That Was Easy

I want to emphasize some easy to understand principles of following Jesus.

Sometimes the walk is tougher than the talk.  But I'm afraid sometimes the talk is more complicated than it needs to be.

As I've sorted through some stuff that has hurt my brain, I have come to some clarity on some simple thoughts.

Easy to understand essential beliefs:

Trust in Jesus

Easy to understand how we should live:

Love God and love others.

Easy to understand how we do that:

The Holy Spirit does the work of the Holy Spirit.

Easy to understand disciple making:

See one, do one, teach one.

Easy to understand leadership:

Demonstrating to others how to follow.

Easy to understand church:

Get together with other followers to encourage each other to follow Jesus.

Easy to understand church unity:

There is one church, it meets in many different places and times.

I'm simply organizing some simple thoughts on what I think it means to follow Jesus.

I'm not claiming that living in this reality is easy.

I'd love to hear your thoughts? Have I missed any big ones?
.

Here are some less easy to understand related posts if you want to understand the more complex process I took to come to a place of seeing things so simply:

• What Must I Believe Part 1 - 6 part series looking at passages related to essential beliefs
• What Does It Look Like To Follow Christ? - relating to love, and the work of the Holy Spirit
• Love is Essential - passages that speak to love being the greatest commandment
• Church Etymology - what does church mean?
• Recent Church Activities - examples of simple church activities
• See One, Do One, Teach One - disciple making
• Leading The Way - what Jesus said on the topic of leadership, and a look at other passages

Overview of Different Atonement Theories

Considering my previous post, I will attempt to explain what I understand about different atonement theories without being dogmatic.  :)

There are different theories of atonement that attempt to explain how humans can be reconciled to God, or how God reconciles us to him.

Atonement can mean to wipe out or to cover.  Their is also a connection between the terms "kofer" (ransom) and "Kapper" to cover.  The following theories for the most part agree that it is God who does something to make a way for people to be brought into a relationship with Him.  The different theories hold different ways of explaining how God did it.

Moral Influence

The moral influence view of the atonement teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection.

The Biblical support for this theory comes from passages where Jesus and His followers give instruction on how to live better, how to love better, how to become the people God intended them to be.

Ransom Theory

According to this view, people were held in bondage or captivity to sin or Satan.  Christ's sacrifice is seen as a ransom being paid to Satan (or the hold sin has on us) to set people free.   Redeeming in this case means buying back. An analogy would be warriors being held captive by another kingdom, and the home king giving something to the other kingdom to get his warriors back. 

Biblical support would be Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Timothy 2:6, Galatians 3:13, Galatians 4:5, 1 Peter 1:18-19, Revelation 5:9, Romans 3:23-26, and Titus 2:14 which speak in terms of redeeming and ransom.  1 Corinthians 7:23, Colossians 1:13  speak of rescuing.  1 Corinthians 6:20, 1 Corinthians 7:23 - speak of being bought with a price.

Christus Victor

This theory speaks to Christ defeating the powers of darkness. The view holds that humanity was under the authority of sin or Satan since the fall of Adam.  Jesus strikes a defeating blow to Satan when he defeats sin and death.

Biblical support: John 12:31, John 16:11, 2 Timothy 1:10, Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8

Satisfaction and Penal substitution atonement

There are a variety of theories within these two theories, and to me they seem to overlap. 

There is the idea of God's justice being satisfied.  God's character demands that all sin must be accounted for. Since the the wages of sin is death, and mankind is sinful, someone must die.  God's justice is only satisfied if either we are punished for our sins, or Jesus dies as our substitute.  Jesus' death is seen as a payment to God for the debt of sin.

Biblical support: Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 3:18, Romans 3:23-26

My Summary

There are parts of each of these atonement theories that are meaningful to me.

I'm hesitant to agree with the 'moral influence' theory, since it may lean more towards human works than God's working.  But I do see some truth in the fact that Jesus did have a lot to say on how to live and follow His example.

To me it seems like the ransom theory makes a lot of sense to me.  The idea of Jesus buying us back from slavery makes sense to me, and looks to me like it has a lot of Scriptural support. 

I also see truth in the Christus Victor theory. The idea that the powers of darkness were defeated at the cross sounds right as well.

I also agree that the wages of sin is death, and than mankind falls short of God's holiness. However I have some concerns with aspects of this theory as I have written about before here.

But yes, as Christians have tried to sort out the mysteries of how God made things right with us there have been different theories used to explain it. People have studied our Scriptures and found different ways to understand this deep mystery.  I tend to lean in favour of some of the theories more than others.  I respect your right to study the different theories and determine what makes the most sense to you.  We may differ on the 'how' God makes things right, but I trust we can agree that God does make things right.

