I like your term "Biblian." In previous threads about the Red-Letter movement I used the term "Biblist." Either way, I rarely see this concept discussed and I think having a term for it can go a long way in discussions of what is most important in the Christian life.

A great way to apply it in one of the current hot-button wedge issues of our time is in the debate over evolution. There are many who believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are not intended to provide a historical narrative of the beginnings of the physical universe, but rather to illustrate our relationship with God. The easy way is to take a literalist view of Genesis, and say "This is how it happened. Now we know." A more thoughtful approach is to ask what the story of the seven-day creation, the tree and the snake means for us now, and put aside questions of whether it is literally true or not.

I wonder if Satan loves to see us bickering about literal truth of Genesis and fighting over a possibly false creation-vs-evolution dichotomy, while missing a more important message that God intended.

Posted by: I and I | November 16, 2007 11:34 AM

Those are pretty sweeping generalizations Moreland employs to describe American evangelicals who are, I submit, just as diverse as any other religious community. (The cognitive error he commits, by the way, is known as "outgroup homogeneity bias").

In 30 years as a member of a large, reformed, evangelical denomination, I have not met anyone who fits his description. I've know a lot of really smart, committed people who can intellectually match anyone in the secular world. I've know a lot who have traded lucrative careers for missionary service in dirty, remote, poor third world settings. I've know many others who give both time and money to minister to prisoners and their families.

Everyone knows there are a few mean-spirited and ignorant nut jobs out there, mostly because they get a lot of media attention and spend a lot of time posting on the internet. The vast majority of evangelicals I have known are busily serving Christ unnoticed by the media, and it would seem, Mr. Moreland.

Posted by: Steve | November 16, 2007 11:53 AM

I was reared evangelical, "received Christ" back in 1979 and hold the virtually all the correct "positions," so to speak, so I don't think my evangelical bona fides should be in question. However, my hero of the Christian faith is and has always been Martin Luther King Jr., who would not qualify for the Evangelical Theological Society because he rejected the inerrancy of Scripture, because through the civil-rights movement I truly began to understand what the Gospel of Jesus Christ was about.

Ironically, I found that many of the people who were defending the "inerrancy" of the Scripture, many of them Calvinists (my background) had little interest in acting on what they supposedly believed in the Scripture, never really fleshing it out. Mohandas Gandhi noted this hypocrisy when he lived in South Africa, noting that many Christians "don't practice what they preach," and for that reason he never embraced Christianity. Today I'm in a church that has some of its theology "wrong" but is doing a ton of work in the community in addition to evangelism and foreign mission work. It's not how much you know; it's what you do with what you know.

The kind of stance that Moreland was corrently denouncing causes two things: It gives Christianity 1) a "bunker mentality" and 2) a desire for cultural supremacy at the expense of everyone else, because we don't really have faith in the God Who sustains us as we go out into the world to do His business. It also lends itself to the "secular/sacred" split that existed in Greek philosophy and certain church cultures but not in the Scripture

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 16, 2007 12:39 PM

I rejected Biblicism for the Apostolic Succession. I believe that truth is conveyed by bishops in communion with each other under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I've noticed that many evangelical leaders live in terror of the concept of Bishops--probably because they would have to submit their preaching to a higher authority and they would have to balance their beliefs with 2000 years of the Spirit leading the church into truth.

I believe that one gets closer to the truth through the three-legged stool of Scripture, tradition, and reason (I'm an Episcopalian) or the chair of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (Methodists).

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 16, 2007 1:50 PM

I and I,

"I wonder if Satan loves to see us bickering about literal truth of Genesis and fighting over a possibly false creation-vs-evolution dichotomy, while missing a more important message that God intended."

You know he does!

Well said.

Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 2:38 PM

I know this isn't a forum on evolution, but does anyone have a feel for why old earth creation views are so unpopular? Why is everyone so polarized? Why does Ken Hamm pull in so much more money than, say, Hugh Ross? Look at all the online surveys that pop up forcing one to choose either evolution or literal 6-day creation, with "none of the above" never proffered.

Evolution is not the only interpretation that can be ascribed from the geologic record, and literal 24 hour days are not the only possible "literal" interpretation of Genesis. Maybe one reason there is so much fighting is that both extremes are really untenable, and each sees the other's weaknesses but not his own?

Posted by: Steve | November 16, 2007 2:58 PM

"I think one thing needs to be made clear in this discussion: the bible is a totally human document."

While I think this is the direction the post-modern church is going, and why it will eventually fade away, I think you will even find disagreement with this in emergent circles. Suffice to say, I disagree completely.

"It is these positive characteristics that should inspire us because they come from the human heart and mind which means it is possible to do them. Jesus is a human possibility!"

On what basis do you say this? You are denying the deity of Christ. That is your perogative, of course (though it is blasphemy), but on what basis shall we believe that any of Christ's actions were real? Effectively, you are calling him a liar (or suggesting that he has been misquoted) when he describes himself as the son of God.

"We should be inspired to follow Jesus because he is a human possibility not because we hope it will save our skins someday but because that is what it means to be human."

And yet no human has replicated his existence. This is why the resurrection, the virgin birth et al... Are so important. He was decidedly not human, but came to the earth in human form because God so loves us.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 16, 2007 4:09 PM

The issue that should be addressed: Is Christ reflected in our actions and attitudes based upon our communion with Him? Without that question all the rest is irrelevant. The Pharisees, for example, had the Law but clearly didn't know the God Who gave that Law, which is why they twisted it so badly that Jesus had to give them the business.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 16, 2007 4:52 PM

Jackfate,

"We should be inspired to follow Jesus because he is a human possibility not because we hope it will save our skins someday but because that is what it means to be human."

I don't think it is an either/or proposition. We can trust Christ's sacrifice to save our skins, but we should also be inspired to follow Him because He made it possible for us to be like Him. It is only a human possibility because of what He did on the cross. And it isn't a perfect human possibility because none of us can do it perfectly like Him. But our failure isn't the focus--He is. And our focus on Him transforms us to resemble Him more and more with our thoughts, words, and deeds.

Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 5:56 PM

Perhaps it is time to get beyond Jesus as a male and understand what Rabbi Hillel did, 100 years BEFORE Christ walked the earth a man and Resurrect the Book of WISDOM;

That the Protestant Reformers threw out, but the Roman Catholics retained.

