Apologetic Wars 2:Attack of the screwed up Christians
Maryellen posted this great comment on my last post, “Apologetic Wars.”
"Wes, how can doubt that Jesus ever existed not exclude you from being a
Christian?If Jesus is not who He claimed to be, if the Biblical account of Jesus
is not true, than being a Christian is pointless.If He were not born of a
virgin, than was he completely human? If His life and death did not fulfill the
ancient prophesies then who is He? I peter 3:15: always being ready to make a
defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you
yet with gentleness and reverence...There are some bad teachers out there, and
some bad teachings...but the fear/respect/reverence of the LORD and of His Word
is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. I think that leaders, teachers, should
be apologists."
Maryellen’s comment is awesome and I hope she won’t mind my responding to it in a post.
Maryellen,
I first of all believe all these things are true, but I don't think that faith is dependant on these things. there are those who believe in a sort of metaphorical Jesus (so they don't believe He actually existed) they still call themselves Christians and claim to have the same sort of relationship we do with Him. I can't be arrogant enough to say "well, no ya don't."
The virgin birth is interesting. There are many Christian scholars who believe that Mary was impregnated on her first time having sex, which classified her as a virgin in the language of the first century. Another point: In that time there were two popular cults in the regions that the gospel writers wrote to. The Mithra and Dionysian religious cults both worshiped gods who were born from virgins. Maybe the gospel writers were simply making a point to these cults. (Do I believe that? not really, but I don't think I'd care if that were proven somehow. I could still be a Christian, and Jesus could still in some mysterious way be God.)
I believe that Jesus is "completely human" (and completely God) so there's room in my theology for that. His being "completely human" does not negate His deity, which is not essential for Jesus to be messiah anyway so it would not make Him a liar if He wasn't God. (Yes, I believe He is God.)
These things should all be argued, yes, apologetically. Now, in arguing these things I might be arguing with a Christian (hmmm, interesting...). If anything is true it's worth discussing, but let's not send the message that unless someone agree with us on these thing they can't be a Christian. There are people out there that would probably be Christians if they could do so and still believe in evolution. The beautiful truth is that they can. They can be really screwed up and still be a Christ follower moving closer and closer to what God wants them to be, to the life of beauty and peace and hope that we are living.
Let's stop arguing them in and start inviting them in. Let's invite them, and then worry about all the other details of knowledge (if you think it's worth worrying about). Send a message knowing Jesus is not the same as knowing about him.
Comments
i think it is very important to believe that Jesus is who the Bible says he is or else, you aren't believeing in him at all.
Did this metophorical jesus die on a metophorical cross?
I don't think the blood of Christ was/is metophorical.
I'm enjoying your blog. I'm going to look around and read some more, if you don't mind. :)
Again I believe Jesus was of a virgin but the messiah was prophesied to be the son of David adopted by God making Him the son of God, the ulogies in Luke and Matthew establish these things. (Again remember the word virgin in old testament did not mean the same thing it does to us). The idea that Jesus would have to have sin nature if he was born of two people makes sence and I like it but it's not the only plausable explainatin for His "perfection." In Jesus so called "adoption" by God it makes sence that He was cleansed of that. In other word just cause he was born of two people doesn't negate Gods ability to be His father, and therefore it does not mean Jesus had a sin nature. (do I believe this idea? again, NO) And sin nature in itself is an argument, is it really "sin nature" or could it be "good nature gone bad" or "free will taken advantage of?"
These things are woth discussing as doctrines leading us to better understanding. but could you be arrogant enough to say "hey you're not a Christian" to someone who believes Jesus is symbolic or wasn't born of a virgin and yet claims to love Him? Yeah you might say "their doctrine is wack" but don't judge their salvation. Who knows besides God anyway?
Thanks for an interesting discussion!
Will those who believe in a metaphorical Jesus spend eternity is a metaphorical heaven?
And can I be a postmodern, emergent, fundementalist?
I better take that survey to find out...love ya wes!
It's funny that you asked that last question in your comment, because I took Wes' quiz and actually I came out as an emergent/postmodern/fundamentalist. Kind of funny. I put a short post on my blog about it.
Wes, I keep seeing your mentionings about the word "virgin" and it's different meaning during the time we are discussing. I've never heard that before. Is that a poor translation that leads in our bibles that uses the word virgin because it is the clossest word to what they were trying to say? It's very fascinating to me...I'd love to hear more on that particular topic.
Virgin is not a poor translation, I really didn't mean that it was "different" just broader. I believe that Mary was a virgin (meaning she didn't have sex at all) when she had Jesus. The word we get in the gospels comes from the book of Isaiah and could, hear it... could also be defined as a woman who was inpregnated her first time having sex. there's room for both definitions in biblical language.
I thank you sincerely that you took the time to post such a thought provoking and inspirational comment.
I agree and see the beauty of a proper understanding of Jesus. It provides strength, faith, steadfastness...
Apologetics is truly benefitial. I'm simply interested in the relationship between intellectual knowledge and salvation.
Now, let's say I intellectually believe in things that contradict, or don't really make sence. Let's say I love Jesus and follow His teachings but I don't believe He came into history. Am I a Christian? Yes!... Now let's say Jesus really did come into history... should an appropriate study lead me to that belief, will I be closer to truth if I believe that? Yes, but I will still be a Christian (if being a Christian is in fact about faith). That's where appologetics comes in, to strengthen us. But appologetics does more harm than good if it DEMANDS, demands that we believe somehing to be a Christian that a Christian really need not believe intellectually. It might ask us to believe things in order to be closer to the truth but let's not hang salvation on it. It's a message that has kept evolutionists from being Christians for far too long. let's invite them in and all the science and history lessons will take care of themselves.
Art,
I think we might actually agree. what do you think? Thank you again for your insight.
Everyone... read Pastor Art's blog! he is obviousely an extremely intellegent man and every dissagreement we may have (though there may, actually, be fewer than you'd think)I hold with the utmost humility.
-Wes