addressed?
5. conversely what weaknesses/limitations/blindspots do you see in the emerging church conversation?
6. any good books/resources/links that you have encountered on Jesus?
7. any questions you’d like to ask about the emerging church conversation/Jesus?
8. anything else that occurs to you?
Thank you very much – I look forward to the conversation…
Tagged: Emerging-Church, Jesus, Key-Posts, paul-mayers
67 comments
Trackback
Comment by Matt
2.36 am on 24 Oct 2006
To me, the heart of postmodern culture’s critique of Christianity is the complaint that “church” and Jesus have become disconnected. Christians, they argue, don’t themselves understand, much less embody Jesus.
The critics are often right.
Many emergents place emphasis on returning to the teachings of Jesus and on the “life” that is found in following in his Way. I think that a reconsideration of how we talk about and model Jesus is central if emerging culture is going to be engaged by the gospel.
Comment by Paul
7.21 am on 24 Oct 2006
Thanks Matt, great thoughts. What are your thoughts on the how/what of reconsidering talking/modelling Jesus to engage postmodern culture with Jesus?
Comment by marc
11.13 am on 24 Oct 2006
1. For me the conversation brings Jesus to the forefront in a practical way by no longer pigeon holing him in how we worship, pray or praise God. To me understanding God has become much more interesting than some denominational drudgery. The conversation seems expand the mind of evangelicals in all directions and sometimes in none
2. Jesus is for all, God is in the Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Celtic. Jesus has shaped my experience of himself
3. I think it is possible that the emerging conversation has gone off in too many directions; some of the things done in the name of the emerging church seem a little blurred now days.
4. The strength of the emerging church is the conversation of the future of the evangelical church and the knock on effect that will have on the traditional church and that in will work back the other way with the traditional church having a knock on effect on the evangelical church.
5. As I said earlier it seems of turned in some instances into a free for all with people using the emerging church as an excuse to do whatever they like, the theological back bone may be lost if we are not careful.
6. Plenty of Good links
Go here to start with http://www.ex-voto.org.uk/
Comment by Helen
12.13 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Ok here are a few of mine.
Jesus is who I am following when…
I am being most fully me in every way that is good
I oppose misuse of power in whatever form I encounter it
I make choices that don’t necessarily prioritize my own personal comfort and convenience, because something else which seems more important
I remember that everyone matters
I do things (hardly) anyone notices just because they are the right things to do
I jump off the bandwagon and don’t even mind if I have a hard landing, because it’s better than being taken somewhere I don’t feel I should going
(I’m not well-versed enough in ‘emergent’ to have a clear idea how emergent this is or isn’t)
Comment by Paul
12.44 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Marc (3) thanks mate, much appreciated – so am I right in reading that for you Jesus is much more liberating in terms of no one tradition haveing cornered the market with their Jesus and now you are free to find and share in all these experiences and encounters?
In what ways, if you’d like to share, do you think Jesus has shaped you in your experience of him?
Comment by Paul
12.46 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Helen (4) loving your thoughts, please do share more…
And when you aren’t doing those things would you say you weren’t following Jesus – that the doing/following are inextricably linked in a whole?
Comment by Graham Richards
1.12 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Boy! What a big subject to try and cover. I guess my view of Jesus is that of the bloke who you see down the pub, who always has time to listen to you and your issues, sometimes challenges what you say/think, but never puts you down. He encourages you to go forward, even when to do so my feel a little threatening, but you know he’ll be there to go back to and share how it’s going. He’s certainly not “in your face” and trying to force his opinons on you.
My own experience of where the Church is and where Jesus is, is that the Church is now so wrapped up in its own traditions and culture it has cut itself off from most of society. “Please join us”, “but only if you become just like us”. This applies to the house churches and charismatics, just as much as the traditional churches.
We’ve lost the vision of Jesus and his Kingdom and the fact that it is out there, in the pub, in the street, the ladies hairdressers, Tescos, et al. Anything that doesn’t fit into the neat view of “this is what the church and gospel is” is a threat to those in it. They just don’t get it, that God, thru his son and spirit, is working his purpose out in the lives of people who are oblivious to him and who rarely, if ever, darken the doorway of a church.
If you’re someone who is beginning to search the emergent thinking, but is still hanging on to the traditions and culture of church, then it will be seen as threatening and without a “theological backbone”. But as long as we convert people into “Churchians”, the problem won’t go away.
Comment by Paul
1.34 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Thanks Graham (7) – i’ve heard that the sweeping brush is the future of posting so i thought i’d give it a go, rather than my unpacking usual style…
Thanks for your thoughts tho, are you saying that you feel church as moved away from where Jesus is? Do you not think that it is both out there and in here? And if not do you think it ever could and what would it look like to you if it did?
Comment by Helen
2.09 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Helen (4) loving your thoughts, please do share more…
Your wish is my command ;-)
Ok…
Jesus is the Truth
And, the truth will make you free
So, if what you believe is not setting you free, you didn’t find the truth yet
The truth is not shut up in a book, or the exclusive domain of any group, no matter what they may claim.
The truth is out there and people who seek it will find it.
And they will know they’ve found at least part of the truth when they look back and can say “I am more free now than I was before”
And when you aren’t doing those things would you say you weren’t following Jesus – that the doing/following are inextricably linked in a whole?
Everything is linked – hey you will like this – I heard a GREAT analogy yesterday on the radio – have you used a GPS, ever? And when you went a different way from its plan it says “recalculating…” (Ok now I am going to go beyond the analogy I heard and take it further) The GPS never gets angry, never turns itself off and says “That’s IT – I’m finished – you don’t listen – you’ll never learn – how could you miss the turn AGAIN” etc etc
So as we go through life maybe God/Jesus is saying “recalculating” a LOT – but, he just keeps saying it, patiently…like the GPS…
(Because it’s not possible, is it, that God could be less kind to us than a machine???)
Comment by Graham Richards
2.40 pm on 24 Oct 2006
In many cases, yes! The Church and Jesus are two very different entities. That’s not to say that there aren’t many sincere Christians in local churches trying their hardest to follow Jesus and his teachings. The hard thing for many churchgoers is to separate what is church (those things we have created for ourselves, e.g. orders of service, liturgies, music styles, ways of behaving (just watch a wedding service full of non-churchgoers to see how different and unsure they behave in church), right up to the political structures from local to diocesan/district/regional/national level).