The following is excerpted from WISDOM 7:22-8:1:

In Wisdom is a spirit intelligent, holy, unique.

Manifold, subtle, agile, clear, unstained, certain.

Not baneful, but loving the good,

Keen, unhampered, beneficent, kind,

Firm, secure, all-powerful, all-seeing

And pervading all spirits.

Wisdom is mobile beyond all motion and SHE penetrates and pervades all things by reason

SHE is the aura of the might of God and a pure effusion of the glory of The Almighty

SHE is the refulgence of eternal Light, a spotless mirror of the power of God

And SHE who is one, can do all things and renews everything

And passing into holy souls from age to age,

SHE produces friends of God and prophets...

Proverbs 9: 4-6:

*Wisdom has built her house and SHE calls to all; "Come, eat my food and drink my wine and you will live abundant life and walk in the ways of understanding."

Wisdom calls; "I have built it; will you come? Do you have eyes to see and ears to hear?

Holy Wisdom, the Feminine Divinity: Hokema,

Who was with The Word from the very beginning,

She is One with Him and He with Her;

Pure Being; One God;

One Creator; One Lover of All the Human Family...

Let me tell a little story to illuminate you, if you haven't heard the one about the Rabbi Hillel,

Who lived 100 years before The Christ walked the earth

That wise Rabbi knew that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema; Holy Wisdom;

The Feminine Divinity

Was the same as the Greek understanding of

The Logos:

The Word.

It was Paul and John who first understood

The Word was good and

The Word was The Logos

The Word is The Christ.

It was John on Rubber Soul who intuitively knew:

"The Word is just The Way and The Word is Love"

Please listen to me

+

Use your imagination,

For as William Blake understood:

"IMAGINATION is EVIDENCE of The Divine"

Before Christ walked the earth a man,

He was already a SHE:

Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity

Now, and isn't that Good News?

The God Head is One Pure Being;

as much male as female

as much mommy as daddy.

And we are all children of Her Universe;

And **He is the oldest personality because He is the origin of everything;

and everything is born of Him.

He is the supreme controller of the universe,

the maintainer and instructor of humanity.

He is smaller than the smallest.[**Bhagavad-Gita]

He indwells the heart of every atom and

She is beyond the Universe.

Wisdom is calling,

She is rattling your windows and shaking your walls

With some more good news of the

three witnesses,

and three always beats one

and not just that,

I've got a fourth.

Get out your Good Book sisters and brothers and chew on this;

Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10

are simpatico with gnostic Thomas saying 44:

'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."

Listen to me, God is within every sister, brother and all Creation,

Wake up to your own divinity and

Get a clue Christian:

His ways are not your ways and Her thoughts are not your thoughts

Dominion never meant to rape and plunder,

but to nurture, care and love

And if you have not love, you have nothing at all

And on that final day we all will stand naked before The Creator

And we have been warned that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth

by those who were so sure they were in, because they are the ones left out.

WAKE UP Christian!

Hear the wind begin to howl...

The term 'Christian' was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth a man.

Jesus was a social, justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authorities by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God already LOVED them just as they were:

Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.

What got Jesus crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces of his time, by teaching the subversive concept that Caesar only had power because God allowed it and that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Occupation above the elite and arrogant !

The early followers and lovers of Jesus were called members of THE WAY-being THE WAY he taught one should be;

Nonviolent, a Peacemaker and one who did the will of the Father and his sisters and brothers where those that DID the will of the Father.

+

"What does God require? He has told you o'man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord." -Micah 6:8

2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning.

When Jesus said: "Pick up your cross and follow me."

He was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads in Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any others who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.

Jesus remained NONVIOLENT and forgiving even while being mocked, whipped and nailed to a cross and he promised that it is the Peacemakers who are the children of God.

copyright 2006
Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor
Http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu."

Posted by: Eileen Fleming | November 16, 2007 6:33 PM

[The problem with evoking the "freedom" to discard certain Biblical texts is that we may then choose which texts to discard.

[He was decidedly not human, but came to the earth in human form because God so loves us.]

kevin s
Jesus asked the 'lawyer' in Luke 10 for his 'understanding' of the law. He also said that the sabbath was made for man, rather than vice versa. I don't think it should be a matter of discarding texts. Rather, to come into relationship with God and God's purpose/work. The 'Red Letter' movement was/is a response to those who while calling Jesus Lord, seem to discard his teachings. If we believe that Jesus gift of grace and peace fufills/completes the previous gift of the law; I believe we would then see the balance of scripture through the lens of Jesus. Another label or group in the church is the last thing the body of Christ needs, I believe. Yet if we lovingly look at and work with each other as part of that body; perhaps we will be able to fufill our call.

I would say that the Bible declares Jesus to have been 'human' and to have been 'God'. No, I can't explain that. The beliefs that Jesus was only one or the other have been argued since the resurection. Your statement surprises me.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 7:45 PM

Again thank you Eileen. Only mystics will understand what you are talking about. That's the sad part. But my hope is that the truth of each man's divinity and image bearing status must be seen, loved and adored. We must do that thru just policy, personal choice and simple acts of kindness.

My prayer is that we start to recognize the inherent worth of our fellow Latin American peoples. It was not too long ago that our ancestors were illegal immigrants. I think we need to respect the work they do and create just wages for them, give amnesty where it is warranted and be just. This new law is not right. It's spirit is similar to the fugitive slave law and that blasphemes God's spirit.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 16, 2007 10:00 PM

Many evil, wicked things have been done and/or defended in the name of "Christianity." Some used it to defend slavery, Hitler used it to defend his abominable actions. The KKK claimed to be a Christian organization. How did they do this? By allowing external interpretation of scripture.

Not exactly. The problem is that Christianity became an institution, and whenever it receives cultural sanction or official recognition it starts to lose its power -- in other words, once it becomes more accepted it becomes watered down. Always.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 16, 2007 10:36 PM

Rick,
You are partly right. You said, "once it becomes more accepted, it becomes watered down." In reality, it's the other way around: Once it becomes watered down, it becomes more accepted.

The logical question is, how does it become watered down? I submit that it becomes watered down when Christians quit studying the Bible and resort to making it all about their feelings and experiences.

