“Given the recent, renewed controversy surrounding Sovereign Grace Churches and me individually, I have decided to withdraw from the 2018 T4G conference. No one should interpret my withdrawal as an acknowledgment of guilt.”
In just a month’s time, T4G2018 will be well underway at the KFC Yum! Center in Louisville, Kentucky, Ground Zero for New Calvinism (aka the Young, Restless and Reformed Movement). In case you’re not familiar with the acronym T4G, it stands for “Together for the Gospel”. According to the T4G website, here is how this conference began (see screen shot below).
*************
*************
One of those four pastors – C.J. Mahaney – has come under scrutiny in recent years. Four years ago C.J. withdrew from the speaker line-up because he had been named in a class action lawsuit. This news report which aired back then provides some insight into what the lawsuit entailed.
The lawsuit against C.J. Mahaney, et al was dismissed due to technicalities (the statute of limitations had expired for most of the plaintiffs, and two of the plaintiffs filed in the wrong jurisdiction).
In case you’re not familiar with Mahaney and the controversy surrounding him, we recommend an article that was published two years ago in The Washingtonian entitled The Sex Scandal Abuse Scandal That Devastated a Suburban Megachurch: Inside the rise and fall of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
When this biennial conference took place in 2016, Al Mohler introduced his buddy C.J. We found his commentary to be highly inappropriate, and Dee wrote about it in a post entitled: Al Mohler Extolls C.J. Mahaney at T4G While Joking at the Expense of SGM Victims. Does Money Play a Role in the Relationship?
Here is the trailer for the upcoming Together for the Gospel Conference (the seventh one to be held).
In God’s providence, another individual has recently come forward to challenge the powers that be in T4G, namely Rachael Denhollander, the first victim to go public with her allegations of sexual abuse against Larry Nassar. We have been covering her challenge of Sovereign Grace Churches (formerly Sovereign Grace Ministries) to undergo an independent investigation regarding its handling of sexual and domestic violence allegations. It appears that her very public challenge of SGC was a major factor for Mahaney being removed from the speaker line-up at T4G2018. We shared his statement last week soon after it was announced on the T4G website. Christianity Today reported on this development, as did Baptist News Global.
Not long after Mahaney made this announcement, Rachael Denhollander responded on Facebook, saying she was ‘grieved’ that C.J. is stepping down as a speaker at T4G. She went on to state that she is grieved for two reasons: (see below)
1. It is unnecessary if, in fact, there are answers to every credible allegation that has been raised of failing to properly handle and report sexual and domestic violence. If all those allegations and each concern raised regarding the credibility of the investigation into CJ’s former church, Covenant Life Church are false, then this should have been, and still should be, made known through an independent investigation.
2. If, in fact, those allegations are true and SGM has a significant and damaging problem regarding how they have handled sexual and domestic violence in their churches, then temporarily stepping down from a conference does not solve the problem. It seeks to avoid it.
Rachael Denhollander explains that she has not asked anyone to sit as ‘judge and jury’. Instead, she states that Christians should strive for transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of truth and right. Given that the theme of this year’s T4G is HOLINESS, Denhollander’s request seems highly appropriate.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the secular media has picked up on this development. It didn’t take long for Slate to report on Rachael Denhollander’s challenge to Sovereign Grace Churches. Here is an excerpt from that article:
The alleged cover-up of a pattern of child sexual abuse within a large Protestant network now called Sovereign Grace Churches has been a major story in American evangelicalism since 2012. That’s when a lawsuit was filed alleging a pattern of sexual and spiritual abuse within the network—and not just abuse itself, but pressure to “forgive” those actions, internal policies discouraging reports to law enforcement, and ostracism for families who refused to help cover up crimes. The suit was dismissed in 2014, but a former youth leader, Nathaniel Morales, was convicted in a separate case of abusing three boys. In an attempt to move on from the thorny and slow-moving scandal, Sovereign Grace tweaked its name, moved its headquarters from Maryland to Kentucky, and replaced several of its top leaders.
To many of its critics, the organization has not done enough to repent and atone for its sins. Founder C.J. Mahaney, meanwhile, left the organization in 2013 but has successfully fought to retain his status as a leader in evangelical circles. Denhollander has spent the last several weeks speaking up about the case in a series of interviews and detailed public statements. She calls it “one of the most well-documented cases of institutional cover-up I have ever seen.” This has led to a tense series of dueling statements and accusations closely watched by Christian media outlets. Thanks to Denhollander’s activism, Sovereign Grace has been forced to explain itself more deeply in the last few weeks than it has in the previous five years.
This week, Denhollander got results. Mahaney, the group’s former president, announced Wednesday that he is withdrawing from a major upcoming conference that attracts thousands of pastors and church leaders. “Given the recent, renewed controversy surrounding Sovereign Grace Churches and me individually, I have decided to withdraw from the 2018 T4G conference,” Mahaney said in a statement, adding that “No one should interpret my withdrawal as an acknowledgment of guilt.”
We can’t help but wonder whether Mahaney’s action was voluntary or if he was removed from the line-up by his colleagues. With an expected 12,000 attendees, T4G organizers can’t take any chances on something going wrong. There’s way too much at stake…
We leave you with a clip of Al Mohler honoring C.J. Mahaney less than two years before T4G held its first conference (2006). It was during 2004 that C.J. resigned as pastor of Covenant Life Church, a position he held for 27 years, and began devoting all of his time and attention to Sovereign Grace Ministries (as its president). It was also around this time that Mahaney began making signiicant contributions to Southern Seminary. Over the course of the next few years he and Sovereign Grace Ministries would donate in excess of $200,000 to Mohler’s seminary ($100,000+ from Mahaney personally and $100,000+ from SGM [now SGC]).
Finally, you might be interested to know that Rachael Denhollander will be in New York City tomorrow afternoon. Here are details that she provided on Facebook:
Keep up the great work Rachael!
Perhaps it’s para-church discipline (ask for it by name)…
Apparently, public heat is all that will move these characters. Got to keep it hot then!
It is ridiculous watching Mr. Mohler extolling C.J. in this video. What is it with this Bro-Mance between the two? Just as C.J. is being humbled, I hope the others at TGIF4 or whatever.. will re-evaluate their role in covering up the severity of the issues. I wonder what kind of a bubble these christian leaders are living in? I believe the evangelical church is taking a big hit because of their actions. The irony is that the conference will be focusing on ‘holiness’
This says it all:
“1. It is unnecessary if, in fact, there are answers to every credible allegation that has been raised of failing to properly handle and report sexual and domestic violence. If all those allegations and each concern raised regarding the credibility of the investigation into CJ’s former church, Covenant Life Church are false, then this should have been, and still should be, made known through an independent investigation.
2. If, in fact, those allegations are true and SGM has a significant and damaging problem regarding how they have handled sexual and domestic violence in their churches, then temporarily stepping down from a conference does not solve the problem. It seeks to avoid it.”
I can’t stand Mohler’s words. “Do great things for God”. More like make more money and a name for yourself. These guys are slick. And the worst part, besides the abuses, is that they actually believe their own press. Sickening!
“Above reproach” means, well, above reproach. If Dever, Duncan, and Mohler can’t or don’t or won’t recognize the disqualification of Mahaney on this requirement alone, then they likely can’t or don’t or won’t recognize it for their own lives…yet, they have plenty of requirements for those they, “lead.”
Jesus said it like this, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.”
Speaking of being above reproach, Rachael seems to be an excellent example of that in both her personal and her professional life; that is to say ‘above reproach’ certainly in the specific areas which those who might wish to silence her would try to find a weakness. And, may I say, above reproach on their own terms and in their own vocabulary.
I am loving this! Steel in the spine, a velvet glove, a quick mind and an unwavering commitment to the task. She is not the only one like this by far, but right now her current visibility is a joy to watch.
Lance wrote:
Well I don’t know about the other 3, but the bubble at SBTS is just that a bubble. They can no longer relate to the average Christian. Scholarship, scholarship, scholarship. It has driven out any empathy, love or discernment. Isn’t it obvious to us?
Lance wrote:
Yes. It defies logic and basic decorum. Even from a purely PR View.
@ okrapod:
Very effective. We do not want people to wait to report abuse and when they do I always pray they have wise advocates.
But, there is also a lesson here for abusers. Some victims grow up to be educated, articulate and wise.
@ Ken A:
I would not call it scholarship. It’s indoctrination.
@ okrapod:
I agree. She is so impressive. I wonder if the women around her (other SBTS wives, women in her Reformed church, etc) see her as a role model.
Lydia wrote:
I totally agree here. Our former YRR pastor came to us fresh out of SBTS. When he was exposed for trying to take over the church by stealth, I asked him if this was all he knew. Sadly, he had no answer. It’s so disheartening to see people so blinded by this ‘movement’ that they don’t know, or want to know, anything else!
I also heartily “Amen” Ken A’s comment about them not having any “empathy, love or discernment”. That is exactly right! He viewed our body of believers as though we were just standing in the way of the great things HE wanted to accomplish there.
Yikes! I can’t even make it to the 2-minute mark of Mohler’s video without needing a barf bag! If he lays it on any thicker, I’m going to need some hip waders!
I wish Mohler cared about the brain-washed kids coming out of Southern Seminary as much as he does about Mahaney!
Speaking of Al Mohler:
Here’s a recent SBC Voices post entitled “Albert Mohler, 5 Reasons to be Thankful for the President of SBTS”.
I particularly enjoyed reason number 5.
http://sbcvoices.com/albert-mohler-5-reasons-to-be-thankful-for-the-president-of-sbts/
Comp theology works so hard to silence women, that this is fun watching SGM find out that the rest of the world will still listen to women even when they don’t!
There’s a reason that the Bible has over one hundred verses encouraging women to speak up!
Here’s a recent SBC Voices post entitled “Albert Mohler, 5 Reasons to be Thankful for the President of SBTS”.
I saw that too. I immediately thought “hmm the author must be looking for a cushy SBC job”
Lydia wrote:
I saw a post by Pete Enns that asked this question: can profs at conservative evangelical seminaries do true scholarship. These places have strict doctrinal statements, so when you do scholarship, it has to end with you supporting the doctrinal statement. This means you may begin your scholarship with a predetermined conclusion, which isn’t scholarship.
I don’t know that this happens in every case, but I can see clear examples. Look at Wayne Grudem and his work on “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Has he ever published any findings in any way contrary to his doctrine? It seems that often scholarship in the context of the conservative evangelical church is more about apologetics than academic pursuit.
Ken P. wrote:
If Bob Kauflin could set this awesome piece of brown-nosing to music he would have another hit on his hands.
Ken P. wrote:
@ Anon in the North:
Before I look, I am going to guess the author. Jared Moore?
Root 66 wrote:
You all existed FOR him. Seem that a lot out of that movement. It takes people a while to figure it out.
@ Ricco:
I really have enjoyed Pete Enns’ scholarship. But I would like to ask him if he can do Theological scholarship and leave partisan politics out of it.
@ Ricco:
Oh they definitely start with a conclusion in mind. You would not believe the Hoops that Piper and Grudem jumped through trying to prove that Junia was really a man.
I think the fact that they are never questioned within their bubble keeps them from understanding how ridiculous they look.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Lol. I just checked and it is Jared Moore! I did make note that there are only three comments and it’s been up since Saturday. Hmmm.
okrapod wrote:
AMEN! Excellent comment, okrapod!
Have just commented on Jared Moore’s aticle – awaiting moderation!
Lydia wrote:
I agree. I don’t begrudge anyone their politics, but the assumption that a certain political persuasion is necessarily correct can be annoying. I’m on the right, and conservatives do this all the time, but liberals do this as well.
I’m going to be out in front of the YUM! Center during this Calvinista preacherfest with a sign telling the attendees and speakers I’m judging their decisionmaking skills because they chose to attend or speak knowing CJ Mahaney has had serious issues for years.
Yeah, that’s a long sentence, still trying to condense it down to sign length.
Doug Wilson has since opened his pie hole (or rather, his keyboard) on the subject, on both his blog and twitter feed. Rachel Denhollander needs a friendly caution, and Boz Tchividjian? He’s an “ambulance chaser” and “partisan hack”, and GRACE is just as corrupt as he is. It’s a pity Doug no longer allows comments. Here is the introduction:
“When it comes to dealing with the carnage left by out-of-control lusts, our culture is having a hard time of it. I am speaking specifically of sexual abuse and its aftermath. Many churches heal the wound lightly, saying that it is a “spiritual” matter, something to be taken care of “internally.” Victims are often told glibly to “forgive,” as though an “all-better” forgiveness for sexual assault came in a cardboard box, like Band-Aids do. At the same time, other Christians naively assume that the “civil authorities” have their act together on this, which they frequently do not. Our cultural degradation really does create a dilemma for responsible believers who care about protecting victims. Remember we live in a time when our civil authorities have thrown their full support to homosexuals “marrying,” the bloody fruitlessness imposed by the abortionist’s bloody instruments, the selling of the pieces afterwards, boys transitioning to girls, and vice versa. The iniquitous muddle goes all the way up. We cannot assume we live in a time when sexual abusers can simply be handed over to righteous civil authorities. Our civil authorities have taken the lead in mandating various forms of sexual abuse. Our current civil establishment is a travesty. The thing is a royal mess.”
