Emerging Church

[mondar]

....(snip)... And to the extent that McLaren is saying that is wrong to think that "God has to punish a person to make things right", then I think that McLaren is in fact in line with what the Bible teaches. And I say this fully aware that probably most people conceive of the atonement as precisely that - that God "needs to punish a person" to deal with sin, and so He punishes Jesus.

I do not think that is the correct understanding of atonement.... (snip)....For starters, I post this from Romans 8:

For (G)what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in (I)the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Note how Paul says that God condemns sin, not Jesus on the cross. I cannot speak for Mr. McLaren, but my guess is that He is saying that it is wrong to think that God "punished" Jesus. And I would agree with that. I think the correct picture is one where God "de-activates" or defeats the power of sin on the cross, and Jesus is the self-sacrficial vessel which "contains" the true target of God's wrath - sin (seen as a power or force).

So there is indeed a sense in which I think McLaren is mistaken - there was indeed some ***-kicking done at the cross, but it was a malevolent force or power - sin - whose *** was kicked, not some person's.

LOL, what a coincidence this is. Would it be hypocrisy for me to quote N. T. Wright as support? He affirms penal substitution (Letter to the Romans p476). I guess it does not feel quite right for me to do that.

Concerning the bible verse you use to prove your point.... I dont see how Romans 8:3 is even talking about personal sin or a theory of the atonement. I suspect you are merely referring to the words "condemned sin," and then you attach a certain meaning to those words not related to the context. Any view looking at the word sin as "personal individual acts of sin" in the context would distort the context. Verse 2 says we are "free from the law of sin" (not personal sin). The context is not talking about dealing with personal sin, but it deals with the crosswork of Christ dealing with "the law of sin." In verse 3, "sin in the flesh" is the same thing in verse 2 as "the law of sin." Paul also uses the phrase in verse 6, "the mind of the flesh" to describe the same thing as when he uses the term "law of sin," or "condemned sin." So then the whole context is about "sin" in a certain sense of the word. Do you honestly think you can simply read the word "condemned sin" and make an entire theory of atonement based upon two words and not related it to the context?

Why dont you try a passage that relates to the atonement like Isa 53?

 

[Drew]

LOL, what a coincidence this is. Would it be hypocrisy for me to quote N. T. Wright as support? He affirms penal substitution (Letter to the Romans p476). I guess it does not feel quite right for me to do that.

Well I think we need to come to an understanding about what Wright believes. I certainly have read him extensively on this subject and I am fairly confident that what I have posted is entirely consistent with his view. So, yes, in this area too, I am a "Wright" disciple. I think you will find that he uses the term "penal substitution" in a manner different than you might think.

But, by all means, please tell us exactly what he says in the reference you quoted.

 

[Drew]

Concerning the bible verse you use to prove your point.... I dont see how Romans 8:3 is even talking about personal sin or a theory of the atonement.

Again, of this I am sure - Wright repeatedly holds up Romans 8:3 as the best Biblical expression of a theory of atonement, and, as per my previous posts, he makes it clear that he sees this text as asserting that the real target of God's wrath on the cross was sin, not Jesus.

I suspect you are merely referring to the words "condemned sin," and then you attach a certain meaning to those words not related to the context. Any view looking at the word sin as "personal individual acts of sin" in the context would distort the context.

I do not believe I have posted anything that suggests that I view "sin" here as "personal individual acts o sin". I certainly do not believe this, and I am not sure why you would attribute such a position to me.
And I am quite confident that my position on the meaning of "sin" here is in harmony with context.

Verse 2 says we are "free from the law of sin" (not personal sin). The context is not talking about dealing with personal sin, but it deals with the crosswork of Christ dealing with "the law of sin." In verse 3, "sin in the flesh" is the same thing in verse 2 as "the law of sin."

I think my view works perfectly well with verse 2 in relation to verse 3. Yes, verse 2 refers to a law of sin, but the context - Romans 7 in particular - shows that this "law of sin" is a kind of force, or power, or agency at work in the life of the unredeemed person. Paul here is not talking about "sin" as a moral category but about a real force at work in "the members" of the unredeemed. So when Paul then says, in Romans 8:3, that God condemns "sin", he is sayig that, on the cross, this power or force was defeated. Again, this is what I have been saying all along - sin, not Jesus, was the real target on the cross.