Sources:

http://www.academia.edu/1825599/Views_of_the_Atonement_-_Survey_and_Solution

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2092-atonement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Christus_Victor_view)
http://www.mbconf.ca/home/products_and_services/resources/publications/mb_herald/mb_herald_june_2009/features/thinking_about_the_atonement/

Dogmatic Pontification

I haven't read the above book. I just stumbled upon it while considering a graphic for this post. However I'm absolutely certain it accurately addresses this topic.  I know without a shadow of a doubt Judy J. Johnson is onto something.  I know that being dogmatic about anything is absolutely wrong and very dangerous. :)

??

Unfortunately being dogmatic comes fairly natural for many of us.  (My previous paragraph included.)

according to Webster:

dogmatic: expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted

I have been thinking lately about our tendency towards being dogmatic around things we believe.

I have realized something recently. I respect people that study a topic.  If you are going to voice your opinion on something it is good to study it first. My respect grows when I discover they have studied different viewpoints on the topic.  It is good to acknowledge that not everyone who has studied the topic is in agreement.

The challenging part comes next. I admire when someone is able to communicate that they see value in different perspectives on a topic, that the choice isn't necessarily crystal clear, even though they have come to rest favoring a particular position.  I am recognizing the value of approaching debatable topics with a good dose of humility.

In most situations after studying a topic, people will weigh the positions as they see them and pick a side.  This should be expected.  However when we become dogmatic about the answers we discovered, we do all we can to invalidate the fact that there were different positions to consider in the first place.  When we are dogmatic we do not allow others to study the topic freely and openly on their own.  When we acknowledge that we had to sort through some competing positions to arrive at where we currently rest, we give others permission to follow the same process we took to study the topic from different angles, in their own quest for meaningful answers.  When we avoid being dogmatic, we may even encourage them to consider our position as well.

So I have recently recognized this when listening to others. Will I be able to change and move forward applying this to how I communicate with others?  This is my challenge.  I don't know if I need to start by editing all my old blog posts, that would be a challenging activity.

Here is another angle. Since being dogmatic comes naturally for most of us, I wonder if we can consider being dogmatic about different things than we have in the past:

• What if we were dogmatic about placing the interests of others above our own?
• What if we were dogmatic about humbly counting others more significant than ourselves?
• What if we were dogmatic about love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?
• What if we were dogmatic about praying for unity and recognizing it when it stands before us?

But that is just my humble thoughts for today. There may be value in being dogmatic about other things as well. :)  

Taking a Break

My spiritual journey is going off the public airwaves for awhile.  I need to take a break from speaking out on topics, and simply live my faith for awhile.  But I want to summarize some of the topics that have come together for me lately.

Jesus' Gospel vs Paul's Gospel: I believe both Jesus and Paul preached a Jesus centered gospel.  Jesus preached Jesus, and Paul preached Jesus.  Both proclaimed that Jesus was Christ, messiah, king, savior, and Lord. 

What Must I Believe (a 6 part series): Looking at Scripture passages related to what we must do or believe to be saved, it seems we must place our trust in the person of Jesus.

Unity is Essential : This has been my starting point on this journey.  I recognize a value for theological discussions when it leads people to mature in their relationship with Christ. Unfortunately if we focus too much on correct theology and take our focus off our relationships with the person of Christ, we often recognize we are not united in our different sets of essential beliefs.   I suggest a solution is placing Christ central, and elevating Him above our different understandings about Him.

My Role with Church: Church is people, followers of Christ and whenever they get together. Period (see Church Etymology).  Scripture teaches that we are to meet together with the purpose of building each other up to become more like Christ. It makes sense that we practice the One Anothers (another 6 part series) when we get together. 

Love is Essential: It is the greatest commandment.  The greatest of these is love. If I don't have love, I have nothing, all of this is pointless. God's love working though us helps others recognize we are disciples of Christ. If there is one command of Jesus I want to get right, it is this one.

What Creed Must I believe - Part 6

This is part six of a series exploring the question: "What set of beliefs do all true Christ followers believe?"

Please read some of these other posts first:

What Must I Believe Part 1 - explanation and look at Acts 16:30 - 31
What Must I Believe Part 2 - where Jesus tells a woman she is saved
What Must I believe Part 3 - a look at John 3:16
What Beliefs Part 4 - Whom Do I Trust?
What Must I believe - Part 5 - more verses to consider
What Creed Must I believe - Part 6 - how creeds can divide

The Bible was not written in the form of a creed or catechism.  The previous posts in this series have noted that there is no list of essential beliefs attached to passages related to what we must believe or trust to be saved.  I am concluding that it is trusting in the person of Jesus that is essential, not trusting in a correct set of beliefs about Jesus.