Ask yourself the (now well used) question: If Jesus turned up today, would he want to become member? Would he be pleased with what we have created, or highly critical of the way we have effectively shut many people out, through our church sub-culture?
Yes, Jesus has to be working inside the Church, just as he is outside it, but do those inside really knowingly encounter him, or are they oblivious to him like many outside are?
At our small church in North Yorkshire, we are trying to stop using the term churched and unchurched, because of the baggage that comes with the terms. Instead, we’re focussing on what it means to be in the Kingdom. For example, we’re moving Sunday worship out of our church building next week and into a local primary school. Not because we need more space (we only number about 15, which is approx 50% more than when things started 2 years ago), but because we think it is the right thing to do. One half of our small town has all the churches within a few hundred yards of each other, whilst the other half, across the river, has no churches at all.
We believe that we need to be out there where the people are, not expecting them to travel to where we are.
We’re also not bothered by numbers. They are not a sign of success in our eyes. It’s more about helping people to begin to see that God, thru Jesus, is amongst them, doing things.
We’ve also been exploring the whole concept of Shalom (as per the late Jim Punton’s understanding of it) and seeing that it’s not only about our relationships with each other and God, but also with our relationship to creation. A few weeks ago, the whole church met by the river for worship, which took the form of a litter clear, in order that we could demonstrate to the people in our town that God’s Kingdom is all around us and we have a part to play in bringing it back into wholeness (shalom) again.
We’re little fish in a vast ocean, but then God works through mustard seeds and small fish.
This way of being church could work in almost any community, where people are willing to forget the traditional views of what they think it means, and begin to explore what it means 24/7 for them and the people around them.
We’re still only feeling our way, but it feels like its the right way, even if only because none of the other churches seem to understand what we’re about and where they think we’re aiming! However, we’ve seen a few people come into some radically new and exciting ways of being Christians in their day to day lives and that in itself is evidence enough that we’re doing something right.
Comment by Paul
3.04 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Thanks Helen (9) – loving the whole genie thang…
I like that, truth is not a propistion or a doctrine but the fully man/fully God – Jesus.
What does becoming more free to you look like – or is it some of what you said in (4)?
You’re right, great analogy! I am the GPS whem my lovely wife drives – it’s better that way from a domestic harmony point – altho i admit the machine is probably kinder than me.
So are you saying that God/Jesus is recalculating our path to him and its our continued choice to exercise our free will to follow that windy difficult cross country path or keep taking really good short cuts down that big ol wide road..?
Comment by Paul
3.14 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Graham (10), thank you very much, I appreciate hearing more of your story and what you are doing/being…
I think I am maybe a little more positive about church, I suppose my diverse experience of it as been most forming when even the real inward looking parts of my childhood like hearing a series on Hebrews 12 that went on for 200 evening sermons (or 4 yrs!)has really helped form my faith…
my personal belief is God is a great recycler and that liturgies et al can be very useful ways for some people to connect inwardly and therefore express outwardly. Afterall it will take a lot of different churches to reach a lot of different people…
What your comments made me think of was how Jesus continued the practice of going to the synagogue on the sabbath and temple for festivals but also made it his practice to enage with the communities he travelled through for the other 6 days of the week… maybe that’s something to reflect on/model in our practices?
Thoughts anyone?
Comment by Helen
4.36 pm on 24 Oct 2006
So are you saying that God/Jesus is recalculating our path to him and its our continued choice to exercise our free will to follow that windy difficult cross country path or keep taking really good short cuts down that big ol wide road..?
I would have said that when I was more of a conservative Evangelical.
Now I say…we do choose our path, at least to some extent. So we need to own that. And there’s always hope because if you find you’re taking the longer, more difficult ways, then you’ll see more than other people and some of the prettiest sights are ‘off the beaten track’ :-)
Comment by Helen
4.41 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Paul, I forgot to answer – yes, becoming more free does look somewhat like what I wrote in 4.
It also means figuring out what grace REALLY is all about.
Comment by Paul
5.00 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Thanks Helen, grace, now how do folk relate grace to christ?
Comment by Paul
5.54 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Helen (13) now I know why you are associated with off the map :)
Comment by dh
6.51 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Paul, I guess for me Jesus is not only His life and Him as God but His resurrection. I also think that Truth includes doctrine. Even the Apostle Paul mentioned the purpose of “sound doctrine” and to “beware of false teachers who tickle the ears”. These are the things the Emerging church have some problems with: dealing with false teachers. That isn’t to say all of them are “false teachers”, it is just that when they are there they don’t address them. They also don’t focus on the resurrection or when they do look at the literary rather than the literal. I also think there are mischaracterizations of the Evangelical church. I can explain.I really like Marc’s response. :)
Comment by Paul
7.40 pm on 24 Oct 2006
DH (17) good to hear from you my friend. To clarify no one was saying doctrine isn’t important only that the truth is found in a person Jesus, doctrines are useful but they are objective.
Anywho, the floor is yours, please do tell me more about what your focus on the resurection means to you…
and anyone else what events in Jesus life stand out for you?
Comment by Jim Henderson
8.10 pm on 24 Oct 2006
anyone else what events in Jesus life stand out for you?
His conversations- there were 122 of them
His first 30 years -he did nothing
of any significance – alot like me
Comment by vynette
11.57 pm on 24 Oct 2006
Paul, you said: “I like that, truth is not a propistion or a doctrine but the fully man/fully God – Jesus.”
This is not the ‘truth.’ The New Testament clearly states that Jesus was a normal man born in a normal way. Jesus of Nazareth is not God, or any part thereof.
No matter what terminology has been devised in its justification, a doctrine or teaching that seeks to characterise the relationship between God and Jesus of Nazareth as anything other than ‘ethical’ is demeaning to God.
Such a characterisation – bringing the ‘Creator’ into any form of earthly relationship with a ‘creature’ so to speak – is earthly, ‘adamic’. It’s also idolatrous. If the ‘emergent’ movement truly wants to emerge from the wilderness then it will address the main issues – the unscriptural doctrines devised by the Graeco-Roman church fathers. The doctrines which have driven so many, particularly the young, particularly in the superinformation age, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Sorry if this sounds a little harsh but I take my duty to ‘prove all things’ very seriously indeed. It is vital that Christians return to the simplicity and purity of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Only then will the Kingdom of God move from the spiritual realm and become a reality here on earth.
