Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The "Emergent Church" -- What exactly is it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Here, I think Jesus is referring to the Pharisaic and lawyerly penchant for making "hedge laws" and punishing infraction of those as if one were breaking a Mosaic law (which would require sacrifice for atonement). Instead of legally requiring atonement for every possible infraction, God looks at intent. If the intent was not to break the law, then we should apply mercy instead of requiring sacrifice.
    Excellent.

    And Jesus tied Matthew 9:13 with Hosea 6:6.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Christian3 View Post

      McLaren said: “It turns out that Jesus wasn’t the first to dare to question the architecture of appeasement.” McLaren mentions Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 and 2 and Psalm 51, verse 17 as proof.

      I would appreciate any comments.

      Thanks.
      Yup. People have accused him of eisegesis, but I'm not sure on what basis. The passages do say what he says.

      I think the reason people hesitate to read them in the obvious way is that the OT in other places sets up the sacrifices that the prophets says aren't necessary. So if God didn't require sacrifice, why did Lev describe all of those sacrifices? My suggestion is that sacrifice wasn't needed for forgiveness, but was rather a kind of sacrament: it made visible and reinforced the person's commitment to repentance.

      The underlying issue is the atonement. If you don't think sacrifice is necessary for forgiveness, you'll tend to prefer older models of the atonement. The big argument for penal substitution is that sacrifice is needed for forgiveness. If that isn't true, some of the alternative understandings of the atonement may be better.
      Last edited by hedrick; 09-28-2017, 06:36 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
        My church is studying one of Brian McLaren's books: "The Great Spiritual Migration."

        Both Pastors and all the facilitators of the Bible Study programs loved the book. They loved it so much that more Bible Study sessions were opened, some on Saturday for people who could not attend during the week.

        In Chapter 1, McLaren uses Jesus' cleansing of the Temple to say that Jesus did not believe in animal sacrifices.

        McLaren said: “It turns out that Jesus wasn’t the first to dare to question the architecture of appeasement.” McLaren mentions Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 and 2 and Psalm 51, verse 17 as proof.

        I would appreciate any comments.

        Thanks.
        That's a new interpretation on me. I guess given that He overturned the tables of those selling the animals, you could make a weak argument for it. However, since He said, "My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers" as a commentary on His actions, I'll stick with the more traditional interpretation of He was attacking "spiritual" leaders that exploited people.

        A substitutionary atonist would argue that since Jesus was the sacrifice for our sins, how could he not approve of the system that prefigured His sacrifice?

        With such a poor start, I'm now suspicious of the whole. Given the popularity of the book and teaching, I personally, might start looking for a new church.
        "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

        "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

        Comment


        • #49
          I suppose someone could say that Jesus was, in his cleansing, rejecting the idea that animal sacrifice was necessary anymore, even if it was important in the Old Testament.

          That said, I haven't read the book and haven't seen his full argument in context, so I'm basically responding to a synopsis of the argument rather than the argument itself.

          Comment


          • #50
            The OT citations show that sacrifice wasn't necessary for forgiveness. But that doesn't mean that the sacrifices in the temple were actually wrong. The cleansing of the Temple shows that he was opposed to trade in the temple. I think it's hard to conclude from that passage taken on its own that the sacrifices were wrong. But without reading McLaren I can't tell precisely what he said. He talks about the "architecture of appeasement."

            Let me suggest an understanding of the passage that I think is consistent with the evidence. We know from Mat 9:13 and 12:7 that Jesus didn't think that sacrifice was necessary. Indeed a reasonable person could conclude that God didn't want them at all. We also know that Jesus was opposed to the religious establishment. Did he simply see the buying and selling as an incidental aspect of the Temple that was wrong? Or was the whole system of which that was a part wrong, and a way for the priestly class to take advantage of ordinary citizens? A lot of people think what he did in the temple was one reason for his crucifixion. If one could show that the priests understood it not just as an attack on commercial activity but on the whole system, that would provide some support for the idea. Without reading McLaren's book, this looks speculative but possible. But it's not a standard exegesis that you're likely to find in critical commentaries.

            It's interesting that Jesus isn't portrayed as participating in the traditional sacrificial worship. He taught in the temple and was there on a couple of occasions, but as far as I can recall neither Jesus nor those around him sacrificed. Jesus is also portrayed as being opposed by the priests. So sacrifice didn't play much of a role in his concept of religion. But was he actually opposed?