However as Christianity evolved, it didn't take long for creeds and catechisms to become popular.

The well known Apostle's creed is one of the first such lists:

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen "

This is a great list of shared beliefs.  In fact most Christian denominations accept this creed as part of their beliefs.  I love it.

But for many, this creed does not go far enough.  For example the Apostle's creed didn't speak about equality between the Son and the Father.  So the Nicene creed was formed to define the orthodox position on that issue. So accepting the truths in the Apostle's creed was not enough to be considered a true believer.

Next came the Athanasian creed which included beliefs about the trinity.

For many Christians today these creeds are still not enough. For example they do not address how God deals with the sin problem through the work of the cross, or how we are justified by faith.

Over time larger catechisms were created to address many more issues.


Although I wish we could use something like the Apostle's creed as a measuring stick to say who is in and who is out, I don't see the writers of Scripture doing that.  It seems they consistently equate trusting in the person of Jesus as the source of one's salvation.

Unfortunately what has happened throughout church history is that Christians have divided over these distinct lists of essential beliefs.  Instead of recognizing that we are united around trusting the person of Christ, we have recognized we are not united in our different sets of essential beliefs. I see this as a huge problem.  Scripture is clear unity is essential.  I suggest a solution is placing Christ central, and elevating Him above our different understandings about Him.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Related Posts:

• Unity is Essential
• Clarification: What is essential? 

What Must I believe - Part 5

This is part five of a series exploring the question: "What set of beliefs do all true Christ followers believe?"

Please read some of these other posts first:


What Must I Believe Part 1 - explanation and look at Acts 16:30 - 31
What Must I Believe Part 2 - where Jesus tells a woman she is saved
What Must I believe Part 3 - a look at John 3:16
What Beliefs Part 4 - Whom Do I Trust?
What Must I believe - Part 5 - more verses to consider
What Creed Must I believe - Part 6 - how creeds can divide

In previous posts I have been looking for passages which tell us a set of information that we we must believe to be saved.  I haven't found such a list.  I am thinking then it is not so much a list of essential beliefs about Jesus we must place our trust in. Salvation comes instead by placing our trust in the person of Christ.

I'd like to test this thought with a few more verses. As you read each question ask:

Does this passage answer the question: "What information must I believe?"  

Or does this passage answer the question: "What person must I trust?"

Note in some cases I am going with the term trust  instead of believe or faith - where it seems to fit with the greek.

"Yet to all who did receive him, to those who trust in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— John 1:12

"The one who trusts in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him." John 3:36/NET

“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and trusts him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24 (NIV)

For this is the will of my Father – for everyone who looks on the Son and trusts in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:40/NET

"I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will come in and go out, and find pasture." John 10:9/NET

"For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Rom 10:13/NET

"And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. ’ Act 2:21/NET

Exceptions:

The following passages do not really support my idea that trust in the person of Christ is what brings salvation. But they also don't support the idea that belief in a specific list of information about God does either. (unless you are fine with the really short list in Rom 10:9)

"because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Rom 10:9/NET

"The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." John 6:54/NET

"eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality," Rom 2:7/NET

In the next post I'll take a quick look at some of the early creeds or lists of beliefs.

In the meantime, I'd love to hear your thoughts.  Have I missed any passages that would help us understand what beliefs are necessary for salvation?

What Beliefs Part 4 - Whom Do I Trust?

This is part four of a series exploring the question: "What set of beliefs do all true Christ followers believe?"

Please read some of these other posts first:


What Must I Believe Part 1 - explanation and look at Acts 16:30 - 31
What Must I Believe Part 2 - where Jesus tells a woman she is saved
What Must I believe Part 3 - a look at John 3:16
What Beliefs Part 4 - Whom Do I Trust?
What Must I believe - Part 5 - more verses to consider
What Creed Must I believe - Part 6 - how creeds can divide

Yes, I'm playing with what we mean by words again. Please humour me as I find it helpful.   The way we use the terms believe and trust may impact how we read the passages I've looked at so far.

I believe in parachutes. I believe in the science behind them. I even have faith that they work (most of the time).   But I have never placed my trust in a parachute, and have no plans to trust a parachute with my life.