Posted by: Bradley | November 16, 2007 11:08 PM

Bradley,

I say this not to pick a fight w/ you but to point out how evangelicals like yourself get it wrong. You said:
The logical question is, how does it become watered down? I submit that it becomes watered down when Christians quit studying the Bible and resort to making it all about their feelings and experiences.

The bible especially the prophets are all about obedience and a case study in what happens when we let our emotions and experiences w/ God shape how we respond to his call on our lives. The bible is a holistic book that uses everything God gave us to reveal who we really are.

That's why the persecuted church has a much stronger faith than many in the west. They have less bibles maybe a book if that and yet they actually have faith and they let those experiences and the emotions they bring up shape how they respond to persecution and the call to love your enemies.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 16, 2007 11:53 PM

kevin s: Thank you for your comments. I am not surprised you totally disagree with my views.

“...I think this is the direction the post-modern church is going, and why it will eventually fade away...

I think the Christianity should either fade away and die or change. Somehow we need to move beyond a literal understanding of the bible. Instead of asking “did these stories really happen” we should be asking what do these stories mean? For instance, what does it mean to call Jesus “Lord?” I think it is a political statement. Roman emperors were called “Lord” (for that matter Augustus was also called divine - of divine birth, savior of the world, deliverer, redeemer, bringer of peace, as well as “lord” and other titles the followers of Jesus used for him). To call Jesus “Lord” means that Augustus is not. It would be the equivalent of putting a bumper sticker on your VW in 1939 Nazi Germany that would say something like: “Jesus is my Furher, Hitler is not.” Calling Jesus Lord today has lost that political edge it had in the first century and that is what is missing in Christianity today.

“...You are denying the deity of Christ...he describes himself as the son of God. ...”

Actually, he describes himself as the “son of man.” And... am I denying the deity of the Christ? I guess that depends upon what you mean by “deity” or the divine. I no longer accept the concept of a great big father-like figure that lives above the sky who controls everything on earth and intervenes from time to time in history to guide and control events. My concept of what God is like is Jesus. He was a fully human being (son of man) with the “divine” ability to live a nonviolent life, love unconditionally, show compassion wastefully, and care enough about changing the world to die for what he believed in. That is the Jesus we should follow and imitate.

“...no human has replicated his existence...”

Maybe not... totally. But many have come close. Ghandi and King to name two. It is about changing the world today not about saving or own skins or going to heaven. As John Dominic Crossen has said: “Heaven is just fine... earth is where the problems are!”

Posted by: jackfate | November 17, 2007 10:23 AM

Thank you Eileen! I appreciated your comments. There are many spiritual traditions out there but many times Christians put themselves in a box and refuse to see them.

Posted by: jackfate | November 17, 2007 12:07 PM

I think a strong case is there for accuracy and inerrancy in Genesis when properly understood. I take it that way - and I don't think it has to be just 10,000 years - that was Bishop Ussher's calculation, not God's!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 17, 2007 1:09 PM

Deryll,
Dangit! I was hoping to have an Igor posting on here! He's very jealous that I chose to use Squeaky's name for my moniker...We've had a rash of anonymous posters recently, so I thought you might be one of them, and I was hoping to attach some identity to them. next time, I guess.

Cheers

Posted by: squeaky | November 17, 2007 2:29 PM

have a friend whose nephew was really turned off to God while attending a Christian high school that didn't allow any kind of critical thinking.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin

Rick was not refering to Bush or his cronies . Just every day eletes of this world that God makes to look foolish .

Know anyone who was healed Rick by the Love and Grace of the Lord ? Spirtuality and Physically ?
Not all things I say revolve around your hatred for conservatives and Bush . The Christians in my world , the ones I deal with are not political at all . Check that , I have four good friends I meet for dinner every month or so who have nbeen involved with politics who know the Lord , thats it . Many Christians in my denomination and others like me see politics different then what you do . Who ever Bush really is , sincere or not , the Iraq war took the opportunity away he had as promoter of the Faith . Too bad , sound like your glad , that is too bad too .

"Well, here's the problem with the Bible: It's a literary document, not a scientific one, written in a way that the people of that day and culture could understand. I saw that even as a child, and as a writer I understand that today."

Well I have no problem with the Bible , but I agree with your premise . When we say the sun is going down , the earth is moving , not the Sun actually going down . The Bible speaks to our heart , not to E =MC2

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 17, 2007 4:11 PM

Mick--how many scientists do you actually know? I'm just curious, because it seems you have broadbrushed them all as arrogant smarty-pantses.

Well I have broad brushed academia in that way in my mind I guess. Not many , My brother has a Masters in Nuclear Physics . He is not a believer , and really have not discussed this kind of stuff with him . Not many scientists do I know , one fella I know who is a an envirmnomental scientists , but he is so against the envirnomental agenda from out here I even think he is wrong about certain things. I like fresh air myself .

I just go by what the HS science teachers here say . But don't even you scoff at the notion of Creation , your a pure evolution God helped it along view yourself right ? I tend to listen to both sides , and yes I am quite open to creation , not the 6000 year deal , not even the 7 24 hour day deal , but evolution has had some serious holes in it from what I have read . In fact , evolutionists often disagree with others who yet claim all the facts they are using are correct . Kind of funny if you take the passion out , I am right , no I am more right then you , and all those guys over there , they are all wrong .

You

It doesn't have to be us vs. them. check out Francis Collins, and you will understand what I mean. Check out Hugh Ross as well.

Me

I will try , off to work now . Remind me if you can . Am interested , I have read some really neat articles about some views , especially now witht he advances of micro biology , I believe the guy who wrote Darwins Black Box has one out . So I am an amateur , and a science view from eithside could make mince meat out of me . I could not prove you right Squeaky or the Creation side by using science . But notice Rick's retort , you get a negative view of Bush for crying out loud . Like bush could even pronounce evolution alone explain it .People have issues with Christians , in Ricks case conservative Christians , so they tend to pile on I think the rhetoric .

Not meaning to offend here , honest . But this site has gone way hostile , and I with it . So please understand , I just want to understand . Ok ?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 17, 2007 4:32 PM

But notice Rick's retort, you get a negative view of Bush for crying out loud.