Comment by Helen
2.35 am on 25 Oct 2006
Jesus of Nazareth is not God, or any part thereof.
Hi Vynette,
We meet again :)
I don’t think you’re going to convince the folks here to give up their belief that Jesus is God.
Comment by Helen
2.36 am on 25 Oct 2006
Paul (16) yeah, that’s why ;-)
Comment by vynette
3.53 am on 25 Oct 2006
Hello Helen,
Nice to converse again. I hear what you are saying but I guess I’m just a hopeless optimist. You just never know where a tiny seed may take root so I keep spreading it everywhere, even in the most unlikely of places.
Cheers
Comment by Paul
6.40 am on 25 Oct 2006
Thanks Jim (19) I have more in common with Jesus then I thought…
Is there anything about his conversations that particulalry strikes you, makes you stop and re-evaluate?
I’m listening to Conrad Gempf’s (free) podcast of his book ‘The questions Jesus asked’ and I think he brings home the sheer number of those conversations where Jesus is asking questions, which really strikes me…
Comment by Paul
6.56 am on 25 Oct 2006
vynette (20) – I can see that there is a tension that exists between how human and how divine Jesus is, and rthe emphasis on either his divinity or his humanity has varies across church history. I think you are going beyond this and saying forget the divine end of the spectrum, keeping the needle firmly on H?
I like something that Jase wrote awhile back, something like Jesus was 100% human but he was fully connected to the holy spirit as well, it was his reliance on the spirit rather than a reliance on some sort of pseudo cloaked divine power that enabled him to live a sin free life. Does that maybe go any way towards addressing your concerns? You mentioned the younger generation rejecting baby and bathwater – most people want to keep the baby and not the water but it feels a bit to me like you want to oust the baby but keep the moral/ethical teachings? Or am I being too harsh?
Personally if Jesus was just an ethics teacher of the highest order I do not think he would have got himself killed nor indeed would so many apostles, disciples and saints from all ages would have ended up martyred – claiming Jesus is Lord rather than Ceaser or anyone else is not something I would do for a professor of ethics, would you, would anyone?
We do have common ground however in agreeing that we follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles although there is some need for contextual translation to apply the principles into our own culture…
We’re both also optimists (23) so I appreciate you stopping and joining a conversation, even if it is not with a popular view. Ihope your comments inspire people to think about this aspect of Christ’s nature rather than criticism of you for holding your views…
Comment by Paul
7.05 am on 25 Oct 2006
Helen (21) we meet again i do love a good bit of Bondesque dialogue in the conversation :)
Thanks for your thoughts, any more inspiration left in the tank?
Comment by marc
10.15 am on 25 Oct 2006
Paul(m5)reply:
Jesus not only shapes us where we are but will take us to where we need to be shaped.
I think it’s safe to say that Jesus is no longer just the sole property of the modern or traditional church, the boundaries between denominations are lowering to some degree and Jesus is using the emerging church to do that specifically with the evangelical church.
Jesus has shaped me recently by way of experience and understanding, if you want to find out why people are Catholics, go to a Catholic church. Jesus is there, welcoming and inviting. And that’s the same with the Anglican, the same with the Orthodox and the same with our own Celtic spirituality, each part of the body that Jesus takes me to and through helps me shape my relationship with God.
Each brings its own special understanding of the relationship we have with Jesus and in that we learn from each other and from Jesus.
Comment by Helen
2.27 pm on 25 Oct 2006
Paul, your hero is supposed to be Jesus, not James Bond! ;-)
If I have further revelations I won’t withhold them from you. However I’m thinking I’d better get cracking on making sure I’m ready for the workshops I’m in next week so that might use a lot of my brain up in the near future…
Comment by Helen
2.33 pm on 25 Oct 2006
Vynette, I do admire your optimism!
I have a suggestion: when you visit a blog or discussion place where Jesus is believed to be God, you might help soften some of the reactions you get if you add “Based on my study of the Bible” when you say “Jesus is not God”.
Because the reality is, other people have studied too and have come up with different conclusions to yours. To me there is some mystery about why this is so – but I do see it is so and I want to respect that people who come to different conclusions may have all put just as much time into studying what the truth is.
Comment by Paul
2.58 pm on 25 Oct 2006
Marc (27) thanks bro, I appreciate your further insights, boundaries blurring sounds good to me
Comment by Paul
2.59 pm on 25 Oct 2006
Helen (29) thanks very much, well if you do have a revelation do please share but I don’t want the conference to miss out on your wisedom…
To do list: SWOT analysis of Jesus or James Bond for hero :)
Comment by marc
4.39 pm on 25 Oct 2006
How about a mixture with such films like:
On his majesties sunday service:)
Comment by alex
5.17 pm on 25 Oct 2006
If the Holy Spirit was given by Jesus to ‘guide us into all truth’, he will lead us back to Jesus, ‘the way, the truth and the life.’ If the truth is a person, our relationship to the truth will be more oblique and multi-layered than it would be if the truth were merely a series of statements.
The emerging conversation has criticised theology that reduces truth to a series of statements, and rightly so, in my opinion. Similarly, it has sought to treat Jesus as more than someone who has simply performed a transaction for us.
However, I think we should not forget that Jesus HAS performed a transaction for us. Paul writes that ‘by one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy’(Heb10v14). Jesus mediated a new covenant whereby now ‘they will all know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sin no more’(Heb 8v12).
The legal and propositional language used by Paul testifies to the centrality of the cross, and the provision made for us there. Jesus is the truth, and the ultimate expression of the truth is his blood. Jesus’ blood gives us peace, and we shouldn’t allow fear of self-centred theology to rob us of this gift. Emphasis on sin can seem judgmental, arrogant and redolent of abusive authority. However, it’s only by acknowledging the presence of sin that we can receive peace and realise the necessity of Jesus’ blood.
I suppose you could say that this comment comes from a concern that the person and life of Jesus is emphasized apart from the cross, and that any proposition made about the cross is somehow considered illegitimate, an old way of expressing things.
