Why the Christian Understanding of Salvation is ‘Morally Grotesque’
Posted: January 27, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Islam, The Bible 26 Comments »
Here is an extract from my opening presentation at London Central mosque in December 2011:
Islam places great stress on God as a God of mercy and forgiveness whom the individual can approach directly without the need of any mediator or priest. God says in the Quran:
‘O My servants, who have transgressed against their souls. Do not despair of the mercy of God, for He forgives all sins, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’
(39:53). From this understanding, which was shared by Jesus, flow certain critical observations regarding the later Christian view of the necessity of Jesus’ alleged vicarious atonement.
The Christian idea that guilt can be removed from a wrongdoer by someone else being punished instead is morally grotesque. Or if we say that God in the person of God the Son punished himself in order to be able to justly forgive sinners, we still have the absurdity of a moral law which God must satisfy by punishing the innocent in place of the guilty. As the medieval theologian St Anselm wrote in his work Why God Became Man (Cur Deus Homo), ‘it is a strange thing if God so delights in, or requires, the blood of the innocent, that he neither chooses, nor is able, to spare the guilty without the sacrifice of the innocent’.
I believe the basic fault of the Christian understanding of salvation is that it has no room for divine forgiveness. For a forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment, or the offering of a sacrifice, is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgement that a debt has been paid in full. The Cross is not a symbol of forgiveness at all: on the orthodox Christian view, it denotes the repayment of a debt, as the infinity of Original Sin is atoned for by the infinite sacrifice of God’s own temporary death. But what humanity really needs, as we look back over our long record of disobedience, is a model of true forgiveness by a God who does not calculate, who imposes no mean-spirited ‘economy of salvation’ worthy only of accountants and bookkeepers. As the Bible teaches: The letter killeth – the spirit giveth life.
But in the authentic teaching of Jesus to be found in the synoptic gospels (that is the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) there is, in contrast, genuine divine forgiveness for those who truly repent. In the Lord’s Prayer we are taught to address God directly and to ask for forgiveness for our sins, expecting to receive this, the only condition being that we in turn forgive one another. There is no suggestion of the need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive.
One of the most famous of all Jesus’ parables is found in Luke’s gospel: the so-called parable of the prodigal son. It is a story about how God treats repentant sinners. Note that the father when he sees his repentant son returning home does not say ‘Because I am a just as well as a loving father, I cannot forgive him until someone has been duly punished for his sins’, but rather he had compassion, and ran and embraced him and welcomed him home. So God does not need a sacrifice in order to forgive anyone. As the English convert from Christianity to Islam Ruqaiyyah Maqsood wrote: ‘the split-second of turning from Christianity to Islam is the realisation of the truth of the parable of the Prodigal Son. In the parables, God is loving enough to forgive directly. That was the whole glory of the Judaism which Jesus upheld.’
Another example is to be found in Luke’s story of the tax collector and the Pharisee, the tax collector standing far off would not lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner’. Jesus declared that this man went home justified before God. Jesus insisted that he came to bring sinners to a penitent acceptance of God’s mercy: ‘Go and learn what this means, he said, quoting God: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (Matt 9.13)
In my experience Christians often use the analogy of a ‘debt’ to explain how God needs someone to pay off our sin debt to him, and, because of his justice, he must take the payment from someone. Jesus however had very different ideas about God, namely that God is quite able to just cancel our debt of sin and forgive the sinner.
In Matthew 18 we read Jesus’ teaching:
The Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of pounds. He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt.
“But the man fell down before his master and begged him, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.’ Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.
“But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand pounds. He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment.
“His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it,’ he pleaded. But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and put in prison until the debt could be paid in full.
“When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt.
“That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.”
So God freely forgives our sins and expects us to forgive our neighbour too. The Lord’s Prayer, of course, has the same commandment.
So how is a human being to attain eternal life, that is, how are we to be saved? Interestingly, Jesus was asked this very question and you can read his answer in the gospel according to Mark chapter 10. Here is the story:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Note that Jesus does not tell the man that he must put his faith in Jesus, or that salvation is solely dependent on Jesus dying to atone for his sins. No. As a humble Jew Jesus recognizes that the attribute of goodness is found perfectly in God alone, not in himself; that to sincerely obey the commands of the Torah is the main road to salvation, but in this individual’s case he lacked just one thing – he needed to give away his wealth to the poor and this would result in his gaining treasure in heaven. Note carefully the sequence.
That this passage caused embarrassment to later gospel writers (who used Mark’s gospel when compiling their own gospels) is evident from the changes they made to Jesus’ words by removing his denial that he is good
Here is Matthew’s altered version in 19:17 (compare this with Marks original)
And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Instead of Mark’s original ‘why do you call me good?’)
By way of contrast let us turn to Paul’s answer to the same question about salvation in Romans 10:9:
If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
The differences are startling. As we have seen, Jesus’ answer to the question about salvation focuses on obedience to the Torah and giving to the poor. As a Prophet to the Jewish people, Jesus taught that faithfulness to God is to be expressed in adherence to the Creator’s commands and precepts in the Torah. Paul’s religion focused on Jesus and he claimed that the Torah had been abolished. Jesus in Matthew chapter 5 taught precisely the opposite.
Jesus’ teaching was fully in accord with contemporary Jewish understanding. Leading Jesus scholar EP Sanders, in his authoritative work on Jesus’ Jewish background says, and I quote, ‘The forgiveness of repentant sinners is a major motif in virtually all the Jewish material which is still available from the period (p 18, Sanders Jesus and Judaism). For Judaism sees human nature as basically good and yet also with an evil inclination that has to be continually resisted. However, God being aware of our finitude and weakness is always ready to forgive the truly repentant. In Islam there is a very similar view.
God is frequently described in the Quran as ar Rahman ir Rahim (The Merciful and the Compassionate).
Jesus, mirroring the teaching of the Quran, teaches that God knows our weakness and forgives those who, in the self-surrender of faith, bow before the compassionate Lord of the universe. Once, the Prophet Muhammad reported that the Devil said: ‘By my honour, O Lord, I shall never stop misguiding your servants so long as life remains in their bodies! The Almighty, the Glorious Lord, said: By My honour, I shall never cease forgiving them, so long as they ask forgiveness of Me!‘ (Ahmad).