Or take this random fact for example:

"If you have 3 quarters, 4 dimes, and 4 pennies, you have $1.19. You also have the largest amount of money in coins without being able to make change for a dollar. "

(Canadians: just try to remember back to the days when we had pennies.)

Yes I believe this information. The math looks good. Do I place any trust in this statement? No. So far in my life this random fact has made little to no difference in my life.  I don't see the need to place any trust in this information.

Believing that information is correct can be different than placing trust in something.

Up to this point I have been looking at different passages of Scripture for a list of essential beliefs about Jesus that believers must believe to be 'saved'. So far I haven't been able to find such a list.  So I am leaning towards assuming saving faith isn't about faith in a correct set of doctrines or truth statements about God and Jesus.  I am thinking the object of our saving faith is something other than correct information.

When Jesus and others say we must "believe in Jesus" to be saved, they didn't say "believe the following about Jesus".

The greek terms for believe and faith in the previous passages can also be translated trust, or to have trust in.
http://biblesuite.com/greek/4102.htm
http://biblesuite.com/greek/4100.htm

So what happens if we substitute the terms belief or faith with trust?

We get statements like this:

• Jesus said to the woman, “Your trust [in me] has saved you; go in peace.”
• "He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who trusts in him will not perish but have eternal life."
• “Trust in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Since none of the passages state "to be saved you must believe the following information or truth statements about Jesus", I think it makes sense to assume the object of our trust is in the person of Jesus.

It is not trusting in correct theology, but trusting in the source of truth Himself.

We see in James 2:19 that simply believing correct information about God does not count.  The demons likely have better understanding of theology that most of us.  The concern for them is where/whom they place their trust.

"You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that—and tremble with fear." (NET)

Obviously there is great value in having accurate theology.  If you are serious about following Jesus, you will want to understand Him better.  But the evidence of Scripture is leaning in favour of salvation based on trusting in the person of Christ, over trusting in some specific teachings about Christ.

I will continue this series with a list of other passages I have looked at.  If you want me to include a specific passage please let me know in a comment.

Please share your thoughts on this.

What Must I believe Part 3

This is part three of a series exploring the question: "What set of beliefs do all true Christ followers believe?"

This post may make more sense if you read some of these first:


What Must I Believe Part 1 - explanation and look at Acts 16:30 - 31
What Must I Believe Part 2 - where Jesus tells a woman she is saved
What Must I believe Part 3 - a look at John 3:16
What Beliefs Part 4 - Whom Do I Trust?
What Must I believe - Part 5 - more verses to consider
What Creed Must I believe - Part 6 - how creeds can divide

Next I'd like to look at one of the most popular verses in the Bible - John 3:16.  Let's look at a few verses around it too. John 3:14 - 21 (NIV)

"Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”  For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed.  But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.

In this passage Jesus simply teaches that everyone who believes in Jesus, and believes in the name of Jesus, will have eternal life.  Seems simple enough.

But like the previous passages I looked at, Jesus does not list how much information about Himself we must believe.  Do we need to understand and believe all that He has done for us in the past, and all He is doing in the world today, and the how and why he does it? He doesn't say we have to understand original sin, where sin will lead us, the work of the cross, justification, sanctification, His mercy, or grace.  I'm starting to suspect salvation isn't based on how much information we believe about Jesus.  If it was, it would have been nice if Jesus had mentioned here what information we need to believe.

However,  on the other hand, is it simply enough to say we believe in Jesus, and live however we please? No.

This passage gives the basis for judging who truly believes. Note that the evidence of true faith is not about how accurate their belief system is.  It looks like it is based on having fruit.   The passage doesn't say we are saved by doing good deeds, but it does say good deeds will be evident if we are saved. Those who follow Christ will become transformed to become more like the one they are following.

I am starting to get some clarity on this topic, I hope it makes some sense to others as well. If salvation is based on agreement with a list of truth statements about Jesus, why don't we see Jesus providing such a list here or elsewhere.  If it is not about belief in some information, what are we to be placing our trust in?

I plan to look at a few more passages soon.  If you have any passages you want to suggest I include in this series please leave them in a comment.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

What Must I Believe Part 2

This is part two of a series exploring the question: "What set of beliefs do all true Christ followers believe?"

This post may make more sense if you read these too:


What Must I Believe Part 1 - explanation and look at Acts 16:30 - 31
What Must I Believe Part 2 - where Jesus tells a woman she is saved
What Must I believe Part 3 - a look at John 3:16
What Beliefs Part 4 - Whom Do I Trust?
What Must I believe - Part 5 - more verses to consider
What Creed Must I believe - Part 6 - how creeds can divide

Next lets look at a passage in Luke 7:36 - 50 where Jesus is anointed by a sinful woman:

"When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

skip to verse 47 

(Jesus said) "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”  Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”  The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”  (NIV)

Like the last story, it may seem some things are missing from this story.  The story doesn't mention any gospel presentation. It doesn't mention Jesus going through a list of beliefs that must be accepted by faith.  There is no sinners prayer mentioned.