Comment by Paul
7.27 pm on 25 Oct 2006
Alex (33), thank you very much, I appreciate you highlighting an event of Jesus, that is probably the difining image of Christ, in an image filled age – the cross.
Certainly substitutionary atonement is a powerful image put forward by St Paul. What do you think Alex, or others, of the arguement that there are at least 7 descriptions of atonement…
Substitutionary Atonement - God’s wrath, directed at us because of our sin, could only be satisfied by the death of Jesus (who replaced the OT sacrifices with his perfect self-sacrifice).
Ransom – because of our sin, we belong to Satan, and God buys us back with the death of Jesus, then turns the tables on Satan with the Resurrection.
Christus Victor - we are dead in our sins, destined for the grave, but Jesus’ death and resurrection triumphed over death itself, enabling us to be made alive with Christ.
Perfect Penitent – we are all in need of repentence (God will forgive us out of the goodness of his heart if we do), but we can’t really repent perfectly – we always hold back, we always fall into sin again. Jesus is the perfect penitent (or “repenterâ€) in our place, and so secures our forgiveness (CS Lewis’ favorite theory, according to McLaren).
Moral Influence – Jesus’ self-giving love, expressed in his death on the cross, leads us to love God and love others fully, giving our lives back to God.
Powerful Weakness - by becoming vulnerable and submitting to death on the cross, Jesus shows us God’s love for us, as well as the nature of His Kingdom (sacrifice, not violent victory).
Embodied Betrayal - our sin is a betrayal of God, and he showed us that in the only way adequate – through his physical torture and death at our hands.
HT to radical congruency
Anyone want to add more or indeed take some of these away?
Comment by Paul
7.28 pm on 25 Oct 2006
Marc (32) – How about you only live once? :)
Comment by alex
12.59 am on 26 Oct 2006
Paul, thanks for drawing my attention to the ‘radical congruency’ site. I like Brian Mclaren’s emphasis on the kingdom of God and the radical social message of Jesus, and believe this message would today lack currency were it not for substitutionary atonement. I tend to agree with one of the comments on the site, i.e. that the six other definitions might shed light on the first, but the first is of crucial importance.
The reason I believe this is that the trajectory of the gospel message as it was prophesied by Isaiah and realised by Jesus is that a new covenant has been established, and this established only by the shedding of Jesus’ blood as the perfect sacrifice for us.
I find some of the other theories attractive because they illustrate how Jesus’ didn’t become human and die simply to effect a transaction, but to fully empathise with our humanity and suffer the wounds common to man. In this sense we can emulate Jesus’ decision not to exercise worldly power but to become a servant and suffer with those who suffer.
2 Corinthians draws a distinction between our faces being veiled under the old covenant yet ‘transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory’ under the new. This ushering in of a new age and our ability to stand up to the glory of God and be ‘ministers of reconciliation’ (2 Cor 5:17) for others is only possible at the price of substitutionary atonement.
Comment by Paul
6.57 am on 26 Oct 2006
alex (36) thank you so much, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments.
I find Isaiah a fascinating image, particularly that of the ’suffering servant’ who out of love is wounded and in so being heals our wounds, i love that image of someone loving me enough to actually take my hurt, my brokeness, my bruised and limping self and voluntarily taking it into/onto himself…
The cross then for me is the ultimate of signs and wonders, the healing that Jesus pours out for sin and death, he is so full of life that death can not handle him and the grave cannot hold him, the life of Kingdom of God floods out of him. It’s like in minature when he is touched by the woman with bleeding, her shame/uncleaness does not affect him but rather God’s radical life works in reverse and uses that touch to flood her with healing…
I think looking at substitutionary atonement with that sort of perspective for me shifts it away from an angry God beating up on his son to a loving God providing away for us to be flooded with life through the cross…
But that’s just my feeling.
I found your last paragraph intriguing, I am not sure why the usherining in of a new age and to be ministers of reconciliation is only possible at the price of substitutionary atonement, so would love to hear more about this or other views?
Comment by alex
11.43 am on 26 Oct 2006
Paul, I like your image of Jesus’ overflowing, healing life and I agree that his life is inclusive and not subject to the theology of those it affects.
In my final paragraph above, I meant to suggest that the establishing of a new covenant, whereby God can be known intimately and without shame or fear of death, was only made possible through the blood of the new covenant, and only this perfect blood is sufficient to cleanse our consciences. Like you, I don’t see substitutionary atonement as God abusing Jesus, but as the ‘ultimate of signs and wonders.’
Furthermore, I do not believe that participation in and belonging to God’s kingdom is conditional upon a person’s beliefs about the atonement. The verse ‘no-one comes to the father except through me’ has often been used to cast Jesus as a kind of bouncer on the door admitting only those who meet the correct criteria rather than the means by which all can find belonging and acceptance.
I therefore don’t agree with the classic exclusivist doctrine of hell, but I do believe that reconciliation with God was only made possible by Jesus’ blood, whether or not the person being reconciled is conscious of this or not. The many instances in the gospels of healing, teaching and acceptance of those who perhaps didn’t have ‘correct’ theological understanding of his mission testifies to this.
Comment by Paul
12.05 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Alex (38), really fascinating thoughts – I’m learning and listening and now pondering more, thank you.
Comment by Paul
12.11 pm on 26 Oct 2006
A general point for anyone interested in hell and exclusive, inclusive, universalist views you may find this post here helpful place to start.
Comment by Helen
12.26 pm on 26 Oct 2006
In my final paragraph above, I meant to suggest that the establishing of a new covenant, whereby God can be known intimately and without shame or fear of death, was only made possible through the blood of the new covenant, and only this perfect blood is sufficient to cleanse our consciences. Like you, I don’t see substitutionary atonement as God abusing Jesus, but as the ‘ultimate of signs and wonders.’
I can understand why people feel this seems nasty and barbaric.
I can understand why they wonder how an omnipotent omniscient God couldn’t find a different way to forgive.
I don’t have to kill anything/anyone and drip its blood over someone who offended me in order to forgive them.
Why does God?
I am familiar with the argument “It’s because sin is serious”. Ok but then why not just discuss how serious it is?
Isn’t it possible to move beyond violence and killing as ultimate solutions?