You missed the bigger issue -- and deliberately so. For the past three decades or so religious "conservatives," who ultimately are deeply insecure about their faith in God, have tried to remake science into a political agenda because in their insecurity they can't stand anyone who disagrees with them.

That's the point about "Biblians," who often beat people over the head with Scripture but in the process take it completely out of its context. In essence they're latter-day Pharisees, who can quote it backwards and forwards but miss its deeper meaning, let alone the God Who revealed it. It's that kind to whom Jesus said, "I never knew you!" -- and that kind of response always gets my attention. Better that God be allowed to enter an open heart and do His work within.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 17, 2007 4:47 PM

Jesus was not human, but took the form of a human. I don't know what is controversial about that.

It's outright heresy, leaning toward what's known as Gnostisicm. If you're saying that he never sinned like a human you're correct, but he certainly was a human.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 17, 2007 5:27 PM

I think people often get so ingrained in their interpretation of Scripture, they don't question if they have interpreted it correctly--AND they are afraid to do that because they think they are so correct, that to question it equates to blasphemy in some's minds.

Right. Let's take the term "born again," which is often used as an appeal to "salvation." But that's not at all what Jesus meant by the term -- if you examine the context, He clearly was saying to Nicodemus, "If you don't adopt God's viewpoint you will not understand what He is doing in the here and now."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 17, 2007 5:44 PM

Rick, I have examined the context and I'm afraid that I see no reason to accept your interpretation. Interesting to see Sojourners sliding towards theological as well as political liberalism.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | November 17, 2007 6:23 PM

Interesting. Moreland edited "The Creation Hypothesis", a book largely authored by some Evangelicals who are over-committed to the Bible.

Posted by: Whatever | November 17, 2007 9:07 PM

"...my concept of God has been blown up.." Squeaker

Let us then pray for Squeaky, the apostate.

Posted by: canucklehead | November 17, 2007 9:33 PM

Thanks for your prayers, Canucklehead.

Posted by: squeaky | November 17, 2007 9:53 PM

Rick,
You will not find me defending watered-down Conservative churches any more than watered-down Liberal ones. I am not familiar with the particular conservative church about which you were speaking, but I would guess that if you asked random parishoners to defend their beliefs with scripture, they could not do it, (at least not accurately and effectively) not because those beliefs are not reconcilable with scripture, but because they have not studied the scripture. However, if you minimize the importance of scripture, then all that is left is people's opinions and what makes yours any better than anyone else's?

Posted by: Bradley | November 17, 2007 11:26 PM

I believe in intelligent design, but I am not committed to a "young earth" view. It may be young, it may be old. Either way, it does not affect my belief that God created it.

It is he who rejects intelligent design that cannot afford to be wrong on the age of the earth. If it were to be proven tomorrow (which I do not believe it could ever be proven, though it very well may be true) that the earth were 350 million years old, it woud not affect my belief in creation at all. However, if it were to be proven that the earth were only 10,000 years old, the humanist's entire belief system on origins would be vaporized. It is no wonder that the humanists are so beligerent in demanding that their theory on origins be taught at the exclusion of all other theories.

What we have is not the clash of religion and science, but the clash of two religions, Humanism and Christianity (actually, Humanism and any religion that believes in a god.) Humanism is a system of belief that places ultimate emphasis on man. (Incidentally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the American Humanist Association, that they are a religious organization.) The humanists have clashed with the theists on a number of issues, as the existence of God proves to be quite a hurdle for the atheist,(Atheism is the theology of the humanist) most notably, the issue of origins.

By teaching as fact the Big Bang theory and the evolution of all life from single-celled organisms while removing all mention of creation, we have not removed religion from schools, rather, we have substituted one religious view of origins for another.

Posted by: Bradley | November 18, 2007 12:16 AM

"Consider that He got tired and slept; he wept; He told Thomas to put his hand into His hand and side after His resurrection. And you're going to say that He wasn't human? Puh-leeze!"

He was not human in the sense that Jack meant it. I am aware that he got tired. He also felt pain, and even died. If he was never human, then his resurrection and virgin birth were meaningless. But to say that he was ULTIMATELY human, is incorrect.

"Also, we were born into sin, not just capable of sin."

But Christ was not. Therefore, Jesus's life does not represent a possibility for humans.

This is all a matter of finding distinctions without differences.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 18, 2007 12:40 AM

If scientists get snarky about Creationists, it is because Creationists often disrespect them and broadbrush them, and close-mindedly refuse to learn anything that they think might threaten their view of Scripture (a view derived from a superficial reading of the Bible, I might add).

Posted by: squeaky

I think I understand exactly where your coming from now . Thanks .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 18, 2007 4:36 AM

"E.g., I have come to believe that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism and anti-communism, since an objective understanding of the point of reference must include that Jesus and his disciples were anti-capitalist and, in modern terms, communist. "

Unfortunately I don't think you will find too many people here who will debate this with you .
But you are missing the greater love of Christ , Believers can be found with liberal , conservative , socialistic , capitalistic , or communist view points . This statement really tells more about your self then it does about our Lord .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 18, 2007 4:45 AM

payshun,
In that case, the Holy Spirit just told me that I'm right and you're wrong. So, I guess that settles the argument, right?

(Of course, I'm only trying to make a point.)

As for whether Christianity is incompatible with capitalism, capitalism is actually rooted in Christianity. Socialism/Communism was responsible for the murder of more than 100 MILLION people in the last century. Also, I can provide you with a long list of quotes from the fathers of communism, from Marx to Lenin, to Stalin which all spell out that a good Communist MUST also be a committed atheist. You see, religion acts as a drug to the masses causing them to be too sedate to join the revolution. This is why the Communism has made religion it's sworn enemy.

Posted by: Bradley | November 18, 2007 8:20 AM

Matt,

First, your assertion about the moneychangers is flawed, in that Christ was furious with them, not because of unjust trade practices, but because they had turned His Father's house into a place of business. That being said, as a capitalist, I detest unfair trade practices as they are morally wrong and they artificially influence the market.

Second, I can defend capitalism over communism because communism is unjust and morally reprehensible. Capitalism is based on freedom, communism is based on slavery and oppression. Are there examples of immorality in capitalism? Absolutely. And what happens to the bad actors in those examples? They are punished under the law.

Thirdly, could you please give an example of how communism is rooted in Christianity?

