Emphasizing resurrection and spiritual renewal instead of death and punishing an innocent victim might be a way to reach people who've been turned off to the Christian faith.
Guess what, what I'm seeing him discover is exactly what G-d has shown me all along. So much for your "Pr fallacies theory." The Holy Spirit is not confined to a building nor a denomination, neither is G-d any respecter of persons.
I would like to refine a minor point though:
I don't think this is a good analogy, and rather that Christ was quoting something that speaks to something different. How 'bout this: Godliness is a fruit of the Spirit. It's the one next to cleanliness, right?No seriously, don't get side-tracked. He is the Head! We are the Body, not added to the Godhead, not gods, not separate from each other, nor separate from Him. W/o Him we can do nothing!
EO's "Christus Victor," right? I haven't seen the Passion, but is it fair to say that because a film focuses on His suffering and can't Faithfully proclaim the whole Gospel it is dangerous? I would think if it portrays the suffering accurately, that could be placed in it's proper context within the Gospel. (?)
I believe in the WHOLE Gospel. Paul preached that, right?
the Western church has only focused on it being the sacrifice of an innocent victim to appease the wrath of the Father, an idea which originated with Anselm, not with the Bible.
Have you really studied the OT sacrifices? Has the Spirit really shown you much about them? "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 1 Cor 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth."
I'm not up on my Anselm, but I'm pretty sure Paul pre-dates him
While some of Borg's theology is unorthodox, other parts are reviving that which is ancient to Christian faith. Panentheism, for example, rather than just seeing God as a distant being "up there," is very ancient. That the Christian life is primarily about a relationship with God and personal transformation than just believing in doctrines now for the sake of heaven later is very ancient.
There is no compatibility between pantheism and orthodox Christianity. Run don't walk away from anyone suggesting otherwise.
We are not a god, we will never be a god. We are servants of the Most High, and be willing and happy to serve with a humble heart. Dont' seek a higher position, or you just might loose your position all together. Be satisfied to be the lowest, seek to be the lowest........humility and love is the key.
In my life, I've too often seen Orthodox churches that places all this emphasis on self-denial yet do not do anything for charity, and I mean literally nothing. Though I appreciate Orthodoxy, it's one reason I am not Orthodox. If you focus primarily on doing good instead of self-denial, you might actually sin less by focusing on actively doing something other than sin.
Actually, I think it can look that way; but that is because charity is considered to be part of the "way of living" the Christian life. I've been active on the 'missions committee' in two Parishes now. In both cases, when asking for recommendations and information on local and international efforts to support, Church members would tell of places where they helped (often, by the time we asked, they had been helping for decades !). Organized efforts at the Parish level are more recent although in the GOC, Philoptochos (the official charity organization) and Church related organizations (Daughters of Penelope, AHEPPA) have been active for generations.
It is not that there is an absence of charitable activity, in fact on an individual level exactly the opposite is true; it just is not well "advertised".
Anabaptists? HARDLY.
Key Differences Between Evangelicals and Anabaptists
By Nolan Martin
Evangelicals have more influence on Anabaptists in the United States than any other Christian group. Because they believe exactly the same as the Anabaptists on so many issues such as the authority of Scripture, we feel a certain kinship to them and desire to minimize our differences. When Anabaptists need Bible study resources, they turn to Evangelical books and commentaries. Many Christian radio stations are operated by Evangelicals, and many Anabaptists who have radios tune in and listen to Evangelical teaching and music. This Evangelical influence has a tendency to erode the distinctive beliefs of many Anabaptists even more than physical persecution did in Reformation days.
What are the distinctive beliefs of Anabaptists? The first difference, and perhaps the only difference many Anabaptists would mention, is their belief in nonresistance, which Evangelicals do not hold. Although this visible divergence is a significant difference, it springs from deeper doctrinal differences. The most basic of these differences lies in the interpretation of Scripture. Although both groups believe in the authority of Scripture and would even use similar methods to interpret Scripture, Anabaptists approach the Bible with some different presuppositions that lead to vastly different outcomes.
First, an Anabaptist interpretation of Scripture is centered on the teachings of Christ and his call to discipleship. The rest of Scripture is then viewed through this lens and interpreted so as not to contradict the teachings of Christ, the head of the church. This produces different conclusions than when interpretation is centered on the writings of Paul as often seen in Evangelical teaching. A Christ-centered interpretation maintains that Christ's teachings can be followed with God's enabling grace and must be followed if an entrance into the kingdom of God is to be gained. A Paul-centered interpretation tends to overemphasize man's sinful nature and makes man utterly helpless in the pursuit of good. Consequently, many of Christ's teachings are considered unattainable in the present. In fact, some who interpret the Bible this way postpone the validity of Jesus' teachings to some future time. God's mercy and forgiveness is emphasized in this system rather than careful obedience.