Comment by Paul
12.39 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Thanks Helen (41), I don’t think you are alone in this wondering – what do you think of some of the other reasons suggested for the atonement in (34)?
Comment by Helen
2.36 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Thanks Paul.
I’ll go down the list but I may not have time to have any further discussion on my views as shared below, which I know are different from most (all?) other people who post and read here. So please don’t think I’m ‘running away’ if I don’t discuss what I write here.
Substitutionary Atonement – God’s wrath, directed at us because of our sin, could only be satisfied by the death of Jesus (who replaced the OT sacrifices with his perfect self-sacrifice).
Did this one already.
Ransom – because of our sin, we belong to Satan, and God buys us back with the death of Jesus, then turns the tables on Satan with the Resurrection.
Weird – why would an omnipotent omniscient God set the world up so he had to buy us back from Satan?
Christus Victor – we are dead in our sins, destined for the grave, but Jesus’ death and resurrection triumphed over death itself, enabling us to be made alive with Christ.
People who aren’t Christians seem as alive as Christians to me. Some of them are more alive. So I have trouble with the ’spiritually dead’ teachings.
Perfect Penitent – we are all in need of repentence (God will forgive us out of the goodness of his heart if we do), but we can’t really repent perfectly – we always hold back, we always fall into sin again. Jesus is the perfect penitent (or “repenterâ€) in our place, and so secures our forgiveness (CS Lewis’ favorite theory, according to McLaren).
Things in the real world aren’t perfect. I sometimes wonder if perfection isn’t simply a theological construct.
FWIW I like the ‘grace’ aspect of this and other theories which present Jesus as giving us something just because he’s generous. (Please note I did not say “that we didn’t deserve” because I don’t like the negativity of that – even though neither do I buy into the belief that we should all go around saying how great we are…)
Moral Influence – Jesus’ self-giving love, expressed in his death on the cross, leads us to love God and love others fully, giving our lives back to God.
I have a love-hate relationship with this one. I love that Jesus is our role-model but I think the whole topic of self-sacrifice is a complex one and this theory doesn’t explain why Jesus had to go to the lengths of actually dying.
Powerful Weakness – by becoming vulnerable and submitting to death on the cross, Jesus shows us God’s love for us, as well as the nature of His Kingdom (sacrifice, not violent victory).
I’m finding I’m having a common reaction to many of these – I don’t get why Jesus actually had to die to show us these things.
Embodied Betrayal – our sin is a betrayal of God, and he showed us that in the only way adequate – through his physical torture and death at our hands.
I love the empathy implied by this one. And I love that God kind of lets us do our worst and get back at him if anything is his fault.
This might be my favorite in that it makes it really clear God takes everything on, owns everything, fixes everything, without having those bits tagged on about how terrible we are and how it’s all our fault and we’d all go to hell if God didn’t step in, even though I think it must be his fault since he set things up this way in the first place.
Comment by dh
3.33 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Paul, why do you focus on the works of non-Believers and not recognize that without Faith in Jesus as God and all of the other statements I made. The Bible says “All havesinnedand fallen short of the Glory of God.” Just because people in the natural seem “good” doesn’t mean theywill goto heaven. Also,just because a person says they are aChristian does it mean they are.
1) I totally agree with substitutionary atonement
2) Christus Victor (I explainedabove)
3) Perfect Penitent- I agree with but this only applies to Believers toward Sanctification not for Salvation. The responsibility of un-Believers is to Believe by Faith. The purpose of Believersis to live for Him.
4) Embodied Betrayl I agree with but the analysis you stated “…lets us do our worst and get back at him if anything is his fault.” I don’t understand this comment when nothing is “God’s fault” everything is our fault by our sin. Even the Bible says “The soul that sins shall surely die.” and that by receiving the Grace by Faith the Salvation made available to all we escape this death. Once Salvation is received we by Faith grow to a greater relationship with the Trinity through Sanctification and Discipleship. It is therefore more than a transaction for us in that He desires relationship and the process of relationship starts when we receive the Grace by Faith in Christ.
On the nature of Christ. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God.
In all of this atonement talk the concept of receiving Grace by Faith for Salvation and rejection of the Grace by alack of Faith and thus not receiving Salvation seems lost. Emerging theology puts a lack of emphesis on “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.” or when Faith is mentioned it isn’t looked at as true Saving Faith but faith. (If you understand the capitalization). We as Christians need to understand the nature of the Old Covenant and that “Without theshedding of blood there canbe no remiscian (spelling) of sins.” It makessense that by Christ dying he made Grace available to all by satisfying that requirement from the Old Covenant. Our sin is what placed Christ on the cross. God created us with freewill to accept or reject Him or else we would be robots. When I read Paul talk about “…already dead in their tresspass of sins” or when Jesus talks about unbelievers are “condemned already”, then one understands that our sin condemns us not God. God doesn’t send anyone to hell or even heaven we choose to accept or reject the Grace made available to all.
Also, to me the death of Christ is nothing without the resurrection. No one here seems to mention the resurrection and how that He is alive in everyway physically, Spiritually and multidiminsionally. That when Jesus comes back we will “see Him as He is.” That our physical and Spirtual eyes will see Christ physically and Spiritually.
Comment by Paul
6.08 pm on 26 Oct 2006
DH (44), I’ll answer your question if you answer one of mine… why did Jesus say
“Who needs a doctor: the healthy or the sick? I’m here inviting outsiders, not insiders—an invitation to a changed life, changed inside and out.”?
Comment by dh
6.58 pm on 26 Oct 2006
I believe that when Jesus said these things He was inviting outsiders to become insiders by accepting Him as their Savior aka when Peter said “You are the Christ the Son of the Living God.” The insiders Jesus was referring to were self-proclaimed insiders. Not unlike people who gave their head to Christ but not their heart, soul and mind. Does that make sense? I know I could go into more detail with particular passages from the Epistles andeven some other statements from Jesus. For me the “insiders” whow were not invited were people who believed in God but didn’t Believe that Jesus “…was the Christ the Son of the Living God.” For further clarification this “Belief” is “Born Again” or like you say “changed life, inside and out” or how I say it giving heart, soul and mind to Christ.
Comment by dh
7.01 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Pharisees rejected Christ as being God so therefore the passage from Christ “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.” becomes applicable for those as well as those who universalists as well by saying there are other gods or other ways to Christ other than Faith in Him alone.