Another wonderful saying is: ‘O son of Adam – so long as you call upon Me and ask of me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins as great as the earth itself, and were you then to face Me ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness in equal measure.’ (Tirmidhi, Ahman).
However, it needs to be pointed out that just as some people refuse to stop on the crazy path to their own destruction, despite the intercession of their loved ones, so the future lives of some people will be extremely unpleasant because of their absolute refusal to accept the love and mercy of God and to live in a way that is acceptable to him.
God tells us in the Quran: ‘If God were to punish people according to their wrongdoing, he would not leave on earth a single living creature; but He gives them respite for a stated term; and when their term expires, they will not be able to delay their fate for a single hour, just as they cannot bring it forward by a single hour.‘ (16:61)
Our salvation lies in our own hands and in the supreme compassion of Allah, who loves each individual He has created.
***
I would like to share with you some teaching about God’s mercy and forgiveness that is to be found in authentic Hadith. The way they speak of God may surprise you if you think that Muslims believe in a remote and distant deity.
The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said, Indeed, God is more happy with the repentance of His servant than a man who stops in a barren, desolate land; with him he has his riding animal. He then goes to sleep. When he wakes up he realizes that his mount is gone. He searches for it until he is on the verge of dying (for the mount was carrying his supplies and provisions). He then says, “I will return to the place wherein I lost it, and I will die there.” He went to that place, and he was then overcome by sleep. When he woke up, his mount was standing right beside his head: on it was his food, his drink, his provisions, and the things he needed. God is more happy with the repentance of his believing servant than the aforementioned man when he finds his mount and his provisions. (Bukhari & Muslim)
*
A man heard chirping in a thicket, found some young birds, and took them. Their mother came and flew around his head, so he uncovered them and, when she alighted on them, wrapped them up together in his garment and brought them to the Prophet. He commanded the man to put them down and he did so. The mother would not leave them. The prophet said, “Do you wonder at the mercy of the chick’s mother for her young? By Him who sent me with the truth, God shows more mercy to His servants than this mother shows to her young. Take them back and put them where you found them, and their mother with them.” (Abu Daud).
*
The Quran says:
“Say, if you love Allah, obey me (Muhammad), Allah will love you and forgive you your sins, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful” Quran 3:31
*
For them will be a Home Of Peace in the presence Of their Lord: He will be Their Friend, because they practiced righteousness. (Quran 6:127)
*
“To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward” Quran 5:9
*
The messenger of God said, ‘When God completed the creation He wrote the following, which is with Him above His throne: ’My mercy takes precedence over My wrath’
*
The Prophet said, “Among those who came before you there was a man who had murdered ninety-nine people. Then he set out asking whether his repentance could be accepted or not. He came upon a monk and asked him if his repentance could be accepted. The monk replied in the negative and so the man killed him. He kept on asking till a man advised him to go to such and such village. So he left for it but death overtook him on the way. While dying, he turned his chest towards that village where he had hoped his repentance would be accepted, and so the angels of mercy and the angels of punishment quarreled amongst themselves regarding him. Allah ordered the village towards which he was going to come closer to him, and ordered the village whence he had come to go far away, and then He ordered the angels to measure the distances between his body and the two villages. So he was found to be one span closer to the village he was going to. So he was forgiven.”
The messenger of God pbuh said: ’No one will be saved from the hell-fire and admitted into Paradise by his deeds alone. When asked, ‘Not even you O messenger of God? he said, ‘Yes, not even me, unless God covers me with His mercy.
*
And finally,
A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and asked,’ When will the day of judgment come?’ The Prophet replied, ‘What have you prepared for the judgment day that you are so concerned for it? He replied, ‘I do not have any good deeds in my account, but I do have one thing: I love Allah and His Messenger.’ The Prophet then said, ‘In that case, do not worry; you will be with those whom you love.’”
(Bukhari)
*
This is Islam’s great secret, unknown to most in the West: the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This man’s life and teaching came to me as a complete surprise. What an amazing man! A real prophet of God.
But above even this - dare I say it - is the outrageous and astonishing grace and mercy of God!
dear brother paul,
it is just an incredible article.i am becoming your fan.you are an asset to muslims doing dawah
In fact many of Mr.Williams “confusions” had already been “tamed” easily, I would just sum it up a bit:
1). Mr.Williams demanded that every parable concerning forgiveness had to be specifically mention about Jesus Sacrifice
If the table were turned would Mr.Williams ever tolerate if by reading his examples of Islamic teaching in hadits&quran, some can conclude it is ok to worship allah with other gods while not acknowledging Muhammad as messenger and still obtain forgiveness? Lets see…
About that guy who had murdered 99 lives, there’s no mentioning to acknowledge Allah as the Only God nor acknowledge any of His Messenger
“Say: O My servants who have transgressed against their own souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah az-Zumar 39:53) then those who believes other god along with Allah will also forgiven as long as one asking for forgiveness right ?
The lesson for Mr.Williams is this: Cherry picking is wrong& childish and it would only show narrowness of one’s mind !..sorry no offense
I’ve already explained in (http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/01/14/shamoun-continues-to-agree-sins-were-forgiven-before-and-without-the-cross/#comments)
that the basis of God mercy&forgiveness is His sacrifice on the cross which already pre-destined from Eternity (Rev 13:8), so every act of God giving forgiveness in OT and all act of forgiveness in NT have always been based on this eternal Truth. Besides that all parables in Bible describing God’s kindness have also based on this truth.
Jesus sacrifice has been a sovereign ordinance since eternity as foundation of God’s Mercy
continues
I’m sorry RJ but I am having real difficulty understanding what you are saying. Your writing style and command of English are an issue here.
Thank you for you insight Mr.Williams,
I’ll try to compiled it up &make it more simple Mr.Williams
You seems to demand that every parable concerning forgiveness should explicitly contains concept of redemption, but the problem is if the tables were turned would u applied this method of judging on your own quran? example…
-About Allah forgive a man who killed 99 lives, I see no requirement that this man must confess allah as the ONLY God in order to receive forgiveness. Based solely on that story would there be any indication that this man can’t be forgiven if he worship both other Gods & Allah ?