Posted by: Bradley | November 18, 2007 1:37 PM

Jesus was fully human. Please see the Chalcedonian creed. He was like me in all things. See Hebrews. When you say Jesus was not a human, you are a Docetist. Or an Arian. Jesus was not "God in a man-suit." The Incarnation is a matter of degree, not difference. You might want to look up "Christology from below" for a fuller explanation.

It's interesting that liberals are accused of being heretics because they're not Docetists.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 18, 2007 2:24 PM

To your first point. One could of course say this assumption is flawed since he chose not to lay blame towards any one particular party. I think it's safe to assume,however, that it was, at least in part, the way they were operating that was so blasphemous, yes or no? Surely, simply turning his Father's house in to a place of business alone would not be why Jesus made the point he did. His point was not simply to scorn the money changers for being money changers.This scene IMPLIED shady business practices. Hence, to overtly send the message of theivery would have by then only stated the obvious. It was the overall wild and predatory scene within that market place that he used to make his point. If this type of scenario only involved a small and calmer crowd then he may well have had a different approach.

Regarding "bad actors" and "Communism over Capitalism": I just find this to be a silly philosophical debate for what is or is not "unjust and morally reprehensible." The law is always interpreted subjectivly. Nobody's basis of law is inherently undignified except for a government such as the Nazi government. There would be nonstop anarchy and the trains would not carry people from point a to point b with any consistenty if one was ALL THAT BETTER than the other. Bad actors escape and get prosecuted under the law in both systems. Mostly, when you know people that will sympathize with your cause then you are granted freedom at that moment, at least for that time being. Or, if there is a very handsome reward involved the rule of law almost always is subverted. The fact that some 2000 years has passed and immorality is still rountinely accepted proves that Communism AND Capitalism are inexorably deficient. It's an embarrasing insult to strenuously argue which one is innately more moral. But many people try to justify one over the other based NOT on things like happiness but material, worldy gain and prosperity. As a strongly spiritual man I do not use this as a basis for gauging my faith or fellow brethrens well-being, whatsoever.

Posted by: Matt | November 18, 2007 3:10 PM

"Also, Jesus could not have been sinless--any time he ate food, he was taking food from someone poor"
Posted by: Ashpenaz

Are you saying you understand sin and what it is better the God ? Are you not concerned that you looking at this as though you are god .

I would contend we need more of the Holy Spirit not less. I think the emphasis on scripture is really short sighted and masks a form of legalism that pretends to be righteousness.

p

Possibly so , but in my denomination I sometimes think we place too much emphasis in the gifts of the spirit . Maybe being from NJ I have a more warped view , but when people starting falling up instead of down , and healed more often then prayed for , I might be more apt to agree . Spirit filled folks can be self righteous with their gifts also , Paul discussued this also P .

Here are some scriptures that support the importance of what you said though .

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:13-15 (in Context) 1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" ;

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 18, 2007 3:59 PM

" Jesus was not "God in a man-suit."

I didn't say he was.

"Also, Jesus could not have been sinless--any time he ate food, he was taking food from someone poor."

There is no scriptural basis for the contention that eating is sin by virtue of depriving the poor.

"Even Jesus could not be free from sinning in a sinful system."

This contradicts scripture directly.

"Surely, simply turning his Father's house in to a place of business alone would not be why Jesus made the point he did."

The Bible says he was, and I can certainly see why he would be. The house of prayer became a place to do business. That is idolatry. We can infer that the money changers were engaged in unfair business practices, but the Bible gives us the reason why Jesus was so enraged.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 18, 2007 4:17 PM

Kevin,
If everything going on at that moment wasn't being carried out in such a greedy and fanatical way, Jesus would not have been so emotionally demonstrative. I'm sure you know there are more points in the Bible about idolatry than about any other sin. As in most ALL of his examples, he would have taught this particular lesson in the type of serene and collected way he knew so well. Had the money changers not compounded the situation and had been seen just as seething market hounds (like those on Wallstreet), Jesus would not have shown this side. Instead, he witnessed this frenzy, compounded by the callous and deceptive behavior happening between the money changers and the have nots.

Posted by: Matt | November 18, 2007 5:14 PM

Two things.

Kevin s. the heresy you've exposed in yourself is not gnosticism but rather 'Apollinarianism.' This is the belief that even though Jesus had a physical human body that he was entirely divine and not human (and still not human now). It may not be a perfect fit for what you believe but it's close. Interestingly it's a rejection of evangelical trinitarian beliefs so you wouldn't be accepted by the ETS. Of all the things you've ever written on these pages this is probably the most disconcerting.

In reading the posts I suspect that few bothered to actually read the CT article. Moreland was not advocating any liberalising of scripture. He was making the point that scripture refers to people hearing from God through other means (beyond Scripture), such as through prophecy and tradition. He points out the irony of Christians holding an inerrant view of scripture and then denying other sources of revelation which are referenced in inerrant scripture.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | November 18, 2007 7:00 PM

Matt, what's true is that most often a person's gods are remarkably constructed after their own image...

...the capitalist's god is one who's not necessarily disapproving of greed, but sees the wealthy as incidental benefactors of mankind...

...the radical leftist sees Jesus as "the first socialist" revolutionary not concerned with his personal peccadillos but angry with those of the wealthy elites, just as he is...

Whatever your own sin, it's the one of the other person your god is most incensed with!

We need a mirror god sometimes, to lend undeserved moral authority.

Posted by: Sam Dawkins | November 18, 2007 8:06 PM

Frankly, I don't care what Kevin S. believes. I just know it's of God that we burn him at the stake tomorrow night, 8 pm, at the Minnesota State Fair Grounds.

Bring bales.

And kerosene.

Let's let our light shine (see Matt. 5:16)

Posted by: canucklehead | November 18, 2007 9:12 PM

Moreso, I was simply saying that Christ does not represent a human possibility, and it denies his deity to say so.

That's not the point. Truth is, because of sin and outside of Him we're already condemned, so whether He represents a "human possibility" is moot. But I still don't understand why you said He was never human.

But there are also people on Wall St. who earn an honest living, and it is unfair to single them out as greedy.