So because the State (both Federal and otherwise) has legalized abortion, gay marriage, and increasingly transgender rights, we ought not to turn sexual predators in to law enforcement. Comments?
Mohler sounding rather centrist in the news in the early 1990s, prior to being chosen SBTS president:
Baptist Press, “Scholars discuss ways to move ‘beyond the impasse'” pp. 12-14
http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7009,17-Aug-1990.PDF
“LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)–Speakers at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Pastor’s
School discussed ways to move Southern Baptists “beyond the impasse” in the denomination’s
current theological debate. proposed ways for Southern Baptists to find common ground in the present theological controversy.”
Mohler pal who’s now president of TIU, David Dockery: “A lot of us get quite hung up on terms like inerrant and infallible,” he said. “I think it is very possible to move the discussion forward and still talk about the nature of Scripture without using those particular red flag terms.” Within the Southern Baptist Convention, the terms communicate more about political parties than the nature of Scripture, he said. “I would prefer that we talk about the Scripture as truthful, reliable and authoritative”
“Mohler described inerrancy as ‘an important issue’ but it ‘isn’t the most important
word about Scripture.'”
Atlanta Journal and Constitution, “Baptists’ truce: Will it last?” p. E6
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=mohler&p_field_label-0=Author&p_field_label-1=title&p_bool_label-1=AND&s_dispstring=mohler%20AND%20date(11/17/1990%20to%2011/17/1990)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=11/17/1990%20to%2011/17/1990)
[after the moderate candidate defeated the conservative candidate for the presidency of the Georgia state convention]
“That non-aligned center of the denomination is increasingly traumatized by divisiveness caused by either party,” said Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., editor of the Christian Index, the Georgia Baptist newspaper.”
okrapod wrote:
I am too. She’s not your garden variety demure Dolly whom these guys (Mahaney and friends) can easily brush aside. Nor can she be painted as an arch-enemy-liberal-lesbian-femi-nazi with which they can rally the troops for Jihad.
I think that her two part statement in Deb’s article above pretty much says it all with verve and elan, and that it genuinely puts the T4G boyz between a rock and a hard place.
Caroline wrote:
I wonder. In strongly complementarian culture, in my experience, women who want a social life (communion with other women in their social group) learn to hide their intellectual light under a bushel.
NJ wrote:
He’s using this as an excuse.
The 1968 version of Doug Wilson would have said not to turn in child sexual abusers because the government was interfering in private business by forcing stores, restaurants, hotels and common carriers to serve black people. And of course Loving v. Virginia (1967), which overturned miscegenation statutes, was an abomination.
Others might disagree with me about the particular laws Wilson would have objected to, but trust me, he would have found something, where some group on the social outs in his circle was getting too many rights.
Root 66 wrote:
Little Calvins burning to impose their vision on new Genevas.
Though my understanding is that Calvin actually resisted becoming a public, authoritative figure because he just wanted to pursue study. I don’t know that from firsthand reading, though.
NJ wrote:
Remember, you married a known pedophile, Steven Sitler, to a poor young woman when you knew that, if they had kids, the state would not allow him to live at home with them. You even prayed in the wedding that God would bless them with children. Then, when folks called you on it, you said “the state said they could marry, so I married them.” Once again, this shows that this excuse is garbage because you would never perform a gay wedding.
This guy is a jerk. I would use stronger language but I don’t want to be moderated. Actually, he is useful as a litmus test for other famous Christians. If they say nice things about him or appear with him, then I want nothing to do with them.
NJ wrote:
Let it be, Doug Wilson has so marginalized himself, made such a public spectacle of himself (at least “public” within his narrow little world), that he will remain perpetually a small, squeaking voice with little influence. Let him continue to prove what he is and continue to lose influence and followers.
@ NJ:
Doug Wilson: “Many churches heal the wound lightly, saying that it is a “spiritual” matter, something to be taken care of “internally.” Victims are often told glibly to “forgive,” as though an “all-better” forgiveness for sexual assault came in a cardboard box, like Band-Aids do.”
Sounds like he’s describing his own church.
I guess healing the wound not-lightly includes such things as pawning off a convicted child abuser on a naive young woman. Yup, if you’re Doug Wilson, your solution is to just marry off those offenders so they have proper (remember Mark Driscoll’s demeaning term for women? I can’t bring myself to type it) places to put their wayward members.
NJ wrote:
How is this not EXACTLY what he does at his church?
Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:
Maybe I can help condense the message down for you, “Shamey on Mahaney” or perhaps, “Use your brainy, dump Mahaney”!
They are suggestions. But I never said they were GOOD suggestions! 🙂
NJ wrote:
If we wait to tell the authorities until the authorities are perfect, then OF COURSE we will never tell them. The authorities ARE NOT PERFECT, but they are what we have and, as citizens, there is oversight given to all of us via our VOTE. If we don’t like the way the authorities handle certain things, we can lobby the government for change or support other candidates who will pursue policies we like.
This is in stark contrast to an authoritarian church like the “Kirk”(how smug are these people). There is no oversight. Wilson and the elders (his lackeys) will do whatever they want and the church will have NO OVERSIGHT. Mike Lawyer passes on information from counseling sessions directly to Wilson for use in church discipline. All of the innovations that our civil society has come up with to protect victims are absent at Wilson’s church. Are these civil innovations perfect? No, but they are on a trajectory that continues to serve victims better than we did before.
Mercy wrote:
They’ve created their world. Male ruled, male centered. Nothing more right or more wrong with guys than gals, however, a bird on one wing does not fly.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/sovereign_grace_churches/book-of-church-order-updated-edition-no-4.pdf
From the SGC Book of Church Order, p.12, stated and [practiced – the secret sauce]:
“We affirm that Sovereign Grace exists to promote the shared values of:
• Reformed soteriology [- Who are the theologians? Men only.]
• Gospel-centered expository preaching [- Who is preaching? Men only.]
• Continuationist pneumatology [- Who has access to all spiritual gifts? Men only.]
• Complementarian leadership in the home and church [- Who leads? Men only.]
• Elder-governed and -led churches [- Who leads? Men only.]
• National and international outreach and church planting [- Who plants? Men.]
• Interdependent churches united in fellowship, mission, and governance” [- Who governs? Men.]
Arrested development as they created their network of churches out of the Jesus Movement when they went from smoking joints to emulating Jesus, and then found birds of a feather (also on one wing), such as Piper, Wilson, etc.
The women who follow get their (spiritual) “leader”, apparently what [those] women want.
JYJames wrote:
“THIS!!! IS!!! SPARTA!!!”
(Except the Bromance isn’t taken as far — “I did not know [insert name] in a Biblical Sense…”)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It’s in their SGC Book of Church Order rule book. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out that in practice, this church order is impractical. See recent Tim Fall posts for explanation. https://timfall.com/2018/02/23/the-problem-with-men-presuming-to-speak-for-jesus-while-silencing-women/
Personal Fav: My Wife Has a Savior and I’m not Him by Tim Fall
Law Prof wrote:
At least he enjoys his wife’s cooking; that seems an obvious positive in support of women.
https://www.sgmsurvivors.com/guy-3/ What they noticed, seemed off, after less than a year, at a SGChurch,
1) “…the resolute sameness, where everyone seemed to think and read the same things…”
2} “…VERY definite undercurrent of the idea that the only ‘truly biblical’ vocation – the only ‘truly biblical’ thing they [women] were put on this earth to do – was be a wife and a mother.”
3) “…restrictions of the courtship system…”
4) “…young women were really boxed in, in a way that was unhealthy and not nearly as ‘biblical’ as they were taught it was.”
5) “…the cultural homogeneity, with such an emphasis on homeschooling…”
6) “We were also put off by the music.”
7) “…SGM saw itself as set apart from the rest of the Christian world.”
8) “…the distinct impression that a lot of people had issues with control and with being controlled. People seemed to have a knee-jerk response to any question, which was, ‘You need to talk to the pastor about that,’ or, ‘I will ask Pastor Bob about that.'”
9) “…there was this odd feeling that the pastor was taking our leaving in the wrong way, like there was some sort of personal conflict that had to be resolved…when there absolutely was nothing of the sort.”
10) And finally, paraphrased, when they commented about their experience on another site, their comments were deleted, so they posted their own blog with their story (above) and the incredible stories poured out, that they did not erase. The rest, as they say, is history.
@ Ken A:
“the bubble at SBTS is just that a bubble. They can no longer relate to the average Christian. Scholarship, scholarship, scholarship. It has driven out any empathy, love or discernment. Isn’t it obvious to us?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
from observation, they do a good show of scholarship, but the practice of it is questionable to some degree.
@ Muslin fka Deana Holmes:
“Yeah, that’s a long sentence, still trying to condense it down to sign length.”
+++++++++++++++
it’s a great statement. a banner between 2 pylons?
Wow! No comments on the Pulpit and Pen article today? Who could’ve predicted a shout out to WW by P&P???
Ricco wrote:
Before the “takeover”, SEBTS actually had a pretty wide variety of views, particularly on eschatology, even though they did have a doctrinal statement that did cover eschatology. And one professor acknowledged to me that the evangelical English translations were problematic relating to women. Before Akin took charge, I never had a professor or staff member challenge my purpose for going to seminary as a woman. A few students did, but my professors were nothing but encouraging.
I think there are a few seminaries which have a much wider allowance, for example, Northern. If you go more mainline, there’s a few more, such as Emory.
Pingback: On Mahaney's Withdraw from TFG Conference and SGM Abuse Allegations
Canna wrote:
They gave a nice and well deserved tip of the hat to TWW, and by default, all those who have helped shine the spotlight on SGM/CJ Mahaney. I am as surprised as anyone.
___
Dever Established, Mohler Approved : “Chicken Lick’in Good Calvinism® ” ?
hmmm…
Social media cleaning house again on Mahaney Co. , Perhaps? (1)
huh?
SGM has changed its name, and is now reincorporated and under new management.
Poof!
CLC, which is under new management will be reincorporating, purchasing the Gaithersburg building, and changing their name soon, and newly folded into a growing New Calvinism 501(c)3 church group organization.
Poof!
Right Reverend Chicken Lick’in Charles Mahaney will be ‘retiring’ to his little 501(c)3 church in Lewisville. Quiet ‘side’ work will be well received.
Poof!
SGC, which has been re-incorporated and is now under new management, the remaining 501(c)3 organization and select churches will soon be folded into one of the growing New Calvinist group of churches.
Poof!
C.J. Mahaney will be asked to write a best seller about his life experiences.
Poof!
Mohler/Dever appreciation approved good!
bump.
Can’t keep a New Calvinist down, huh?
hahahahahahaha
ATB
Sòpy
___
(1) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5I3PP1xLi88
;~)
– –
@ Muslin fka Deana Holmes:
I’m sure you’re right. If it wasn’t that, DW would be bringing up current immigration policies, affirmative action, etc. as an excuse for church leaders to try and play police investigator themselves. After all, that’s what they’d be doing in their glorious Reconstructed Society.
Canna wrote:
I am surprised. That was a very thorough write-up.
Ricco said,
“If we wait to tell the authorities until the authorities are perfect, then OF COURSE we will never tell them.”
Bingo. Talk about putting politics before people.
@ NJ:
“At the same time, other Christians naively assume that the “civil authorities” have their act together on this, which they frequently do not.”
This might be a throwaway line to him but there is a ring of truth to it. People who are thrown into a situation and suddenly find themselves in a court situation are usually astonished how astonishing it is for victims. It is a big mess out there.
With that said, people still need to contact the authorities immediately to report abuse. At the very least if it comes to nothing there will be documentation which might be needed later to show a pattern. A police officer friend told me years ago to tell victims to insist on a write up visit.
Something else important. Learn the lingo. There is a huge difference, for example, between carelessness and negligence. Or abuse and threat. And victims always play things down in their mind.
Ricco wrote:
Yep. Not that he’ll ever admit it, even if he does see it.
refugee,
“I guess healing the wound not-lightly includes such things as pawning off a convicted child abuser on a naive young woman.”
I’d say that’s what’s called wounding someone where there were no wounds before.
LawProf,
“Let him continue to prove what he is and continue to lose influence and followers.”
We can only hope.
Ricco wrote:
KYLE: But Dad, isn’t that Fascism?
KYLE’S DAD: No it isn’t, Son, because We Don’t Call It Fascism. Do you understand?
KYLE: Do you?
— South Park Season 3 Episode 6, “Sexual Harassment Panda”
NJ wrote:
AKA The Holy Republic of Gilead.
Lydia wrote:
Just one of the reasons pastors have no business concealing criminal allegations and teaching others to do the same.
Slate’s story has an error when it states “Founder C.J. Mahaney, meanwhile, left the organization in 2013….” Yes, C.J. stepped down as President of Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), now called Sovereign Grace Churches (SGC), but he is still a pastor in a Sovereign Grace church.
