Dear Krista,
Your question is a good one, and it is one that has haunted my own academic career for more than twenty years. Here’s your question: “how one should react to those preaching the traditional Romans road– especially at Bible Camps or other distinct Christian functions? Moreover, should that teaching be discouraged?” Put abstractly, is the summons to salvation distinct from the summons to discipleship? Well, there’s lots here, so let me give it a bit of a whirl. (This is sensitive enough that I’ll be a little longer today than I’d like to.)
The first thing I would say is that the Romans Road is a theory of salvation — and the word “salvation” is important here. It is not a theory of kingdom or a theory of liberation, but a specific word — salvation — and how that word takes on a life of its own in Paul’s letter to the Romans. There are more words than salvation and there are more books than Romans.
As a “plan” — and as a plan built on Romans — the Romans Road is sound. It speaks truths about the meaning of salvation in Romans.
The second thing is this, and it just might surprise you: as many evangelical Christians have problems with the Romans Road as non-Christians. And, now that the Romans Road is almost exclusively an evangelical thing, mainline, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians also have problems with it. Why? Because it has taken on a “groupishness”. It’s the way evangelicals talk. Oddly enough, Romans is in all of our Bibles. If the Romans Road tells the truth (not the whole truth) of the gospel in Romans, then I say we ought to protect it.
The third thing now: the Romans Road works for some. It is just as important to say it doesn’t work for others. We have a big “golf bag full of metaphors” and there is no reason to use the same club every day for every shot on every hole. And this leads me to another point.
Fourth: I’m not sure the entry door into a kingdom relationship with God through Jesus has to begin with sin. Not all agree with me, but I want to ask you this: How often does Jesus begin with sin? How many times does he “evangelize” (which he did often) by getting people to realize their sin and then asking them to accept him and then tell them they are forgiven? Now, if you are a good Bible reader — and I know you are — you will know that Jesus did emphasize “repentance.” In fact, Mark summarizes the message of Jesus with three words: kingdom, repent and believe. I’m becoming more and more convinced that the best entry today is the word kingdom — a visionary word of what God is doing in this world through Jesus and in the power of the Spirit. Kingdom vision seemed to evoke response to Jesus.
Fifth: I’m persuaded also that sin-trust-forgiveness tends to “objectify” things and can sometimes radically de-personalize things. What I mean is this: redemption is about “facing” God — I turn my face to God whose face is on me — or being in radically open personal relationship with God. To do this, we have to turn from our self and our sin (repentance) and turn to God. But, for many, the sin-trust-forgiveness is about having a problem resolved and not enough about a personal relationship restored. It’s all objective. The minute the gospel becomes totally objective, it loses its magic.
Now my final point: the biggest issue that I see with the Romans Road approach is that once the sin problem is resolved (sin almost always understood as guilt before an all-holy God, which is true but not true enough), salvation has been accomplished. Frankly, this isn’t biblical: the sin problem of guilt, to be sure, has to be resolved, but sin is bigger than guilt (it is distorted relationship with God, self, others, and the world) and therefore the resolution (salvation) is bigger than forgiveness (it is resolved relationships with God, self, others, and the world — and it takes a lifetime). Only a kingdom vision makes the sin problem fully clear and only a kingdom vision makes the solution fully clear.
Now how about this Krista? Jesus called people to enter the kingdom. That’s his style of evangelizing. He wanted recruits, kingdom workers, ministers for God’s redemptive work in this world, and he was out and about summoning folks into that kingdom. When folks encountered him, they became aware of sin and Israel’s problem — how little they cared about God, about themselves, about others, and about the world. And they also saw their need to turn around and their need to turn to Jesus and their need to follow him and their need to get united with themselves and the other followers of Jesus. They also would have perceived their need to embrace in grace all humans and look after this world as God made Eikons to do. That’s how Jesus did it. Lots today get the needs and problems up front and they never get to the kingdom part. I suggest we learn more about evangelism from his summoning folks into the kingdom. I’m still working on some of this, so I’m keen on your thoughts.
Tell me what you think kiddo.
Blessings,
Scot
Letters to Emerging Christians
June 13, 2007 By 102 Comments
Scot, I like what you say here, particularly about the sin problem being more than just guilt. And about a kingdom vision that is more than just about one’s self.
Broken Down on the Roman Road « Catching Meddlers
[...] 13 Jun 2007 Broken Down on the Roman Road Posted by Matt under Theology Many of us who live in the Bible Belt have had a lot ofexperience with the Roman Road to Salvation. This is a set of scriptures from Romans that some people have used in their attempts at evangelism (Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:9-10, & 10:13). Although this is used as a convenient way to summarize salvation, there are those of us who are uncomfortable with how simplistic it seems to be. In one of his letters to emerging Christians over at the Jesus Creed blog, Scot McKnight shares one of the best takes on the limits of the Roman Road that I have ever heard. If you’ve ever experienced this evangelism technique from either side of the equation, or if you simply want to read a terrific exposition on the difference between “salvation” as laid out in this distillation and a biblical understanding of entering the Kingdom. Great stuff. [...]
Scot,
Once again you have graciously engaged a popular form of “evangelism” using a “plan” and shown its deficiencies compared to the robust gospel of Jesus and Paul. I like the idea that a compelling vision of kingdom newness invites people into a transforming realm where sin, yes, is dealt with, AND identity and purpose and community and hope and mission are offered as “gospel” as well. Good stuff. I like the golf bag analogy—there’s need for more than one club in the game.
Scot,
Well said. I like how you have focused on community in this. The gospel is bigger than the hyper-individualist emphasis we have put on it. Romans road is a theory and is packed with truth but it is individualistic and therefore we should not be surprised that it connected well with middle class Americans. I do praise God for Romans road though…but I fear it’s time has past (at least as THE club in the bag to be used).
Enjoying the blog and keep up the good work.
My personal problem with the Romans Road — 1. Accept that you are a sinner. 2. “Just” accept JC as your “personal savior and that’s all you have to do”, 3. Then, your sins are forgiven and you will go to Eternal Life in heaven — was it not giving me anything to DO. I could say the words “I accept JC as my personal savior” and I could give intellectual assent to the idea of an afterlife, but that was a barren desert for me. It took all of five seconds and I had the rest of my life. I didn’t realize consciously that I thought this way until I received an advertising flyer with Ghandi’s 7 deadly sins printed on it. One of the sins was “worship without sacrifice.” That stopped me cold. I was dumfounded. But, I thought, “the exact point of Christianity is that all you have to do is accept JC as your personal savior and understand we don’t have to sacrifice because he was the sacrifice.” It was at the point that I realized, like Helen Keller with water, that what I had beenTOLD about Christianity was deficient, not the faith itself, that conversion became possible. I think the Romans Road for many becomes an end, not a beginning: Entry to heaven checked off the to do list. So in summary: Yes, the problem with the Roman Road is that it leaves out far too much. When I first started on a real Christian journey, however, I didn’t think so much in terms of Kingdom as in terms of “a set of steps” that would help me to change my orientation and come closer to Christ. Now I would see that as entrance into the Kingdom and learning to see it and hear it (Jesus puts those wonderful, cryptic lines in the Sermon on the Mount: if you have eyes, then see, ears, then hear. I think once you’ve been in the kingdom, you don’t realize that first it has to come into focus). Then when I read Harry Potter (and, yes, I have strong objections to Harry Potter) I came up with a useful way of thinking of “world” versus “kingdom” living: the world is the mundane place of the muggles, a place not much open to possibility and wonder, while the Kingdom of God is the Wizard world, which is all around us, full of miracle, possibility and loving community, but usually unseen and scoffed at by the wider world. And when glimpsed, feared and misunderstood.