Second, Anabaptists believe the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament. They believe the Old Testament points forward to Christ, whereas the New Testament is the final and ultimate revelation of Christ. On the other hand, many Evangelicals have a "flat Bible," putting the Old and New Testaments on the same level. Except for Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws, Evangelical morality closely resembles Jewish morality. Oaths, accumulation of wealth, participation in war, and divorce and remarriage are acceptable for Evangelicals because they were acceptable in the Old Testament. For the Anabaptists, the New Testament teaching on these issues trumps the Old Testament teaching.
Third, Anabaptists believe the Bible is best interpreted when the believer is committed to obeying it. Early Anabaptists were concerned about how the learned of their day twisted the Scriptures to get around the force of a command. Anabaptists today reject the common distinctions made between New Testament commands on the one hand that are binding both in form and spirit upon Christians for all time and those on the other hand that are to be observed only in spirit. Many hold that to the former class belong such items as baptism and communion, whereas to the latter class belong such commands as to greet one another with a holy kiss, to wash one another's feet, and to anoint the sick with oil. Anabaptists hold that these New Testament commands as well as communion and baptism are to be observed by all Christians everywhere until the end of the age. Mennonite theologian J. C. Wenger said, "There is no exegetical consideration against the observance of feet washing, for example, which would not also bear against the observance of baptism."
Moving from Bible interpretation, another root difference between Anabaptists and Evangelical Protestants is their view of salvation. Anabaptists emphasize that salvation is by grace through faith that works (notice it's not faith plus works.). They believe that at conversion God purges a person's past sins by Christ's blood and changes that person at his very core, freeing him from the enslavement of sin and enabling him actually to live a righteous life. God declares the sinner righteous because of Christ's work on the cross and his present work in the heart of the believer enabling him to live righteously in reality. Right living is therefore crucial evidence that an individual has repented, believed, and yielded to Christ.
This is in contrast to the Evangelical view that justification is the result only of an accounting procedure in the books of Heaven that happens totally outside the person. According to this view, when a person says the sinner's prayer, his sins are deducted from his account, and Christ's righteousness is credited to his account instead. Thus, when God looks at the person, all He will ever see is Christ's righteousness regardless of how the person lives (or dies). God declares the sinner righteous no matter what is true in reality. In this view, right living should follow conversion but is completely unrelated to God's evaluation of the person and will affect only his rewards.
Evangelicals see a huge, oversized cross on top of Scripture that obscures Christ's call to discipleship and renders obedience unnecessary. Anabaptists, on the other hand, see no distinction in the Bible between a disciple of Christ and a saved person. As Milo Zehr wrote, Protestants believe Christ did enough on the cross to deliver those who believe from the guilt of original sin, and Anabaptists believe Christ is doing enough day by day to deliver people from both the guilt and practice of sin.
The Evangelical view of salvation leads to careless living in many cases. For example, the divorce rate among Christians in America is nearly equal to that among non-Christians. Is this not a small window giving a view of something seriously wrong within popular Christianity? Most Evangelical Christians see no advantage to living a holy life because of their view of salvation.
I need to clarify that Anabaptists do not believe a person is perfected at conversion. According to 1 John 1:7, If we walk in the light . . . the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we walk in the light perfectly, we do not need cleansing from sin, so John apparently believed a person walking in the light may still stumble at times and need cleansing. The two false beliefs that we must avoid are these: (1) We never sin after conversion. (2) We can habitually sin and have fellowship with God. The cleansing of sin does depend on our walking in the light, which I understand to mean striving to obey Christ and do what is right.
The Bible says Noah, Abraham, and Job were righteous in the sight of God. Yet we know they weren't perfect. We also know that their righteousness was not just the result of an accounting transaction in the books of Heaven, but rather a righteousness (right living) that was a basic pattern in their life. What kind of affront to Satan would it have been if Job's righteousness had been just the result of bookkeeping in Heaven?
Another difference regarding salvation is the status of children. Although Anabaptists are diligent in teaching children the word of God, their focus is not on converting the child as soon as possible. They believe their children are safe and covered by the blood of Jesus until they reach the age of accountability, at which time the child will either accept or reject Christ. This age varies between individuals, but for most it falls between the ages of 8 and 17.
Evangelicals believe children are lost until they accept Christ. Their focus therefore is on getting the child saved. Many of their children will say the sinner's prayer by the age of 7. To me, child evangelism does not differ much from infant baptism. I think I could get most 3-year-olds to say a prayer accepting Christ into their heart. But 3-year-olds know nothing of discipleship, and unless they are taught discipleship later in life when they can truly understand what it means, they will never become true disciples of Christ, which is what a Christian is. Thus, sadly, many say a sinner's prayer by age 7, but by 17 they are following the world rather than Christ.