C.J. is Senior Pastor of Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville, which is “one of the many churches associated with Sovereign Grace Churches, a family of churches that has been around since 1981…. Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville also partners with the Southern Baptist Convention for the purposes of training and gospel mission” according to the church’s website.
The “Our Pastors” page is here: http://www.sgclouisville.org/sovereign-grace-church-louisville-our-pastors
The “Our Church” page is here: http://www.sgclouisville.org/our-church
The Slate article makes it seem as if C.J. is no longer with the SGM/SGC organization. He is still heavily involved in the organization, but in a different role. As a co-founder of the organization and in leadership from the very beginning, even if his title is only a “Senior Pastor” now, he still has a lot of power inside the organization and outside of it.
That is one of the reasons why Rachael is fighting against C.J.’s enabling by prominent evangelical leaders. C.J. still has a lot to answer for regarding sexual abuse and its coverup within the SGM/SGC organization.
Ricco wrote:
How does that differ from biology/genetics under Stalin & Lysenko?
Rachael has put a dent in the Invincible SGM Machine.
A dent that looks like it’s going to last (unlike previous attempts to take down this Teflon-coated church of corruption.) They’re losing control of the Narrative (HUMBLY, of course); Rachael needs to keep hammering and follow through; she might be the one who finally takes them down and exposes their dirty laundry, shouted from the rooftops.
Like those Micro-Armor wargames I used to play at Last Grenadier when I worked in Burbank; once you make the hole in the enemy’s line, break through and exploit, keep advancing, don’t give them time to regroup and stop your advance.
Lydia wrote:
Ha! No branch of evangelicals leaves out partisan politics.
elastigirl wrote:
It’s something I’m going to have to hold. Plus I have a thing about not bringing sticks to protests. Something about cops thinking you’re going to hit them over the head with the sticks. So I think I’ll stick with 22 x 28 posterboard and figure out how to get my point across.
Canna wrote:
Wow! That was some article by the P&P guys. They even admitted they should have gotten their eyes on Mahaney earlier.
Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:
Here’s a sign idea:
They support C.J.
Your $$ here supports them.
Who will speak for the innocent?
Remnant wrote:
Forgot to add:
Then you’d need a photo of Rachel Denhollander because SHE is the one!
Gosh, Muslin…not that I’m negating your efforts!
I’m sorry for that.
My thought is that Rachel has the national stage right now and has gotten their attention.
@ NJ:
Yes. Victims often feel guilty and play down the situation.
@ On the Healing Journey:
Excellent commentary!
@ Muslin fka Deana Holmes:
“Protect pedophiles;
Support T4g!”
The P & P piece is brilliant. From someone who was involved from the 80’s, I can say that he really did his homework.
This is at the heart of one of the true problems with the entire movement of (TAG/GOB/PDI/SGM/SGC). That pesky foundation that these men had was truly believing they were mini-popes. The pastor/office of pastor worship was always off putting. And just plain weird. Those roots are still there and you don’t have to look very hard to find them. The recent writings of two of the SGC pastors on why they don’t believe outside investigations are “good” – showcase it starkly.
I’m glad they keep talking, its very revealing.
If you believe you hear God above everyone else, why would you submit to anyone (including civil authorities)? Many applications of this beyond not reporting sexual abuse.
Also, the continual and numerous changes in what the pastors (as instructed by SG Leadership team) decided was “sound doctrine” became almost humorous. Ironic that they held themselves as the keepers of “sound doctrine” yet it continually changes. At one point, we pointed out that the things they were teaching were closely held Baptist doctrines. Not debating those, just found it extremely odd that they just didn’t state that they were “moving” to those beliefs. I think this was right around the time we found out CJ had made very large donations to the Baptists.
Canna wrote:
It was so unusual I began to wonder if they had been hacked! Good to see eyes opening though.
The other deb wrote:
Yes!
@ Jerome:
Lol. Years ago I ran across a piece quoting Mohler on how he became patriarchal/comp.
(Frankly I think he looks at where the trend is going and hijacks it. I don’t think one bit of it is principled)
refugee wrote:
He wanted to implement his systematic theology and it became a tyrannical dictatorship to do so
@ Law Prof:
Yep. He hardly shows up on the radar of Christendom.
That was a good article from P&P. It showed some seemingly genuine concern for the problem and actually credited the Deebs, even though calling them the “Survivor Blog Gals” seems a bit condescending.
What I still think these guys don’t get is that “perfect” theology and ecclesiology doesn’t mean you will never have these problems. From the article: “his charismaticism was problematic, cult-like ecclesiology concerning, apostolic roots never fully repented of, and ecumenism still unaddressed.”
They seem to be saying “see, he is wrong on these points and that is why these bad things happened. If he had pure beliefs like us, this would not have been a problem.”
I am not a New Calvinist, Old Calvinist, or Future Calvinist. I do not like the theology. However, I would never say someone covered up sex abuse BECAUSE they were a Calvinist. I believe that Calvinism can lead to authoritarianism, but Doug Wilson is a jerk because, at the end of the day, he chooses to be one. The absolute certainty that he is 100% correct doesn’t help either. The implication that if we all just did church like JD Hall everything would be perfect is stupid and could lead to these same sort of issues in his church if he isn’t careful. That sort of certainty that you are right about everything is more dangerous than any one theological system. I’m not necessarily a charismatic and I don’t believe in the continuation of the office of Apostle, but artist isn’t the problem at SGM. The problem is valuing systems and ideology over people.
One more thing, since when did ecumenicism become the world’s greatest sin. I get that these folks don’t like Catholics, but come on. “I know there are all kinds of problems in the world, but what I really can’t stand is people from all denominations and even NONCHRISTIANS coming together in cooperation to help people. It turns my stomach.” JD Hall, probably
Augustine wrote:
They are above reproach, they deem themselves above us and by their definition they are thereby above our reproach.
NJ wrote:
Yup. We’re supposed to do what Doug Wilson did instead: Help the sexual predator get hitched and breed a baby that he can abuse.
That’ll fix everything!
So I have an announcement to make. I am leaving my church. It was really the entire C.J. Mahaney vs. Rachel Denhollander faceoff that was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. I spent the last three weeks feeling sick to my stomach and depressed until it finally dawned on me that my church was making me physically sick. As soon as I made the decision and reasoned it all out, my depression instantly lifted, and my stomach felt better. I blogged about it in the link below, in case it helps anyone to make a similar important decision (or to stay out of my church or ones like it). But, I could use some advice. Should I tell my parish priest what I put in my blog post? Do you think he’d get it? Or should I disappear into the sunset, perhaps just say that I like a different church instead with some smiley, no-big-deal reason? What would you do in my place for a graceful exit?
https://anglicansanonymous.wordpress.com/2018/03/10/why-i-am-leaving-my-continuing-anglican-parish/
Canna wrote:
Quite! It was excellent.
Lydia wrote:
Actually that does not seem to be the case. In the Introduction to the Tracts and Treatises of John Calvin, Volume 1, the following is recorded :- “As there seemed, very little hope of getting back Farel from Neufchatel, the State turns its whole attention to Calvin, and employing the mediation of Zurich, sends an embassy to Strasburgh to obtain the consent of the inhabitants to his return. These expressed great reluctance to part with him. Calvin himself, although the injuries which he had received at the instigation of certain wicked men, had made no change upon his affection for the Genevese, yet having an aversion to disturbances, and seeing that the Lord had blessed his ministry in the Church of Strasburgh, stated plainly that he would not return. Bucer also, and others, declared that they would have the greatest objection to part with him. The Genevese, however, persisting, Bucer came to be of opinion that their prayers should be complied with; but he never would have obtained Calvin’s consent; had he not given warning of Divine judgment, and appealed to the example of Jonah. These things having occurred about the time when Calvin had to go with Bucer to the Diet of Ratisbon, (for so it had been determined,) his return was postponed, and the Genevese obtained the consent of the people of Berne, that Peter Viret, of Lausanne, should go for a short time and officiate at Geneva. This made Calvin the less reluctant to return, inasmuch as he was to have a colleague, whose aid and advice would be of the greatest use to him in restoring the Church”.
And in his preface to the Psalms, he gives a clear account as to why he published the Institutes – to defend the persecuted Protestants in France. :- This was the consideration which induced me to publish my Institute of the Christian Religion. My objects were, first, to prove that these reports were false and calumnious, and thus to vindicate my brethren, whose death was precious in the sight of the Lord; and next, that as the same cruelties might very soon after be exercised against many unhappy individuals, foreign nations might be touched with at least some compassion towards them and solicitude about them. When it was then published, it was not that copious and laboured work which it now is, but only a small treatise containing a summary of the principal truths of the Christian religion; and it was published with no other design than that men might know what was the faith held by those whom I saw basely and wickedly defamed by those flagitious and perfidious flatterers. That my object was not to acquire fame, appeared from this, that immediately after I left Basle, and particularly from the fact that nobody there knew that I was the author.“
Finally, if you read the rest of the preface, Calvin confirms his reluctance to return to Geneva.
Clockwork Angel wrote:
I know that was a tough decision to make. I was surprised to read about the connections being made in your church to the New Cals. I think it may be similar for a lot of denominations, since the New Cals have a lot of pull in Christian publishing now. I wish more people were like you and questioned their purpose in featuring them.
@ Lowlandseer:
That would be like reading letters and and docs from Mohler and Dever. Do you believe they are self aware? I think it’s wise to look at actions/facts not words.
@ Clockwork Angel:
I live at Ground Zero and I have yet to see a graceful exit that came from people telling leaders the reason why they were leaving. 🙂
I have seen that people who just leave and then if people call them or they run into them out in public can tell them their concerns in a much more independent way. Nothing to lose.
Thersites wrote:
True. A common thread with SGM, DWilson, Desiring God, and maybe even Calvin, is that they deem themselves and their movement/churches better than everyone else, including other Christians.
Anyone can start a local church for a variety of excellent reasons. However, doing it to one-up other believers and leaders is contrary to pride being the deadliest sin.
Looking at the Who We Are of https://www.sgmsurvivors.com/ it is evident that these folks were not comfortable with the one-up-manship of their SGM church, so they left. Good call. Red flag, before awareness of the cover-ups. Pride – deadliest sin – too perfect to fail, to be accountable, to learn something, to change, to work with others minus a hierarchy.
Thersites wrote:
“He shall rule above the law,
Calling on the LORD…”
— Rudyard Kipling, “The Old Issue”, 1899
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/old_issue.html
Lydia wrote:
Implementing Pure & Correct Ideology through Dictatorship of the Proletariat…
The other deb wrote:
Actually, mini-GODS.
Claiming Infallibility and Spiritual Authority far beyond that of any actual Pope.
Those madly in love with the sound of their own voice (if not the smell of their own farts) cannot stop talking. Ever.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
These the same Pulpiteers/attack dogs who got famous regarding Braxton Caner’s suicide?
Clockwork Angel wrote:
I know from experience you are not exaggerating, stress can wreck havoc on your health. You can do like I did and ask your doctor if he has a prescription for a new church. You may may then find out that your doctor went through the same thing.
Lydia wrote:
No it isn’t. Written at the time, you get historical context, corroborated by other texts. For example, the first quote was from Beza, the second from Calvin. It’s too easy to read your own prejudices into something although it is always gratifying to find yourself correct. 🙂
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
Great article by P&P! Being in a church in the same town as SBTS in the early 2000’s and having the profs as pastors I was amazed at how they embraced C.J. Mahaney when he was being put forward by Mohler and Dever. I objected that he called himself an “Apostle”. They acknowledged that wasn’t good. Yet they did not fail to take his money for trips to preach at CLC in Maryland. I often wondered about this. Why do these “pillars” embrace this guy? I concluded some years later it was just because he “went reformed”. C.J. now we know is just one of several of the wacky Charismatic authoritarians. Like I said before. There discernment is so lacking.
All restorationists (be it fairly fundamentalist types.. or the way-out-there types like Mormons) love using the Apostle title.
Not even the Orthodox, who have the oldest, unbroken tradition.. or the Catholics next to them.. dare use it. Not even the early church fathers. Not even the very earliest, like Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp, who came from very primitive successions after Peter and Paul and the others. They had all the authority they needed as bishops, who had their office from the laying on of hands.. but that was the limit.
You break from that tradition and you get nothing but arrogance. As history attests time and time again.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Good quote from the article:
“Given our knowledge of Together for the Gospel, it is doubtful that Mahaney rescinded his invitation without being asked, but it is possible. The question, perhaps, should be this…why is a gymnast forcing evangelicals to be introspective and to self-scrutinize, when our leaders should be doing that anyway?
“[Editor’s Note: HT Wartbug Watch…yes, I realize it’s weird to HT the Survivor Blog Gals, but their info is good and frankly, we should’ve been paying more attention to SGM a long time ago]”
http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/03/13/mahaneys-withdraw-tfg-conference-sgm-abuse-allegations/#cHXYUIY72w63ZB6d.99
@ Lowlandseer:
But I have read council minutes and draconian rules instituted under Calvin.
Also, some, not all letters and lots of history. Including a very whiney one after the burning of Servetus.