Scot,
Wonderful post.
I loved this quote: “…sin-trust-forgiveness is about having a problem resolved and not enough about a personal relationship restored. It’s all objective. The minute the gospel becomes totally objective, it loses its magic.”
Good word, brother.
i’ve got a ton of thoughts none of which are formulated so i’m just going to spew…
i’ve used the romans road… when in college i used it for evangelistic dating purposes, had many of the girls i liked say they “accepted jesus as personal savior” but their life didn’t reflect it and i wondered why the spirit wasn’t working on them…
20 years on and you’ve helped me understand my past, thank you (c:
my fear in reading this (and i’ve only read it once and these are initial impressions) is it swings too far the other way… i like the emphases on community, but we must remember that communities are made up of individuals and it seems to me that scripture will often speak of the individual and the community in an integrated manner (off the top of my head i’m thinking of Col. 3)…
my fear is that everything becomes about the community and noting about the renewal of the individual… but hey i’ve been called a comunist so let’s boogie…
I like these words : “ministers for God’s redemptive work in this world,” which I think I do in all that is in my little world I do live in. I can easily feel guilty that my world is to be larger. But I have had limitations of many kinds and my world is a small world. But what relief and freedom to know I am a minister of God’s redemptive work in this world, in all I do in my little world. Whether it is treating the cashier as a person, not just someone who scans what I am buying as she/he does all day, or am tending my garden for there to be beauty on the block we live on (not to mention I love the beauty too and working in soil,) or purposefully trying to have talking relationships with our neighbors (living in the suburbia houses where the living part is in the back with the 8 ft fences where you need never see your neighbor vs the older houses with the living room being the front room with a big window looking out so ppl could look in and you could look out and encouraged more interaction with neighbors. It takes more intention to interact with neighbors when the living area is in the back with 8 ft fences. Or in how I treat my family and how I treat the family of my kids’ friends. And what we choose to communicate in cyberworld.
Diane – thanks for your words which are a bit more personal and bring where real life meets these concepts.
In our very early 20′s, unintentionally there was a group of us formed, all of us christians. We hung out, did things together, shared meals now and then, had coffee at IHOP, made cakes for ppl on their birthdays, that kind of thing. This was when hubby, then fiancee, wss in the Navy and most in this group were in the Navy too and the grown up among us was the chaplain who was really cool. Without conscious intention, we lived kingdom among us. After that, chaplain would say he never experienced koinonia like he did then, and it’s a big deal that he and us kept in touch with chaplain. Most of us keep in touch still and quickly and easily pick up that koinonia again. Thing is, one of those people, 10 yrs ago or so, communicated with the group that he now considered himself saved. That back then he walked the aisle to invite Jesus into his life to avoid hell. And here, years later, realized that was different than inviting Jesus into your life to be part of living in the kingdom of God. So I know an example of someone snared by the Romans road thing and praise to God, God was good to keep active in his life till he understood this fuller walking the aisle.
Sigh! Last Friday night, I spent 4 hours in conversation with a group of Baha’i s. They would have loved your last paragraph. United with others, build the kingdom here on earth: the cornerstone of Baha’ullah teaching.
Of course, to them, Jesus is just one of many prophets/teachers/manifestations of God alongside Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, Baha’ullah, Buddha, etc.
When we become Kingdom-centric, we lose our True Center.
Sigh! Bob (#9), I don’t think Scot is at all diverting us from the True Center when he emphasizes the kingdom nature of Jesus’ gospel. Jesus announces the kingdom, offers the kingdom, embodies the kingdom, etc. Your group of Baha’i friends can’t have the kingdom Jesus offers without taking the True Center, too.
I must confess, diskovn, that I can’t figure out how I’ve swung too far in the “community” direction. If you mean “joining community,” well then, maybe, but I don’t think I’ve denied the individual focus of “conversion” in this post at all. I can be charged with that accusation at times, but it just doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Bob,
On Bahai … that one runs off me like water on a duck. This post is about conversion to Jesus — and his kingdom and his christology, etc.. I don’t tread near the pluralism line here at all.
It wasn’t intended to be a slam and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I was more just expressing my exasperation in trying to maintain the distinctive of Christianity among Baha’is who (IMO) have a keener Kingdom-mindedness than most Christians I know.
Externally, the “kingdom” envisioned by Baha’i is very similar to the appearance of Christ’s Kingdom…only without Christ. That’s where language like “recruiting workers” and “united with others” blurs the lines more.
That said, the tack we took on conversion to Jesus was one of new creation/quickening rather than volunteerism (which I see in your last paragraph). Of course, that new creation’s residence is no longer in this world but instead finds its citizenship in heaven. And it is only in that newly created state that we can participate in the Kingdom-come or Kingdom-now.
But I’m still working through this as well…
Thanks for this post, Scot. I remember I started having a problem with the Romans Road in about the seventh grade when I was helping out with VBS. I wondered why anyone would want to be a part of something that seemed so empty–I believe this may have been the start of the problems I had with doubt in high school. However, I have moved on from this thinking (praise God!) and I know that the forgiveness of sins is important, but not the end. I still wonder, though, how we can change what has so long been the most-used “club.” Even the pastor at our church talks about salvation and following Christ as if the whole purpose of all of it is to be forgiven, and never mentions the kingdom. To get to the point, I’m wondering how we can work to help others see that this is about more than “salvation,” more than the individual. Something to ponder, I suppose.
Bob, (from #13).. So if your Bahai friends have a good vision that smacks of the Kingdom then start with that shared truth (little “t”). Help them to see the uniqueness of the fullness of Jesus as the TRUTH which makes the kingdom possible.
If anything is true than it belongs to God. So if in their brokenness they’ve stumbled upon (or had revealed to them) an element of truth….go with it!!! Yahoo! Common Ground!! An avenue of connect to form relationship.