Comment by Paul
7.03 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Thanks DH. Well in the same way, I’ll listen and talk with anyone who wants to converse about these matters…
And may I refer you to my response to you in (18), unless of course you were referring to yourself in your original Q :)?
Comment by dh
7.37 pm on 26 Oct 2006
Paul, I was addressing concerns about comment (43). Oh my gosh. I totally apologize. That comment was from Helen. May God totally forgive me. I reread your comment (34) and I would add that was worded very well. I totally agree within the context of my latest responses. That Faith in Christ alone for Salvation andrejection thereof determine whether one is in the Kingdom of God in this physical life but the literal afterlife to come.
I apologize for referring to you when I meant Helen. I also apologize for not reading (34). Response (34) was awesome. With the length of thethread you can see how this misappropriation and misunderstanding could take place. :( :) Will you forgive me?
:( :)
Whatdo you think of comment (44) without the question included and my response in comment (46 & 47)?
Comment by Paul
7.54 pm on 26 Oct 2006
DH (49), of course bro, totally forgiven by me – i’d be careful though calling Helen a non-beliviever if I were you though, a wanna believer maybe, a questioning believer, perhaps or a different believer quite possibly but in the end they are only labels that we use to try and define who is in and who is out…
I’m sure Helen can point you to some links if you want to try and figure her out, or there might still be space at her seminar she’s running… :)
Did you read my comment in (37)?
Meanwhile I’ll turn my thoughts to your comment in (44)
Comment by dh
8.49 pm on 26 Oct 2006
If you reread my post I never stated that Helen was an unbeliever. I only pointed out from the Bible what consitutes a Believer. If I did state specifically that Helen wasn’t a Believer that was not intended. I don’t think those words were written but, with the length of all the posts it happened to, that was not intended. I was only pointing out point by point Scriptural concerns from her responses to your original multi-point statement.
I like your (37). Very well worded. However, my responses of us entering into the Kingdom by Faith in Christ alone with “no other way that ye must be saved” is a great addtion to your statements. Also, I’m not determining whose in and whose out. If the Bible says confess with heart, soul and mind; forgiveness of sins andrecognition of being a sinner with repentence and Believing that Jesus is God and is risen again; is believed by Faith then one is a Christian. Otherwise one isn’t, by Christ saying “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.
Comment by Paul
4.50 pm on 27 Oct 2006
DH, (44) I still find your comment a little confusing as you are responding to Helen’s post.
I do however agree with you about the resurection and the need to look at both events and hold the tension of the balance between them – the cross is not the end of story and I think that is important to draw out, otherwise you are right it does make the whole events looks particularly slanted if we just focus on the death of Christ without his resurection.
I am not sure what difference you are trying to make in faith/Faith point – I think we need to believe IN Jesus which requires faith (with or without a F :). As you know from a previous post you and I agree to disagree about he conscious acknowledgement of that faith, as we can’t measure it from God’s perspective – personally i think very little amount, aka ‘mustard seed.’
I think when it comes to the atonement it can be described in several different ways, hence the different ways of expressing it above – some of which we might find more helpful then others in trying to grasp a little of what God/Jesus were doing but all of which are inadequate and incompelete in that I don’t think this side of complete divine revelation we’ll be able to ever fully grasp it – at the heart it is something mysyerious, powerful, dynamic which is most wonderfully awesome…
Comment by dh
5.25 pm on 27 Oct 2006
I Believe strongly that one can’t truly Believe IN Jesus (heart, soul and mind) without Faith (Faith being Saving Faith and faith being un-saving faith). I think we can’t measure it 100% but it does say “…by their fruit you shall know them.” I think with regard to atonement it can bedescribedin different ways but the ones thatapply are theonesthat are consistent with God’s Word which I pointed out previously. People need to have a proper understanding of the Christ. There are many inappropriate views in light of Scripture and we must help people not to be deceived. For example, many people believe Jesus was just a man but not God. That shows a lack of Faith. Many people believe in Jesus but don’t believe that He is alive today physically and spiritually. That shows a lack of Faith. I could go on. The main reason for distinguishing between faith and Faith is Faith (saving Faith) and faith (non-saving faith). That doesn’t downgrade the journey but puts into perspective because without confession, repentence, etc. Salvation isn’t received. That is how Jesus can say “you are not far from the Kingdom”. Notice He didn’t say the person WAS IN the Kingdom but NOT FAR. Many people who have faith are not far from the Kingdom. People who have Faith are in the Kingdom.
P.S. faith not Faith, can also be for Sanctification and discipleship. I knowingly left this out for greater clarity but we can discuss this once we are beyond these basics aka in Hebrews where it says putting aside the basics. :) On the mustard seed thing He is talking to Believers and non-Believers. I feel that He is referring to faith to Faith to greater Faith. He was pointing to non-Believers to have Faith (likea mustard seed) and for Believers to towarda greater understanding than their conversion (like a mustard seed). Does that make sense? :)
Comment by Paul
7.07 pm on 27 Oct 2006
Thanks DH, I appreciate the clarification, personally I see faith as more a wave than an exponential curve – in other words sometimes i have almost none and at other times i seem to have buckets of the stuff – I think for me that is the point, it’s not about screwing up my face and trying to believe harder but being honest with God at that very point of almost no faith as much as I am when it’s pretty easy to belief in the max faith times…
Again I think the cross demonstrates this dynamic from a questioning despairing crying out Jesus ‘father, why have you forsaken me’ to the the hopeful faith showing ‘into your hands i commit my spirit.’
So to that end I think the faith journey is a tide that ebbs and flows so I can see how it affects discipleship…
Comment by dh
9.18 pm on 27 Oct 2006
Paul, I see what you are saying. The times I had a lack of faith didn’t mean I had a lack of Faith. When David, Jesus, Job all questioned individual events they weren’t questioning the nature of God they were questioning the event. Does that make sense? Jesus knew Himself and the Father as being God but the question “why have you forsaken Me?” was one out of “I know there is no other way but If there could be another way I would prefer that over this.”
When I go through difficulties I never quetsion who God is not should we. However, we can face things we don’t understand that is seperate from the nature of God. Does that make sense? Our lack of faith shouldn’t change the Faith we have that is strong that is if a particular person has Faith in the first place.