-“Say: O My servants who have transgressed against their own souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah az-Zumar 39:53)
Based solely on that verse there’s no indication that man should regard allah only as God and not worshiping other deities as requirement to receive forgiveness
The lesson is this: Cherry picking is wrong & it will only show the narrowness of a person in thinking.
============
I’ve already explained before that the basis of God’s Mercy is Eternal Ordinance that has been set since beginning of time that is the Sacrifice of Christ (Rev 13:8)(http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/01/14/shamoun-continues-to-agree-sins-were-forgiven-before-and-without-the-cross/#comments)
and all Forgiveness in OT, and every manifestation of God’s Mercy in NT basically grounded in The Cross. So even if it’s not directly described in certain parables it doesn’t mean that forgiveness being described in those parables are not grounded in Cross.
Just like when you interpreting the story of a man who killed 99 lives, you should have presupposed that this man did not commit any shirk in order to be forgiven even when the requirement not to worship other Gods along with allah were not specifically written.
Peace…
2).I’ve already refuted Mr.Williams assumption on Parable of tax collector&Pharisee (,http://thedebateinitiative.com/2011/12/27/1133/), where the reason this tax collector be justified not only because of his true repentance but also his sacrifice in the temple,since this scene were performed inside the temple.
3).About Matthew 9:13, Where it said God desires Mercy¬ sacrifice. I totally agree with consideration that this verse is refer to all regular human being. Since the beginning God never really2 required sacrificial bulls or goats from us, cause The True Sacrifice had already been destined in eternity. Sacrificial bulls or goats are just a symbol that referring to Pre-Destined Sacrifice.
True Mercy = True Love, concerning this, Bible beautifully describe it in 1 John 4 : 19; “We love because HE FIRST loved us” and 1 John 4:10; THIS IS LOVE: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an Atoning Sacrifice for our sins ”
4) Mr.Williams assume that if the merciless servant would erased his debtor’s debt in Mat 18 then he wouldn’t be punished& if young rich man in Mat 19 would do right then he will inherit eternal live, but sadly for Mr.Williams coz his assumption will forever stay that way which is as “just assumption”. The reality is both merciless servant&young rich man are unable to perfectly fulfill what God required. True lesson from Matthew 18& 19 is Mankind in his fragility won’t be fully able to perform what God’s Law truly demand.
About Mr.Williams objection concerning Jesus divinity in rich man story in Mark 10&Mat 19 had already been answered in (http://thedebateinitiative.com/2011/12/27/1133/)
Out of prejudice the story of young rich man in Mat 19&Mark 10 , were considered as contradictory by Mr.Williams rather than see them as completing each other, Mr.Williams logic is quite funny though since he can’t implement this same method on quran, for example if it was being applied on couple of surahs that differently describe by what essence did man was created !! one surah says blood, other says clay, but other one says water etc. In defining how story of young rich man in Mat 19&Mark 10 match&completing each other is much more simple than quranic “differences” on human creation.
continues
I’m sorry RJ but I am having real difficulty understanding what you are saying. Your writing style and command of English are an issue here.
Peace Be unto you Mr.Williams
Of course I would patiently listen to your insight concerning my English… So again I’ll try to sum this up briefly &properly
1)About parable of tax collector and Pharisee surely you have to notice that your argument is totally refuted because your assumption that God just forgive the tax collector without any “suitable mechanism to perform” is wrong! You should notice that this tax collector asking forgiveness inside The Temple, and Bible clearly stated that sacrifice of forgiveness were performed in the temple.
2)Referring to Matthew 9:13, you object the concept of the necessity of sacrifice in order to receive forgiveness, but instead you implied that forgiveness would be granted base on merciful act.
It’s true this verse tell us that God basically does not require sacrifice from regular human being like us, but the idea behind this was not because God’s Justice did not require any sacrifice BUT because The Sacrificial Substance (Jesus Christ) had already been set up.
Mat 9:13 tells us that God desires Mercy
But how can mankind truly perform this Mercy? As we both know that Mercy = Love,.and how to know this “True Love” is wonderfully explained in
(1 John 4 : 19); “We love because HE FIRST loved us” and
(1 John 4:10); THIS IS LOVE: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an Atoning Sacrifice for our sins ”
So in order to be genuinely merciful we firstly ought to experience God’s Mercy through His Atoning Sacrifice, without this we can not perform true mercy as Mat 9:13 requires.
3)You assumed that if the Unmerciful servant (in Matthew 18)doing the right thing then he wouldn’t be punished and if the rich man(In Matthew 19) had followed what Jesus asked then he would’ve inherited eternal life. Apparently your assumption is just an assumption cause in reality the servant& the rich man had failed to meet the requirement. Contrary to your thinking (that these two man can perfectly met the requirement if they want to) in fact these two parables want to show you how fragile&helpless human is when being required to fulfill God’s demand.
Still in context of story of Rich Man(Mark 10), in the next verse (22-27) stated : At this the man’s face fell. he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it ise to enter the kingdom of God!.It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
Apparently your assumption that indicate this man would be able to fulfill Jesus demand, is clearly based on incomplete reading of this story. You surely had miss the point of Matthew 18 & 19 that tells you about how man helplessly unable to meet what God requires.
4. In observing Story of Rich man in Mat 19&Mark 10 You’ve assumed that certain differences in word’s structure indicates contradiction and you claim this as proof that Matthew 19 was fabricated. But for me if you’re being consistent with your method then you should’ve also concluded that verses in quran about creation of man which give different information such as these could also be considered as contradiction :
Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2)
We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26)
It is he who has created man from water ( Sura 25:54)
But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67)
If you argue upon a minor differences in word’s structure in Mat 19 & Mark 10 in which you brought it up as evidence that mat 19 was fabricated, then how about those clear differences in quran ? would you conclude it as proof that quran had been fabricated? I just want to see consistency from you Mr.Williams
Mat 19&Mark 10 are complementing each other so you may see the whole picture, as same as muslims argument when being questioned about differences in quran concerning creation of man.