            Mat 9:13 and 12:7 echo the prophets. A straightforward reading of those two passages implies that sacrifice isn't needed. Does that mean it's wrong? I think a reasonable person could conclude that, but I also don't think it's absolutely certain. But at the very least I don't think he believed that sacrifice was necessary for forgiveness.
            Last edited by hedrick; 09-28-2017, 10:57 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Here, I think Jesus is referring to the Pharisaic and lawyerly penchant for making "hedge laws" and punishing infraction of those as if one were breaking a Mosaic law (which would require sacrifice for atonement). Instead of legally requiring atonement for every possible infraction, God looks at intent. If the intent was not to break the law, then we should apply mercy instead of requiring sacrifice.
              I have to admit that I had never heard of "hedge laws" before you brought it up. Since then I have read an article of two about it, but I would rather hear what you think.

              Could you explain what they are and how Jews would use them?

              Thanks.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                Yes, it does, but Brian McLaren is a Pastor or former Pastor. Surely he would know how what the cited Scriptures meant?
                It appears McLaren does not believe in blood atonement. I wonder what he thinks the Gospel is?
                I admit that while I knew the name, I had to go look up who Brian McLaren is. After reading his website, he seems to be wanting to reinvent Christianity in his image. At this point, its no wonder he is finding new meanings in Scripture. He has to since he pretty much discarded the 2000 years of teaching. The result is as OBP says: "Looks like a textbook case of eisegesis".
                "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                  I have to admit that I had never heard of "hedge laws" before you brought it up. Since then I have read an article of two about it, but I would rather hear what you think.

                  Could you explain what they are and how Jews would use them?

                  Thanks.
                  The Jews use them as a way to ensure that they don't actually break a Mosaic commandment. The law commanded that no work be done on the Sabbath - so people would split hairs about what constituted work. For example, Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath because he made clay by spitting in the dirt - that constituted work.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I just looked at McLaren's actual argument. First, let me say that I often find him helpful, but he's not a great exegete. His specific comments on the passage don't hold water. But he also looks at the broader question, and there I think he's right. At least in the version in John, Jesus really is attacking the whole Temple system, not just trying to correct an abuse. John is organized into a series of episodes, each of which shows Jesus replacing key aspects of Judaism. In this episode, when challenged on his authority, Jesus say that the Temple will be destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days. He is really saying that his death and resurrection replace the system of sacrifices in the Temple.

                    Your assessment of this will depend upon whether you think the role of the Temple was controversial, with the prophets, and particularly John, providing an approach that's opposed to it. In that case you'll be more likely to accept the idea that Jesus' offer of forgiveness was ultimately an attack on the system of forgiveness associated with the Temple.

                    Whether McLaren is right on the broader implications depends upon your understanding of the atonement. I think he's right on that, but showing that requires exegesis of a bunch of texts, which probably doesn't make sense here.
                    Last edited by hedrick; 09-30-2017, 11:34 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      The "Emergent Church" -- What exactly is it?
                      Emerging neo-old heresy, also unScriptural crap.
                      Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        The Jews use them as a way to ensure that they don't actually break a Mosaic commandment. The law commanded that no work be done on the Sabbath - so people would split hairs about what constituted work. For example, Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath because he made clay by spitting in the dirt - that constituted work.
                        Thank You.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                          Yup. People have accused him of eisegesis, but I'm not sure on what basis. The passages do say what he says.

                          I think the reason people hesitate to read them in the obvious way is that the OT in other places sets up the sacrifices that the prophets says aren't necessary. So if God didn't require sacrifice, why did Lev describe all of those sacrifices? My suggestion is that sacrifice wasn't needed for forgiveness, but was rather a kind of sacrament: it made visible and reinforced the person's commitment to repentance.

                          The underlying issue is the atonement. If you don't think sacrifice is necessary for forgiveness, you'll tend to prefer older models of the atonement. The big argument for penal substitution is that sacrifice is needed for forgiveness. If that isn't true, some of the alternative understandings of the atonement may be better.
                          Hebrews is pretty clear that blood sacrifice is necessary, but that Jesus fulfilled that function in a far better way than animal sacrifice ever did.

                          Hebrews 9:21-23New International Version (NIV)

                          21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

                          23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by mossrose, 11-07-2021, 09:28 PM
                          146 responses
                          971 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post tabibito  
                          Working...
                          X