In exploring this question, Yancey says he understands this "odd preference" for the law because of the legalistic environment he grew up in. He found grace "slippery," but always knew where he stood under the law.He includes the following comment from someone he describes as a modern Jew trying to comprehend Christianity: "as an article of faith, this doctrine of salvation by grace and grace alone is remarkably unappealing to me. It takes, I think, remarkable disregard for justice to idealize a God who values belief over action. I prefer the God who looks down upon us and says, 'I wish they'd stop worrying about whether or not I exist and start obeying my commandments.'" Yancey adds: "In truth, we Christians, too, may find it easier to follow a God who simply says, 'Start obeying my commandments.'"
But whether we use the Law of Moses in the Torah or Christ's Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament as God's standard of holiness, I find it hard to imagine how people can believe they obey the laws (of Moses and/or Christ) well enough to think they've met God's standard of holiness.
Why is the gospel of grace so unattractive to many?
Given the opposition to Christ by the Pharisees, opposition to the gospel from Judaizers in Paul's day, and resistance to grace from legalistic denominations today, I sure would like to know what there is about the human condition that deludes us into thinking we can meet God's standard of holiness by our actions?
I'm not asking whether we are under the law or grace. Christ settled that, in my view. One brings death, the other brings life. No brainer for me. But obviously, it is a brainer for many.
What I'd really like to discover is this: what is it about humans and God's laws that make us feel more attracted to being judged under the laws, than to the grace and mercy offered by Christ?
Posts
23 comments:
I'm curious...
If we believe that the Bible is the progressive revelation of God's character of love...
…AND that the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 contains the essence of Christ's teachings about his kingdom and reflects the holiness standards and commandments of God...
…AND that Jesus says love is the fulfillment of the law, and commands us to be perfect as God in Matthew 5 (in the context of the commandment to love)...
...What reasons, if any, are there to go back to Moses in Mt. Sinai and the Torah, when we can now go to Christ's Beatitudes and Sermon on the Mt. of Olives to point out our unrighteousness, God’s righteousness, and consequently, our need for a Savior who saves us by grace?
Is there something Moses provides in terms of instructions that Christ himself does not amplify and augment? If so, what is it?
In a nutshell, why go to Moses when we now can go to Christ who provided a complete revelation of God's character and requirements?
My mind is racing at NASCAR speed as I think about these questions. They're crisp. And challenging. Of course I may be dead wrong and I often am, but my inquiring mind is sensing that this line of questions is ushering an elephant into the room, a big elephant, for sure, especially in view of the most recent post about progresive revelation from Moses to Jesus, and the nutshell question. I'll be most interested in how this discussion develops, and whether the discussion will be focused and reasoned, or meandering and ambgious. It would be interesting to find out if others see the same elephant I do, and as I do.
I find many challenging things inquiring minds can wrestle with in the questions themselves before hunting for elephants, although I now admit there may be more elephants crowding the room than I imagined before I started thinking. To confess: I wonder how many Christians think of the Beatitudes as commandments of Jesus and as standards of God's holiness and his kingdom? My guess? Very few. Many don’t even know what they all are, much less see them as commands or standards. The Beatitudes never seemed to create the sense of MUST that the commandments in the old testament do so commandingly, at least in my background. The Beatitudes seemed more voluntary, more philosophical, and vague.
That's not true for the rest of the Sermon on the Mount of Olives! As I read them, Jesus definitely made his commandments on the Mt. of Olives a lot more compelling and impossible to keep than the earlier ones at Mt. Sinai. Pretty scary for law abiding citizens when Jesus interpreted the law of Moses and ratcheted up the standards of that law quite a few levels up where his commandments are even more impossible to keep. Mission impossible is what I think Yancey or someone called them.
Another Anon
I think people go back to obeying, or following, commands wether Moses's or Christ's, because that is what the Bible so often speaks of. From Adam and Eve to Revelatios the book is the story of people doing what God wants and being rewarded or sinning and being punished. The new testamnet makes the rewarding or punishing more in the after life put it is the same idea, obey and recieve eternal life. Sin and recieve the wages, death.
The better question maybe why do poeple speak so highly of grace or faith only being necessary when it is mentioned so seldom in the Bible. Could it be that is the easy way to live.
I know that is impossible to life a perfect live but my faith tells me if I sincerely try God through Jesus will make salvation possible.
ld
Hello. Interesting viewpoints above.