5.) Parable such as prodigal son shows God’s mercy toward the sinners but not explaining the full mechanism in how to receive mercy because the disciple hadn’t been taught in that level yet. As almost the same as Muslim believe in muhammad revelations, we Christian believe Jesus revealed the truth of Gospel in gradual way. In this stage actually Jesus taught “the importance& necessity of God bring himself near the sinners in order that sinners would be forgiven & how we helplessly can’t depend on our own ability to achieve that”
IF Mr.Williams in sincere & calm heart would allow his mind&conscience to read patiently Luke 15 in WHOLE, I’m sure he would get the right conclusion . The main theme of Luke 15 actually is not how we can obtain mercy, but how God bring Himself close to us so we can receive mercy as it’s being described in opening (verse 2)*** But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” ****
This is the basis of Theology of Redemption ** “It’s not us who try to obtain God Mercy, instead God Himself brought Himself down so we can receive His mercy.”** But Mr.Williams in his Man-Centered mindset seemed completely miss the Main Idea of Luke Chapter 15, and “mercilessly” tear up this one chapter apart.
In Parable of Lost Sheep(verse 3-7)Jesus describes how God would seek one lost sheep , it figuratively told us that actually it’s not us who really want to find God,but it is He who wants to find us plus how helpless we are when we in state of lost.
In Parable of Lost Coin (verse 8-10) Jesus describes how helpless human are to save themselves , just like a lifeless immovable coin solely depend upon its owner to be found
Let me educate you (if you don’t mind) about Parable of Prodigal Son according to Kenneth E. Bailey, Th.D. (Research Scholar and Lecturer in Middle Eastern New Testament Studies) http://www.shenango.org/bailey.htm
About verse 17-20, “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’So he got up and went to his father.
Dr.Keneth Bailey commented: “The son’s reason for going home is to fill his empty stomach, not to reconcile with his father. We often think that the parable says that the son “came to his senses” but the text translates “the son returned to himself” meaning that he was trying to find a way to SAVE himself. Had the son been repentant, the text would have pictured the great Hebrew word “Shub” which means to “return to God.” Further the son crafts a speech to manipulate, not to repent” ( source : http://www.eprodigals.com/The-Prodigal-Son/The-Prodigal-Son-Motives.html)
Btw, Just want to add word “shub” in Hebrew OT is metanoia in Greek OT, so it’s clear as ego-centric person this prodigal actually didn’t want to reconcile but just want to save his own self.
Dr.Kenneth Bailey than continues “Moreover, the son is not asking to become a slave, he wants to become a craftsman so that he can re-pay his own way. It is in this condition that the son starts his journey back to the father—literally with dirty rags to wear and a contrived speech to manipulate. ( source : http://www.eprodigals.com/The-Prodigal-Son/The-Prodigal-Son-Motives.html) P.S craftsman here is a Hired/Paid servant and not slave
In this parable Jesus describe how cunning&defile mankind are, we came to God insincerely in our ego-centric way just want to save our self from damnation and out of this defiled mindset we thought we can “buy” our forgiveness from God by doing good deeds and performing Amal-Ibadah .
Ego-centric mentality that thinks “we can save ourselves through our good deed” will never be regarded as true repentance
Continue (verse 20-21)So he got up and went to his father.“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son
For this Dr.Kenneth Bailey commented,” Now the son is struck with fear seeing his father run at him from a distance. In the Middle East, it was considered humiliating for men over age forty to run. As the father ran, he would have had to lift his robe—another humiliation. As the father drew closer, the son would see not anger—but joy. And when the father reached him, the father kissed him over and over on the neck.” (source :http://www.eprodigals.com/The-Prodigal-Son/The-Prodigal-Son-God-Runs.html)
In order to show his mercy, father willingly humiliates himself and while Dr.Kennerth identify this humiliation shown when this father running&lift his robe, another humiliation I might add is when this father embracing his son who’s all over covered with pig’s essence such a degrading scene in the eyes of the Jews.
Then Dr.Kenneth Bailey commented,”Experiencing the father’s visible, costly love for him, his manipulative speech melts away. All that is left is feeling that he is is not worthy to be the father’s son. The grace is too overwhelming.”(source :http://www.eprodigals.com/The-Prodigal-Son/The-Prodigal-Son-God-Runs.html)
This prodigal son return initially was not sincere coz thereason of his returning was based on his ego-centric mentality in order to fsatisfy his own belly but in the middle of this prodigal son’s defiled state as he looked at his father humiliating himself by running,lift up the robe and finally embrace this prodigal son who’s covered with pig’s essence, then suddenly his wrong thinking ( he can buy his father forgiveness by good deed) vanished and this prodigal son’s heart melted cause father’s grace is so overwhelming. Though still in early stage&Jesus had not revealed to His disciple in full but even the picture of Redemptive work of Christ in this parable is remarkably significance. “How unimaginable to comprehend The Holy God who want to bring Himself down to my state even to the state of humiliation in order that I may receive His Mercy” .. Subhana..Raab !!
Dr,Keneth Bailey continues,”The imagery here is that of the son returning with dirty rags on his back and a contrived speech. Yet it was the father’s costly, unexpected outpouring of visible love that turns the son’s heart toward him—perhaps for the first time. The son’s work (repentance) is SIMPLY ACCEPTING BEING FOUND by the father. The related parable of The Lost Sheep provides a beatiful image of this saving grace.”(source:http://www.eprodigals.com/The-Prodigal-Son/The-Prodigal-Son-God-Runs.html)
This is the true Gospel which is our acceptance on what God has done for us. By analyzing from the whole context of Luke 15 the main idea is crystal-clear that “Without God bringing Himself down to our level we would never experience true repentance&true forgiveness”
continues…
sorry again, I really don’t understand what you are writing here. It might help if you produced less volume – ie don’t post (spam) tons of words – but write simple sentences that are clear and to the point.
Again I’ll try to sum up my explanation as you have required, Mr.Williams
First, You obviously aware that Islam acknowledge progressive revelation in quran , and even islam recognized it in its extreme form which is called abrogation. Now in christianity there’s also progressive revelation which you can’t demand a later revelation such as the cross would be fully being revealed before its time. And Bible clearly shows that Jesus revealed the truth to His disciple gradually. So when you keep insisting that principle of the cross(later revelation) should’ve also being shown in ALL Jesus early teaching(former revelation) then would it be fair to make the same demand (ALL later revelation should also be appeared in ALL early revelation) on quran ?
Second, You say Parables of Prodigal son describes no indication on the necessity of the cross, but again referring to my first point above, you as muslim should’ve known better in not to contradicts former&later revelation.