The Historical context was fear Catholics were making inroads back into Geneva. So they went for totalitarian doctrinal conformity his second time around. He was all about that That requires force such as fines/punishment for publicly criticizing Calvin and worse.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yep. Trying to rehab image?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
[Found that post from 4 years ago. Once again, TWW did an outstanding work in bringing to light another tragic failure in Christendom of a young man cavalierly treated with disdain by some supposedly grown-up Christian leaders, lacking empathy and love. Sorry for the family’s loss. Thanks, TWW.]
Even if I ignored Calvin’s specific cruelty, he still produces bad fruit for being so hung up on Original Sin.
And the sad thing is, it all comes from a flimsy Latin translation of the Bible Augustine used. If it wasn’t for that, the West would never even have had such an erroneous doctrine. I hold Augustine less accountable, since it was a mistake. But I hold Augustinianism – especially Calvin – more accountable.. because he should have known better. He was more educated than Augustine, scholastically speaking.
Why do I get into this? Because Original Sin is the root of much Christian cruelty in the West. Calvin is just another in a line of many Catholics like this (and yes, I call him a Catholic. He’s just an Augustine Catholic. All Reformers are. As opposed to the Aquinas variety, which the RC is). It produces a mentality that justifies seeing “total depravity” and bad faith in your fellow man and woman.. and takes one’s eyes off of the liberty of the gospel and resurrection.
Eh.. this is a mouthful. I could go on, but I won’t waste your time 🙂
@ Ken:
In much of Western Christianity the cross IS the focus, not the resurrection.
The focal point is on the payment of sin debt through human sacrifice.
There’s no way around it.
Ken wrote:
I’m very intrigued by this subject, and I could discuss this for hours. For me, I’ve been looking at all of theology through the lens of Christ’s vicarious humanity and his union with us through his death and resurrection. Total depravity and separation do not hold up to this view.
These are the conversations I’m excited about, but the only place I can have them, other than with my wife, is online.
@ Ken:
A succinct and correct, imo, mouthful.
Others mileage may vary which is okay. It’s all about debate in the arena of ideas. I just don’t like rewriting history to make Calvin look like a warm fuzzy bunny.
@ Ricco:
It is incredibly sad we cannot have these conversations at church.
Ricco wrote:
Me too, Ricco. My spouse has had to listen to a lot of my external processing on this subject. And I haven’t yet found a place where I can discuss these ideas freely.
Ken, feel free to “go on” about this subject.
Lydia wrote:
Yes it is. But to do so would imply that the church doesn’t have lock-stock-and-barrel authority over parishoner’s lives. Can’t have that.
Ken wrote:
I would love to have this explained to me. If I could save myself, i.e. I am not “totally depraved”. The doctrine as understood by the Christian church, than why would Christ need to die?
@Muff Potter: Your answer is assuming the doctrine of Original Sin.. which is what I’m disputing. I’d prefer calling it the doctrine of original guilt. The idea that we inherited the sin of Adam in some kind of real and genetic way (and thus we are just as guilty).
Nowhere in the scriptures is this transfer of guilt taught though. The scriptures repeatedly teach us about our own sins and our own guilt- and that we must repent. It does not teach that we are hopeless or that the call to “Repent” is some kind of joke that God plays on us, and that we are totally depraved from ever accomplishing it. It makes a mockery out of God’s words. “Hahaha! I told you to repent, but I don’t really mean it. You’re just a worm who doesn’t have any hope of doing it.” It makes more of a Trickster God, fit for Pagan cultures. Or some villain out of a B-Movie.
—-
What we inherit from Adam is Death. Not Sin.. at least not directly.
Once death was introduced into the world, man multiplied his own sins (unique from Adam’s sin). These sins only stem from Adam’s original sin because his sin brought Death (“for you shall surely die”, as God said). It also brought Pain, if you want to include the curse of work and child bearing.. but I kind of put it in the same category. God didn’t say anything about transferring sin and genetic guilt. But he promised Death.
Now consider this. Think of all the evil that stems from our survival mechanisms and need to make life bearable and “worth it”. To survive, one feels compelled to get ahead.. perhaps even to kill or cheat or humiliate your man or woman. One also wants to feel comnfort or pleasure, and falls prey to all manner of decadence. The True Death is ultimately our Seperation from God – and we fill the hole with Self, Arrogance, Vanity, “becoming like gods” as the Serpent promised.. but it’s empty and ends in more Death and Sin.
Now think of the eons that man has been around, multiplying these sins, making his mark on the world, spreading his ego wherever he goes… where before you know it, you have a whole population of sinners… creating an entire “environment of sin”. THIS is what Adam’s Death brought. This is the original sin, in an indirect sort of way. THIS is also why God wiped out the people in Noah’s day, because it had become too grievous for words. The Nephillim and fallen angels also roamed the earth at this point and taught men even more wicked and dark things (at least in the Book of Enoch, this is suggested).. and created an even more abhorrent environment than usual. So God pressed the reset button. Now we live in a world with just Noah’s descendants, where we deal with mostly human sins. This is still bad in itself, but my point is that I’m talking about “environments of sin”. This has always been God’s concern. Not some inborn “genetic” thing in the Calvinistic sense. But an actual, tangible reality.
Why focus on the Resurrection? Because as the First Adam brought about Death, the Second Adam brought about Life. And if Death produced the environment of Sin that it did, then Life has the opportunity to produce the environment of righteousness. THIS was the point of Jesus’ work. To “make all things new”. In a Cosmic sense, and not just merely for own sake. The whole creation is to be redeemed in this act one day. “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.” – Romans 8:19
As for now, the firstfruits of “Life” is his Church. We are to participate in this reversal of the Death brought by Adam. “To be a light to the world”.
But if you’re murdering in the name of God, you’re not bringing light into the world. You’re not doing any better than Adam’s descendants.
This is the Eastern teaching btw. I’m not pulling this is out of nowhere (look up “Theosis” and “Ancestral Sin”, if you’re curious). And I don’t mean to be preachy. If you don’t accept it, so be it. But this is my point of contention. At the same time, I by no means look down on all Reformed or Catholics. I think many are great, and I think they instinctually follow something like this even without consciously putting into words. They focus on Life… and that’s good enough! We don’t need to be theologians 🙂
@ Muff Potter:
“In much of Western Christianity the cross IS the focus, not the resurrection.
The focal point is on the payment of sin debt through human sacrifice.
There’s no way around it.”
+++++++++++++++++
processing all my thoughts, but only partially. life has to pipe down and stop whirring to be able to access the philosphical subject matter (for me, at least).
but what occurs to me is the enormous & expanding result of ‘paying off one’s debt’. and this is the interesting, exciting, and relevant part of the transaction. (not the transaction itself)
i like to watch ‘undercover boss’. not sure how contrived it is, but what seems utterly transparent is the employees’ reactions when ‘the boss’ chooses to use assets to help them — often in paying off burdensome credit card debt. in cutting loose the painfully heavy ball & chain that drags and inhibits all of their life and that of their family.
it changes their life, on so many levels, with ripple effects that reach well-beyond the one employee.
why do churches focus on the event of paying off the debt to the exclusion of all that it means? all that it impacts. especially the practical, experiential aspects of it.
To put it in a shorter way:
By focusing on the Resurrection, you are always mindful of the one who conquered the very thing that enslaves us…and makes us sin.
“O Death, where is your victory?”
It is like food for our spirits to always remember.. to not fear death. We believe in the one who beat it. It has no power over us.
Question, since we are on the topic: How do Calvinists that hold to 1) Original sin – through Adam? Eve? Both? 2) And the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary 3) But then today subject women to be under men due to the inherent weakness of women because Eve fell to temptation … explain that Jesus born of Mary was without sin?
(We have women doing wonderful work right now: Rachel Denhollander, Jules Woodson, Dee and Deb, as well as all of the wonderful men and women who support them, thank God.)
Clockwork Angel wrote:
Your post is fantastic. I’m so sorry that you’re having to leave your church. I would do the same in that situation.
I would probably send an email note to the priest and link to your blog post if I was leaving for those reasons. But do what feels right to you.
@ JYJames:
First of all don’t you know it’s a sin to ask such questions? (Wink)
But here’s the answer just this once:God suspended Marys inherited guilt sin goo for the duration.
@ Ken:
Given that Aquinas arrived on the scene several hundred years after Augustine, it’s hardly surprising that, until then, most Catholics were Augustinian.
@ Lydia:
I an highly recommend the University of Geneva MOOC on Calvin on Coursera if you haven’t already done it.
ION: Fitba’
Liverpool and Manchester City are the only two English clubs remaining in the Give Us Yer Money Cup, following Evilchester United’s abject display against Sevilla last night, and Chelsea’s defeat (albeit somewhat less abject) in the Nou Camp this evening. The quarter-final draw is on Friday.
IHTIH
Lydia wrote:
Like in Conspiracy Theories, the Vast Enemy is so Ubiquitous and Evil, the threat is so great, that it justifies any means whatsoever. Total War.
Ken wrote:
Both Calvin and Luther asserted differently and have the clobber verses to ‘prove it’.
The same clobber verses are used at present day in much of Christendom.
Okay, all. I will try emailing my parish priest. But I’m thinking I’ll keep it focused on the CJ Mahaney aspect only, as he’s kind of ignored my concerns over other things the comp. camp have pushed.
It’s sad it’s come to this. If I had known these things up front, I would have never have joined. It crept up slowly. A Table Talk flier slipped in here a few months into my membership, a reading from a D.A Carson commentary there, a quote from Calvin, etc. It made it hard to run sooner because everyone was so nice. Makes me feel like a picky jerk to leave, you know? But pushing people who don’t mind a “pastor” covering up for child rape…I can’t do it anymore.
Thank you for letting me know I’m not nuts.
Muff Potter wrote:
This is the danger of proof-texting. We go to the Bible with our preconceived theologies (or mythologies, ideologies, or philosophies) and use the text to speak for us, to give our words authority. I’m not saying I never do this, because it is very easy to do. We should not just fall into “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” All reading is interpretation, and one text here or there doesn’t supersede the whole arc of scripture.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Thanks Nick. Here in my locale, Corona High beat Santiago in fitba’.
Ken A wrote:
I think that @ Ken: gave a comprehensive answer of another way to look at this. It is grounded more in Athanasius than in Augustine, which would make sense given that it is a more Eastern approach.
For what it is worth, I agree with much of what Ken wrote. If we take John 1 seriously, we know that Jesus is our creator and was with the Father from the beginning. John is clearly working out the concept of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus in this passage. Elsewhere, Jesus is said to sustain creation with the work of his power, hold everything together, and in him we live and move and have our being. That leads me to believe that the only separation between us and God is the mythology we have created in our head in the insecurity that comes from sin and death. Ken’s discussion of how the world system arises from the insecurity about death was, in my opinion excellent. We believed we were separated and we couldn’t get back to the Father because of our blindness. We hid from him in the gardens, he didn’t hide from us.
It is impossible to capture the beauty or the purpose of the cross and resurrection in words. It is both too terrible and too beautiful for words. I think part of it is our Creator and Sustainer, coming down to live our life and dying the death that we will all die. In so doing, He unites himself to the whole human race. When you view it this way, I have found that the scripture opens up with verses about Jesus dying for the world, reconciling the world to himself. I think we all have a choice on whether or not to live in light of who our true self (united to christ) is or not. I’m not a concrete universalist. It seems that some will never choose to come into the truth. I’m sympathetic to the picture of this CS Lewis gives in The Last Battle. He presents Hell as a place with a door locked from the inside. No one who doesn’t want to be there will be there, but I think that history shows that some people would prefer Hell and created their own Hell on earth.
Finally, I want to echo Ken’s spirit of humility in his excellent post. I know many Christians would disagree with much of what I just wrote, and that’s fine with me. Religious certainty is a dangerous thing, and I am just trying to work these things out for myself. Feel free to poke huge gaping holes in what I just wrote.
Muff Potter wrote:
No, they don’t. And it has nothing to do with Luther and Calvin anyways. It’s a thousand years of Catholicism that they were part of. All of the West teaches original sin, since Augustinianism took over.
They have one messed up translation from Augustine. Romans 5:12. Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned.
Err.. here’s a more extensive analysis:
http://gentlewisdom.org/augustines-mistake-about-sin/
Forgive me if the rest of that site has anything strange. I know nothing about it. 🙂
Speaking of cross and resurrection, I’m really looking forward to the Passion sequel 🙂
As we all know, the first one was excessive in it’s brutality.. but Mel Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic, and you can see on full display what this mentality makes people focus on. It’s a beautiful movie, but the need to explore the amount of torture it has is pretty indicative of how one thinks God is so repelled by everyone (vicariously through Jesus).
So I’m curious how this man directs the second film.. and where he finds his inspiration from to promote the Living Christ.
Ken wrote:
Yes, but the Romans really were that cruel. That is what Jesus endured for us. In fact, the movie didn’t go far enough. Gibson forgot to show Christ’s beard being plucked out, per Isaiah 50:6. The reason the torture is important to show is because it was what the Roman’s considered a shameful death, reserved for rebels and slaves, meant to make an example of anyone who stirred up trouble. This is all suffered because the prince of this world didn’t like the message that Jesus is Lord. It was the cost paid to set us free from the bondage to the false prince.