I'd like to know how conclusions were reached that people go back to obeying commandments and that grace of Christ and faith in Christ are mentioned so seldom in the Bible? And that grace may be an easier way to live. Really?
I'm not sure I understand the above points correctly? Please clarify.
Interestingly, while scanning a copy of The Koran I received from a friend, I ran across a statement I think is most relevant to our discussion...and in fact, many of our discussions on this blog regarding faith in God and obedience to commandments, and whether the standards of righteousness are obedience to religious form (piety) or to the needs of others.
"Righteousness does not consist in whether you face towards the East or the West. The righteous man is he who believes in God and the Last Day, in the angels and the Book and the prophets; who, though he loves it dearly, gives away his wealth to kinsfolk, to the destitute, to the traveller in need and to beggars, and for the redemption of captives; who attends to his prayers and renders the alms levy, who is true to his promises and steadfast in trial and adversity and in times of war. Such are the true believers; such are the God-fearing." -- The Koran
What do you think?
Are you kidding me? Get with the real world and tell us what the Koran has to do with the Bible???? I thought this was a blog for more understanding more about Jesus????
Hey Anonymous,
Nope, I'm not kidding you.
And yup I think the Koran has a lot to do with the Bible.
In fact, I suggest that Abraham is the link between the Bible and the Koran.
Stay with me, now....
Read Genesis 16, 17, 21 and 25 and see that:
...Abraham IS the father of Jews through Sarah and Isaac,
...Abraham IS the father of Muslims through Hagar and Ishmael, and
...Abraham IS the father of Christians through Sarah and Isaac.
Wow, I'll have to tell my grand daughter about that when she sings "Father Abraham" and takes it to new heights!
Specifically from Genesis, God promised Abraham that, "As as for Ishmael, I have heard you (infer Abraham pleaded with God about Ishmael) I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and I will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation."
What's more, in Genesis, God also promised Hagar that he would make Ishmael into a great nation.
To me, that sounds like parallel blessings to Hagar-Ishmael and Sarah-Isaac, except that the promised "seed Christ" would only come through Isaac. Paul in Romans also supports that.
Well, based on those Biblical references and then some, I'm open to the idea that God demonstrated his love and desire to save the world through various groups of people (at a minimum through Jews, Muslims and Christians), and that a loving, powerful and all knowing God who wants to save the world can use various methods to reach different people at different times. Makes sense to me.
Have you read the Koran lately? I'm just now reading it, but always with the idea that God reaches different people and reveals himself through different means, a principle I also read from Paul in Romans 1.
I read LIG's post with interest. Reading the Koran has been on my to-do list since 9-11 and I still have not done it. Way to go LIG in broadening your horizons. I must admit my original motivation was much as was Jefferson's reading of the Koran when he wanted to learn about his enemies, the Barbary Pirates off the coast of modern day Somalia.
I have an internal caution flag waving with respect to the Koran being a vehicle of God's blessing to the world through Islam. I am admittedly biased mainly because there are millions of followers of Islam who would see me dead as the infidel they see me to be. Now, I argue little with the points made from scripture about how Ishmael was to be blessed by God. Let's look back even further. Even Cain was marked so that he would be able to prosper on earth after killing Abel. Esau prospered after giving up his inheritance. That God blessed these people in different ways is not in doubt. What the fruit of the lives of these people was is very much in doubt. It seems to me that the children of Ishmael and Esau were largely the ememies of God's people throughout history. Look at the Moabites, the Philistines, etc, all the way up to our time with the Wahabbi ultra-radicals. They drifted further from God's way of living than did the dysfunctional nation of Israel. I wonder if God's blessing upon the respective patriarchs was out of love for their fathers whom He had covenanted with. Certainly, that was the case with Ishmael. Yet, Ishmael was born out of a moment of faithlessness in Abraham's life. Isaac was born out of faith. Cain was marked after he murdered Abel. Esau prospered after selling his blessing and inheritance for a meal. They were blessed through the mercy of God, but it was all coming out of dysfunction, sin, and actions that were likely outside the preference of God, thus giving ample evidence of free will in humanity.