Also according to Dr.Kenneth Bailey in his book “Cross and the Prodigal: Luke 15 through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants” actually Parable of Prodigal Son did show the idea of Redemptive Work of Christ although it was being taught in the early stage of revelation.
When we read Luke 15 in its entirety then surely we can conclude that the main idea of Luke Chapter 15 is “How God want to bring himself down to get near to sinners so they can receive mercy & how helpless is the sinner who can’t save themselves.”
Parable of Lost Sheep (verse 3-7)clearly tells us that God is the one who has the initiative and He reach out& search for the lost Himself and this story also tells us that the sinner(lost sheep) is desperately dependent upon God in order to came back to home
Parable of Lost Coin(verse 8-10) also shows Man dependency upon God, as same as a lifeless coin that can’t move itself to come back to its owner.
Parable of Prodigal son shows how lost and manipulative a sinner can be that even if this sinner want to return to God, it is basically because of his own selfish interest & fleshly motivation as Dr.Ken Bailey explained ,”“The son’s reason for going home is to fill his empty stomach, not to reconcile with his father. We often think that the parable says that the son “came to his senses” but the text translates “the son returned to himself” meaning that he was trying to find a way to SAVE himself.”
A repentance that based on selfish interest as a way to save oneself can’t be called a true repentance.
Insincere repentance is noticeable primarily by having false idea that assume we can obtain our forgiveness by our good deeds and behaving as good as we can be. In relation with that Dr.Ken Bailey commented : “Moreover, the son is not asking to become a slave, he wants to become a craftsman so that he can re-pay his own way.”
So when the son comes back with his false repentance,his father look from afar and suddenly running toward the son. In Dr.Ken Bailey observation this act of running represents humiliation as he stated ,”In the Middle East, it was considered humiliating for men over age forty to run. As the father ran, he would have had to lift his robe—another humiliation” . In addition to this, the action of the father which embracing his son who is a former pig farmer (which highly possible covered with stain of pig essence) surely is humiliating in the eyes of Jews.
Seeing how the father in such a humiliating way come willingly to the son in order to show father’s forgiveness had cause the heart of this prodigal son’s to be melt. That’s why the son rescinded his request to his father to receive him as paid worker.
This shows that only by God’s Love, which was being shown by God came to men in humiliating way , that man can experience true repentance
So lastly, by analyzing from the whole context of Luke 15 the main idea is crystal-clear “Without God bringing Himself down to our level we would never experience true repentance&true forgiveness” and this premise is the idea of Redemption.
Peace..
Mr.Paul Williams said ,” The Christian idea that guilt can be removed from a wrongdoer by someone else being punished instead is morally grotesque”.
RJ: Let me revise your statement Mr.Williams, The idea of Mr.Williams that guilt can be removed from wrongdoer by someone else being punished instead is morally grotesque BUT The Christian idea that guilt can be removed from a wrongdoer by Only Jesus Christ who was being punished instead is morally noble.
The ultimate requirement needed in order that this guilt could be removed undeniably is whether the effect of one’s sacrifice has supernatural power/ability to truly removes that guilt.
On what ground can you judge this noble act as morally grotesque Mr.Williams ? Isn’t it base on your own prejudice? For this I would explain it more later in next explanation
===============
Mr.Williams said: “we still have the absurdity of a moral law which God must satisfy by punishing the innocent in place of the guilty.”
RJ: Continuing my rebuttal above, again on what base do you consider God punishing Jesus in place of the guilty as morally absurd? But if I may examine your comment, seeing in how you presenting your premise indicate you judge it in the basis as if this ordinance being applied as general common law. Cause in this case I’ll be totally agree with you too in considering this as highly unjust, Coz if any regular innocent person being punished as requirement on granting mercy to convicted person then not only you but I myself would arguing this as absurdity.
Unfortunately in your obsession to deny the truth, in your hastiness you forgot to take careful examination upon your own islamic teaching! Let me “educate” you on how you suppose to consider, Mr.Wiliams
Your Flaw is this: You are judging A Unique Sovereignly Decreed Ordinance and looking at it base on general common law which IF the same judgement being applied to Islam you would surely face contradiction.
The foremost example is in Muhammad’s problem of being a person who has been being forgiven for his former and future sins. This is to believed by muslim as A Unique Sovereignly Decreed Ordinance that applied exclusively only to muhammad. If I was allah it would be better to make muhamad sinless as Jesus rather than declaring muhammad’s future sins already been forgiven.
Logically speaking, by saying muhamad’s FUTURE SINS had already been forgiven indicate allah’s permissive stand toward sin, and make muhamad had no real obligation on not to sin and this kind of ordinance certainly &undeniably can be called MORALLY ABSURD & GROTESQUE IN THE EYES OF GENERAL COMMON MORAL LAW !
Oddly enough, in seeing “Jesus being punished for our sins”, Mr.Williams naively conclude this as absurdity when he as scholar (as he thinks of himself) supposed to know better that “punishing the innocent as restitution” is A UNIQUE SOVEREIGNLY DECREED ORDINANCE that SOLELY APPLIED TO JESUS ONLY , and it’s as almost the same with (supposedly) allah’s unique ordinance on Muhammad immunity from any responsibilities to any future sins.
My main point about this matter is this : Judging A Sovereign Ordinance that solely&exclusively applied Only to A person base on General Common Moral Law is purely immature way of thinking ,and more than that by implement it hypocritically in one-sided manner would be a perfection of the awfulness of your presentation.
========
Mr.Williams:”I believe the basic fault of the Christian understanding of salvation is that it has no room for divine forgiveness. For a forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment, or the offering of a sacrifice, is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgement that a debt has been paid in full….But what humanity really needs, as we look back over our long record of disobedience, is a model of true forgiveness by a God who does not calculate, who imposes no mean-spirited ‘economy of salvation’ worthy only of accountants and bookkeepers.”
RJ: I hope I was mistaken in reading this, but you as a muslim seem to indicate that if allah requires something from mankind in order to grant mercy then allah’s forgiveness can not be worthy to be considered as TRUE forgiveness!
Were you saying this stuff as a muslim or just your personal opinion ,Mr.Williams? Cause if allah won’t require anything to grant us mercy so why would people have to repent then? why do people have to perform good deeds then? If your idea is truly as I have had describe then it surely is a display of self-contradiction, wouldn’t u agree Mr.Williams ?