FYI, Gibson is not just traditionalist. He’s sedevacantist, i.e., not even in communion with Rome. (Sedevecantists are anti-Vatican II, think the modern Popes are anti-Popes, and think that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant.) Ever since I realized what Gibson was into, I could never quite understand why he’s so promoted by Catholics still in communion with the Pope. It’s kind of a very strange elephant to have in the room. What’s weirder is that in spite of his staunch beliefs, Gibson has no qualms sleeping around, abusing his girlfriend, showing his butt on screen, etc. I mean, that’s all mortal sin, right? So why would he even bother worrying about whether the Pope is really a Pope if he’s that far gone anyway? Weird. But that’s all off-topic, I suppose.
Avid Reader wrote:
I’ll have to look for this wonderful list.
Lydia wrote:
Wow. Must have taken mental/theological gymnastics to figure that one out. Or, special revelation. Never would have guessed. Is that actually in the Bible>?
@ Clockwork Angel:
well, when you put it that way, there is certainly value in a focus on understanding ‘the transaction’ in some depth — what it cost for Jesus to pay the debt. (the ease with which the undercover bosses pay the debt of the employee is not the right comparison)
i could never see The Passion Of The Christ. I heard the medical explanation of his ordeal on 2 different Easters — that was traumatizing enough.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I highly recommend trying to find Servetus’ grave in Geneva.
I read a while back that another city in Switzerland finally acknowledged him with some sort of Memorial but I can’t remember what and where.
@ JYJames:
It’s a mystery.
So, most of western Christianity, especially the reformed and evangelical branches, are grounded in Augustinian theology, as reinterpreted by Luther and Calvin, and Augustine was heavily influenced by Plato [as updated and expanded upon by Plotinus] and the dualistic cosmology of Manichaeism, which some would call gnostic. So, evangelicalism has dualistic [and even gnostic] roots?
We might need another reformation.
elastigirl wrote:
I never saw it either. Just don’t want to, for some reason. But then, I generally avoid “Christian” media of all sorts.
Jacob denhollander posted on Twitter that they were filming a interview with Martha MacCallum I think on Fox News? I haven’t really watched Fox News. Supposedly it will air on Friday and supposedly they discussed Sovereign Grace.
GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:
I would agree with this. Here is a link where Baxter Kruger lays out his vision of the problem. This really makes sense to me.
https://youtu.be/-CK-jXAYWbw
Clockwork Angel wrote:
The slow transition is a standard operating procedure. It is nearly imperceptible till one day you notice and when you start taking stock you wonder how you missed it all. In my experience they also did a lot of redecorating of the church. That by itself ticked some people off but looking back it was a convenient distraction that kept people from focusing on the major changes that should have caused much more rebellion. By the time it was fait accompli many couldn’t stomach another fight and simply left.
Ricco wrote:
That was one thing that always mystified me about people at church, the vast majority I knew had little or no interest in such discussions. I would have though a church would be the place people would want to better understand their beliefs, but no. I didn’t understand it then and am not sure I understand it now.
@Clockwork Angel: Ah, I didn’t realize Gibson was a Sedevacantist…err.. or however you spell it 😛
I don’t blame him though. But I’m not sure why that lot stays Catholic. They should be Orthodox. Their very belief system (of a vacant bishop of Rome) pretty much requires it. They just happen to think it was vacant much later. Heh
RE: Mary’s Guilt. The whole idea of an immaculate conception was alien to the church until Rome started teaching it. Because there’s no Original Sin! Yet they are different than Protestants as well, for they think Mary was Holy. They consider her and John the Baptist the most holy saints, among normal people. But what she did inherit was Death, like all of us. There’s no need to jump through hoops and create strange doctrines about her conception when you toss out Augustine’s teachings.
^ I would add that Protestants, in their haste to both toss out the honor Mary deserves, and coupled with their doctrine of Original Sin, end up being very insulting. They go out of their way to bring her down.
I see it in subtle ways in a lot of their teachings about Mary. For example, some think Jesus’ disrespected her. Like when telling the story of the Wedding at Cana:
“Woman, what do I have to do with thee?”
Pastor Fred: See! Jesus had no time for her! Look how he treats her. She’s no more important than anyone else!
Apparently that’s an idiom in Semitic languages. “What have I do to with thee?” is more like “Don’t tell me. I know what you’re thinking”, if you paraphrased it.
This is why Mary immediately went to the servants and said “Do whatever he tells you.” He didn’t blow her off. He just knew what she was thinking, and said his hour hadn’t come.
Anyways! Enough ranting. I’m so off-topic 🙂 But if you can’t even honor the Mother of God, how much do you expect them to respect any women?
I’m being uncharitable. I’m sorry :\ I’m getting carried away with my example and saying “Protestants”, but I know it’s not that simple. But there is an anti-Marian strain in some of it. Maybe as a retaliation to the Immaculate Conception. But they throw the baby out with the bathwater in doing so.
I don’t know if it’s fair to call Augustine Gnostic (at least not consciously), but he definitely brought a lot of Platonian baggage with him.
Oh bother. I just realized my local pro-women’s ordination diocese’s closest parish thinks Tim Keller is cool. These neo-Calvinists have their claws in every church! Insane! You can’t even get away from their influence. I blame the overly trusting natures we humans have of anyone who appears on TV or in newspaper interviews and who happens to sound like they like Jesus, too. That, and I’ve had yet another reminder of how political the ACNA can be. I hate being told who/what to vote for.
I guess I’m staying home. I dunno, what do you think? I’d like to go to church and make friends. One day all my family members will be dead from old age, and I’ll be the only one left. It would sure make me feel less lonely to go to church and at least try to build friendships. But then I think I just want to escape the scandals and crazy teachings.
Maybe when all my family passes I’ll join one of those evangelical monasteries that are so in vogue right now. Prayer Foundation / Knights of Prayer sounds interesting. I could wear green! Just imagine! Me, in a green hoodie / robe!
And getting back to the topic…Meghan wrote:
That sounds interesting, Meghan. Hopefully, we will be able to pick it up over here.
@ Lydia:
I recommended the course because it wasn’t pro-Calvin, not to score points which your reply seems to suggest.
Ken wrote:
I wonder if you are equally outraged at the murder of 3000 Protestants in Paris and 70000 in the rest of France around the same time?
@ GSD [Getting Stuff Done]:
I think Luther was Dominican.
A Dominican, but when I originally pointed out Augustine’s influence, I just meant as a patristic source. Not the order of monks themselves.
Or rather, it’s more about Augustine being a giant in the West, period. At the exclusion of many others (perhaps because of the use of Latin).
@ Lydia:
The monument is in the Champel district of Geneva. It was erected in in 1903 and the inscription reads -“As reverent and grateful
sons of Calvin,
our great Reformer,
repudiating his mistake, which was the mistake
of his age,
and according to the true principles of the
Reformation and the Gospel
holding fast to the freedom of conscience,
we erect
this monument of reconciliation
on XXVII October MCMIII”
He also has a street named after him.
@ Lowlandseer:
Thank you. I remember reading about it. I find “freedom of conscience” and the “reconciliation” verbage interesting- in 1903.
Will have to see if there is “reconciliation” for the banished and ruined protege, Castilello (sp?) in Basel. 🙂
It doesn’t really get better from there. Look at his offspring. I fail to see the “freedom of conscience” in, say, how Cromwell dealt with the Irish. Or in infamous stories in Salem.
This isn’t even an anachronism from my modern standpoint either. If you read the KJV “Translators to the Reader”, they were already pointing out how much trouble these guys were then. “Self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil”.
@ Ken:
I have a comment in moderation at the moment asking if you are similarly angered by the fate of over 70000 Huguenots at the hands of the RCC around the same period as Servetus.
@ Ken:
My view is that the Neo Cals ran with Calvin as if he were some super spiritual rock star. It became Calvin vs. Jesus in many ways.
The irony is the frozen chosen types barely mentioned him.
The Neo Cals are the ones who put him front and center as the arbiter of the Gospel. Why wouldn’t people research him from all angles and not just sanitized insider approved history?
To be nice about it, I’m going to say some want to be in touch with the history of Christianity.. but they stop at the Reformation (and Calvin is an attractive figure, since he gave them a systematic theology in his Institutes). I understand the need to be in touch with history… we are part of a rich tradition. But some may be afraid to explore further, because of anti-Catholic bias.. or rather, assuming Catholicism is the sum total of all Christendom before the Reformation.
For the good people there in these circles, they should delve deeper. Even if they came to the same conclusions, it would be unfair to ignore history. More than unfair even! By tossing out over a thousand years before the Reformation, they’re insulting Jesus’ own work. As if he was so incompetent as to have to let his Church fall into such disrepair.. and not do anything about it.
Even without mentioning Calvin, the charismatic evangelicals have a similar pattern. They use terms like “latter rain”.. like the Holy Spirit just went silent for two millenia and suddenly just came back for THEM “in these days”. Sigh.
@ Ken:
I like the way you miss out the previous phrase about being “traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad”.
Another edited view of history to prove your point, I think.
Lowlandseer wrote:
It isn’t edited history. I did it on purpose, just to stick on point.
You apparently haven’t read anything else I’ve said. I dislike “Popish persons at home or abroad” just as much. Everyone in the West is drinking from the same poisonous well. They’re all Catholics in one form or another. Unless they’re from an Anabaptist type of tradition.
Lydia wrote:
The same should be said regarding Luther.
elastigirl wrote:
I never saw it either. Didn’t want to. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was murdered by a corrupt religious system in collusion with the Roman Military. I also believe that he rose from the dead, ate grilled fish with his friends, and that He will also return bodily one day to judge the living and the dead.
What I do not believe is that His Father orchestrated and engineered that horrible fate at the hands of the Romans in order to assuage and placate his wrath toward humankind. My conscience will not allow me to sign onto it. And yeah, there’s a clobber verse in Romans for that one too.
Rather than say it was orchestrated to placate wrath, you can still say it’s orchestrated.. But an orchestration to demonstrate his love. Love, not wrath.
It’s an orchestration that started with the book of Genesis:
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” God was already working to undo Death at this moment, and begin the process of bringing us back into his presence. And since we have free will, it took time.
I think Jesus probably had to die in such a way, only to make the resurrection that much more powerful. And I do think his suffering was predicted.. at least as far back as Isaiah 53.. the Song of the Suffering Servant.
—
As an aside, and this isn’t talked about often in Christian teaching it seems, but in Judaism, there are traditions of “two messiahs”. Contrary to popular belief, Judaism doesn’t just believe in a Messiah like King David. They believe in a Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David.
Messiah ben Joseph comes from Joseph from Genesis, and Messiah ben David is the Warrior King. Joseph, as you know, was betrayed by his brothers. The Jews saw the Suffering Servant in Isaiah to be this “seperate” Messiah, who was supposed to come first before Messiah ben David. This Messiah ben Joseph is also called a “Craftsman” in Talmudic tradition. He is said to “rebuild the Temple”, only to be betrayed by the enemies of God and killed. After which, the Jews will suffer until the day that Messiah ben David comes and brings vengeance.
What they get wrong is Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David are the same man. And like Joseph who got betrayed by his brothers, Jesus was betrayed by his. And like Joseph turned it on their heads and became powerful in Egypt, so did Jesus become a light for the Gentiles and save them from their own famine and spiritual starvation. And like Messiah ben Joseph was said to be the Craftsman who rebuilds the Temple, so Jesus rebuilds it in the form of the Church.
@ Ricco:
I appreciate how you humbly responded.
I think I take John 1 seriously. Hmm
From Genesis 3 we learn that a sacrifice needs to be made for sin. The animals had to be killed to provide the “covering”. Substitionary atonement is developed throughout the rest of the Old Testament and into the New Testament. Psalm 23, Isaiah 53 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. These are just a few examples.
I don’t see how we can take the Bible seriously if we don’t see the well developed doctrines it teaches. So if that is having “religious certainty” I plead guilty.
It’s one thing to go from saying sacrifice is all throughout the bible to saying one man’s sin got imprinted to all. No one is disputing the former. It’s obvious, right? But Original Sin is not obvious. Because it does not exist in any scripture.
This is bad doctrine, simply brought about by poor translation. Starting with Augustine’s Latin:
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned..” Rom 5:12
What the Latin says is “in whom all have sinned” instead of “because”. And then Augustine went to town with the idea.
@ Ken:
When I was researching Christian history I came to the conclusion the Protestants exchanged one pope for a pope in every pulpit.
@ Muff Potter:
Yep.
Muff Potter wrote:
Just love that.
@ Ken:
Lol. “They’re all Catholics….except Anabaptists.” (my paraphrase)
As for Augustine going to town with Romans 5:12, the following is a more accurate representation of the verse (and the Reformed Jew). (For the full argument, read John Murrayks Commentary 9n Romans)
“For these reasons we must conclude that the “all sinned” of verse 12 and the one trespass of the one man of verses 15–19 must refer to the same fact or event, that the one fact can be expressed in terms of both singularity and plurality, as the sin of one and the sin of all. And the only solution is that there must be some kind of solidarity existing between the “one” and “the all” with the result that the sin of the one may at the same time and with equal relevance be regarded as the sin of all. What this solidarity is it is not our purpose at present to determine. But once the fact of solidarity is appreciated, then we understand why the apostle can speak of the one sin and the sin of all. We must not tone down either the singularity or the universality.