Wall Street holds the lives and futures of many millions of people in its hands; therefore, it has greater responsibility.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 18, 2007 10:35 PM

Contrary to popular belief, (on this blog, at least) supporting capitalism is no way connected to defending greed. I do not believe that Christ in any way, shape or form approves of greed or overlooks it. If economics were a zero sum game, you might have a point in condemning it.

Which is an example of greed:
a.) A CEO who works hard and demands the same of his employees, always pushing them to be the best they can be. (What about a coach who puts his players through grueling practices and two-a-days and makes them run the same plays over and over and over?)

b.) An employee who expects to be paid more this year than he was paid last year, yet he has no plans to do any more work or become any more efficient, nor bring any additional value to his employer.

c.) How about someone who has a cell phone, an ipod, a flatscreen tv, cable or satelite and a car that is less than four years old, yet thinks that someone else should pay the bill for him to have a health insurance policy because he "can't afford it" (meaning, he has other priorities?)

I agree that greed is a terrible thing. I'm just not so naive as to believe that only "rich" people are capable of greed.

Posted by: Bradley | November 18, 2007 11:47 PM

"No, again, I did not make a comparison there"

Well, you said this:

"Had the money changers not compounded the situation and had been seen just as seething market hounds (like those on Wallstreet),"

Here is what I can deduce

-The money changes did, in fact, compound the situation.
-The money changers were seen only as seething market hounds.
-Those on Wall Street at also seen as seething market hounds.

If you don't want to make a comparison, don't use simile. If you didn't mean it, you didn't mean it, but I'm not trying to goad you into anything.

"Given your earlier statement that Jesus was 'incapable' of sin I'd suggest that leans more to 'Apollinarianism'"

Part of the problem I have with this discussion is that we are trying to oversimplify the mystery of the trinity. Whether Jesus was capable of sin depends on your definition of "capable", for starters. Was Jesus tempted by sin? Yes. Was this temptation part of his humanness? Yes. Could he have succumbed to temptation, thereby betraying God? No.

This is an altogther different discussion from whether Jesus is a human possibility, which he is not. Hence the comment that he was God in human form, which was an imprecise way of saying that he was simultaneously both (not neither). Jesus was without sin, and we are sinful by nature. This question is settled very quickly by examining scripture.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 19, 2007 12:49 AM

payshun,
In that case, the Holy Spirit just told me that I'm right and you're wrong. So, I guess that settles the argument, right?

By that same token I could use the bible to support most anything I think which I freely admit is not even there.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 19, 2007 2:01 AM

Ashpenaz,
Jesus didn't sin. Period. If he had, he wouldn't have been able to bear our sins on the cross. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that participating in fallen institutions is wrong; using them to do evil is.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | November 19, 2007 5:56 AM

"No one has really responded to my earlier posts, but in each case I mentioned, Jesus sins by participating in a sinful system."

I did, and I questioned your contention that eating was a sin by virtue of depriving another of food. Even if it is true that the poor were deprived (which is certainly debatable), there is no scripture to support the idea that this is inherently sinful, rather than simply a projection of the fallen status of man.

Now, can you address my statement that you notion of a sinful Jesus directly contradicts scripture?

Posted by: kevin s. | November 19, 2007 10:08 AM

"I'm still unclear on your position on Christ humanity in relation to His divinity. The orthodox view being that Christ was/is fully divine and fully human. "

I am reluctant to say that I disagree with this, as it is generally understood. To the extent that scripture implies that Christ remains fully human, it also refers to this as a great mystery, which is beyond our capacity to understand.

But the terminology has different connotations when discussing this with one who finds ridiculous the notion that Christ was the sinless son of God. Nonetheless, I should have said that Jesus is not SIMPLY human, rather than not human.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 19, 2007 12:05 PM

Paul says, "All have sinned." Literally, all. Including Jesus.

For more on the idea of corporate and social sin, see Walter Wink's The Powers That Be--a book frequently listed by McClaren and Wallis.

Also, see the prophets, who condemned, not individuals, but societies. If you participated in the sin of the society, you were as sinful as anyone else. Jesus condemns the sins of Sodom--meaning that everyone who was part of that inhospitable society was guilty of sin. In the same way, Jesus himself is guilty of participating in a sinful domination system.

All have sinned, according to Paul, because we are all part of a sinful, corrupt system. And that includes Jesus.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 19, 2007 12:31 PM

Ashphenaz,
Let me give you some things to think about.
Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:21 of Jesus "he knew no sin"
Hebrews 4:15 "was in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin"
Look also at Hebrews 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5

We also see challenging opponents to prove he has ever sinned (John 8:46), no one could.

We have no record of Jesus confessing sin or asking for forgiveness for Himself. The gospel have narratives of Jesus being tempted, but not one record of Him sinning. No record of Jesus making an offering in the Temple for sin.

I hope this helps your study of Jesus
Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | November 19, 2007 12:56 PM

Paul also contends that all have sinned save Jesus. Jesus stood against the corporate and wanton societal sin of the world, Rome and Palestine. But he did take on the sins of all time and made himself one w/ sin when he died. That could make him the living embodiement of sin ie death if we wanted to get technical but because he did not sin in it he rose again. Death could only keep the imperfect. Jesus rose again.

As for corporate sin God made provisions for the prophets to be excused from corporate sin if they spoke about the doom coming to the generation. Jesus did that and was there for exempt see the early chapters of Ezekiel's call as a watchman as an example of God protecting his prophets.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 19, 2007 1:26 PM

Jesus stood against the corporate and wanton societal sin of the world, Rome and Palestine. But he did take on the sins of all time and made himself one w/ sin when he died.

Well ... not exactly. By His own admission, He was sent first "to the lost sheep of Israel," and He saved His harshest rhetoric for the Pharisees.

The money changers were ripping off poor immigrants that only wanted to come and worship God. Jesus rightly went off on them because they were being denied the right to pray.