So now I specifically ask: Do you consider God as insincere if God requires “certain thing such as good deed” in order for Him to grant mercy?
===================
Mr.Wiliams Said: “But in the authentic teaching of Jesus to be found in the synoptic gospels (that is the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) there is, in contrast, genuine divine forgiveness for those who truly repent. In the Lord’s Prayer we are taught to address God directly and to ask for forgiveness for our sins, expecting to receive this, the only condition being that we in turn forgive one another. There is no suggestion of the need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive.”
RJ: By above statement obviously Mr.Williams had willfully tore up these passages from the Synoptic Gospels :
(Mat 26:28) This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (as also in Luke 22: 20)
(Mark 10:45)For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
From your saying and our previous encounter , I can firmly say that the real problem for you actually is not “the teaching of redemption in synoptic gospel” but rather “the authenticity of verses in synoptic gospel that describing it”.
Isn’t it by this you admit that there are absolutely no objections to doctrine of redemption if synoptic gospel are being read as a whole? Surely too, u have to admit you’ve been cherry-picking, wouldn’t you agree Mr.Williams ?
AGAIN I ask you my old question that you still refuse to answer: “Would it be fair to judge Bible reliability& truthfulness of present christianity in quran base on meccan surah only ?”
Joy &Peace
Sincerely
RJ, I think I understand this sentence of yours:
“Unfortunately in your obsession to deny the truth, in your hastiness you forgot to take careful examination upon your own islamic teaching! Let me “educate” you on how you suppose to consider, Mr.Wiliams”
btw my surname is spelt “Williams” and in modern English no one now puts a full stop after ‘Mr’ as you have done.
But much of the rest of your article was rambling, incoherent and in poor English. And I get the impression that you think what I write is childish, uneducated and silly. And that I have an “obsession to deny [sic] the truth.”
If that is what you think – why O why do you bother inflicting these long incomprehensible rants on readers of this blog?
Greetings Mr.Williams
Again I’ll try to summarize my arguments so hopefully you might fully understand in more simple way :.
1). You say ,”I believe the basic fault of the Christian understanding of salvation is that it has no room for divine forgiveness. For a forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment, or the offering of a sacrifice, is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgement that a debt has been paid in full….But what humanity really needs, as we look back over our long record of disobedience, is a model of true forgiveness by a God who does not calculate, who imposes no mean-spirited ‘economy of salvation’ worthy only of accountants and bookkeepers.”
It seems that your statement indicates God’s mercy will be considered as false forgiveness if God requires anything for exchange ”
If that so, would it also be considered as false forgiveness if God requires repentance,good deeds, confessing shahada and etc in order for mankind to obtain mercy?
===============
2) You keep arguing that concept of atonement is not authentic , from this it’s obvious your real problem is not about the teaching of redemption itself but certainly your real problem is about the authenticity of this teaching.
-I presume you fully aware that verses which tell us about atonement are overwhelmingly can be found in the bible so by this of course the only way to deny this truth, is by accusing it as inauthentic
And since our previous engage you tend to narrow your scope in observing Bible by refusing Pauline Epistles or by cherry picking the synoptic Gospel, if this method also being applied toward quran . would it be fair to you ? Please I sincerely hope for some consistencies here ,Mr.Williams…
========================
3)Mr.Paul Williams said ,” The Christian idea that guilt can be removed from a wrongdoer by someone else being punished instead is morally grotesque….we still have the absurdity of a moral law which God must satisfy by punishing the innocent in place of the guilty.”
RJ: Your Error is this: you use your perception that based on common law to judge A Unique Ordinance by God that had been solely constituted to A One Person called Jesus Christ
Surely if we put our perspective according to common law, it would be absurd & grotesque if a regular innocent person being punished in order to grant mercy to convicted man.
The problem is : God has never required for any regular man to bear other person’s sin, because this ordinance had been constituted by God solely to Jesus only.
Interestingly muslims believe that God had constituted for Muhammad with exclusive ordinance in which he will be forgiven for any future sins. By standard of common law this ordinance is morally absurd & grotesque, cause it left muhammad with no obligation to take any responsibilities on his future sins. But again according to muslims view there’s nothing wrong with this ordinance because it is exclusive and could only be implemented solely to muhammad.
If you’ve realized that Divine Ordinance (especially exclusive ordinance) can’t be judged by common law, so why then you condemned God exclusive ordinance to Jesus, then?
By failing to acknowledge this , you have certainly performed a very2 poor judgement Mr.Williams
Sorry no offense… Peace
The quote from Anselm is misleading because it does not represent Anselm’s position. If you actually read the work itself they are the words of Anselm’s imaginary antagonist which Anselm then goes on to refute and defend the orthodox Christian position.
The parable of the prodigal son and the Lords prayer should be interpeted in the light of Jesus words, “no one cometh unto the father but by me, I am the door etc” in which he claims sole exclusive right to mediate the approach of sinful men to the Father through himself. Those who do not honour Jesus in this way have no right to receive forgiveness from the Father and they will perish. The hired servants in the parable of the prodigal son did not have the same rights and enjoy the same love as the son.
erasmus, thanks for your feedback.
You conflate Luke 15 with verses from John’s gospel. From a scholarly perspective this is probably unwise: virtually all NT historians today see the statements of Jesus in John as the creation of the author of John, ie John (whoever he was) made them up. I invite you to read any standard critical introduction to the gospels.
The Jesus of the synoptic gospels is closer to the historical reality, though still written from the perspectives of the evangelists who may have created sayings of Jesus as well. For this Jesus, forgiveness of sins is conditional upon direct repentance to God (definitely not to Jesus!).
The deeply disturbing fact is that Jesus’ authentic teaching in the synoptic gospels concerning the forgiveness of sins is completely different to that of Paul and later Christian theology.
How do you feel about that?
When we read Mr.Williams’s statement we can see the case is settled for him, in his own mind he convince himself that christian teaching got to be inauthentic because that is the only way to object the wonderful teaching of Christ Redemption.
1)Mr.Williams can’t object the moral value of The Concept of Redemption because on what basis can he object this Divine Ordinance that constituted exclusively to Jesus? it would just be as the same as objecting the moral value on Divine Ordinance that was constituted to muhammad concerning being forgiven for muhammad’s future sins. If by common moral law Mr.Williams found that Redemption is morally absurd&grotesque, then the same premise would also had to be concluded on muhammad’s immunity from being accountable for his future sins.