Sounds great to me
Blessings
Jason
Take a look at the wikipedia article on kingdom of God for a broad overview of different groups viewpoint on the word kingdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_God
It seems to me that what makes a Christian’s viewpoint unique is our understanding of who Jesus is.
I think my two main problems with things like Romans Road (or 4 Laws, or EE, wordless book, or whatever) is the manipulative element and the spirit in which they are presented.
I’ve used them. I’ve stood on streetcorners in Chicago, I’ve presented them in classrooms in russia, and I’ve used them on CHILDREN in 5-day clubs and VBS. The point was to manipulate people into an intellectual consent to an idea. They either wanted the reward of heaven or wanted to avoid the punishment of hell (as told to the kids – a place where they would never see their parents again) and so said a prayer. That is not truth, that is not discipleship.
Secondly, the groups I were a part of relied heavily on numbers – notches on the belt as it were. Our success was in the number of people we got to say a prayer. If the numbers weren’t high we were giving into satan.
I understand that these things are tools, but one also really needs to look at how the tool is often used. If it is used most frequently in a way that harms the kingdom, can it really be said to be a good tool?
Scot,
I feel like a real dope for asking this, but how does a person then “evangelize” those who are not following Jesus? Do we invite them to join this kingdom movement as you have indicated? Do we summons them to follow Jesus? To believe in His death, burial and resurrection? All of the above?
I think one of the problems for many of us who have had their experience in the Roman Road kind of approach is that we do not know anything else. Take it away and we’re not quite sure how to talk to people about Jesus. Oh sure we can talk about Jesus, but it will eventually come back to “making the presentation.” Do you hear what I’m saying?
Even as I type this it sounds pretty pathetic. But for those of us entrenched in this thinking, tired of it, and wanting to move more in the direction you’ve indicated in this post, what do we do? How do we do it? What does evangelism look like embracing this vision of the gospel?
Scott E.,
This isn’t a pathetic question; in fact, it is the question and I’ll be looking at it next week in another letter to Krista.
The problem is this: so trained are we in this instinct that we feel helpless. Once, however, we begin to think of a more robust gospel we begin to evangelize in a new way. Hey, a “New kind of evangelism.”
Yes! Helpless is the perfect word to describe my feelings. Well, thank you for the encouragement and I am looking forward to learning with Krista. Thanks.
BTW, I like that, “A New Kind of Evangelism.” Sounds like you have another book to write!
Is it any wonder why those who never get past the beginning of the Romans Road understanding, never have a significant impact on the world for Christ? Narrowing our understanding to potentially (not always) such a paltry understanding of the Good News certainly is one reason why so many churches are in survival mode and their influence at being salt and light so negligible or non-existent.
Per #19 and #20, I second the helpless—but thinking about it, if I could bring about the Kingdom in my own power, Christ died for nothing…
“Moreover, should that teaching be discouraged?” I find many evangelicals who would answer in the strongest terms possible to this question a resounding YES! The Divine Conspiracy convinced me that the gospel is an invitation to discipleship with Jesus. Any plan of salvation that omits this invitation to discipleship does not do justice to the gospel which Jesus presented and fails to build the inner resources required to change souls. George Ladd, Jan David Hettinga, Michael Wilkins, John Piper, and the list could continue on – many evangelicals across the spectrum are in agreement that the Gospel is the Kingdom and the Romans Road does not present the full reality of what the good news is really all about.
Scot,
This post reminded me of the posts you did on, “When was Peter Converted?” back in ’05. I’m wondering if you’re going to tie some of that in here. Those were great posts – some of the first I read on this blog – and I thought about them for a long time afterword.
Romans Road to Salvation followed by Romans Road to Spiritual Formation. I heard this taught not so long ago in fact.
“how one should react to those preaching the traditional Romans road– especially at Bible Camps or other distinct Christian functions? Moreover, should that teaching be discouraged?”
No!
Let’s not mince words. The whole “Romans road” approach to the gospel is about getting people to justification (defined as freed from the eternal penalty of their sin). We are not saved just to escape hell; we are meant to know Christ, to join a community of His people to serve and be served, and to reflect Christ to those around us. Protestants have traditionally called this sanctification.
So, yes, if you stop at justification you’ve got an incomplete Christian who will escape hell. If you start at sanctification and never get to justification you’ve got a great guy who’ll die in his sins (according to evangelical thought).
the Romans Road works for some. It is just as important to say it doesn’t work for others.
Here is the Romans road in a nutshell: You’re a sinner who will be judged by God and punished with hell unless you appropriate the sacrifice of Jesus in your place to pay for your sins.
How to put this…the form of the gospel presentation does not matter; the content does. If you find another way to present this gospel, more power to you. The problem is that all too often people skip sin entirely and the gospel becomes merely about having a relationship with God and living a better life. But how can you accept a substitutionary atonement if you do not recognize the need to atone?
This leads to why I support this being presented at Christian events. Many people raised in the church and believing they are Christians have never been confronted by their own sinfulness. They’ve walked an aisle, prayed a prayer, and “found peace with God” without ever really understanding why they were at war in the first place.
How often does Jesus begin with sin?
Every time He confronts someone who seems unaware of his sin. He didn’t talk to prostitutes and thieves about their sin — they were well aware of it. But to self-righteous Pharisees and rich young rulers He points out their sin. Ditto Paul on Mars Hill. If your audience is well aware of their situation, talk about the solution. If not, you have to start with the problem.
As Lewis put it in “Problem of Pain,” the road to the promised land goes through Sinai.
Thanks Scot & Scott! As a pastor, this is a burning issue in my life and faith. How can I be an authentic evangelist who operates from this full-bodied paradigm that refuses to distill salvation to “mere (although it can never be mere) justification?”
ChrisB #26 wrote: The problem is that all too often people skip sin entirely and the gospel becomes merely about having a relationship with God and living a better life. But how can you accept a substitutionary atonement if you do not recognize the need to atone?
I would submit that after building a relationship with God, our failure to love Him and others as we should (arguably the root of sin), MUST lead us to a recognizable need to atone. How can we TRULY be in relationship with God if we do not become aware of our sinful nature?
Paul started out on Mars Hill not by saying “you are all sinners” but by saying, “you are religious people, you’ve almost got the kingdom of God, but you’re just off.” Jesus, when He initiated the conversation, never pulled the sin card first, but found commonality, “this is where you are right,” then went to “but this is where you are wrong.”
Just my $0.02
Thanks again Scot for another great post!
Here’s how I distil the problems with ‘Romans Road’ evangelism… and I went through years of thinking and teaching that way…
1. Like you said, it only presents salvation as taught in Romans, but even more as scholars like NT Wright (and Scot McKnight) are revealing it doesn’t even acurately reflect Paul’s teaching!
2. Boils down the Gospel to a formula, Jesus never presented it that way…. Scripture talks in much richer ways. Salvation is not system or formula, but a relationship.