Nonsense. If you saw the way the temple was laid out it was clear why He was upset -- the merchants had set up shop in the Court of the Gentiles, and it was those people who were being denied access to God. That was why he said, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer [for all people],' but you have made it into a den of thieves."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 19, 2007 1:48 PM

Jeff -- We may disagree on politics, but I consider anyone saved by the blood of Christ and who recognizes Him as LORD as family. (My problems with some folks on this blog has to do with their understanding -- or lack thereof -- that He is really LORD.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 19, 2007 1:55 PM

Rick reiterates my original point that some here seem to just flatly reject or subconsciously choose to shy away from. Once again, His austere nature at that point was a result of the thievery, a double slap in the face due to the place in which this was being carried out. J.Christ would have more opportunities to recreate this story today. He would be busier than Santa Claus on X-mas Eve. We see such blatant disparity everyday, in "normal" situations. Perhaps this reality is too overwhelming or embarrasing to admit. But I suppose we have to call something normal. Perhaps we can understand now why Jesus told us not to accept this kind of normal behavior!

Posted by: Matt | November 19, 2007 4:52 PM

Hey Jeff I appreciate your careful observation for the text. But the fact that they were in the wrong place provided the impetus for Him to be there, to teach this lesson in the first place. Maybe He sojourned there not expecting to see what He did. Of course He found it important to convey that that ground was being used improperly. Again, that's why He went there, I reckon.

But in the majestic manner with which He acted, I don't think His overall primary message had to do with where or where not to pray. Can you imagine Jesus acting this way if when He arrived He had witnessed an upstanding, orderly style of behavior happening between merchants and patrons? That would be something one of the Roman's would do, just to make the boldest statement possible and to let their presence be known. Maybe subconsciously we'd like to think someone like Jesus would have laid down the law like this for others wronging Him, but He was much more apt to stick up for others, not Himself.

People ignored His word time and time again. People disrespected His Father's commands over and over. I doubt that He went off b/c He felt tired of not being listened to. It was the WAY they were acting that provoked the outrage. What makes more sense, Jeff, Jesus becoming SO ANGRY because people chose to make their livelihood in a place they shouldn't have or that they were conducting business in an unsavory way on top of that?

Posted by: Matt | November 19, 2007 6:44 PM

Matt,
I can only go by what the text tells me. His zeal was for His Fathers house. Not an economic system or political cause. There is no need to speculate why Jesus had this great zeal when the text tells us.

Also, don't miss the wonderful lesson we can learn about worship in this story as told by Matthew. The contrast is the Triumphal entry worship and the Temple worship of the children who witness Jesus acts of healing.

Matt, your point may have some validity. I just don't see it in this scripture.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | November 19, 2007 7:14 PM

Trent,
I'm on the fence on whether Jesus was capable of sin. Leaning heavily towards the belief that He was capable of sin.

The purpose of Satan tempting Jesus would be to test Him. If He could resist sin this would prove He was the Son of God. The word translated "tempt" could also mean "test".

The view as you state it is the orthodox view, but is considered in play in many scholarly circles. The arguments for each side are compelling and too indepth to discuss here. It makes for a good study.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | November 19, 2007 7:39 PM

Jeff,
the temptations as a test of Christ's divinity simply doesn't work. Especially for the second one.
"If you are the son of God then throw yourself down and ..."

So if he resists temptation then he passes the divine test, but if he succumbs to temptation and is caught by angels as scripture promised then he also passes that divine test. And if he succumbs to temptation and isn't caught by angels then the scriptures were wrong.

Temptations as tests of divinity also work on the basis that Satan was cooperating with God on this (or that he was ignorant of the purpose of his own actions - i.e. under God's direction).

The straight reading, that Jesus was already affirmed (at Baptism) as the Son of God (and not needing further testing) and that the temptations were just that, temptations, makes a lot more sense. And they only make sense if Jesus were capable of sinning.

As to whether or not Jesus is to be a model for us, I would argue that he is. His life and deeds are well worth emulating, his teachings are worth living out. Not that we can attain perfection on our own (though we are made perfect in him). But more than that he is also a model of our future physical resurrection as the firstborn from the dead.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | November 19, 2007 8:23 PM

Payshun,
There are two accounts of the cleaning of the Temple, in John 2 and Matthew 21. In neither case is there any indication that Jesus spent a day observing temple practice before he cleaned it out. There is no evidence of a calculated plot in either account.
That said, the comments by yourself, Matt, and Jeff are all equally valid (and they're consistent with each other).
Jesus did want gentiles to have access to the temple for prayer; Jesus did have zeal for his father's house; Jesus did object to the merchandising of religion (but not to merchandising in general).
But there are no indications that it was the style of business that upset him, no indications that it was a calculated demonstration, no indication that it was a political statement (did Jesus know his acts would be recorded - probably yes; did he craft 'soundbites for posterity' - probably not).
Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | November 19, 2007 9:27 PM

Mick,
one of the hallmarks of orthodox Christianity is the trinity. Part of the trinity is that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. (It's called the Hypostatic Union). Any variation on this was deemed by the early church to be heretical.

If Jesus was fully man then he was able to sin. He faced the same types of choices and temptations and did not give into them.

Your argument that Jesus was unable to go against God because he was God doesn't work for other situations. God is all knowing, yet we know from Luke 2 that Jesus learnt and grew (so was not all knowing). God is indestructible yet Jesus hung on a cross to die and became tired and worn out.

I think the key element is that Jesus emptied himself and took on the very nature of a servant. He obviously emptied himself of imperviousness to harm, and of knowledge (else Luke 2 is wrong). We're coming up to Christmas when we remember Jesus as a weak and helpless babe.

It's possible, but improbable that Satan was merely testing or tormenting Jesus. It's more likely that he was tempting him. It is not temptation if you are unable to choose other than obedience. If you eat chocolate cake in front of me I might be tempted. If I watch you eat it over a video-link then I may be tormented, but I am not tempted because I am 'incapable' of having it.

Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane clearly indicates that his will is (somehow) separate from that of the Father. This also makes no sense if Jesus was incapable of disobedience or of straying from the path laid down for him.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | November 19, 2007 10:21 PM

Trent
Minor correction there are four accounts of clearing the temple. There is Mathew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, and John 2. Each gospel has their own version of the story. YOu are right though there is no calculated plot there. My bad.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 20, 2007 12:34 AM

Hi Jeff,
they're not heretics in my eyes either. I'm quite liberal and postmodern theologically, so a multitude of interpretations hold no fear for me.
The heresy comment earlier to Kevin s was more one of surprise because he's generally very orthodox and conservative in his views.