We are now in a position to grasp the force of the comparison or correspondence implied in the continuative “and so” in verse 12. A comparison is instituted between the way in which sin and death entered and the way in which they became universal. Adam sinned and with sin came death. There is an inevitable sequence. But the same sequence applies to all. Since the sin of Adam is the sin of all, death spreads to all as inevitably as it fell to the lot of Adam and thus entered the world. The immediate sequence exemplified in Adam and in the entrance of death applies also to the universal reign of death. The solidarity existing between Adam and posterity establishes a correspondence between that which is exemplified in the case of Adam himself and that which happens to the whole human race. Adam sinned and death entered; in Adam all sinned and therefore death passed through to all. This is the force of “and so”. There is an exact parallel between what occurred in the case of Adam himself and that which occurred in the case of all. And the parallel in this case can only be properly understood when we appreciate the solidarity in sin. Paul says elsewhere, “In Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22). The only adequate explanation is that provided by Romans 5:12 that in Adam all sin.”
@Lowlandseer
Heh.. I just mean Anabaptists are so radical as to strip everything. I don’t know how to classify them 🙂
I’m having trouble understanding the rest of what you said. It’s not you. It’s me. You’re way of speaking is a bit over my head. I hold to Orthodox beliefs, so I’m also biased.. I’m not going to really accept Augustine. He has no Patristic support, outside Gregory. The Church is not One Guy. That’s what went wrong with the West, in going the Augustine route. He is in a world all his own. And I simply accept what the rest of the church teaches.
I believe we inherited Death from Adam. And Death creates an environment of sin. Mortality creates all kinds of occasion for sin (example, if one wants to get ahead, they’re tempted to cheat or kill. If one wants to make their time on earth “worth it”, they fall prey to pleasure seeking. And as more humans were born into the world, they influenced the environment.. they created cultures that rewarded or enticed people to more evil).
I also think we inherited the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil from Adam and Eve. This is not Sin, but the inclination to sin. The ego, the desire and arrogance to be another “I am”, to be like gods. But since humans are separated from the true God, their will is inevitably sinful. Only the most remarkable upbringing could change the course a bit.
But we do not inherit Adam’s guilt. We are guilty on our own.
@ Lowlandseer:
It’s this type of interpretation that made infant baptism necessary for some to try and deal with this sort of view.
Ken wrote:
Is it in the Creeds? that we say each Sunday in church?
Infant baptism existed before Augustine, but it had nothing to do with original sin or the anxiety that he described. It was already around at least by Polycarp, who wrote he’d been a Christian “86 years” (his lifetime). He was born in the 60s AD. But rather than sin, it was considered a blessing, to be brought up in the faith, and that baptism is meant to convey that grace. Yet, it’s not a requirement either.
As for Augustine, the story goes that once he read that passage from Romans, he became anxious about infants and commanded their baptisms.
Err.. I mean “but rather than seen to be prevent original sin, it was considered a blessing to be brought up in the church”.
Not sure how I messed up that sentence.
@ Ken:
From my research perspective, Baptism became associated asa sacrament. The means to grace. In the Old Testament it was a purification ceremonial thing as JTB used it.
I didn’t catch the bit about ceremony and OT. But yeah, sacrament/grace. What’s strange is that Catholics have such a severe attitude towards infants’ souls (or at least, used to), but yet, they don’t allow them the Eucharist until later in life. They’re not full members of the church, like elsewhere.
Lydia wrote:
In your research did you find a point where infant baptism was first introduced as a Christian practice? From what I have found it looks like Christians baptized infants from the very beginning, and did not reject infant baptism until the “radical reformation.”
Lydia wrote:
Nicely put, and so apt today in many churches.
@ Muff Potter:
“What I do not believe is that His Father orchestrated and engineered that horrible fate at the hands of the Romans in order to assuage and placate his wrath toward humankind. My conscience will not allow me to sign onto it.”
++++++++++++++++++++
do you see the event as destined to happen not by divine decree but because of the tension between good and evil?
so, not orchestrated by God the Father but inevitable, & still efficacious in bridging the gap between humans and God?
(not able to mentally access the depths of all this, so just going off surface thoughts)
@ Ken:
Thanks for explaining Ken. As an aside, I just came across a bit in the Summa where Aquinas agrees with Augustine on original righteousness and the transmission of it/or not to the children.
@ elastigirl:
Yes to both queries.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I see no ‘exact parallel’, only a specious claim arrived at by circular reasoning.
I prefer the simpler solution that death (in terms of a finite life-span) got seeded into the human genome and passed on, nothing more, and nothing less.
@ Muff Potter:
i think the so-called ‘clobber verses’ can be seen as the products of minds trying to make sense of past & present, and ascribing either more more or much less or much different to God than is really there behind the looking glass (that we look into dimly & darkly).
which isn’t to say it is not inspired.
wow, these little conversations are so outrageously helpful.
i think i just made exponential progress in my long and winding & road that leads to God’s door.
…and it’s not to say i (or anyone here) is 100% correct. but it does mean the ball & chain of cognitive dissonance is further severed and i am freer to be in the sunlight of what is peaceful & positive & life-giving.
elastigirl wrote:
I heard it described as God letting his kids tell the story. And as a consequence the Bible might not be inerrant in all of the details it describes, but it is inerrant in leading us to Christ. In this way it a product of both humanity and divinity. It’s an interesting way to look at it.
Lowlandseer wrote:
But then one has to explain Rom 5:19 and other similar verses making parallels between Adam’s sin and and the gift of eternal life. If only the elect are saved, then perhaps only the elect are born with original sin/guilt?
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
There are places in the NT where it states a household was baptized. That doesn’t necessarily mean children. I don’t have a source for earliest infant baptism.
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
Excellent!
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
What I read in that comment was solidarity in total depravity.
This is always a tough convo. Yes, people have a propensity to do wrong. Some evil. But we have to go “choices”. And we know from history that sometimes choosing good means that you must give up your life or freedom. Easier said than done.
That’s where the whole thing gets off track with Calvinism. Without Choice there is no real personal responsibility unless you are willing to live in cognitive dissonance. It doesn’t work.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, probably because it has no clear answers that are obvious to all. There does seem to be a paradox to it, but I agree with you on the importance of free choice.
Lydia wrote:
My take away is there is no reason not to baptize infants because the Bible does not prohibit it. But I did not always believe this. I was taught that infant baptism was a later invention. However, there is no evidence for this. It looks like Christians have been baptizing infants from the earliest days. I sympathize with the credo-Baptists, but I don’t think they have rationale to insist anyone else has to agree with them. It certainly not be a reason for division.
@elastigirl
That’s awesome! I love when that happens.
@Lydia
I think the St. Polycarp example I mentioned maybe the earliest. He was also a bishop from the hands of St. John. This is attested also by Irenaeus and St. Jerome later. Pliny was a Roman governor and torturer of Christians in the early 2nd century, and even he writes that the “Christian cult” included children, but hard to say if that meant baptism.
Silly me, I forgot the Didache, which is older than Polycarp. This is about the most important summary of traditions handed down by the Apostles that isn’t in the Bible. Some Christians may even be uncomfortable with it (since it was oral tradition rather than “written” tradition i.e. the Scriptures… but at one time, these were one and the same thing).
It’s also why, say, the Orthodox point their altars to the East (possibly because they were still from the original Synagogue community, where Jews also face East towards Jerusalem). Or the method of dunking three times for baptism.. one for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Ugh, I meant the Didache doesn’t mention pedobaptism, but it’s the oldest and gives pretty detailed instructions on the earliest church. Polycarp is the second oldest I think.
Man, my tendency to triple post is such a mess.
@ Ken:
It seems you were responding to me. Sorry I thought I was responding to Ricco.
Genesis 1:27 says that man was made in the image of God.
Genesis 5:1-3 repeats after a fashion stating that when God created man he made him in the likeness of God.
Verse 3 states that Adam fathered a son “in his own likeness”. I submit that something happened to Adam before Adam fathered this son that changed the pure “likeness” of God and now was the likeness of Adam and that change is meant to show us that Seth and by extension all of us inherited Adam sin nature.
How else would you explain why Jesus had to come and redeem us to God? Praise God, Jesus was raised from the dead so we can know for certain it was accomplished!
@ Ken A:
Also I don’t really see your point about a faulty translation from Latin. I am not a Greek scholar but, my Strong concordance says that the word from Romans 5:12 is “passed” and the definition Strongs gives fits quite nicely with Adam passing a sin nature to all of us. Haven’t we come a long way from having to rely on what Augustine translated out of the Latin? I think we have.
elastigirl wrote:
Nor do I claim to be 100% correct. I have opinions, maybes, perhapses, and that’s it. But at day’s end, I don’t know.
I trust in Messiah’s very literal and bodily person, and in nothing more.
Ken A wrote:
There’s an important difference between “in” and “because”. The Latin translation says “in whom all have sinned”. As if we were all in Adam’s loins, and sitting there rubbing our hands like little demons, snickering and sinning along with him.
I never said we don’t inherit Adam’s nature. I’m talking about guilt. We don’t inherit guilt. We inherit the mystery of what happened from the “Knowledge of Good and Evil”, we inherit the Seperation from God in the Garden and can longer walk with him without Christ, we inherit Death and toil and all the trappings that go along with it (and all the temptations to alleviate it), we inherited what the serpent promised.. to “be like gods”.. which is not godlike at all. Without the true God.. the true “I AM”, our ego nature is hopeless.. but do we inherit guilt?
“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.” – Ez 18:20
Ken A wrote:
This is not what the Bible says. It says he passed death to all of us. The Greek word sarx is translated as sinful nature in some translations (like NIV), but flesh is more literal. Interestingly, Jesus came in the sarx and suffered in the sarx, but I don’t think anyone would argue that he had/has a sinful nature.
I’ll just muse on one other thing.
Jesus said of John: “I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
It is possible to please God and resist our nature. We’re not so hopeless as to be incapable of pleasing God. But even greater still and more complete is to see the full of redemption in Christ (thus, the “least in the kingdom” is greater than John). I think this is partly why the older churches honor Mary the most, because she experienced both. Her soul “magnified the Lord” as a girl, but she was also there at the cross and Pentecost.
This idea that we’re all hopeless by sharing Adam’s guilt however is gross. I’ve even seen some protestant teachers go as far as saying that Jesus’ own minsitry was pointless and he was wasting his time teaching anyone. That he could have just been born, lived silently, and then one day just died on the cross to “pay the debt”. This is disgusting. Not to mention boring. I wouldn’t want to live in a world without the full gospel and life of Jesus.
You’re the one that said sinful nature. lol. I’ve been saying we inherited Death throughout this thread. I only gave the benefit of the doubt to “sinful nature” to be friendly. My real point is that we don’t inherit is guilt.
Ken wrote:
I think you are confusing Kens. There only about 5 or 6 of us commenting here. I guess it makes it interesting.
haha.. oops.
maybe I’ll change my name.
Ken A wrote:
I never bought into this because Adam had the “ability” to disobey God. He was created with choice as was Eve.
Can you explain furher, Lydia? I think the “something” that happened to Adam is obvious: 1) He ate from the wrong tree. He lost God’s fellowship in garden, 2) rather than be with God, he became like a god 3) “sure you shall die”
Puts another spin on Jesus’ original prophetic name too btw.. Immanuel, God with us. The second Adam is a return to our original state.
BTW, this is “plain Ken”. I’m changing the name.
If you are saying people die for their own sins. I agree. We die because we earn that with our sin. “The wages of sin is death”. Pretty clear isn’t it?
Unrelated to what is above, do you think it is possible for a human to live life and not sin?
Also I don’t know if we inherit Adam’s “guilt”. We sin because that is our nature before we come to Christ and have a new nature. I think all of us sinners know it is wrong, yet we do it. Romans 7. Apparently the draw is so strong it doesn’t leave after conversion. “Who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
I just don’t think Augustine’s translation from centuries ago has as much all pervasive power over the Western church as you seem to think. Ultimately anyone who is a true Christian has the Holy Spirit as his teacher and will be guided into the truth.
It’s been fun. I don’t think much is being accomplished at this point, one way or the other. Thanks
Original Sin is central to all Catholics and all historical reformed. Other evangelicals may be partly Calvinistic and either consciously or unconsciously assume some of it’s tenets. It’s pervasive. If you’re talking to a Protestant, it’s impossible to not hear them talk about Jesus paying a “debt”, etc.. And Protestants in general thinking of salvation as an act that happens when you “believe”..something in the past, rather than present and future. Their sense of salvation is one of hopeless sinners who got saved in a specific moment in time. Nothing else matters, because the doctrine of Original Sin insists that nothing matters except debt payment. Many Hymns are replete with this idea too. “Blessed Assurance.. Jesus is mine”. “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound…” Protestants think people are hopeless and are simply saved.. works or not. This is everywhere in the Protestant sphere. 🙂
However, I think in practice I think many Christians take God more seriously than that and wish to do their best. I’m only talking about doctrine.. there’s a gap between how people live day to day and what is being taught.