Why dont you try a passage that relates to the atonement like Isa 53?

I see nothing in Isaiah 53 to challenge the view that I hold.

It is clear that there is some misunderstanding between us on this matter. I do not believe I have written anything that would lead a reader to think that I view "sin" in Romans 8:3 as "personal individual acts of sin" - I decidedly reject such an interpretation.

 

[mondar]

Drew,
OK, please demonstrate your claim that Romans 8:3 presents a theory of atonement and also please related it to the context phrase by phrase. It might be a long post, but if you could include the phrases found from verse 3-13 and demonstrate their cohesiveness, that would be great. Or the fact that the words "condemn sin" occur next to each other, is that sufficient in your mind to prove your assertions.

 

[Drew]

Drew,
OK, please demonstrate your claim that Romans 8:3 presents a theory of atonement and also please related it to the context phrase by phrase.

I hope to do so, but this is no small task. So I probably will not get to this right away.

 

[mondar]

You might also want to demonstrate how you view is in accord with Isa 53.

 

[jasoncran]

perhaps when i'm not tired, i will add my two cents, wait taxes paid then, one penny and add to this conversation. i dont like the idea of universalism either.

 

[Drew]

Or the fact that the words "condemn sin" occur next to each other, is that sufficient in your mind to prove your assertions.

Well, I would say that I have no reason to doubt that the correct reading of the phrase "...condemned sin in the flesh" does not involve the target of condemnation being "sin". That is certainly the "common sense" reading - if one condemns "X", then it is, of course, "X" that is the target.

Now I am the last person to argue that the "plain reading" is necessarily the correct one. Do you have any specific grounds for believing that "sin" is not the object of the verb "condemned"?

 

[Drew]

perhaps when i'm not tired, i will add my two cents, wait taxes paid then, one penny and add to this conversation. i dont like the idea of universalism either.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I wish to express the view that I am not a universalist. And I am certain that neither is mondar. I have not read all the posts - has someone been adopting the universalist position?

 

[jasoncran]

perhaps when i'm not tired, i will add my two cents, wait taxes paid then, one penny and add to this conversation. i dont like the idea of universalism either.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I wish to express the view that I am not a universalist. And I am certain that neither is mondar. I have not read all the posts - has someone been adopting the universalist position?

the emergent church is from the first post if i read it correctly.

 

[mondar]

Or the fact that the words "condemn sin" occur next to each other, is that sufficient in your mind to prove your assertions.

Well, I would say that I have no reason to doubt that the correct reading of the phrase "...condemned sin in the flesh" does not involve the target of condemnation being "sin". That is certainly the "common sense" reading - if one condemns "X", then it is, of course, "X" that is the target.

Now I am the last person to argue that the "plain reading" is necessarily the correct one. Do you have any specific grounds for believing that "sin" is not the object of the verb "condemned"?

Are you saying that because those two words occur "condemn sin," this ends the matter? Now we need to read nothing more in the context to see what Paul is talking about? Please substantiate your claim that those two words even speak of a theory of atonement by relating that to the context.

 

[Drew]

Or the fact that the words "condemn sin" occur next to each other, is that sufficient in your mind to prove your assertions.

Well, I would say that I have no reason to doubt that the correct reading of the phrase "...condemned sin in the flesh" does not involve the target of condemnation being "sin". That is certainly the "common sense" reading - if one condemns "X", then it is, of course, "X" that is the target.

Now I am the last person to argue that the "plain reading" is necessarily the correct one. Do you have any specific grounds for believing that "sin" is not the object of the verb "condemned"?

Are you saying that because those two words occur "condemn sin," this ends the matter? Now we need to read nothing more in the context to see what Paul is talking about? Please substantiate your claim that those two words even speak of a theory of atonement by relating that to the context.

Well, unless there is a strong argument to the contrary, yes, the phrase "condemned sin" does clearly assert that the target of condemnation is "sin". When we start to do things like say "Well, Paul clearly cannot mean what he seems to be saying, since sin is not a thing that can be condemned", I suggest that instead of "rewriting Paul", we question the assumptions we bring to the text.

So yes, even though I think the rest of Romans in particular, and the Bible in general, supports the view I hold. I do take Paul "at his word" when he says that the thing God condemned is sin.