So, I agree that God blesses different peoples in different ways. No doubt about it. However, it is with caution that I say this because these examples of Cain, Ishmael, and Esau did not exactly bear great fruit long term. Then again, Islam came into being with Muhammed about 2,000 years after Ishmael lived. What Muhammed did with the legacy of Ishmael does not condemn Ishmael. But, his legacy is 2 global jihads with a 3rd one in progress as we speak and write. I recognize that not all Muslim's want global Jihad, but the active minority is very, very influential. Lastly, we can never judge a faith or religion by its followers because human beings can screw up anything. We must judge by the life and teachings of its founders. Christianity has Jesus Christ. Islam has Muhammed. Compare the two and judge.
(Disclaimer: I confess to writing from a position of ignorance, not having read the Koran, but having read something of it and its founder.)
Many Blessings
Hey gang, I have a case of blogger's regret. I want to clarify. In no way, shape, or form do I believe that Life-Is-Good was equating or substituting other people and faiths for Jesus Christ. If it came across like that, I apologize.
I believe LIG was recognizing that in times and places on earth that the faith and family of God (Judaism / Christianity) was not present and God's purposes still have to be worked out of his mercy for all people.
Many Blessings
Thanks for your open and honest post, MB, especially admiting our biases up front. Thanks for your caution as well. I'll respond to your points when I've had time to reflect. Thanks for engaging in what I hope will be productive discussions about God's love and mercy for all.
Keep in mind the central theme of my post focused on the Koran and the Bible as ways God reveals his love for the world that he gave his son to save. That is what I'd like our discussion to focus on, and of course, there are some peripheral issues we can discuss.
To me, it seems contrary to the concept that an all powerful and omniscient God would create a system of revelation of his love for the world and limit it to the Judeo-Christian Bible alone.
It is clear (to me, at least) that according to Moses, God (and we assume in his omniscience) specifically promised Abraham and Hagar that he would bless Ishamael and his descendants. Period. No conditions. And that blessing was not much different (except for Christ the Seed) given to Abraham about Isaac and his descandants. I know that Paul used the metaphor to show the difference between slave (Hagar) and freedom in Christ (Sarah). It was a metaphor, not refutation of the blessing God gave to Ishamel and his descendants.
But for now...may I toss out a few points initially?
As you may recall the Jihads appropriately, I'd like to make sure Christians and Jews don't have selective amnesia.
Accordingly, I believe history shows, unfortunately, that religious intolerance and the capacity to persecute and kill non compliants or those who disagree with the group's religious tenents is widespread.
-- Many Crusades in Europe and Asia
-- Inquisitions
-- Genocide of Cannanites by Israel
Need we say more? I don't think it would be productive to get into a discussion to determine which religion was most successful in its efforts to demonstrate intolerance of other faiths, and to crush dissent, all in the name of God, however defined. I'd like to take Paul's assertion in Romans 1 at face value that God reveals himself to everyone in different ways.
Thanks for jumping in and sharpening the discussion, MB.
No need for blogger's regret, Anonymous, although the gesture is appreciated. You did not come across the way for which you were apologizing. And even if you did, no worries.
My working assumption for Stretchers is that our intent is always good ---
-- seeking to understand,
-- challenging to make sure we understand correctly,
-- responding effectively to make sure we are understood correctly.
Now, assuming I’ve correctly understood your points, here are two challenges to your conclusion about the lives of the “enemies of God’s people” as being further away from God than the dysfunctional Israelites themselves.
First, the conclusion about distance from God is, I believe, biasly-flawed since your conclusion is based on assessments by Jewish writers who are evaluating others outside their faith through their Jewish-chosen-as-God’s-people paradigm, which by definition, is biased. Same type of religious bias would be applicable to the Koran seen through Muslim eyes.
Second, I’m not aware of any Biblical principles that, in God’s righteous eyes, there is a difference between minimally dysfunctional and overwhelmingly dysfunctional in terms of distance from him.
Your thoughts?
Thanks for being a good sport. I look forward to hearing about what you learn from the Koran and eventually from reading it myself.
This is just stream-of-consciousness thinking….and may have to be posted in parts due to space constraints. Consider this part 1.