For me not all faith is thesame but all Faith is the same. I too see it as exponential but only with the type of faith that is non-saving faith.
So Paul, in my honesty, there are times I have lower faith and times I have higher faith but at all times I have strong Faith because I know the Trinity as being God, I have a relationship with God that began when I accepted Christ heart, soul and mind (like a starting line) that I can look back and say “I started this race and there is no turning back and why would I when I know the prize is so great (”I press toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called us heavenward by Christ Jesus”). Questioning is okay but not all times is it okay.
If you need further clarification I will be glad to give it. This discussion has really sharpened the iron in me. I hope you cansee that in yourself to. We are really getting to the nature of questions and recognizing that they are not the same or all for our benefit. From the bible I have never saw people who questioned the nature of God having greater Faith or having faith in the first place nor have I seen people of Faith questioning the nature of God. The fact is if a person questions the nature of God they don’t have Faith (saving Faith) they might ultimately obtain Faith ( saving Faith) but at that particular time they don’t have Faith (Saving Faith).
Comment by molly
6.54 am on 28 Oct 2006
55 Comments??????? Wow, Paul, I’m impressed!!!! :)
*completely off-topic comment, just to make it 56*
Comment by Paul
7.49 am on 28 Oct 2006
Molly (56), this is nothing Molls compared to some of the comment fests you have at your wonderful insightful generous site!
Comment by Paul
11.53 am on 28 Oct 2006
DH (55), thank you for your sharing. I admire your unquestioning of God. I understand what you are saying and i appreciate the distinction you make between God/circumstances. i can see how that can be most helpful in processing faith journey.
Personally for me I think I follow a God who invites me to question him, joining a long line of questioners from Moses to Jesus and on to me today. I appreciate that some people do not think it is right to question God, afterall he’s God but to me for the reality of my faith I think I need to do both question circumstances and where God is in those circumstances – I think for me that is the dynamic of my faith that makes it real rather than some sort of protected bubble which it has been in the past which all it need was put a great gulf in my life betweeen faith and reality.
This is of course a great mystery because to question God is to have faith in him to begin with even if that faith is not particularly great or perhaps from a God perspective it is greater as it is not me just tryin to trust me even when all circumstances seem against my faith and add more and more doubt.
I think what I appreciate most about this conversation is that it reminds me again that I can not objectively know Jesus – I can’t stick him in a vacum and study him – the reality is that I am in a relationship with Jesus and know his revelation from that relationship. Which is a useful thing to reminds my self of.
Comment by Graham
9.46 pm on 29 Oct 2006
Having read DH’s posts, I would like to share a thought: Do we have the right to limit Jesus to only that which we read of and think we understand from the Bible? I mean, if Jesus is the Word, the creator, and we are mortal men and women, sinners cut off from God by our self-centredness, our understanding of him is pretty miniscule, compared to his magnitude. We know that the best way to know him is through the Cross and faith in his work of Shalom. But how do we know that he can’t and doesn’t speak to others through other means?
I’ve always stuggled with the unjust condemnation of people to eternity apart from Christ, because they never got a chance to hear the Gospel (something that’s even a reality in our own British society today, if we’re to believe some commentators) and respond in faith.
Who am I to say that he won’t use other means to reveal himself to these people, giving them the opportunity to know the truth and respond to it?
I’m not being a universalist, because I still believe he is the way to God. I’m just not sure that we understand or know enough about that which is beyond our very limited human understanding to dogmatically say “our way is the only way” and, thereby, we begin to limit Christ to our level (not that we ever can, thank God!).
This is one of the issues that has perplexed me for many years, but the more I’ve become aware of the radicalness of Christ, the more I’ve felt peaceful about my lack of understanding of him and the possibility that he is far greater than I can ever comprehend and is able to reach people in ways we would never believe or understand.
Comment by tas
10.05 pm on 29 Oct 2006
thanks for kicking off this discussion paul, (i know i’ve joined it a bit late) something I’ve been mulling over a lot recently is the mysterious and not-often-discussed-enough trinity.
I think for me it is hard to seperate the three persons but i often do. It may be a whole other tangent but how about our emerging views of Jesus as the image of all three – Father, Spirit, Son?
And Jesus as the key guide in our search to be included in the Holy Community of Three (Trinity).
i know this is a slight different tack but I feel it is relevant as a huge thing for me about my emerging/whatever-you-want-to-call-them views of God is that they are trying to be holisitic, and definitely holistic rather than balanced. because if God is a community of 3-in-1/1-in-3 there will always be tensions, some characteristics come forward more at some times in our life than others. and also it seems that if we look at the broad sweep of time God does seem to interact differently as time progresses (forgive generalisation but it seems to flow)…
Creator/Father/Yahweh etc
then Messiah/Jesus/Christ
then Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ in all of us(church)
i digress, but those are few of my (preliminary) thoughts!
Comment by Paul
12.59 pm on 30 Oct 2006
Graham (59) – thanks for your thoughts. I think it is an important issue you raise which is the balance between Christ the revelation of God and how much comprehension/connection we have with him the Revelation through relationship. It is in the context of that relationship, to follow him in participating in the Kingdom of God that we begin to know something of him, i would suggest but the context of the Kingdom of God is an eternal one, a life now and eternal life to come. In that sense just as I swing between the humanity and divinity of christ i also find myself pulled between the mysterious nature on the one hand of Christ and his self disclosure nature on the other.
Trying to find a balance between the 2 is hard and I for me my faith journey is often about stepping out of that place of tension to one leaning or anther only to find that does not match the experience of the relationship so to step back in again if that makes sense?
How do you and other people find that tension? What do you do in response to it?
As for how Jesus reveals himself, St Paul is an excellent example of direct revelation of Christ. I have also met someone in the last few yrs who had a dream of Jesus and followed him even tho she had never read a bible, was a muslim by ancestrol faith but lived in communist albania. Interestingly enough in her story it turns out that some missionaries posing as tourists had visited her town when she was little and taken her picture and had been praying for her. With the collapse of communism these missionaries came back and she remembered them – they were pretty surprised to find this gal following Christ she had no other way of knowing except thru his direct revelation…
Mystery…self disclosure/revelation – what part do we play in being little christ’s, offering both to the world, I wonder?