The question for me becomes, does this alternate view impact upon how we live our lives? The orthodox view sets Jesus up as a model to be followed (even if imperfectly) whereas the heretical view sets Jesus up as one who cannot be followed because we do not share his nature.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | November 20, 2007 1:05 AM

Trent,

Heresy is a strong word and I don't even know wht that exchange might have been. I know I have not insinuated or stated that in this forum or discussions at hand. But i do know that this word is used on blogs and in other situations too often. Heresy is a serious matter used as an accusation. There ought to be education about how to teach others this as an element of civil and social awareness. Health and receational training classes/programs, if you will.

Posted by: Matt | November 20, 2007 1:36 AM

My literalist background was left behind when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church, where "You don't have to leave your brain at the door." Much of the travail we (TEC), and others, are experiencing I believe comes from the conflict of misquotation, non-existant quotation and wished for quotation and only a very little from genuine interpretations of the Bible. I alwys keep in mind that it is almost impossible to actually "translate" from one language to another! There are nuances and such which just don't agree. Jesus did NOT speak Elizabethan English, the "Saint"KJV notwithstanding. The words which we study have gone through so many filterings we have no assurance that they are accurate at all.
Or if they were ever uttered at all! The Christ most certainly existed. There were variants in what he taught almost from the day of the Resurrection!
Rather than spend hundreds of hours straining at
gnats, why don't we see how we can each teach the LOVE, express the LOVE, share the LOVE, live the
LOVE of God every day of our lives. Let's let go,
and let GOD! I very firmly believe that God is getting some very good belly laughs at our puny attempts to define and control our Creator.
Striving to serve the Lord Christ,
Bob Associate Order of Julian of Norwich

Posted by: Bob | November 20, 2007 5:30 PM

Trent, I don't think anyone else is on the thread, either - :). Thx for the exchanges though.

Re your last comment: If any person engages in the art of story or rational dialogue with indifference then I certainly agree.

I think sometimes I get offended by the arrogant curmudgeon types that act incurious but find space and time to belligerently persist, usually to the point where people tune her or him out. We all know them. It's distracting and not a fun time. That's why I mentioned the classes and/or programs, ;). With that said, I'm actually even liberal when it comes to discussion on theology or whatever. There are so many who don't know how to properly discuss the overarching concept of biblical verse or tradition. One, like yourself, who enjoy and appreciate this branch of thinking, are often left to their own mercy. This bothers most people. But heck, if you weren't raised Catholic in my generation, then you probably don't know much about Church on Sunday, much less scripture. And I'm not referring to those who DID go to church on a minimal basis, say up until eleven or twelve years of age. Same goes for other important things, understood by some and not by others.

There's got to be a better way to integrate spirituality with our own human interests, especially in our Country. The Word of scripture is too bottled up for many who have grown up this way. I just don't see it pragmatic enough to expect them coming back to "home" in a new version of their general Church experience of the 1980s.

Matt

Posted by: Matt | November 21, 2007 10:33 AM

I've been saying this for years. The "Sword of the Spirit" is not the Bible (it didn't exist when Paul wrote those words so it would have meant nothing to his readers), it was the Word of God - Christ Jesus. The Bible holds no special powers, but there is great power in the Word of God. Reference John 1.

Posted by: Steve | November 21, 2007 2:13 PM

The problem to me is not the Bible.The problem is that these Christians(and I truly believe some of them are just using Christianity for political purposes) are just picking and choosing some of the Bible that agrees with their ideology. I was raised and attended a high school sponsored by conservative Christians. The same people who taught me the Bible was the inerrant word of God, conveniently focused almost no time on the book of James or taking care of the poor or helping those in prison etc. To me, the problem is picking and choosing only the verses you already agree with (i.e. abortion) and ignoring the cries to be nice to strangers in your land, care for the poor, widows, orphans etc.

Posted by: Millie | November 21, 2007 5:10 PM

If Jesus was fully man then he was able to sin.

Trent said

Thank you Trent , you explained your views quite well . The Trinity is accepted in my belief also . Just that the Holy Ghost , God the Father , and Jesus are all one . No part of the Trinity is greater then the other . I guess that is what I hard for for me to completly understand the concept of Jesus being able to sin . Jesus was always , Father , Son and Holy Ghost were always .

For that matter the best way I have ever heard the Trinity explained is the anology of a Pie , you have the crust m, filling, and whipped cream on top .

Trent said

God is all knowing, yet we know from Luke 2 that Jesus learnt and grew (so was not all knowing).

Yes , which confuses the heck out of me . Because Jesus is God .

Trent said

God is indestructible yet Jesus hung on a cross to die and became tired and worn out.

Now my brain is hurting ,

God Bless , Thanks .

I think .. ;0)

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 21, 2007 7:35 PM

If Red Letter Christians didn't look, act and sound so much like black letter Humanists (secular progressives) there wouldn't be any schism between those that hold value in what Jesus and the Apsotles put down as foundational truth, for believers to follow and followers to believe.

At the end of the day of debate, Progressives want us to bow to Humanism Manifesto and its "new truths" and to discard the "faith delivered once to the saints."

In other words, those that espouse the "Red Letter" only desire their edited versions and secularized ideology of those red letters. The ones that fit the worldly and secular worldview. Evangelicals hold to truth. Christian truth cannot change for political movements.

Posted by: Donny | November 22, 2007 7:30 AM

Mick,

There are just some things that are too hard for us humans to understand such as The Trinity or as Saint Patrick said 3 in one just like a Shamrock but still it's hard to understand and I think that we must just accept that.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 23, 2007 12:56 AM

I'm wondering if anyone else has procrastinated reading this article and discussion for as long as I have! Some fascinating threads here. I'll
pick one that hasn't been picked on:
Bob suggested that we: __________
"can each teach the LOVE, express the LOVE, share the LOVE, live the LOVE of God every day of our lives." instead of worrying about the details of Scripture. _________
But LOVE can be a vague concept used to justify all sorts of sloppy and unloving behavior. We need Scripture, and its proper interpretation, to hold ourselves accountable to GOD's definition of love, instead of our own.
Blessings,
Darrell
Or, to put it another way, instead of asking OURSELVES "What would Jesus do" (as Bob seems to suggest), we need to ask GOD. Which starts with understanding Jesus as revealed through our honest, detailed study of God's revelation of his son in Scripture.

Posted by: Darrell | December 6, 2007 11:01 PM