However it does mention her sins being forgiven, and that she is saved by faith.

Faith in what is the key question?  Is it faith in a set of information? Is it agreement in some truth statements?

If it was her belief in a set of information that has saved her, it would have been nice if Jesus had mentioned that.  But just like the previous example in Acts 16 no list of essential beliefs is given.

I have an idea of what the object of her faith may have been.  But first I'll look at a few more passages.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

What Must I Believe Part 1

What set of beliefs do all true Christ followers believe?

Christians believe all sorts of different things.  Is there a minimum amount of information a Christ follower needs to accept as truth by faith to be saved? Many Christians over the years have developed catechisms and statements of faith in an attempt to address this question. 

If someone asked you the question "What must I do to be saved?"  How would you respond?  Is there a set of information that you would want to go through to explain the basics of the faith?  Is there a list of verses that you would flip through to point out the most important beliefs?

To explore this question I would like to do a series of posts. There are a number of passages in New Testament that speak about what needs to occur to be saved.

The passage in Acts 16 comes to mind first where a jail guard asks Paul and Silas this key question:

 “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 

From this text, what set of information must be believed to be saved?  

Does it say we need to believe that God is Holy? That we are sinners?  That God cannot be in the presence of sin so Jesus paid our debt on the cross so we can be with Him?

What about information about the Trinity? What about the resurrection? What about God's love? What about the role of the Holy Spirit? We could go on and on and create a lengthy catechism.

This passage does go on to say "they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house."  We can only guess as to what that sounded like.   I can imagine it including some of  what I just mentioned above.  But we don't know how much.

We must also note the passage doesn't say "Believe the following about the Lord Jesus and you will be saved".  There is a difference between trusting someone, and believing information about someone. Getting the information about Jesus correct does matter for many different reasons.  I would not encourage anyone to embrace doctrines they know are false.  But how much of the information needs to be understood correctly for salvation?  That is the question I would like to explore further.


Here are other posts in this series:


What Must I Believe Part 1 - explanation and look at Acts 16:30 - 31
What Must I Believe Part 2 - where Jesus tells a woman she is saved
What Must I believe Part 3 - a look at John 3:16
What Beliefs Part 4 - Whom Do I Trust?
What Must I believe - Part 5 - more verses to consider
What Creed Must I believe - Part 6 - how creeds can divide

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Gospel Definitions

What is the deal with defining the gospel?  I am sensing there are different camps of Christians pushing their gospel definitions. I confess I have done some of this myself.

Trevin Wax has put together a collection of over 70 gospel definitions he has found here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/category/gospel/gospel-definitions/

There are some that I like more than others.  But if I was asked to give a definition of the gospel I would likely write something slightly different.

So I am wondering if we should back off on pushing our different gospel definitions.

Should we take an honest look and recognize that the terms for gospel and good new get used in many different ways in Scripture.  We don't find one gospel definition in Scripture that gets used over and over again.


Is the problem that we have made the word gospel to mean something more than it meant in Scripture? When we try to define the gospel, are we trying to create a summary of the main points of the Christian faith?

Have we changed the meaning of "good news" into "most important beliefs"?

Consider the example of gospel or good news in Luke 2:10. The angles pronounce good news (gospel) that a savior was born.  Does the use of the term for gospel here give a main summary of the beliefs of the Christian faith?  When we share the gospel with others are we to simply repeat what the angels said here?


I do sense some Christians are hesitant to accept that Jesus preached a good news message about the kingdom of God - and that He sent His disciples out preaching in a similar way. There are at least 8 passages where the terms good news or gospel are linked to a kingdom message in the gospels. To be honest I am not sure what concerns they have over this message. I am trying to sort it out.

I am not ashamed of the gospel of the kingdom that Jesus and His disciples preached. I am also not ashamed of any of the gospel accounts of Jesus. Nor am I ashamed of the good news message of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Whenever Jesus and the writers of scripture say "this is good news", I want to agree and share the good news with others.


But I am recognizing there is no record in our Scriptures of a gospel presentation that includes a summary of all the main beliefs of the Christian faith.  If we simply look at all the times the words gospel, and good news show up, we do not see a pattern to piece together such a gospel presentation.  The same goes when we look at different passages where people share the message of Jesus to others.  Even Jesus gives different explanations to different people on how to be saved.