3. Seperates ‘salvation’ from discipleship/community/Kingdom.
4. Starts with sin… I have yet to find this in Jesus teaching or Scripture in general. Not that we ignore sin in our evangelism, but as you say the problem is different, bigger and more relational.
From what I’ve seen the Romans Road is really more of a certain theological grid laid on the Roman’s text.
ChrisB (#26),
The ongoing conversation about “what is the gospel?” and about how the agents of the King and his kingdom both live out and announce the good news has progressed beyond reading systematic theology categories back into Paul and Jesus. Jesus and Paul thought and taught in whole life terms–the redeeming work of Jesus is aimed at the renewal of all things (Col 1). The gospel is not about how to get someone “justified.” The Romans Road while very neat is so incomplete. And I don’t think there is such a category as “an incomplete Christian who can escape hell.”
Scot,
I agree that one doesn’t necessarily have to begin with “sin” when evangelizing, but contextually speaking (I mean the Western context), I think it is wise to begin with sin, because the mantra of our day is that “goodness lies within,” and perhaps this mindset/presupposition needs to be addressed before a person can understand the rest of it.
Hi Scot, I am glad that others are looking for alternate ways of evangelism besides me.
Although I have witnessed God use the Romans Road technique and I believe its captures a portion of the Gospel, I must say that it is misleading and often ends up with people who are confused. At worst, it can lead to antinomianism and false belief.
It is easy to accept this mode of evangelism because it is a process and we Americans love a good step-by-step process. But on a positive side, new Christians and those who have experienced renewal naturally want others to experience salvation. Because we have come to know the True and Living God, we want others to be saved from their sin and know the same joy, peace, and transformation that we do. But it is hard to communicate. It requires boldness. It often results in ridicule and alienation rather than conversion in others (but when it does, “Praise God”). So a process that brings others into a decision-making scenario looks good to us. But there is just more to it. Paul stated that his mission was to “give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). That is easy to communicate, huh?
The truth is that evangelism is difficult and messy. We have to spend a lot of time in the scriptures to make sure that we have a grasp(loose!) on the gospel, we have to want to share the gospel, and we have to live it(people know a hypocrite when they see it).
The only fear that I have is that we will turn from the traditional modes of evangelism to no evangelism at all. It is good to talk about our struggles and doubts, but God calls us to believe and walk by faith and sometimes He says this in not so nice ways (cf. the imperatives in the book of Hebrews and Jesus’ calls to follow him).
I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the first century and see how the first disciples shared God’s Good News. I know the conversations would contain much of the material in the speeches of Acts. I bet there would be a lot of boldness, certainty (cf. the “we know”s in Romans), and demonstration of the Spirit’s power.
Gavin,
I would say almost the opposite… most I encounter already know they’re ‘messed up’ in some way, the real question is ‘is there something more?’ or ‘how do I make sense of reality as I know it?’ They respond well to a ‘Kingdom vision’ of life… and this leads to the offer to enter that through Christ.
But I guess it depends on context… I talk with a lot of younger, urban, people in emerging/postmodern culture.
I think I forgot that the Roman’s road is a metaphor for salvation, and that I should go back and re-read Turning to Jesus before the conversion discussion.
I agree, and I think you put it very well, that we are invited to be ministers or laborers– to be the body of Christ for the redemptive work of the kingdom. That’s the whole idea of the harvest being ripe if eyes are open to see it. That is what, I think, our world is waiting for. It just takes a group effort and combination of gifts, right?
Would you say the kingdom is being realized when relationships are mended between the Eikon, world, other eikons and God so long as the Eikon doesn’t forget the grace he or she has been shown and can exercise humility in that? Catching on to kingdom vision and following Jesus mean that Eikons, through grace, help repair the broken?
Would it then be that God summons into the kingdom and Eikons are called to assist, and in the act of assisting, be assisted? It is the kingdom where there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free, and where we follow Christ to even death.
MattR,
True enough, most people know they are “messed up,” but then most people I’ve encountered/observed would not attribute being “messed up” to their sin problem, but would rather say (whether directly or in a roundabout way) that it is the result of something that has “happened” to them, a sort of victimization. This still fails to account for sin.
I think my fear of evangelism comes from believing that physical needs should be met while spiritual needs are met. Too often I’ve seen one without the other leading to no faith, a very shallow faith, or even bitterness. However, I know that the Holy Spirit can use anything and everything–even nothing.
Krista,
Where are you these days?
Gavin,
But that “something that happened to them” is someone else’s sin. You’re still dealing with sin. When you deal with someone who has been victimized, you are dealing with the ravages of sin on their life. I dont see any problem at all if a person needs to approach Christ initially because of the hurt they have received. Their own sinful reactions to what has happened to them will already be on their mind and that will get brought to Jesus too. Dan Allender’s book “The Wounded Heart” spells this out beautifully as applied to sexual abuse victims.
Jennifer, I agree.
And Gavin, Jesus healed the sick and went to the outcasts as ‘evangelism.’ The point is, sin is not always the start of the discussion… I think many evangelicals worry about not making ‘sin’ the central problem because they have as Dallas Willard put so well, a Gospel of ‘sin management’.
Scot I really like the way you explained that to Krista and the rest of us it was well thought out. I would like to hear what style you use as a way of evangelizing and telling others about Jesus Christ.
???
Bruce,
Next week I’ll get to this question.
I can see how the Roman Road is seen as the “old” way of evangelizing, in this day and age few have enough of a church background for a metephor like the RR to be effective or even make a difference. seems like these days the “new” way of evangelism focuses the emphasis more on community and relationships and people showing “the way to be saved” and the kingdom through righteous living and relating well to others. This doesn’t necessarily downplay the RR but puts it more in its proper place – it would come way late in the journey to salvation if not a while after salvation has takne place. At least, that is how I see it. I am sure there are other perspectives.
Bruce’s question is a good one.
To me the problem of focusing on sin is that (1) it assumes too much and (2) it is too narrow and negative of a view of who Jesus is.
By saying it assumes too much, I mean that most people think sin is a construct of a by-gone age and really not something real or, if it is, only something really bad people have to worry about. Not me. There’s that immediate barrier that needs to be overcome and I don’t see that happening by trying to persuade them of what constitutes sin, particularly when much of Christianity cannot agree on that. Besides, this reduces Christianity, in some way, to just ethics and legalism for many people. It’s all about right behavior and legal processes for becoming excused for wrong behavior. And what does that say then about who Jesus is and what He means for us?