Comment by Paul
1.11 pm on 30 Oct 2006
tas (60) welcome to the conversation and thank you for your (preliminary) thoughts. I think you raise something of that mystery/disclosure that I put in my last comment (61).
I think you give touch on something of that in terms of Jesus who is the image of God (if you’v seen me you’ve seen the Father) and the human who was empowered 100% by the Holy Spirit and thus divine in nature although not all seeing, knowing etc. Jesus then for me almost turns the spotlight back onto the other members of the trinity as much as the other two turn it back on him – so that there are moments like Jesus baptism where they seem to be sharing joint revelation and other moments where it fades to black apart from Jesus – some of the moments on the cross remind me of that…
That then makes me wonder about how Jesus adds to the mystery of the trinity – and also what he discloses about the nature of God – in some sense that for me is again something mysterious about atonement the interaction of God is hidden and I see it like i am looking the wrong way thru a telescope, clutching at metaphors to even begin to comprehend it… on the other hand i know God is personal, incarnational, relational because that is what Jesus embodies, God who wants to be known in a way that we can comprehend and copy…
Hmmm what do other folks think about what the spotlight of the trinity reveals about Jesus and what Jesus reveals by shining the spotlight on the other members of the trinity…?
Comment by dh
3.45 pm on 30 Oct 2006
Graham, I see what you are saying but that God’s revelation is always consistent to the Word of God. God can reveal things to people outside of the Word of God but what He reveals to them is from the Word of God. It is through the Word of God that discernment is made. Many times I will hear things praying and when talking to God. When I hear something I always compare that to what God says and how it is consistent to Gods Word.
Graham how are we to say that God’s judgement is unjust? At the same time I believe all of us are without excuse. When onereads Romans 1 one can get an understanding of that. I also don’t limit God to think that God won’t speak to all who seek Him. I Believe that to all who seek Him wherever they may be on the planet that Christ will be revealed to all of them. I haveFaith to Believe that everyone is without excuse and that Christ is the only way as God says in His word. Even God says “there is no other way that one can be saved.” If He says this should we not Believe it or think there is another way when He says there is only one way? I don’t think so. However, everyone on this planet who seeks after God, Christ will be revealed to those people and at that point they are without excuse and either accept or reject.
Paul, I admit Moses questioned but the questioning was never of the nature of God. He at all times Believed that God was/is God but it was the circumstances that he was trying to determine God’s will in. With Jesus, being that He was all times God, His questions were one of the pain and the events He was facing. He was saying “I know there is no other way to accompish this but if there were I would want that over this”. The “why have you forsaken Me.” Jesus being God He knew so He wassaying “Your forsaking Me is so difficult.”
I believe that Jesus was at times God. He was more than human empowered 100% by the Holy Spirit. He was 100% God with 100% human nature. I just don’t believe there were things He didn’t know.
Comment by dh
4.32 pm on 30 Oct 2006
I thought I would add a true story of aremote village. In Papua New Guinea, it was during cannebalism. A young man became dissillusioned with his people yet he followed to a tea the religion of the people. Hisdisillusionment reached a point where he prayed. God if the god I worship is not the true God send someone to tell me. If not I will follow my own god and know it is teu. I will give you 30 sunrises and 30 sunsets. It happened after praying for 29 days that he was hunting he met a white faced man. The white man was scared but the native gave his the sign of peace. He shared with him in his native tongue all about Christ. At that point He knew who God was and in the end the whole village came to Christ.
I believe every person who has the heart of this native will have Christ revealed to Him. I have Faith to know that all people are without excuse. It may not seem possible that every person who seeks after God will have it revealed to them but I by Faith Believe it. That also is not to say that everyone who has Christ revealed to Him will Believe but everyone who seeks Him will have it made available to them while on earth just like God’s Word says.
TAS, on side note, I feel the Father is the image of all three, Jesus is the image of all three and the HS is the image of all three; thus making it thethree in one. So I agree and totally love your post but I would add this little clarification.
Comment by Paul
1.53 am on 31 Oct 2006
DH (63), thanks very much. I read Graham more as not questioning God per se but more our own understanding of God’ judgement. Although we like to reduce these to down to a logical set of steps that can often feel cold/unconnected when as St Paul says himself he only knows in part. We know a part and can act on that part as much as we comprehend it but that doesn’t mean that I when I know in fullness won’t mean I won’t be saying Doh, doh, doh – i totally assumed the rest of it wrong :).
I can see where you are coming from on God/Moses but to me Moses questioning God’s judgement in choosing him his questioning the nature of God i.e. God you are wrong about me, about this plan etc. Just my take and no less susceptable to a case of Doh’s than anythinge else I’ve said.
Comment by Paul
1.57 am on 31 Oct 2006
DH (64), i am intrigued by your comment that you:
“feel the Father is the image of all three, Jesus is the image of all three and the HS is the image of all three; thus making it thethree in one.”
I would love it if you would unpack your thoughts a bit more for me about what you mean/think? Thank you.
Comment by dh
3.34 pm on 31 Oct 2006
To me I think it is easy to overly seperate the Trinity when in fact they are all three seperate natures but one as the three in one. I have always thought the three forms of water was the closest example of the Trinity. Ice(Father)=H20(God), water(Jesus)=H2O(God) and steam(Holy Spirit)=H20(God). When Jesus says “when you see Me you have seen the Father” I think He is referring to the Trinity in that when you see anyone of the three you have seen God. When Jesus says “I AM” He is also acknowledging the Trinity. To me Jesus at all times and while on earth was at and is all times God. I Believe He took on the form of man but that is different than being human in everyway. I Believe He was tempted but I Believe that He was God with the ability, which we don’t have, to not sin. I Believe He knew all things being God while He was on earth. I don’t believe He had like a cloak but it was a form of that not in the extreme sense. If you have questions or give insight from my statements it would be great. To me the explainations of a more human Jesus take away His true nature of being fully God on earth. Hense, “when you seen Me you have seen the Father”.
How can you see Moses questioning the nature of God? Moses never said God wasn’t God. Moses might have thought He wasn’t worthy or had the ability but that is different than saying “I don’t Believe you are God”. Also, in the end Moses agreed with God to be the messenger to Pharoah.
Comments are now closed.