The interesting part is if we look deeper, although we can take a neutral &objective position from this by not judging both concepts based on common moral law however we can notice that muhammad’s ordinance served only for muhammad’s benefit and had no utility value for others, in fact it had tendency to be harmful to others, in the opposite Christ Redemption served for God & people’s benefit , and certainly for people’s benefit in primarily. Nothing harmful nor evil can be found from it.
2)Mr.Williams said that we shouldn’t take our reference from Gospel of John and then he said we also shouldn’t take reference from Pauline Epistles, can anybody see how absurd this is?
If Mr.Williams has already torn the bible apart IN ADVANCE, then where’s the objectivity then? In what way can this thing be considered as “scholarly” then? I think it would’ve saved much of Mr.Williams’s time if he just said that christians should not read the bible at all .
Sorry Mr.Williams , I’m not in anyway want to avoid in discussing any objection about authenticity of Gospel but it would be a different topic. In scope of the main theme of this thread (Understanding of Salvation in Christianity is Morally Grotesque) as you keep on insisting that christians should just base their faith from pieces of Bible that you’ve torn , by this I can humbly conclude that you have totally failed to present your case in scholarly manner.
The most absurd thing of all in this matter is this : Mr.Williams deliberately treated St.Anselm’s writing almost the same as Mr.Williams treated The Bible which is by tearing it apart and quoting what’s left of it according to his liking, but unfortunately for this case he can’t give the same excuse for his unscholarly behavior by alleging St.Anselm’s writing as inauthentic. Definitely cherry-picking has became a (bad) habit for him after all.
Sorry for any inconvenient,’…..Peace
Sincerely,
Regular John
RJ I’m finding all your multiple posts somewhat confusing – so shall we just take one issue and work with that? I dont have the time (or the inclination) to wade through your long & often unintelligible posts.
so lets start with the question: what must we do to be saved?
Jesus was asked this very question and you can read his answer in the gospel according to Mark chapter 10. Here is the story:
Note that Jesus does not tell the man that he must put his faith in Jesus, or that salvation is solely dependent on Jesus dying to atone for his sins. No. As a humble Jew Jesus recognizes that the attribute of goodness is found perfectly in God alone, not in himself; that to sincerely obey the commands of the Torah is the main road to salvation, but in this individual’s case he lacked just one thing – he needed to give away his wealth to the poor and this would result in his gaining treasure in heaven.
Note carefully the sequence.
Your response RJ?
Greetings & Peace to you Mr.Williams
I think I may provide you with twofold answer here , one is about your problem on redemption & other one about Divinity of Christ.
Mr.Williams said: “”As a humble Jew Jesus recognizes that the attribute of goodness is found perfectly in God alone, not in himself; ”
RJ: Nope… unfortunately for you that’s not the case at all
In seeing Mat 19&Mark 10 as complementing each other then the full picture is this ; this young rich man came to Jesus and said; “Good teacher, what good things must I do to inherit eternal life?
-This young rich man had already assumed Jesus as mere person whose having virtue of Goodness as you’ve also assumed.
-From this rich man’s observation he perceived that this Goodness that Jesus have , would’ve earned him eternal life if he also had it.
-So he then asked Jesus to share in how to get this “Goodness” & hoping that Jesus as a “Teacher” would show him this “Goodness” so he might get eternal life.
this notion had also being noticed by Jesus that’s why he said
(Mat 19): Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied.
(Mark 10): Why do you call me good?
if being combined then it’ll be : Why do u call me good& ask me about being good?
-In full picture we can see that Jesus had noticed that although this rich man acknowledge that in having Jesus kind of Goodness would made him get to heaven , but he had not noticed yet that this kind of Goodness that Jesus have is UNATTAINABLE.
That’s why Jesus rebuked that thought by saying,”No one is good–except God alone./ There is only One who is good”
Through this Jesus affirming HIS virtue of Goodness (which this young man perceived as type of virtue that could get him into eternal life) is Totally Divine.
Not only by speaking , but Jesus also showed how perfect it is in order to be good by showing this rich man his own incapability when being demanded by God’s Law.
If you notice in Mat 19:28, Jesus said that He will be sitting on the glorious throne in the renewal of all things.
Logically speaking this is a claim of someone who certain that He’ has already had eternal life and with this statement Jesus fully affirm that Only He who’s genuinely meet the requirement of God’s Law.
continues
RJ thats a fairly typical evangelical spin on Mark 10 which doesnt really reflect what Jesus said to the young man at all. The young man was promised eternal life if he obeyed the Law (not a difficult thing to do!) and give his money to the poor. Period. All that you have written is just spin to make the passage agree with your theology.
Mark 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
I don’t have any objection with Jesus statement, cause Torah is perfect and true, surely this young rich man will get eternal life IF HE DIDN’T LACK JUST ONE THING.The problem is: “Could he helped himself in not lacking in this one particular thing?”
Apparently HE COULDN’T !! As we read it in verse.23 : Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” and again as being strongly emphasized in verse.25 : It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Everyone will have this ONE THING LACKING that hinders him/her for getting eternal life! and the main problem is “can anyone individually managed to fix this “one thing” by themselves? As mere human being & as christian I firmly say No!
I see that this rich man came to Jesus almost with the same mindset as yours which is “man is able to obtain eternal life &accepted by God by his own righteousness”, and this is called “self-righteous mentality”.
Jesus perceived this rich man’s attitude so then He obliterated this man’s self righteousness by revealing the perfectness of Torah. ( Love your God with all your heart,mind&soul)
The matter is Mr.Williams, this is not about what Jesus demand is not true but rather : “can you meet the requirement that being demanded by Jesus?” By this event Jesus taught that no one can be considered righteous & everyone must realize how helpless mankind is without grace of God.
The disciples themselves also finally get this as they commented in verse.26: The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?
and Jesus wrapped up the conclusion in verse.27,”Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
This is the main lesson of this true story. Mr.Williams !