Instead, it strikes me that the more powerful method is to evangelize based on the importance of the human experience. Meaning, first to help an individual recognize (from his own experience) that he is a person dependent on something (Someone) outside of himself. That he has needs and desires that he can’t answer for himself, but that his life gives all evidence that their being answered is a key for finding fulfillment and meaning of who He is. This is to me prepatory work to prepare one for the possibility of the Gospel. Until one recognizes a need for the Mystery and one’s inability to obtain the Mystery for onself, one’s not ready for the possibility that the Incarnation is a reasonable thing. Then, second, it’s the evangelization of the event — why Jesus is different, howe encountering this Man is life changing and corresponds to those needs.
This is certainly not the only way to speak of these things, but I think it is a language that is more accessible and inviting to non-Christians and helps them learn to recognize on a personal level the depth of who Jesus is and why He answers their life’s quest that is so far beyond merely the one who takes away sin.
I’m looking forward to that post Scot in the interim here is my thoughts on the subject.
http://whatisthechristianchurch.blogspot.com/2007/06/a-b-cs-of-evangelism.html
MattR,
I agree that the discussion does not have to begin with sin, and I think Scot’s post makes that point quite well, and let me say ‘amen’ to yours and Willard’s concern for the reductionistic approach that leads to mere ‘sin management,’ for there is much more to salvation than simply the journey to justification.
That being said, to suggest that sin is not the “central problem” seems a bit ludicrous. Sure, this is a much more full-orbed issue than just sin, but you would be hard pressed to name something that doesn’t stem from the Fall.
I think a lot can be gleaned from the writings of Frame and Poythress on multi-perspectivalism…still, the primacy of sin as the “thing” that separates the created from the Creator is hard to refute…and by refute, I mean, with Scripture.
Hey Scot -
When you discussed the issues of sharing the ‘Good News’ about Jesus and evngelism at Biblical 2 months ago, I felt as though I had been missing a large part of the Gospel message. Is it any wonder why the Evangelical Church struggles in the manner it does when the idea of salvation is so narrow? I love the fact that you brought up how salvation is not just about us and God but is with us. I just blows my mind how selfish we can be, even when it comes to the salvation we, as the body of Christ, have in Him. Thanks again for your post.
What to do if what we’ve done as selling Jesus, is taken away? As it has been said – God doesn’t need our help. In the 12 step AA type thing, in their traditions part is something about bringing in people through “attraction, not promotion.” Wow, what a changer that was for me. I lived my life and people see Jesus in that.
Some years ago we became a kind of friend with the family f a woman hubby met at work. “sometime friend” because we never get together often enough, but we really enjoy being with each other when we do. And, in the other topic yesterday, we do it over a good dinner and wine. But, they aren’t christian. One time ala work, the woman mentioned how she is interested in christianity and would like someone she could talk with about it. Wow, and man oh man, hubby took to it like he’d been handed a tasty doggy bone. He invited them over for dinner but instead of the many dinners we’d had before, after dinner he made it into a make them or her a christian. It wasn’t listening to her thoughts or questioing about christianity, or conversation about christianity, it was pushing her to be christian. I was very uncomfortable with it, her hubby was verrry uncomfortable with it. The two of us were on the other side of the room playing video games. It took a long time till we could get together again without the hubby scared it might turn into another prosletyzing session. And I thought I knew my hubby and this thing about living the faith not doing the 7 steps/tract thing. Conversation about christianity. Not pushing a person to be a christian.
Bob, #13, I think part of what is in the Roman road kind of thing, if I am understanding it to be the 7 step tract thing we had in the 70′s, is conversion is about heaven, or rather, evading hell. I would correct that the new creation’s residence is not in heaven, but the destination we really look toward, to which we join the earth groaning,is the new heaven and earth to come with Christ bringing the new heaven and earth.
But ChrisB, #26, I might be misunderstanding you; the package of christianity is more than sin and atonement i.e accepting John 3:16 type thing. If this is what we are presenting to people, we really are keeping them short of the whole of the story. And the whole of the story is the redemption of the whole of life. The whole of the story is about how christianity touches every aspect of life. We do so much wrong when we shorten that down or box it to sin and atonement/get saved from your sin. Certainly it takes more time, but one thing christianity is about, is relationship and conversation, if it takes place, not how many ppl can be saved quickly even how good the motive. And I’ll go back again – God doesn’t need our help. I think some people view evangelism as if we must push it and box it so to find a way to get ppl saved in quantities, even with good motives like because we don’t want ppl to go to hell. But we do so because we think God needs our help to do salvation. Vs realizing God is doing the wooing and our part is to partner with the person being wooed and be alongside and God moves them in the wooing. We needn’t even speed up the wooing.
#34, Krista. Yes, but so much more. There is part to christianity that need not be task oriented, “doing” oriented. Part of it is just being able to enjoy a flower or nature or a sunset or the taste of a certain food or drink or music, or enjoy the beauty in a relationship. Those are as much as being in the kingdom as the “doing” part. It needn’t always be about being broken Eikons and being at the task of repairing some of those breaks.
Ish wrote: I would submit that after building a relationship with God, our failure to love Him and others as we should (arguably the root of sin), MUST lead us to a recognizable need to atone.
I think you’ve got it backwards. We cannot have a relationship with God until our sins have been atoned for. Our growing relationship after that will cause us to see more and more how sinful we are, but the communion was severed by sin and that must be repared by the cross.
Paul started out on Mars Hill not by saying “you are all sinners” but by saying, “you are religious people, you’ve almost got the kingdom of God, but you’re just off.”
May I suggest that you examine the passage again? He doesn’t say that they’ve “almost got the kingdom.” He tells them (admittedly, gently) that they’re idolaters and that “in the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”
Becky R said: the whole of the story is the redemption of the whole of life
I’m not sure we’re disagreeing. If we are, it’s about the difference between justification and sanctification. The application of the gospel to the whole life is sanctification and it is a process. By saying that salvation is about the whole life, I don’t think you mean that a person who’s failed to complete this process cannot go to heaven (because, in the end, that is what we’re talking about), but I have to say that many of the comments I’ve read seem to get awfully close to that idea. Either we aren’t communicating with each other very well or there are more Roman Catholics here than I’d imagined.
Dear Diane,
My simple understanding is that we should organize a regular day of fasting and prayer for the purpose of better understanding God’s will for our lives. I think it would be useful to have every participant share their thoughts/prayers with the body at the days beginning and as time permits their thoughts and experiences of the day as it unfolds. I believe as we proceed specifics/direction will become more apparent and providing all participants are being honest about their participation and experiences a discernable Spirit led expression will evolve.
What do you think, sister?
Oops! The preceding comment was intended for the “Spiritual Formation Forum” thread.
ChrisB, I think you may have misread my words, plus me not being good at breaking thoughts into paragraphs. I made one point then went onto another point, not meaning the two to be intwined.