Anabaptists believe their chief citizenship is in the heavenly kingdom ruled by Jesus Christ. Thus they believe it is not their job to keep order in the kingdoms of this world wherein they are only pilgrims, but rather to invite people into the heavenly kingdom. Evangelicals believe Christians need to help keep order in society. They have never been able to figure out, however, how to follow the laws of Jesus' kingdom, which he taught in the Sermon on the Mount, and still keep order in the kingdoms of this world. It seems they have ended up dropping the heavenly kingdom values.
Because of Jesus' commands to love your enemies and resist not evil, Anabaptists believe strongly in nonparticipation in war. Yet they hold that the state is necessary and ordained by God to keep order in an unregenerate society by using carnal force (Rom. 13). They therefore do not oppose the death penalty, recognizing that the government "bears not the sword in vain. They also are not, as Harold Martin says, "Humanitarian pacifists crusading for the end of all wars." Their attitude is that they will thankfully accept the protection the state provides as the Apostle Paul did. But if that protection should fail or if the state should turn against them, they will rather suffer violence than harm a fellow human being.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Catholic and Protestant controlled governments in Europe did turn against the Anabaptists and persecuted them with terrible cruelty. Despite the horrible persecution Anabaptists maintained their beliefs and multiplied. We are grateful the Protestants no longer persecute us and are rather apologizing for their forefathers persecution. Anabaptists need to stay on the alert, however, so they do not now unconsciously and gradually surrender their beliefs during this time of geniality. The issues for which the Anabaptists were persecuted have not been resolved. We made it through the physical persecution. How are we doing in the face of the subtle onslaught of Evangelical books and media?
I do not wish to present the Anabaptists as having it all together. We certainly have quite a few problems of our own. Wherever we are right, it is by the grace of God. I also do not want to present Evangelicals as being all wrong. As I said at the beginning, we have a lot in common. Many of them despite their embrace of what I believe to be wrong doctrines are sincerely seeking God and striving to do His will. I do think it is important, though, that people understand that there are significant differences which go deeper than dress and nonresistance and which make Anabaptist denominations necessary.
Furthermore, I call us all to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ while living up to the light we have already received.
Key Differences Between Evangelicals and Anabaptists
I don't mean at all to disparage Eastern Orthodoxy, which I believe has made great contributions to theology, iconography, liturgical music, etc. I simply believe that, if we were to go back to the original message of Jesus, we'd probably be Anabaptists, even though I am not one myself.
Erroneous Articles of the Anabaptists.
9] Namely, for instance, the erroneous, heretical doctrines of the Anabaptists, which are to be tolerated and allowed neither in the Church, nor in the commonwealth, nor in domestic life, when they teach:
10] 1. That our righteousness before God consists not only in the sole obedience and merit of Christ, but in our renewal and our own piety in which we walk before God; which they, for the most part, base upon their own peculiar ordinances and self-chosen spirituality, as upon a new sort of monkery.
11] 2. That children who are not baptized are not sinners before God, but righteous and innocent, and thus are saved in their innocency without Baptism, which they do not need. Accordingly, they deny and reject the entire doctrine concerning original sin and what belongs to it.
12] 3. That children are not to be baptized until they have attained the use of reason and can confess their faith themselves.
13] 4. That the children of Christians, since they have been born of Christian and believing parents, are holy and the children of God even without and before Baptism; and for this reason they neither attach much importance to the baptism of children nor encourage it, contrary to the express words of the promise, which extends only to those who keep God's covenant and do not despise it, Gen. 17:9.
14] 5. That a congregation [church] in which sinners are still found is no true Christian assembly.
15] 6. That no sermon should be heard or attended in those churches in which the papal masses have previously been said.
16] 7. That no one should have anything to do with those ministers of the Church who preach the holy Gospel according to the Confession, and rebuke the errors of baptists; also, that no one should serve or in any way labor for them, but should flee from and shun them as perverters of God's Word.
17] 8. That under the New Testament the magistracy is not a godly estate.
18] 9. That a Christian cannot with a good, inviolate conscience hold the office of magistrate.
19] 10. That a Christian cannot without injury to conscience use the office of the magistracy in matters that may occur [when the matter so demands] against the wicked, neither can its subjects appeal to its power.
20] 11. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience take an oath before a court, nor with an oath do homage to his prince or hereditary sovereign.
21] 12. That magistrates cannot without injury to conscience inflict capital punishment upon evil-doers.
22] 13. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience hold or possess any property, but is in duty bound to devote it to the common treasury.
23] 14. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience be an inn-keeper, merchant, or cutler.
24] 15. That married persons may be divorced on account of faith [diversity of religion], and that the one may abandon the other, and be married to another of his own faith.
25] 16. That Christ did not assume His flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, but brought them with Him from heaven.
26] 17. That He is not true, essential God either, but only has more and higher gifts and glory than other men.
27] And still more articles of like kind; for they are divided among themselves into many bands [sects], and one has more and another fewer errors, and thus their entire sect is in reality nothing but a new kind of monkery.
I still say, HARDLY.
From the Book of Concord:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?