“HOW IMPOSSIBLE IT IS FOR MAN TO BE RIGHTEOUS AND GET ETERNAL LIFE ”
The rich man came with very “dogmatic” approach toward Jesus as you are right now doing, who’s focusing on formulas of do’s & don’ts in order to get eternal life but Jesus in His wisdom exposed how totally impossible for this rich man or any man to get eternal life by that way.
This is also applies to present Evangelicals, if we just approach God in dogmatic way chanting formula of “confessing Jesus as Lord&Saviour” , and fooling ourselves that by doing this “formula” we can be consider righteous by God than actually we’ve already been deceived.
True repentance come from personal realization & deep conviction that NOTHING can help us BUT His Grace alone, and ONLY after this personal enlightenment then a genuine confession of “Jesus my Lord&Savior” can emerge from our heart.
Peace
Sincerely R.J
Paul boasted in Phillipians that he could obey the law perfectly. The man in Mark 10 could have obeyed the law and given his wealth to the poor if he had chosen to do so. Look at the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19, he gave his wealth away and Jesus said “that day” salvation came to his house. Long before any death on the cross, which proves it was unnecessary for salvation.
So repentance (to God, not Jesus) and good works ensure salvation.
Peace Be unto to you Mr.Williams,
You accused me of spinning the story , but if the entire story is carefully examined then clearly it was you who’s actually spin it, Mr.Williams.
I based my exposition of this truth on premises that are being supported by verses :
Premise (a): The MAIN IDEA of this story is to show the impossibility of man to have eternal life
(Mark 10: 26-27), The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?Jesus looked at them and said,“With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
For this rich man in particular, the lesson of this premise being shown in the reality on how this rich man were unable to meet God’s requirement. And more than that in firm & profound way Jesus revealed this rich man’s inability by explaining it TWICE:
(Mark 10:23-25) Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus SAID AGAIN, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
But strangely you’re blatantly contradicting this clear reality by your statement : “The young man was promised eternal life if he obeyed the Law (NOT A DIFFICULT THING TO DO!)”
Sorry Mr.Williams, the narrowness of your interpretation is too clear for not to be noticed
Premise(b) This Story shows that The Goodness of Jesus in Divine
Still in line with the story, in Mat 19 verse 28 explains that Jesus told His disciples how He will sitting on the glorious throne when all things will be renewed.”
This is a clear statement of a person who knew He has already had eternal life, in that matter if the requirement of getting eternal life by fulfilling Torah is IMPOSSIBLE FOR MAN then certainly Jesus showed His Disciple that this “Goodness” that He has is not humanly virtue but Divine.
================
For the rest of your objections, actually all have been answered in premise (a) above, but I want to add some:
-About Zaccheus if you read the story thoroughly & carefully you ought to notice that Zaccheus did it OUT OF JESUS ACCEPTANCE & NOT FOR GAINING ACCEPTANCE.
Jesus had already received him before he made his act of compensation, and Jesus was just proclaiming to all people around , that what Zaccheus did was the evidence that Zaccheus had already received the salvation.
-And Zaccheus forgiveness like any other forgiveness in OT was totally based on Eternal Divine Decree before the beginning of time which is Christ Sacrifice
(1 Peter 1:18-20) For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake”
-Mr.Williams said: “Paul boasted in Phillipians that he could obey the law perfectly.”
RJ: O..come on…
You should’ve known better concerning this matter,sir! if you’ve honestly read Paul’s writing then you would’ve also knew that what he meant with his statement is that St.Paul was regarded blameless in doing the torah on the eyes of man.
So as I wrap up the conclusion is clear : IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR MAN TO GET ETERNAL LIFE AND ONLY BY “HUMBLING” OURSELVES TO GOD’S MERCY THROUGH JESUS SACRIFICE THEN WE WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE
Amin..Ya Raab alalamin….
Peace
I’m sorry but your English is so unintelligible that I don’t understand your argument.
Here’s some advice:
1) write shorter sentences
2) don’t write long-winded replies. Remember the longer your reply is the less likely it is people will have the patience to read it to the end.
3) don’t assume I am an idiot or dishonest like you do all the time, then say “peace”. You are just being hypocritical.
a further reminder: its Mr Williams – drop the “.” its not normal English in todays world.
I think I understood this though:
“So as I wrap up the conclusion is clear : IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR MAN TO GET ETERNAL LIFE AND ONLY BY “HUMBLING” OURSELVES TO GOD’S MERCY THROUGH JESUS SACRIFICE THEN WE WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE”
This is typical Evangelical belief. I know this because I used to be an Evangelical myself.
But it is not Jesus’ teaching.
here is Jesus’ teaching:
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: ‘Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax-collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax-collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.” But the tax-collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.’
So how was this man justified before God? Jesus tells us how: ‘for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.’
Nothing about Jesus having to die for his sins. This is clearly not necessary. My point can be duplicated with many other examples in what I take to be his authentic teaching in the synoptic gospels.
Greetings Mr Williams
I’m certainly and humbly grateful that you would give me insight on how to improve my exposition of truth in English language. But I hope it’s not just an excuse to admit your incapability in answering me logically.
About the tax collector & Pharisee, I think you’ve certainly read my explanation about this before, however sincerely there’s no problem for me to repeat it over&over again because it’s a noble thing to guide the lost anyway.
I’ll try to explain this briefly
1. This parable tells us a scene which occurred in the Temple, so certainly that tax collector’s prayer for asking forgiveness was performed as part of Temple’s ritual which is the symbol of Christ Redemption.
2. All forgiveness prior to realization of the crucifixion was actually based on Divine Ordinance of Crucifixion from Eternity (1 Peter 1:18-20). It had been His ordinance since the beginning of time to put our sins to the cross. For dealing with the sins of saints in OT the analogy would be like free health insurance contract which being constituted in advance that if the insuree need hospitalization then he will be covered in anytime but the payment from Insurance company to the hospital itself will be executed only in appointed time.
3.Sorry first of all, but your claim that you can show examples in Bible to proof your point is certainly laughable
I think we are both fully aware that this claim is based on your method of cherry-picking in understanding the bible, wouldn’t you agree Mr Williams ?
4.You’re correct on this statement though,’for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted
But let me shortly explain this sentence in deeper meaning: God can’t accept man who’s exalting his own self righteousness before God. God will only sees man who fully convicts that his righteousness is granted, and the only way to receive this righteousness is through the cross.
Sorry for any inconvenient
Regards