I did not write “whole life,” but “the whole of life.” In that, I mean redemption is to the whole of life : nature and animals, the universe etc. I think I was trying to get away from the concept (without re-reading what I wrote) that this is just about sin and we can have Jesus if. I was trying to say there is more to christianity than personal redemption. That Christ redeemed the world, within which, people are one of the things.
Hope that’s clearer
BeckyR,
You said: I was trying to say there is more to christianity than personal redemption. That Christ redeemed the world, within which, people are one of the things.
The only distinction I would make is that salvation does not apply to all of creation…yes, the Creation will be redeemed (new heavens, new earth), but salvation only applies to sinners.
I suppose ChrisB’s comment reflects (some) form of traditional Protestant thinking, but I too was confused by it. The notion that someone could be sanctified and yet going to hell (which is implied in his post, but maybe not quite what he meant) overturns any plain meaning of the word sanctify.
Let me try another shot. I don’t think people are saying don’t focus on sin. I think what they are saying is, explain what sin is really about. In other words, if sin is merely presented as a set of bad behaviors or an artiface to be overcome by some proceduralism, then one can’t be surprised with the resulting style of Christian that comes from that. But there’s a way to focus on an individuals true needs and wants, helping them recognize them as they truly are, help them recognize how they try to address those needs for themselves and if honest can’t answer them on their own that generates both a positive desire and recognition for God and a deeper understanding of one’s sinfulness. I know I’m not being entirely clear. But if a Christian recognizes from his experience that Christ is the Answer to his life’s meaning in a positive way, this doesn’t shy away from a recognition of his sinfulness but in fact helps him have a concrete recognition and awareness of the gift of redemption/salvation that he’s been offered. It becomes less a formula, less ethereal, less future-oriented, and instead becomes personal, real, concrete and a flowering of the hundred-fold now.
Great post, Scot! Thanks for saying again what so many of us, it seems, have thought for years! Even at 14 years old, I could not use the 4 Spiritual Laws because it just didn’t seem right…and I resonate with Julie (#19) in that it is a poor tool if the person using the tool has more tools in their toolbelt than this hammer. So, I’ll put that up as another metaphor with the golf bag….
I am coming to this post with the previous post about sin still reverberating around in my head…any would encourage any of you who weren’t in that discussion to take a look at it. I say this because were’re back in this thread to a simplistic understanding of sin.
In the end, the most helpful concept to me over the past 20 some years has been understanding the Hebrew already begun/not yet finished view. Salvation is the already part and sanctification is the not yet part. And so we cannot say, thanks John Frye, that there is a quick escape from hell by parroting a sinner’s prayer. Salvation opens the door to “the Kingdom,” as it were, and the path to “Heaven” will take your entire life to reach.
And I believe that the “fly on the wall” in the first century would see those early Christians testifying to their neighbors concerning how their lives have been transformed by their adoption as Children of God and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. This would take place in the context of relationships. Again I resonate with Julie when she says that any “notches in the belt” form of evangelism makes God’s Eikons into objects that are projects…and that is always the wrong tack to take.
As a pastor responsible for “assimilation” I was always dismayed that the results of this kind of evangelism always left me with a “nursery” full of baby Christians and woefuly too few “workers” to feed, clean and nurture these young believers. The “spiritual mortality rate” is heartbreaking…
We are called to make disciples, and that is a whole different ballgame that rounding/scaring up believers.
Though I’ve never heard the phrase “Roman’s Road” before (that jargon obviously doesn’t have currency in Aussie evangelical circles) I am pretty sure I know what you’re talking about. In my experience in sharing the gospel with people into alternative religions and irreligious spiritualities, one of the main problems is the starting point, God’s sovereignty and our original sin. Far more effective in my experience is to start with God’s immediacy and our original blessedness. And though the messed up nature of reality should enter the discussion at some point, surly the fact that we are sinned against is as important an observation that we are sinners, and that institutionalized injustice is as real a problem as personal injustice. It is here that we really must move beyond a narrow conception of salvation to speak of a multifaceted hope for renewal.
Message 57, Peggy said; “As a pastor responsible for “assimilation” I was always dismayed that the results of this kind of evangelism always left me with a “nursery” full of baby Christians and woefuly too few “workers” to feed, clean and nurture these young believers. The “spiritual mortality rate” is heartbreaking…”
Wow Peggy that is something that has been with me for over twenty years it’s just a small passage, blink and you miss it but it has echoed through my life since conversion. Many are called but few are chosen it breaks my heart and makes me want to cry out in anguish over the things I see people doing who confess to be Christians. What is it that I see them doing you ask well “NOTHING” or “JUDGING” not understanding our original sin is the judgment of God and that it continues today. It makes me sad.
Another problem or symptom if you will is the fact that most churches are denying the power of the Holy Spirit to effectively teach and change people by the 100′s, 1ooo’s or 10′s of 1000′s.
Hello, Matt! Thanks for bringing your perspective to the table here.
And M.A.C., we were posting at the same time!
This, for me, speaks to the issue of “personal faith” versus “community faith” where we are commanded to be responsible to each other for encouraging and equipping toward ever-maturing Christlikeness. And I believe there is frequently a sense of confusion/cluelessness between chronological age and maturity in the salvation process, that same already/not yet thing….
And I agree that many do not appropriately acknowledge the Holy Spirit’s role in teaching and convicting believers on their way to becoming disciples.
Why is it that so often i see people doing “kingdom work” but haven’t claimed Christ (yet) as there purpose for doing it? I have reasons why but that’s not the point. I ask the question because even if we evangelize in the more balanced way that you are presenting we end up speaking to people about the “kingdom” when they (the people we try to evangelize) sometimes are the ones who are doing more for the kingdom and more redemptive work in the world.
I say this because it still (at least for me) is too easy to miss is it when it comes to Jesus and the first disciples. They seemed to evangelize -) spread the good news by actions that cried out for people to follow. How we live our lives seems to be missing a bit from this discussion. If isn’t good news for us it will never be good news for the people we attempt to spread it to.
Comment 62 Stephen Mook said; “How we live our lives seems to be missing a bit from this discussion. If isn’t good news for us it will never be good news for the people we attempt to spread it to.”
Bullseye, you got that right but the problem is not that we don’t live the life of Jesus. It’s the established practice of how we do it and the fact that within that established practice we all to often quench the Holy Spirit’s power to transform us into what we are to be for the Kingdom.
Well Gavin, it’s a matter of perspective. Fallenness broke all of creation. With his death on the cross, Jesus brought redemption to all of creation. As I see it, it is redemption, period. Salvation as in a parson having relationship with God, yes, that is only what can happen with a person. That is redemption with a person and God.
How should an emerging Christian,deal with difficulties of reconciling one’s brain with popular Christian thinking?
I know many people tell me they turn off their critical thinking and put their religion in a kind of separate brain area. Is this what you guys do? I have trouble reconciling the Christian world with the known world of science, here, the popularly taught stories make little sense. An example might be what we now know of the world through Darwinian Evolution or the Cosmos through astronomy. How do people reconcile the irreconcilable?