I have some concerns over how much proof-texting is required for most gospel presentations.  If you have to piece together a summary by cutting and pasting sentences from different places... don't you think it is odd that at least one, if not all the NT books had a complete summary like the one you have made? 


It is good to study the Bible and try to piece it together to understand what God is asking of you.  But we should notice that Jesus didn't really put together any creeds, doctrinal statements, or even a systematic gospel presentation that we should memorize, repeat, and spread. 

So as I strive to simply follow Jesus, I think I may be free from needing to have the best definition of "good news".  May Jesus be good news for those around me.

I guess I may need to re-word some of my old posts on this topic.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Related Posts:

• Good News
• Gospel in the Gospels - Summary - 6 part series
• What is the Gospel? - lists verses related to gospel in 'the gospels'
• Gospel in other NT verses
• Gospel of Kingdom in Romans
• Kingdom of God
• What Gospel does you neighbor need to hear?
• Why Did Jesus Come?
• Jesus sends out the 12
• My 95 Thesis point 2 Gospel

Playdough Scripture Matt 28:19-20

"Therefore go and make converts disciples of all nations, baptising them in water and in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them understand correct theology.  to obey everything I have commanded you.(Matthew 28:19-20 Playdough Version)

This is based on a very well known verse. But a blog post by Tobie van der Westhuizen from South Africa got me thinking.  How well do we really know it?

Is there a difference between making converts and making disciples?

Immersion in water is a great way to symbolize immersion into our relationship with God, but we shouldn't assume this verse is talking about water.

Do we spend as much time teaching and modelling how to follow the person and teachings of Jesus as we do on teaching our doctrines? Should we be showing as much as we are telling? Disciple making may be more like apprenticeship than classroom style learning.

Thoughts?


Related Posts:

• Baptism Summary Thoughts
• Essentials For a New Disciple 
• The New Conversion

Essentials For a New Disciple

Someone recently asked me what things I thought would be key for a new disciple. I think that is a great question for any Christ follower to consider. If/when you disciple, where do you start, what essentials do you need to pass on to the new disciple?

I've recently shared some simple thoughts in a post titled Disciple Making 101. In that post I considered how Jesus made disciples, and how it wasn't primarily an academic process. The disciples lived life with Jesus, got to know Him, and learned how to follow His lead.

But I hadn't really put my thoughts together on what would be some key ingredients for a new disciple. Here are my initial thoughts. I'd love to hear feedback.

I think discipleship is all about following the lead of someone, learning to follow their example and instruction. To be a disciple of Jesus it is important to know who Jesus is, and learn to follow His will and hear His voice. There also seems to be a pattern in Scripture where a new disciple also follows the example of other more seasoned disciples. The goal shouldn't be to become a disciple of that other believer, but to learn from them how to be a disciple of Jesus.

So some key things for a new disciple would be:

1. Have a relationship with another disciple of Christ who will help model what following Christ is about.
2. Understand who Jesus is - studying the gospels is a great place to start.
3. Seek to hear our Shepherd's voice, and learn to trust that voice with both big and small decisions.
   

You may notice I haven't included list of essential doctrines or teachings that a new disciple must learn and agree to. I am interested in disciple making as modeled by Jesus and His disciples.

So this is all that comes to mind at the moment.

What do you think? What am I missing? I am not an expert on this topic at all, so I am open to being taught on this topic. Thanks!

Related Posts:

• Disciple Making 101
• This is Discipling
• Following a book?

Fighting Fundamentalist

Is there a link between fundamentalism and fighting? Is it true that the more fundamental someone is in their belief system the more aggressive they are in defending their position, and attacking others.

The term fundamentalism was coined by Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 to designate Christians who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals".

I confess I may have some of this fundamentalist blood flowing in my veins. Fighting about doctrines, proving I'm right and the other guys are wrong used to come naturally to me. I pray I am changing.

Within Christianity it seems the ones who are more liberal or moderate in their faith and practices are more accepting of others. From the fundamentalist point of view, being liberal or moderate is often viewed as though there is less passion for truth, and as an acceptance of a diluted luke-warm faith.

Consider how we view Muslims extremists. There are many moderate or liberal Muslims who don't see God calling them to do suicide terrorist attacks. Are the ones that generate violent news headlines the ones that have the strongest fundamental beliefs?

So what if I don't want to be a fighting fundamentalist? Do I need to just chill, tell everyone they are right, and have a diluted luke-warm faith?