I will have to work hard at keeping an open mind and heart. I am imbued with images of what has resulted from the followers of the Koran…treating woman as chattel, spreading the faith with the edge of the sword, destroyers as opposed to builders. I have no illusions concerning corruption in America and modern Christianity. We are far from what we should be. I am very able to treat Muslim individuals with love and respect, but I have such a hard time with the religion as a whole. It is the fastest growing world wide religion through coercion. The modern Muslim movement is being hijacked by people who are putting into practice what Muhammad advocated…conversion by the edge of the sword, and this is not being strongly opposed by the ‘mainstream.”. I believe now 20% of Israel’s population is Arabic. How many Jews are allowed to live openly in Jordan, Syria, and Iran? From what I know, Muhammad started his movement through violence, using diplomacy as a tool only when he was weaker than his adversary. He married a 9-year old girl. Can anything lasting and good come from a man like that? I guess that maybe a Muslim can be inclined to whatever peace and love is in the Koran and be drawn to God through that. Even so, there is no moral equivalence for me. Compare the spiritual, cultural, and moral contributions of Christianity and Islam to the world with all their warts. No contest.
As to the crusades…sure, I am not proud of them, but the first crusade was in response to the violent first Jihad. The mid-east were early lands of Judaism and Christianity until the jihad spread Islam through coerced conversion as the only option other than death. Was the first crusade a war of aggression and power for the church, or was it a war of liberation for those run over by the jihad,…or was it both? My belief is that the Koran has many beautiful teachings, platitudes, and truths woven into the fabric of the Koran that while being good of themselves also serve to obscure just how bad Muhammad was. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe not.
As to the genocide of the Canaanites…absolutely the hardest part of the Bible for me to embrace. Each time I read through Joshua I put myself in the shoes of a Hebrew soldier coming into a home and slitting the throat of the wife, children, toddlers, and new babies. It makes me sick and sad to contemplate. The only thing I cling to is that the conquest of Canaan did not happen until the Canaanites “filled up the cup of their iniquity.” The Hebrews were the instrument of OT justice if that is true. It is things like this that I leave to faith. Faith that God is good. Faith that maybe their society had fallen so far that the youngest generation was to be caught in its evil. I don’t know, and I don’t need to know, but I do believe that God is love and I hope some of those children that were slaughtered in Jericho will be folks I see in heaven and on the new earth. Perhaps had they grown to adulthood they would have chosen evil and been left out of heaven.
Part 2 next post...
Part 2...
You wrote that my opinion is flawed because it is based on “assessments by Jewish writers who are evaluating others outside their faith through their Jewish-chosen-as-God’s-people paradigm, which by definition, is biased.” May I ask you something? Am I flawed to accept that Jesus rose from the grave because that was written by Christian representatives who saw themselves through their Christ’s-followers-are-now-the-true-church-of-God paradigm? Am I flawed to accept that the way to salvation is grace even when most all of the other world religions are works based just because Christian-centric authors related that thought. Arden, it gets really slippery really fast. Do we believe that the Canaanites filled up their cup of iniquity? Do we believe God ordered the Hebrews into Canaan? Or, do we believe the Hebrews took the land because they wanted it through some 440 year old belief that it was promised to them and they used that to justify their desires for conquest apart from the guidance and blessing of God? Are Deuteronomy and Joshua what they say they are or are they simply histories of man’s workings couched within the false blessing of an uninvolved God.
Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism all have many great teachings. They can help lend moral fiber to a society. Do they lead to God or away from God? Buddhism denies God. It is an atheistic spiritualism that denies the reality of the individual and the eternal nature of anything. We are born from Karmic deposits of forbears and die with our own Karmic deposits only to be reborn with no continuity of individual existence. It is bizarre and non-sensical. Guatama Buddha rejected Hinduism because of the caste society and he rejected the authority of the Vedas. Hinduism embraces 330 million Gods.
I do not read Romans 1 thinking that it is false religious constructs that testify to God, but all of His creation that does so for anyone who will stop and see. As a matter of fact I think it is reasonable to state that passage rails against false religious constructs. I think maybe you are trying to get more mileage out that than there is to extract. It does not say that God reveals Himself to everyone in different ways. It says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."
Now, I must admit that I was brought to Christ in an environment of …if not a false religious construct, then one with serious errors in the Adventist church. At least it was a false Christian construct that has many elements of truth. Can we say that about Islam? I don’t know. I have not studied it yet. Clearly, it is further away from Christ than Adventism. I read Romans 1 and I know I can see God in nature, a child’s smile, stars, and in the voice of God that called me to His son 15 years ago.
Part 3 next...
Part 3...