In any event, as I hope to demonstrate, the surrounding context works perfectly well with the notion that Paul means what he says - God condemned sin on the cross, not Jesus.

 

[mondar]

Are you saying that because those two words occur "condemn sin," this ends the matter? Now we need to read nothing more in the context to see what Paul is talking about? Please substantiate your claim that those two words even speak of a theory of atonement by relating that to the context.

Well, unless there is a strong argument to the contrary, yes, the phrase "condemned sin" does clearly assert that the target of condemnation is "sin". When we start to do things like say "Well, Paul clearly cannot mean what he seems to be saying, since sin is not a thing that can be condemned", I suggest that instead of "rewriting Paul", we question the assumptions we bring to the text.

So yes, even though I think the rest of Romans in particular, and the Bible in general, supports the view I hold. I do take Paul "at his word" when he says that the thing God condemned is sin.

In any event, as I hope to demonstrate, the surrounding context works perfectly well with the notion that Paul means what he says - God condemned sin on the cross, not Jesus.

So then is it your position that your theology determines the meaning of the two words "condemn sin?" You do not have to read the context to determine how that phrase is being used?

 

[JudaicChristian]

What it is all about is mixing different religious beliefs with Christianity. For example, I visited one church years ago, and they had Wiccan Christians. The fact that hell is not taught as a biblical dose not bother me because that was introduced into scriptures by the Catholics. The main theme is the belief in a Trinity, Sunday Sabbath, and the mixing of religious beliefs. Those three things the Pagans have always followed. Those things go back to Babylon about 2100 to 2300 BC.

 

[Drew]

So then is it your position that your theology determines the meaning of the two words "condemn sin?" You do not have to read the context to determine how that phrase is being used?

Mondar, I would have thought that you would know me better than that. Of course, I would never say such a thing - I would never say that "my theology" determines how to read texts.

But when Paul writes "God condemned X" and X = sin, our first approach is to assume that Paul is to be taken literally - there is a verb "condemned" and there is an object of that verb "sin". So unless there is compelling reason to think otherwise (e.g. contextual reasons), we should indeed go with the working hypothesis that "sin" is the object of the verb "condemned". Of course, there is still the open question of what Paul means by "sin", but it would be decidedly odd for a competent writer like Paul to write "God condemned sin" and read it a God condemned something other than sin. Sin is clearly the object of the verb "condemned". Paul must mean something here - what do you think he means?

I am not saying that it is self-evident what "sin" is in the phrase "condemned sin", but I would stand by the assertion that whatever "sin" is here, Paul sees it as being condemned.

As I said, a complete treatment of this is quite demanding. But I will say this for the present: In Romans 7, a treatment of "sin" is given which is decidedly "personal" - we have sin "springing to life" and sin "deceiving" etc. It is therefore entirely plausible to understand that, in Romans 7, Paul uses the term "sin" to denote a "force" or "power" with malevolent intentionality.

And such a "personal" evil force is precisely the kind of thing that can subject to wrathful condemnation on the cross.

 

[mondar]

So then is it your position that your theology determines the meaning of the two words "condemn sin?" You do not have to read the context to determine how that phrase is being used?

But when Paul writes "God condemned X" and X = sin, our first approach is to assume that Paul is to be taken literally - there is a verb "condemned" and there is an object of that verb "sin". So unless there is compelling reason to think otherwise (e.g. contextual reasons), we should indeed go with the working hypothesis that "sin" is the object of the verb "condemned". Of course, there is still the open question of what Paul means by "sin", but it would be decidedly odd for a competent writer like Paul to write "God condemned sin" and read it a God condemned something other than sin. Sin is clearly the object of the verb "condemned". Paul must mean something here - what do you think he means?

I am not saying that it is self-evident what "sin" is in the phrase "condemned sin", but I would stand by the assertion that whatever "sin" is here, Paul sees it as being condemned.

Have I said sin is not condemned somewhere? Obviously sin is condemned (in a specific sense of the word related to the context).


As I said, a complete treatment of this is quite demanding. But I will say this for the present: In Romans 7, a treatment of "sin" is given which is decidedly "personal" - we have sin "springing to life" and sin "deceiving" etc. It is therefore entirely plausible to understand that, in Romans 7, Paul uses the term "sin" to denote a "force" or "power" with malevolent intentionality.