Is there a 3rd option?

What if we were fundamental about Jesus, and took his teachings seriously?

• turn the other cheek
• Love your enemies
• do good to those who hate you
• bless those who curse you
• pray for those who mistreat you
• value others higher than you value yourself

What if being fundamental about following Jesus produced people who were known for their love for others. What if it meant we had good dialog on interesting topics like doctrines but refused to cross the line where a dialog turns into an argument. That line is crossed when we forget to show love and respect, and care more about winning the argument.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36

Disciple Making 101

Should every Christian be engaged in the task of disciple making? Throughout my life there have been times when I've been active in the disciple making process. But unfortunately I think I've often left this task for people more qualified, or who were freed up to dedicate their lives to this task.

After all, if disciple making means writing books, teaching theology, preparing sermons, lectures or DVD's... disciple making can't be for all of us. Maybe I'm capable of working though some pre-made Bible study material... but really?

I'm wondering if the task of making disciples isn't supposed to be so complex. Maybe it is something all Christ followers should be actively pursuing.

So here is a silly question I have to ask:

How did Jesus make disciples?

He could have held weekly meetings and worked through a series of sermons covering all the essential doctrines.

He could have take some of the future leaders deeper by opening the first Bible College or Seminary. He could have written textbooks, and had these men write term papers as they progressed through the disciple making process.

But He chose to simply ask these men to follow Him. He invited them to live life with Him. He taught stuff along the way, in many different natural ways. The teaching that Jesus did was connected to the life they were living together.

Jesus that was way too simplistic!

I can't see that working today.

Related Posts:

• This is Discipling
• Following a book?

Proof-Texting

Imagine I've written 3 letters to 3 different people about my summer. But instead of reading the letters someone tells you the following:

• Jon hopes to go tenting across the country with his daughter during the coming school weeks. (Dear daughter verse 3, Dear Mom verse 2)
• Next week Jon is going tenting across the country with Bob and family. (Hey Bob verse 3, Dear Mom verse 2)
• Jon wishes he had gone golfing instead of camping (Hey Bob verses 1 & 2, Dear Mom verse 2)

If you just read the verses quoted, they seem to support the statements above. However none of the above is true when you look at the whole letters yourself.


Dear Mom,

1. Our family had a great vacation this summer.
2. We spent time together this summer by jumping in a van together and tenting across the country.
3. I enjoyed exploring parts of our country that we had never seen before.


Dear daughter,

1. I enjoyed the time we spent together as a family this summer.
2. I hope you are ready to get back into the school routine soon.
3. I hope we can find time during the school weeks to spend time together too.


Hey Bob,

1. Sorry I didn't get out golfing with you.
2. Our family got quite busy over the summer with other plans.
3. Looking forward to spending some time with you and your family next weekend.

Prooftexting is the practice of using quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition. Using discrete quotations is generally seen as decontextualised. Critics of the technique note that often a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition for which it was cited.

Ministers and teachers have used the following humorous anecdote to demonstrate the dangers of prooftexting:

A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, "Then Judas went away and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5b) Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, "Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:37b)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext

Proof-texting does not always lead to the wrong conclusions. And I'm likely guilty of using it too - I'll have to keep a watch on myself on this in the future. But lately I'm learning to be suspicious whenever I see proof-texting done to support an argument. If the early church believed the same sequence of thoughts, why didn't they write it down in one place in one of the letters they wrote.

Does your gospel require proof-texting? Or is is plainly written somewhere in one place?


Related Posts:

• My 95 Thesis point 2 Gospel
• What is the Gospel? - lists verses related to gospel in 'the gospels'
  
• Gospel in other NT verses
• Gospel of Kingdom in Romans
  
• What Gospel does you neighbor need to hear?
  
• Dr Dwight Pryor on-Kingdom Of God - Part 1
• Dr Dwight Pryor on-Kingdom Of God - Part 2
• Jesus sends out the 12

11th reason

Oops, I published that last one too soon. I have another reason why I'm Not a Fan of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

#11 Like many doctrines, this is used to divide and/or maintain divisions in Christ's church. If we stick to teaching passages of Scripture in context we will find most Christians agree. When we teach a doctrine that requires proof texting (copy and pasting a variety of verses from all over) there will likely be some who object.

I am one of those who object. But I will try to maintain unity with those who love Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I know many of them love Jesus. Maybe they came to conclude this theory from their personal time with my Lord, or maybe they are following traditions and teachings they have received from others.