Lastly, you wrote, “Second, I’m not aware of any Biblical principles that, in God’s righteous eyes, there is a difference between minimally dysfunctional and overwhelmingly dysfunctional in terms of distance from him.”
I believe I was speaking to whole nations or societies. I do believe it is a valid comment to observe that a nation of Canaanites practicing child sacrifice, idolatry, witchcraft, and other sundry things is more degraded than the Hebrews who, while carrying the legacy of God’s presence and commands, can’t stop screwing up. I agree with your statement as it applies to individuals.
However, as societies slide down the grayscale of righteousness to unrighteousness, there is reason to believe there comes a point where God can find little use and it must be replaced by a new one, or the old one reborn, that can work God’s purposes.
I do not know where you are going with this line of thought, but it should prove to be interesting.
-- Many Blessings
BTW...When are you going to discuss matters of the heart?
What does God want for our hearts?
How do we live from the new heart of flesh?
What does the resurrection and new life really mean? Jesus came that our joy may be full.
Do the stretchers live in joy?
Anonymous...
Thanks for your thoughtful and thought provoking posts! All of them. Wow! This should keep us busy for a few more weeks! Other Stretchers ready to jump in?
Here is my immediate response, with many more to come, I’m sure!
I re-read Romans 1 several times after your challenge that I may be “trying to get more mileage out than there is to extract.” And guest what? You are absolutely right!
Thanks for the inductive study prompt for me to stay in context and extract only what it there. Point well stated and received!
Therefore I stand corrected and yield that point to Senator Many Blessings from Anonymous. Clearly, Romans 1 should not be read to tell us that “God reveals himself to others in different ways,” and that “false religious constructs that testify to God.”
I fail to see how God can justify the killing of innocents, especailly children, rather it is Hebrews killing Cananites, chritian crusaders killing Moslems, or Moslems killing Jews. Aren't they all equally wrong?
ld
As you all discuss how much God loves all of us and wants to save us, please understand that I agree. However, the fact is that Christ told us no one comes to him except whoever the Father draws and sends hiw way and he is the way, truth and life, and it is our faith in him that assures our salvation. He made the gates narrow.
If God wanted to save the Muslims and everyone else besides the Jews and Gentiles, I would think he would have made some gestures after Ishmael was sent away so that Isaac could have the full blessings. Abraham did not lobby for greater involvement of Ishmael.
I recommend we base our conclusions about who God wants to save and how he does that by analyszing passages in the Bible and not what we think is fair. If God wanted to be greater than a Jewish Christian God, he easily could have had Ishmael play a greater role in the life of Israel. God could have inspired the writers of scripture to include references to Muslims. The Jews failed to see the gospel and Christ, so Paul tells us the gospel went to the Gentiles. But, I'm sure that Paul would not see the Koran as part of the gospel going to the Gentiles and part of God's plan. Show me the Bible.
Always Doubtful posted related comments that further sharpen this discussion, but are posted under the Question: "Does a Loving God Save Only People Who Accept Certain Things About Jesus?" Check them out.
Many Blessings, I thought about your post in part 3 about applying your comments regarding the dysfunctions of whole societies and peoples away from God, but not applicable to individuals, and your comments make sense to me now with your clarification. I see your point and agree.
ld,
I read your question and agree.
However, as I read Joshua 5-6, it was clear to me that it was God who was commander in chief of the complete annihilation of the Canaanites. The Hebrews were following commands of God (I wonder whether non-combatant status was allowed for this event?) and carrying out his judgment on earth. And God was delivering on his promise to Abraham about land.
This is a very painful chapter and story which is hard to reconcile. I'd very much like to be challenged on my reading and would be very happy to hear that I read the account incorrectly. But that's what it looks like to me.
Life is Good,
Perhaps you, or we, misunderstand Joshua 5-6. Perhaps the Jews wrote it to justify their genocide of the Canaanites. But I agree with Albert Schweitzer who wrote: "Injustice can not produce a moral result."
Also, why can the Jews be right to use the Bible to justify murder when it is wrong for other groups to use the Koran, or other writings, to justify their atrocities?
ld
lots to read & think about in this topic... I think for now, I'll just give my simple answer to LIG's question:
"In a nutshell, why go to Moses when we now can go to Christ who provided a complete revelation of God's character and requirements?"
AMEN! No need to go back to the 600+ laws.
Post a Comment