@ Ken A:
First define sin. I don’t believe babies choose to do wrong or evil. I believe we are born in corrupted bodies on a corrupted Earth.
The word “sin” has been corrupted because so many believe our very existence is sin.
@ Lydia:
You are right. Babies I think are not accountable for sin. If a child dies before an age of willful sin, I think it is covered by the blood of Jesus and goes to heaven.
I need to point out that I still love Amazing Grace..
Just to be clear 😛
Sin is a transgression of the law, or revealed will of God. When I was a kid and for that matter more recently than is comfortable for me, I knew God said “do no lie”, and yet I choose to do it. That is sin.
Yet even that one seems to be flexible. Remember when David saved himself when he was captured by Phillistines, and he pretended that he was some random madman (1 Samuel 21).
Umm.. actually Sam 21 shows that other example of David breaking the law and eating the holy bread reserved for priests (something Jesus himself used as an example).
@ Ken A:
Rahab lied and saved people. God saved her. (This is what got my daughter in trouble in biblical worldview class at a Christian School)
Anywho, the law is fulfilled? Sheesh. We could discuss that one all day. So how do we love God and others. What does that look like?
Ken A wrote:
I think you are making this too complicated. We die because we are mortal. This is what we inherited from Adam. Even if we were able to live a sinless life (which we cannot), we would still die physically. There is no escape from physical death, which is why Jesus came to defeat death (among other things). As far as sin goes, Heb 2:15 says we are in bondage/slavery because of our fear of death.
It’s very cool to see so many here with the same outlook on Death and sin. Perhaps some of you are NT Wright/New Perspective fans? I’m not sure what he says about Death, but I know he’s remarkably similar to older church teachings compared to other evangelicals.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, and thus we get into intent. Rahab intended good. To save the spies. I think we only owe truth to those who deserve it. When the Tenbooms hid Jews it was not sin. They did not owe the Nazis to tell them what they were doing. But, oh so many of our lies are for evil intent. Perhaps the most evil to make ourselves look better than we are.
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
Ken F, Than are you saying the Paul was wrong when he said “the wages of sin is death”? Or how about God when he told Adam, “when you eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die”?
@ Lydia:
Loving God? That is easy to define. Much less easy to do. Jesus said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” Thank God we have the Spirit now to break the power of sin, though it still has an influence I would admit.
Loving others? I would start with the 2nd greatest commandment. “Love your neighbor as yourself”. That one takes a lot of thought. It should be simple. But I find it harder to carry out than it should be.
@Ken A
I hate to keep butting in, but I’m very interested in the topic.
I’m in total agreement with you about the commandments. Theology aside, it simply comes down to that. I think we all agree here. And indeed, the Spirit does enable us to overcome more than what we can do ourselves.
I’m going to leave it at that. I feel compelled to get more into more theology, but whatever. The end result is going to be the same.
Ken A wrote:
No, not at all. According to the Bible, we are born into a sentence of death (mortality). None of us want to die, so we all look for solutions in things that cannot give life, which is puts us in bondage (Heb 2:15). This is at the root of all religious systems. The problem is we sin in these efforts, and since sin results in death (as it always will), we make our problem even worse. Even our attempts to live perfectly are not good enough, which is why Paul wrote, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” The only solution is for death itself to be defeated, which is what Jesus accomplished for us.
The question about whether or not a person can be sinless is purely theoretical. But even if someone could be sinless, it would not free them from death because there is no human way to escape mortality. There is no way out of this problem without God stepping in to rescue us.
@ Ken A:
I know what it says. I asked what it looked like. I ask this because it amazes me how many people see that lived out in reality quite differently. We might even have to define love! 🙂
So, just an example of how interesting this can be is in reading Matthew. I get the sense when reading the book of Matthew that Jesus views the big sinners of that time as the “religious leaders” of the Jews. Not the cruel pagan occupying Romans. Why? And the Religious leaders were “keeping the Law” to stifling degrees. They missed the concept and spirit of the Law, of course.
I am not arguing for or against Law in this respect. I am seeking understanding beyond what often seems like cliched verses that I think only bring more questions. Its interesting to me but I can understand if it’s not to others. In some circles, people clutch their pearls and get the vapors if such is dared discussed. And that includes many men in pulpits! 🙂
I would hold that some of the church’s oldest traditions is the sinlessness of Mary. This is root behind her “Assumption” (Catholic) or “Dormition” (Orthodox). The main difference is Catholics follow the doctrine of Original Sin…so made more doctrines in the 19th century about the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox simply teach that should have sinned… but chose not to. This is why I also mentioned John the Baptist, the greatest of men in Jesus’ own words (“yet the least in the kingdom is greater than he”). This is also a big reason why you’ll see both John and Mary at the right of the altars in every orthodox church. They are both the forerunners of Christ, but also the greatest saints.
So for billions of people, it’s not a theoretical question, but part of their faith (and that faith isn’t Sola Scriptura obviously. The scripture is just one part of their tradition).
I mean “The Orthodox teach that she could have sinned, but chose not to”.
I totally need an edit button 🙁
@ Lydia:
What it looks like? Well it isn’t trying harder. I think it is an overwhelming realization of God’s kindness in our redemption. In thankfulness for his grace and goodness to us we seek to obey.That involves love to God and our fellow men and women. God works in us and we work it out. “He works in us both to will and to do his good pleasure”.
I am afraid it may”look” like trying harder. But then we get into intent again. I think a big part of the Gospel is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”. To obey is joy and not a burden. That is my best attempt in this short amount of time.
Seraph wrote:
I wonder if in the Western Rites, this might have been a corollary to Augustine’s rationale of Original Sin. Since to Augustine sin is inherited from Adam like a genetic mutation, St Mary would have to have been protected from it in order to bear the sinless Christ. (Finally formalized in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception around the 19th Century.)
Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:
So an alternate translation could be “he passed MORTALITY to all of us”?
A lot of religions/belief systems have as two pillars of purpose Dealing with Guilt and finding a way around Death.
Ken wrote:
Remember: A full third of the Didache is on how to recognize and deal with a con man in the pulpit. Something completely-forgotten today.
@ Ken A:
You don’t think the pedophile should try harder by any means necessary to not act on proclivities? What about the person with anger issues? Just pray and they go away? I once read something from an unusual (for me) source that resonated with me. JC Ryle wrote in Practical Religion that we have to “practice” our beliefs. NT Wright has taught similar so as to make it our new nature. It’s really what metanoia is all about. Change. And our responsibility for change. We have help, too. 🙂
NT Wright, as I understand, stumbled on something.. or was it EP Sanders?… about morality. They call it the New Perspective, but it’s really an Old Perspective. It goes to the error of the Reformers, in equating the “works of the law” as morality itself.
It makes no sense, because Paul also admonished plenty on morality. “Works of the law” are specifically the laws that separated Jews from Gentiles (circumcision, etc). Christians are not called to follow these, but very much encouraged to live out a moral life.
Luther was so extreme in his doctrine of Sola Fide that he wanted to get rid of the Epistle of James (because he upheld “works”). That’s a red flag when someone wants to trash the canon itself.
Ricco wrote:
Very cool, thanks Ricco. I’ll watch that today. As a [very] amateur theologian, it’s nice to have some reassurance that I’m alone in my crazy logic.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That’s what it seems like. Romans 5 not only talks about the death we inherited, but also that death reigns. Mortality seems to be one aspect of that death, but perhaps death means more then just mortality. In any case, I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where we inherit a “sinful nature” or guilt from Adam. These seem to be interpretations projected onto the Bible.
Seraph wrote:
Nowhere, let me repeat that, Nowhere does the narrative say that he lost fellowship with God. Ask yourself, do you have kids? And if so, would you disfellowship them if they got talked into something that would spell their demise by some interloper who hates them for their beauty and autonomy?
In my opinion it’s a lie hatched by the father of lies.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Wikipedia says, “Luther dedicated himself to the Augustinian order…” But I’m not completely clear on how the orders work. And I never completely trust Wikipedia.
And for my two cents on sacrifice and wrath… Penal Sub ideas would connect God’s wrath with the sacrifice of animals, and later Jesus, as an act that somehow assuage’s God’s anger at sin, and His sense of justice. The word “satisfaction” is often used.
I think that misses another important word: covenant. Animal sacrifices were a vital part of ancient covenants, and the sacrifice of Jesus was also integral to the establishment of a New Covenant, in which we have forgiveness. It’s a better covenant, with a much better sacrifice, once for all. So the cross is the offering of a life to an angry God whose wrath must be satisfied, but it’s God, establishing a covenant with humanity, in the midst of humanity’s most horrible act of violence.
Like I said… Amateur theologian.
Sinful nature is circumstantial..not physical like Death. It’s the separation from God. Which, in a sense, we inherit from Adam as much as we inherit Death. We inherit that horrible circumstance. But as we see throughout the old testament, God offered to become closer to people. And some were able to do that. But ultimately, God was working to permanently be “with us” (Immanuel). And “it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh”. For to be truly close to God is not merely to follow commands, but to allow God to live in you. And this only comes through Christ.
@ Lydia:
Thanks Lydia! It has been a pleasure. I said it was the best I could do in a short amount of time. You are thinker. We need more thinkers, in my opinion.
@ Seraph:
I have never understood the New Perspective and didn’t look into it very much. It seemed like a nice way to say we got some stuff wrong in interpretation. I am still trying to finish his Opus on Paul!
Yeah, Paul even has lists of things people do that are problematic to a believers life. Such as we see in Galatians and Corinthians. I personally believe that the Reformed view of sin and behavior is very problematic even though many live lives of decent Christian citizens. I also believe the interpretation of metanoia as repent is a problem. It doesn’t even begin to cover it. It has been reduced to a flippant, “sorry”!.
Muff Potter wrote:
They lost the garden. i.e. Fellowship. Paradise. And his own eating of the fruit created the estrangement. You’re thinking that God wanted to break fellowship. No. No. No. I’m talking about Adam being afraid and hiding. I’m talking about all of us who don’t know God being afraid and hiding. This is not fellowship.
@ Ken A:
Thank you. I am trying to figure out a way to articulate what we read in scripture and real life experience. Its hard. I don’t have the “words”!
@ Lydia:
By the way I like this response as you say “change”. Yes repentance is assumed in the New Testament. I think that is clear.
When I first encountered God (I won’t go into detail), I myself ran and hid, in a way… I felt convicted, but I just wanted my old life back.. I didn’t want to confront the truth.. even though I knew it was in fact the truth.
Only when I finally surrendered did I find it wasn’t bad… not bad at all! And I eventually found Christ, and couldn’t have it any other way.
Maybe I’m being too abstract. I really don’t want to go into detail.. but my point is that the estrangement from God is real to me, from experience. The Before and After state are nothing alike. I wasn’t born with the peace that I have now.
@ Muff Potter:
Yes. They turned away/hid from God. This is also made clear in the case of Eve with the word Hebrew word, teshuqa.
It was in fact the “father of lies” who created this situation too. My teaching doesn’t come from the father of lies! I’m merely telling a story about the father of lies. The one who told Eve that “you’ll be like gods”. The one who convinced us that we could be self-sufficient, be like gods, and didn’t need God. That’s the Lie.
@ Seraph:
Beautiful —no matter how you got there!
Seraph wrote:
Losing something bestowed from a benefactor by natural consequences is not the same thing as disfellowship and estrangement.
Muff Potter wrote:
Their estrangement caused it. I think it’s a mystery what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil truly is, but I have an instinctual sense it has a lot to do with the birth of our Ego. Just my silly theory though. And not well thought out. I just think the promise to “be like gods” ties into this “Ego self” and our sense of Will. It created a whole new paradigm in how we relate to God.
You snapped at me because you’re thinking in reverse.. that I’m saying God is repelled by us. NO. I’m saying WE are repelled by God.
God had to kick Adam and Eve out of the Garden because of the Tree of Life. Lest they live forever. But this is a blessing in disguise. It was God’s first act of mercy, not an act of hate. While Adam and Eve were a mess, God still loved them enough to prevent them from living forever in this awful state. There was another way to fix it, and without violating our will (another act of mercy).
It’s funny, since we’re talking about a story that I’m not entirely sure which parts are based in fact or not. But I do think it’s teaching a clear lesson.
As you all know, the Mesopotamian myths had a story of a Garden of Eden too.. but in that version, the gods created it for their own pleasure.. and humans were just lowly beings they made to manage the garden. The whole story centered around the gods, rather than us. The Bible version is pretty radical for it’s time, in how it switches things up. And makes the garden something for us… and something we lost. Whoever wrote it, I think he’s saying that much. That things took a turn for the worse for us.
@ Muff Potter:
“I trust in Messiah’s very literal and bodily person, and in nothing more.”
+++++++++++++++++
ohhh, we could explore this for hours & days. it would be deeply satisfying. (cigars would be a nice touch)
if you’re still reading, what is the significance of Messiah’s very literal and bodily person in your daily living and future outlook?