And such a "personal" evil force is precisely the kind of thing that can subject to wrathful condemnation on the cross.[/quote]

First, in my quote that you pasted, I did not question the validity of the concept of sin being condemned. My intent was to merely to try and get you to relate those two words to the entire context. I was asking a question. Did you take it as a statement? I asked the question because you seem to be reading your entire theology of atonement into those two words and not relating anything to the context.

Second, concerning Romans 7, that would be great to relate the word "sin" to Romans 7. I definitely would agree there is a connection. In Romans 7 it mentions how sin caused all manner of coveting in Paul. In other word sin causes sins. This of course is a major part of why I disagree that Romans 7 or Romans 8 even deals with a theory of atonement. Neither context deals with our sins, but only deals with sin.

Actually, "sin" in Romans 7 and Romans 8 has nothing to do with anything I did at all. The "sin" that Romans 8:3 is talking about goes all the way back to Romans 5:12. Eve was the first to commit a sin, but sin entered into the word through Adam. That sin is what Romans 6, 7, and 8 is talking about. It is the same sin that dwells in Paul, and dwells in us. It is that sin that Romans 6:6 talks about that was crucified with Christ. The body of sin in Romans 6:6 is the same thing as "sin in the flesh" in Romans 8:3, or the mind of the flesh in Romans 8:6. It is this sin that causes sins in Romans 7:8.

Please, I am obviously saying that sin is condemned. For some reason you seem be looking for me to be saying something I am not saying. However, the atonement does not merely deal with sin, it also deals with sins (individual sins). He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, Yahweh laid on him the iniquity of us all. He died not just for our sin, but he was punished for our iniquity, or our sins. That is penal.

Why do you limit the atonement (the irony of some words! LOL) to dealing only with sin, and ignoring sins? Is your works justification behind all this?

Also, Drew, I believe your own hero, N T Wright actually does defend a substitutionary and Penal atonement.

*Last post for the night.

 

[Drew]

Why do you limit the atonement (the irony of some words! LOL) to dealing only with sin, and ignoring sins? Is your works justification behind all this?

You continue to misrepresent me to the readers with this misleading characterization of my position on justification. You have this habit of seeming fair and reasonable for a time, and then we get this kind of thing. Please do not suggest I am over-reacting - you know full well that to say I embrace works-justification is deeply misleading.

Also, Drew, I believe your own hero, N T Wright actually does defend a substitutionary and Penal atonement

This kind of stuff - implying that I am somehow blindly following NT Wright - is not constructive. Do I dismiss your views with rhetoric? No I do not. Let's keep this centred on the scriptures, shall we?

 

[Ed the Ned]

I have used this quote from a mclaren book before but I feel it will do justice here. Remembering we are told to lean on Gods understanding and not mans wisdom. We are told in the Bible that the only way to the father is through Christ. We are also told to tell the world the good news. If all ways lead to God then why the commission?

These are the words of Brian d McLaren from a book called a search for what makes sense:

"As a Christian, I am taught to seek the truth, wisdom and humility. That means that if a Buddhist teaches me. I gratefully honor the truth - beacause truth is truth, whoever brings it. Not only that, I should gratefully honor the bearer of that truth as well. The Bible is full of people of other faiths being used as messengers or conveyers of important truths. As a young Christian I was to proud to admit that a Muslim could teach me, or that a Hindu could teach me, or that an athiest could teach me, but I have grown to learn to honor the truth wherever it is found. Doing so, I believe, doesn't make me less mature as a Christian, but rather more."

This comment alone indicates McLarens pluralistic ideals and universalistic beliefs. He continues in the book to draw a large circle which he claims is the ultimate true religion. He then draws smaller circle intersecting that circle and labels the Christianity, Hinuism, Muslim etc and then indicates that each religion contains some of the ultimate true religion but they also have areas that don't belong to that ultimate religion. Now I don't believe a Christian would equate his believe in Jesus Christ as the same as anothers beliefs. This is from a book I read by Brian McLaren, I will not be wasting any more money purchasing his books.