Either way, I don't think it's so much what you know as who you know that matters. I certainly don't have it all figured out either. :)

10 Reasons Why I'm Not a Fan of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

#10 It's a long title that needs describing

Penal substitution is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, especially associated with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_%28penal_substitution_view%29

#9 It makes God look mean and angry

Was God's wrath directed towards Jesus instead of towards us? Did God the Father punish Jesus instead of me?

Is God not capable of loving sinners? Does God hate sinners?

Does God ever quit loving us? Did God stop loving Jesus when he was on the cross?

I'm OK with a loving father disciplining his children - but can killing ever be done in love?

The description of a Jesus who paid our debt makes Jesus look like a good guy. But it also makes God the Father out to be a God who requires human sacrifices to appease him (either ours or Christ's).

#8 It gets told over and over again in some evangelical churches

#7 I don't think bearing our burden means punished by God instead of me

The phrase "bearing our burden" is in Scripture but see this post for more on this.

#6 Contrary to popular belief, the Mosaic sacrifices did not operate in a Penal Substitution framework.

See this post for more on this.

#5 You won't find the phrase Penal Substitutionary Atonement in Scripture

#4 You won't find the phrase "Jesus Paid our debt" in Scripture

Scripture uses the word ransom, which I think is different. When you pay a ransom you are paying money to a bad or evil force who has held someone captive. Is God the bad evil force that needed to be paid? Or is it our selfishness/sin?

#3 You won't find the phrase "Jesus paid the penalty of man's sin" in Scripture

#2 Some people think Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the gospel

#1 The gospel that Jesus preached over and over again was about the good news of the kingdom of God.

There may be some truths in the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory. The work that Jesus did on the cross is a beautiful and complex mystery. But I don't think this theory deserves the emphasis it often gets.


Related Posts:

• 11th reason - Unity
  
• Bearing our burden
• Whodunnit Who Killed Jesus
• More on Penal Substitution
• Did Jesus pay our debt
• Penal Substituion
• What gospel does your neighbor need to hear
• What is the Gospel? - lists verses related to gospel in 'the gospels'
• Gospel in other NT verses

God's Mercy and Grace

Look at the history of God's people, recorded in Scripture, and throughout history. Then I look at my personal life.

How does God put up with us?

We get some of it right, but we sure do get a lot of it wrong.

Apply this perspective to our varying forms of doing church. I suspect all 30,000 + denominations are off base in a range of areas. But as I've visited different church traditions, I get a sense that God is active and working in the lives of many of these people. I'm pretty sure each group has got some wrong theology. Many have missed the focus of works, living out their faith, being living examples of who Christ is. Many have traded in a personal relationship with the living God for some form of religion. And many have lost their true love for their Lord.

But within each of these attempts at being Christ's church, I believe God is still present and active.

Why would God bless the work of people who have got it so wrong?

How can God Work through institutions that have wrong teachings, actions, or have lost their love for Him?

How can God work through institutions that maintain and promote divisions within His one body?

I think it's the same grace and mercy that I know God extends to me daily that he also extends to others. God must be OK loving us even when we get it wrong. He must be OK working in and through us, even when we make a mess of it all.

Theology After Google

This past week there was a "Theology After Google" conference in California. I did not attend, and don't know much about it, but just listened to a podcast about it. I recognize Google is playing a new role in our current era. We know the printing press had a huge impact on Christianity. It put the printed Bible into the hands of the common folk. The internet is taking this a step further. With a simple search one can access volumes of past and present Christian resources larger than pastors and church leaders in previous generations could have collected on their bookshelves.

A couple of thoughts...

• The printing press allowed Christians to send written messages to the masses.
• Radio allowed Christians send audio message to the masses.
• TV allowed Christians to send video and audio to the masses.
• The internet is sending video, audio, and text... but it is allowing the masses to also interact with the message... search for answers to their own questions, and dialog with others on similar journeys.

Yes these are potentially dangerous times for theology. Individually we need to rely on the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, and other wise godly people in our lives, or we could potentially go way off track. It is much safer if the masses would just follow the teachings of the trained leaders of the Church. (But which church tradition? The ones that have the longest history, that have changed the least over time??? Or a church tradition founded on questioning past traditions, yet hesitant to allow it's traditions to be questioned...)

Then I had to check what searches are common with Google:
Ouch... 'Christianity' is taking a bit of a beating by the average Google user.





At least God and Jesus are fairing a bit better.



And I see some interesting searches for the term church.

It's good to recognize what tools and sources we allow to influence our beliefs.

Past generations benefited from radio, tv, and the printing press to spread the good news of Jesus. I just thought it's interesting to recognize the role the internet is playing today.