Hey Ivan,
God, from the creationist perspective, as understood by the HRC Church, is described as, …”The first cause of all things.”….That which is, so that all things could be.
All scientific explanations with regard to the creation of worlds and lifeforms cannot, apart from a “God” theory explain themselves, “Back to nothing”; explain the first cause of all things. Every science fact or theory available still logically leads the questioner to ask, “Where did these first principals come from?” “How does the first “something” manifest itself from the nothingness?”
Christianity offers a rational theory to explain the fixed point of beginningness. Science then, apart from some theory of a pre-existing, self sustaining energy (call it God or not)becomes the medium through which the irreconcilable seeks affirmation.
Everything that’s on my mind
Random Links
Hi there Paul,
Sir, this isn’t my understanding at all. Whilst I do agree with you that this is one of the central Christian views, it isn’t the same as current thinking in science. As I understand it, they have some idea now as to how life originally started with the need of a supernatural cause. This of course, is still “speculation” but they have the nuts and bolts in place enough, that they know how it could have happened.
Likewise Sir, the universe is under similar study. Works by various cosmologists have come a long, way this decade in various areas. It doesn’t look as this stage if there is need for a supernatural cause for this either.
The trouble with postulating God as a first cause, leaves us with the unsatisfactory question of who or what created the God in the first place. It just keeps going back infinitum.
Leaving this aside, my question is how do thinking Christians deal with Christianity when the science reveals these other things?
Hi Ivan great question one that I had some time ago which was answered with clarity by one of my brothers in Christ. I will share the answer with you here.
The Laws of Thermodynamics, the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.
Law #1 says that all energy exists and is not created it merely exists and cannot be created.
Law #2 says that all energy exchanges and that entropy is created when a system does not exchange it’s energy.
The second Law basically says that through the Law of Thermodynamics material things are not eternal and that the whole natural world is subject to the Law.
It is well known and thoroughly researched that chemical compounds ultimately breakdown and become simpler materials not greater as the evolution theory would have us believe.
Evolutionists say that everything over millions of years developed upwards but the second Law of Thermodynamics says the opposite and that entropy is created when a system does not exchange it’s energy. Therefore and this is a simple conclusion there needs to be a source that constantly feeds the model, but the whole universe is in decay. Which will explain why we all grow old and your house needs painting every second or third year.
Consider also this verse from the Bible Genesis 6:3 that reduces mans life expectancy to 120 years. Perhaps the preceding longevity of man made for a different type of universe then, but who truly knows but God. Consider also Job 38 where God reveals his omnipotence to Job and strengthens his faith still further.
Hope that helped you even if it was simple answer to a complex question. However my experience is that we need not sophisticate the simplicity of the gospel. For is it not for all men to accept and understand?
I’m a late comer to this discussion. I like the concept of “entry points” to following Christ. And that different “entry points” may be better suited to different situations. I also recognize the shortcomings of a faith based on “saying the right words” with no real affect on how we live our lives. In the same token I struggle with how we can linger in the entry point
Calling people to the entry point using “kingdom language” is great. However, can it not have a similar drawback. A criticism of the Romans Road approach was its lack of “follow through” to a life lived for Christ—not just believing in Christ. Can a similar criticism be placed on a “Kingdom Entry Point”. Do we not want to progress from an entry point and then move one past this and recognize our sinful nature. What is Grace if not for our sin? Maybe this was what Bob #9 may have been hinting at:
“United with others, build the kingdom here on earth: the cornerstone of Baha’ullah teaching”
I think of Ephesians 2:1-10 where we are reminded by Paul how we were once “gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature”. How can we recognize our salvation without recognizing our sin?
I’m not trying to say that I heard an advocacy to not recognize sin. I guess I’m just wondering if we can get attached to “Entry Points” and then forget they were “Entry Points”. Progressing beyond the entry point is what I believe Jesus is calling us to. Do others see “Entry Point” church’s or am I making this up?
Bruce,
Thank you for that answer. Bruce, recent books I have read, indicate that there is nothing wrong in the way of physics that require Godly intervention. The books make the point that people using this argument, don’t understand modern physics or choose rather, not to understand it. I don’t have the references at my finger tips but I can get them by tonight.
I am trying my darndest to be well read and as up to date as I can on the science at least.
If these people are correct, and they seem awfully well read and conversant with science, How do I find a place for God?
Darwinism, unquestionably, rules out a role in the unfolding of life. Modern cosmology, rules out a God in the unfolding of a universe. How do you guys find a way of seeing a God in the science as we now know it?
I have a very great problem in that I have to be truthful to myself, no matter where that takes me. I have a problem casting a blind eye to known facts. I imagine there has to be similar Christians to myself.. How so they do it?
Ivan,
The challenge with the science versus God debate is that the science part keeps coming up with new theories that disprove older theories…and the underlying assumption is that humanity actually has the capacity to comprehend all the mysteries of the universe.
Now, I’m all for seeking to better understand the mysteries, but there are plenty for which science just doesn’t have a sufficient answer…yet, of course. It seems to me that one must be careful when one tries to remove all religious presuppositions in order to study science…that the vacuum is not filled with other foundational philosophies that “prejudice” the mind in the same manner but in the opposite direction–against God.
Is there such a thing as a truly unbiased perspective? I think perhaps not…
For me, the bottom line is that beyond the “what” lies the “why”–and if there is no “why” then everything is, as it were, meaningless. I have to form a worldview as a primary context through which I view everything, if I am going to be internally consistent. This worldview does not require that I know/understand everything to be able to contribute as a world-citizen; but it must provide the bsic matrix on which I can successfully build.
Believing that there is an infinite, eternal God who created and sustains the universe does not mean that I cannot engage my mind to solve the mysteries around me. It does, however, provide me with a plausable reason for why I am here and helps me understand how I might best respond to what I encouter while I am here.
Ben,
I have seen people get stuck in just about every phase you can think of…if we gravitate to the formulaic, then we will be challenged not to get stuck in some part of the formula. It is only in active, life-long disciple-making that we are challenged to live the whole thing–from birth to maturing–over and over again. If we’re not going forward, we’re slipping backward, eh? What do they call that? Entropy?
It seems to me that each time we get going on a thread, there are those who get stuck…on what the thread includes and what it excludes. Scot is asking us to look at pieces of the story…not all aspects of the story each time. This requires the discipline of bracking…setting aside our disbelief or our preconceptions or our doubts or our soap boxes…in order to embrace the question at hand and see what we might learn from each other in this discussion.
Thanks, Scot, for providing this enlightening service in such a gracious manner.