@ Seraph:
Yes. I think you are on to something often left out. The historical comparisons. Such as comparing ancient creation narratives, comparing Jesus as “Son” of God to Ceasars ‘son of gods’, etc, etc. The historical backdrop –which can bring a richer understanding.
Ken A wrote:
I’m really trying to dig into letting the Trinity inform everything I think about the Bible. I know this isn’t the only way, but I needed a new way or my faith would have been over, so here we are. My point is that if Jesus is our creator and the Trinity is united, then Jesus did not have to be killed so God can accept us because we are already in Jesus in some way because he is our creator and sustainer. This would have divided the Trinity.
I think that if you are reading with the doctrine of penal substitution in mind, then you will see the first sacrifice in Gen. 3. I used to read it that way myself. I read it now as God meeting fallen humanity where they are and continuing to give them what he needs. There is sacrifice and submission, but it is God submitting to fallen humanity because our freedom matters to him.
Take it for what it’s worth, I could easily be completely wrong
Seraph wrote:
No harm no foul, and no, I am not repelled by God, you’ll have to speak for yourself on that one.
Do you remember that old Dave Mason song?
…So let’s leave it alone ’cause we can’t see eye to eye
There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy
There’s only you and me and we just disagree…
I think that’s where we are at this juncture.
Ricco wrote:
It’s pretty amazing how much is often read into that short verse. It says nothing about animal sacrifice. It says nothing about how the animal was killed. It doesn’t even say what kind of animal it was. It says nothing about it being the first instance of death on the planet. It really says very little. Yet people use it to support their pet theologies.
@ Ricco:why kill an animal then. God definitely has to condescend to us. I am thankful He does.
On your Trinity point, be careful. Augustine made the point something like, that when the Bible says “In the beginning….” The beginning was Jesus. So I think some here don’t care for Augustine. I wouldn’t want you to have guilt by association. Haha
If substitionary atonement isn’t right God sypure did have that picture a lot in the Old Testament. Just saying.
My responses are out of order from yours.
Again thanks
@ JDV:
2Ricco wrote:
No, your explanation makes a lot of sense.
FOXNEWS channel just aired a brief interview with Rachel Denhollander. Martha McCallum was the interviewer.
(Done) Just watching wrote:
Here is the link: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5753137912001/?#sp=show-clips. It does not show the intro, which was also very good.
@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
yes, i watched, as well. dang, amazing times right now.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
But, but, but, double honor, obeying them, and all that! Were its writers part of the dreaded ADVOCATES brigade?
elastigirl wrote:
Man-O-Manischewitz could we ever! And yeah, cigars would add a certain ambiance.
elastigirl wrote:
I think the whole point is that I never had to try and ‘get to God’ He came to me in his very person. All that I touch, smell, think, hear, see and feel, is at his good pleasure, produced by him, and part of what it means to be human. He holds the whole kit-and-kaboodle together, He is almighty God in human form. Thankfulness is the overriding emotion for me, grateful to be alive, my little dogs, the love in their eyes for me, the hummingbirds chittering when I fill their feeder, and the wheel of constellations in the night sky, the whole tapestry (rich and royal hues), what else can I say?
Future outlook? I hope in Him. To me faith is hope not certainty. This life is too short to realize one’s full potential. And if not? I have loved and been loved. It is enough.
Muff Potter wrote:
You are very blessed then. Really. This is why it’s so important to raise children with the grace of God in their life.
I wasn’t… and I got older, I was terrible. I fell into gangs, hurt people for no reason. By the time I was 16 or sometihng, I got kicked out of high school. The only place that could take me in was a Catholic school run by nuns on the other side of town. I got in, but I was still terrible! I even stole cake from a nun’s bake sale :\
Then one day one of the oldest nuns, who hardly spoke to everyone, took me to the side into her classroom. She gave me a rosary and said “God is going to speak to children soon.” It was strange.
And within a year, my life turned upside down, and her word became true. And I was ashamed and hid. God finally cajoled me out of my shell. It’s not that he hated me. I hated myself.
this shows the intro as well on the denHollander interview.
https://youtu.be/NeY_7O5BvD4
@ Muff Potter:
muff — that is the most awesome thing i’ve ever read.
that has to be the purest picture of the veil torn in two. i’m sure the pleasure is entirely mutual. the pleasure of each other’s company. what more could anyone want in being a person of faith?
i love how you describe it as naturally happening. not the result of pursuing, trying so hard, trial & error. seems like it just sort of happened.
kind of like that poem, “happiness is like a butterfly, the more you chase it the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder. –Henry David Thoreau.
i think God is as available as air. the more we focus on breathing it, the more we try to make it happen, the less we’re able to breath it. the process of ingesting air becomes labored through trying too hard. seems effort should make it a more successful process. but it absolutely does not.
but when we relax and don’t think about it, but turn our attention to other things, we start breathing air automatically. it happens so much easier when we stop trying. and simply receive instead.
You guys are speaking like believers. Don’t lose perspective. A lot of people need help and need the gospel. It doesn’t just happen. I wasn’t born with it. Many aren’t.
I find peace in gratitude and as something as simple as the birds of the air.. but it took God breaking into my life to do that first. Did it somehow fly over your head how awful this world is and how lost humans are with him? 🙁
without him! I mean. :\
OK, I’m gonna just drink my coffee now. God bless
@ Muff Potter:
“All that I touch, smell, think, hear, see and feel, is at his good pleasure, produced by him, and part of what it means to be human. He holds the whole kit-and-kaboodle together, He is almighty God in human form.”
+++++++++++++++++
thank you, Muff, for taking the time to write that personal response.
i have questions…. what are they, exactly…
as far all sensory things, as far as God holding the whole kit & kaboodle together, i am more in tune with God’s spiritual presence — the life-giving, stablizing hum of God’s spiritual presence — than i am with the presence of God’s human form in Jesus.
i have a hard time being aware of God in human form. of relating Jesus in his human body to things like omnipresence. i can use my imagination, but it’s not the same as spiritual awareness. of awareness of a sort of life-giving hum or buzz that softens and intensifies (like during prayer).
on second thought, my friend has a photo she took of snowy trees and shadows, black & white, and there in the arrangement of shades is Jesus’ face. it is unmistakable. i’ve seen other pictures like this, although my friend’s pic is the only one i know is authentic.
so, maybe that literally illustrates how Jesus in human form is somehow so integral and such a part of creation,…. like, dna. take something organic apart, look closely and you find the building block of dna. similarly, look closely at what is (matter, shadows, light, water vapor) and you find the building block of Jesus himself – his human face, his human form. like a fingerprint, ….
….oh, a cigar would be nice right now.
@ Seraph:
i suppose we speak like believers because we are believers.
i am simply working through my own relationship with God, here, trying to understand it more. surely i know that people need guidance from others in finding God, and that the bible provides a map in a way. at the same time, God is very available. sometimes it is hard to find God, but God is no less available.
elastigirl wrote:
Well, I understand that. And like Muff, I think you too are blessed if these things came a little faster for you. It’s a grace to learn about God and gratitude before you fall prey to other things. I don’t blame my parents or anything, but it wasn’t the case for me. And like I touched on a bit earlier, I grew up with others like me.. we all got lost in gang life.
And now just about all of them are dead or in prison. I was blessed myself for getting out before it got too serious, but as we moved past our teens, I started seeing them going too deep in that life and dropping like flies. If not from drugs, then they were shot, stabbed, beaten into a coma until their parents just cut off life support. I know many here don’t pray for the dead probably, but I still find myself doing it. These guys lost without knowing God. There’s nothing worse, and I pray God has mercy.
And even when it’s not losses like the above, I still find casual people who are lost. My mom is one of them. She’s Buddhist, but don’t be fooled that they are all at peace. My dad just passed away himself last year, and I have hope for him that he’s in a better place. But my mom can’t even think straight. I know grief is normal, but she’s typical of a lot of people who don’t have a Christian view of death. This is another form of hopelessness in the world.
@ Seraph:
thank you for sharing your story about your life. a journey, indeed.
from talking to people and reading about people for at least a few decades now (ever since i started paying more attention), i think there is as much variety in the process of finding God as there is variety in human beings.
multi-faceted diamonds. they’re all unique, interesting and not without beauty.
@ Seraph:
i’m very sorry for the circumstances your friends found themselves in. i, too, hope for mercy for them.
i don’t think a faith journey is easy for anyone. it hasn’t been for me.
where i’m at now is the product of years’-long recovery of head injuries, and many years in a spiritually abusive church, wondering where oh where could God possibly be? Why aren’t the verses in the pocket promise book working?! How do i get out of the deep dark pit?
but we do get through it. it’s messy alright.
Well, I do think that is true somewhat. I do value some of the Buddha’s teachings on some level. His own enlightenment story was pretty interesting. Where he was a pampered prince named Siddartha, kept by his court and family inside the palace from seeing the harsh reality of life. Until he slipped out into the city and truly confronted pain and suffering for the first time. He was so shook he abandoned his riches (and even his family! He was already 35 by this time and had a wife and son) and went to find gurus to find wisdom about why there was pain in the world.
Everywhere he went, he couldn’t find good answers.. so he determined to seek until he did. His years of ascetic living finally brought “enlightenment” and he became known as the Buddha (the Enlightened One). He taught the “4 Noble Truths” about pain and how to end it.
But I don’t think he had the whole story. Buddhism teaches that ending desire will end pain. No desire, then you have nothing to grieve over. It almost sounds good, but Christianity doesn’t teach to cease desire. It teaches us to be content. Slight difference. That we should take joy in what is there.. not simply get rid of joy entirely.
It’s kind of similar to the difference in how Buddha also taught something like the “golden rule”. He said “Don’t do to the others what you don’t want done to you.”
While Jesus said “DO to others what you want done to you”. It’s active and engages, rather than retreats. This symbolizes a lot of differences between the two. Buddha wishes to find peace by negation, but Jesus brings something to fill the void to end pain. “And in him was life, and that light was the light of humankind.”
very interesting.
indeed, jesus brings something to fill the void, and (for me, at least) *help* the pain. although i do wish it had come when i desperately needed it.
sigh…. a journey. i’m thankful for now. while i’m not unthankful for the past journey, there is such value in appreciating the moment now, & not missing it.
I sympathize. I hope things keep improving for you 🙂
@ Seraph:
Thank you for sharing some of your experience. I am in awe of how deeply you have gone with seeking understanding. And I am grateful to the nun who planted that seed. You have been a blessing to me here in this discussion.
@Lydia I’m humbled, but you all are a blessing for me too. I’m actually pretty solitary at the moment. I’m really a hermit of sorts, and churches I’d like to visit are out of the way. So it’s nice to interact with other Christians even on the net.
I actually stumbled on this site.. because I was looking at the “Wartburg Project” (a Bible translation in the works.. the EHV). Then I found this, and this place was up my alley in pointing out some of the abuses out there.
Seraph wrote:
Seraph, that was such an insightful comparison between Christianity and Buddhism you made! Thank you so much!
Also, thank you for sharing your story. So sad for your friends! I pray God revealed Himself to them in their last moments. God can do anything, even reach back in time while we pray right now for the deceased.
@ Seraph:
Very glad you found TWW!
The Head Apostle is running scared of a mere WOMAN!
Like the Beast (corrupt political system) and False Prophet (corrupt religious system) fleeing in terror from a dead lamb…
@ Lowlandseer:
But by way of clarification and explanation, the Orthodox Church has never been all that keen on Aquinas as can be seen here
list of pro-Thomas and anti-Thomas writers/theologians of Byzantium.
pro-Thomas
Bessarion (he became Cardinal of latin church)
Maximos Chrysoberges (latin friendly in general)
Andreas Chrysoberges (latin Archbishop of Rhodes)
Demetrios Kydones (anathematized by synod of 1368 which condemned the doctrine of Thomas)
Prochoros Kydones (younger brother of Demetrios -anathematized by synod of 1368 which condemned the doctrine of Thomas)
Manuel Kalekas (disciple of Demetrios Kydones)
anti-Thomas
Metropolitan of Ancyra, Makarios
Joseph Bryennios (sporadically writes against Aquinas)
Demetrios Chrysoloras (Prime Ministerin Thesaslonika)
Barlaam of Calabria (was converted to Latin Church but before that he wrote two books against Aquinas)
Neilos Cabasilas (archbishop of Thessalonica )
Mathaios Angelos Panaretos (a layman from Byzantine imperial court)
Makarios, (Metropolitan of Ancyra)
Joseph Bryennios (sporadically writes against Aquinas)
Demetrios Chrysoloras (Prime Minister in Thessalonika)
Mark of Ephesus (Eugenikos, saint, Archbishop of Ephesus – known for his defense of Eastern Orthodoxy at the Council of Florence)
Kallistos Angelikoudis (monk)
George Voilos
Mathew Philaretos
Angelos Aidaros
both pro-Thomas and anti-Thomas
Gennadios Scholarios (saint, he is in a mixed category)
http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/3880-are-the-orthodox-opposed-to-thomas-aquinas/page-4?hl=mcrae#entry160587