 

[veteran]

Here's a bio of one of the authors of certain Emerging Church doctrines from the link RND posted. The captions in bold and underlines are mine:

"LEONARD SWEET (Author of Quantum Spirituality and Emerging Church leader) Sweet calls this the Theory of Everything. This theory not only says that all creation is connected but that it is all inhabited with Divinity (God). (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, comment by Tim Wirth, http://simplyagape.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html) Sweet got some of ideas and title of his book from Richard Hartnett, H.W., M. who is a nationally known Teacher and Psychic. His extensive training includes Sufism, Buddhism, Native American Spirituality, Jungian Symbology and Gurdjieff's Fourth Way."

1. "This theory not only says that all creation is connected but that it is all inhabited with Divinity (God)."

I prefer to not use modern coined terms like "New Age" for that idea, but instead the idea it comes from, Pantheism. Pantheism is the idea that God is not Person, but that everything created makes up God's Nature. The idea relies heavily on worshipping the things of His creation, worshipping the creation instead. It's a very ancient pagan idea. Pantheism comes from the Pan-god.

2. Psychic

What did our Heavenly Father say in His Word about witchcraft, necromancy, divining, etc.?

3. Sufism, Buddhism, Native American Spirituality

"And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that beliveth with an infidel?" - 2 Corinthins 6:15. Those in The Gospel have the responsibility in helping the unbelieving understand the difference between God's Truth as compared to false superstitious belief and false worship of the things of His creation. How can a Christian help the unbeliever in that if the Christian is willing to accept pagan belief as also part of that Truth?

4. Jungian Symbology

Connections to Carl Jung, an experimentor in the field of Psychology. Jung was influenced by oriental mystical practices.

5. Gurdjieff's Fourth Way

G.I. Gurdjieff was an oriental mystic. He wrote several books on the Occult.


What are those 'ways' really about? Mystic Occultism, Esotericism. Those ideas involve ideas of reincarnation of the soul, out of the body experiences, magical incantations, meditation practices designed to open up the spirit world, and the belief that we all must each reach spiritual perfection on our own, and thus be released from the wheel of rebirth (reincarnation). Some in those movements have claimed to be guided by special teachers that live on a higher spiritual plane, which they call hidden masters of wisdom. The Russian mystic Hellena Blavatsky even wrote major works she claimed were given to her by her hidden master through the tool of automatic writing (writing while in a trance).

That kind of working is not a joke. It's very real. However, it's not of God. Because the occult practices do produce some spiritual manifestations that are difficult to explain, those who get hooked by such practices believe it's evidence of God's Truth, a deeper Truth hidden from the majority (and thus terms like 'occult' or 'esoteric' which point to something that's hidden). They think Christianity is another 'path' to God, but that it works on the principle of blind faith emotion. That's only their way of teaching to their blind followers the lie that Christianity is a primitive religious system, and that their occult ways are more advanced and reveal true power.

The instigators behind the adept occult movements have been here on earth through all ages. They existed in ancient in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. under the idea called "the mysteries", where they had 'mystery schools' that trained the initiate into knowledge of the various fields of science, like math, architecture, medicine, metal trades, astronomy, alchemy, etc., along with a healthy dose of esoteric mystical practices involving ceremonial and ritual magic and initiation. Even among the non-believing Jews there is a branch of this kind of practice within mystical Kabbalah teaching.

Those groups are experts at influencing the youth of the day, taking advantage of the age of youthful vigor to teach them rebellion against the beliefs of their parents. This is especially why God told children to obey their parents. The devil lay wait at the door to devour. It would be interesting to discover who did come up with the term "New Age" for all that, because it's not 'new age' doctrine at all, but the same old ancient ideas of pagan belief that has been manifested in this world since God booted Cain out of His Garden to the land of Nod.

They are simply using new names, and coining new phrases and terms for the same old ancient pagan ideas so a newer generation might be deceived into accepting it as something progressive and new.

 

[jasoncran]

thanks ed and veteran, while it is true one can learn from other persons at times and god can use people from other faiths to show you where you are lacking in the faith, ie fruits of spirit, it also by new means wise to say that a buddhist or any other nonchristian faiths are good to listen to for spiritual advise.

when i was in afghanistan i had a muslim local national that worked under me, he had two wives, eight kids and 5 grandkids, he showed commpasion at times to those less fortunate then him, and it brought me shame. as i as a child of god i should show forth that love of christ. but did i got to that muslim for spiritual advice, no.