Ivan,
Did you see the devastating review of Dawkins’ book by Cornelius Plantinga in Books and Culture this April/May (or late Spring)? I think it is a review for the ages.
Scot,
That review isn’t available on-line, is it?
Peggy,
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
Scot,
You are the man! I do remember reading this article, and that it was wonderful, but Alvin (Notre Dame) rather than Cornelius (Calvin) is the author, lest anyone else is confused
Ivan, and Paul,
there are theologians who are moving away from viewing God as “first cause”, which, as I understand it, is a concept that is related to Scholasticism and Enlightenment scientific categories. Those scientific categories have helped us make astounding technological advances, and you’re right Ivan- they’re showing themselves insufficient as we move into a different time. I commend to you the work of F. LeRon Shults, in particular his book “Reforming the Doctrine of God”. I think it would help you a lot. He is also working on a book interfacing theology and science. And Paul, I can’t recall anything wrt Shults’ major premises that would be contrary to Catholic doctrine. Scot has blogged it, but like movies the book itself is always better
Dana
Peggy,
I didn’t mean to ask the question in a Science verses Christianity debate. The biggest problem I have faced with accepting Christianity, is the fact that science so far, supplies a quite reasonable underpinning that eliminates a need for the supernatural. To accept the traditional type of Christianity, involves the suspension of critical faculties on almost every level. I have not been able to do this, ever. I was just curious how you guys and girls get around this as an obstacle?
I am familiar as to the “why” question, but I don’t think this exists in any valid form on the subject of the natural. It is because it is. I find words such as “creation” serve no real purpose for me in understanding.
Yes I did Scot. To me, Dawkins makes an enormous amount of good sense and actual sanity, in what is an incredible emotive debate. Probably the most emotive subject in the world.
I have heard many University debates and read many books exploring many points of view both for and against. I certainly wouldn’t write of Dawkins most intelligent input to this rather large and complex subject. I think he makes sense. (I am a big Dawkins fan)
Dana,
I think in the end, we will find science and religion irreconcilable. This is just a simple guess by a very simple man.
I don’t think for an instant, that today’s science has all the answers . But its heading in a direction that gives humanity its best hope at enlightenment and its best long term chance.
I am extremely interested in Christianity as a religion, way more interested in this than any other. My best guess is we will still be quibbling over its meaning in 300 years time if Christianity manages to survive. Again, its just a personal view and a guess, But I expect Christianity as we see it today may have less than a couple of centuries left. I think you can only ignore the scientific knowledge for just so long. I think we are getting to the end of that rope.
(Just a personal view mind you)
Can I ask a general question? Do any of the readers of this blog beleive in the rapture?
Another question, just out of interest:
Did anyone read Dawkins book first hand, rather than just the reviews of the book? I thought it was interesting and worth a read regardless of one’s beliefs, even if you read it just to disagree with it.
Ivan
Ivan,
Yes, both RJS and I read it together and blogged through it on this blog.
I followed some of that. I didn’t know you both went through the complete book.
Ivan,
Intellectually, Christianity makes the most sense of any world religion or philosophy, including science as a religion i.e. evolution, in order to believe in evolution you must suspend your belief of what we do know about the world like the second law of thermodynamics.
3 Reasons for Christianity
1. The Bible is the most historically accurate book in existence today, it is second to none, it’s authority far exceeds any other book yet it is the most refuted.
2. Jesus crosses into most world religions and philosophies no other religion can say that!
3. Science continually proves the existence of God by not being able to understand our lives, our body, etc. A friend of mine who is a brain surgeon says that or brains are more intricate than the most powerful computer currently in existence today.
I accepted Christ with my brain and than my heart through prayer he revealed himself to me by offering me the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). The Bible says many are called but few are chosen. I pray you find your way Ivan and remember the bible says lean not on your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5)
Ivan,
When you say “The biggest problem I have faced with accepting Christianity, is the fact that science so far, supplies a quite reasonable underpinning that eliminates a need for the supernatural” and that you resonate with Dawkins, it seems to me that you are just revealing your current presuppositions.
I would say in just the same way that to view some of the science the way you do requires an even bigger suspension of disbelief in order to accept as believable some of the rather “out-there” theories being floated.
You are certainly free to suspect that science and religion are irreconcilable. I prefer to believe that science and God (the term religion is a bit too broad and inclusive for me) are not only compatible, but that the only consistently appropriate application of what we learn from science comes from understanding that God started this whole thing with a very specific purpose in mind: us.
You are also free to bet that Christianity is nearing the end of its run…but that is a costly and eternally significant bet. I’m betting that God is working his plan out a little at a time and will accomplish his goal according to his plan and in his time, not ours.
Kind of like Scot’s blog here…he writes his threads according to his design…and sometimes they go way off topic (like this one), but he lets it go as long as someone has something to say. And then he gets us back on to his train of thought in the next thread.
If someone is really looking for something, they will usually find it. Many are looking for science without God, and they have found it. Others are looking for truth about the universe, our world and life as we know it, and God has helped them find it.
Ivan #80,
I don’t think you’re so simple
I would also commend to you a recent address to the Faraday Institute in England by NT Wright:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/NTWright.mp3
The Q&A afterwards is also interesting. Wright is a theologian who describes his starting point as “critical realism”, quite the opposite, it seems to me, of the suspension of one’s critical faculties. Of course we should think. Your questions and concerns are valid.
FWIW, I used to believe in “the rapture”, for a few years. I held the belief loosely, though, and held it only because people I trusted were convinced about that scenario. Because I have a curiosity that impels me toward Meaning, I did question and study further and found greater depth and consistency with the bible, very early church practice and the majority of Christians today in another interpretation.
Dana
Hi Bruce,
I don’t know that Christianity makes more sense than other religions. But its the one I am interested in personally.I live in a largely Christian country.
There is no conflict with the scientific view and the laws of Thermodynamics. I know you probably keep hearing this, but there isn’t any conflict as a point of fact. I have researched this area like you wouldn’t believe!
The Bible isn’t historically accurate at all. Again, I don’t know that this matters, but just to get this down in writing as a point of fact, there is almost no historical references that match the bible. In fact, did you know there isn’t a single secular reference to Jesus written during the lifetime of Jesus? Again, its probably not important.
your point 2 is interesting. How so Bruce?
Point 3. Bruce, this is interesting, but its not proof of anything really. Absence of knowledge of anything really, isn’t proof of something else. The brain could well be the invention of God but our not fully understanding it isn’t proof as such.
Thank you Bruce for your kind wishes. They are appreciated.
Hi Peggy,
I just said what I said, in order to illustrate my impasse. I like reading all kinds of stuff. I just liked reading a few of Dawkins books. Taking the science on board isn’t to my thinking “out there” though it may seem that way if your not conversant with its language and ideas. I have had a lifetime interest in these kinds of matters hence there familiarity.
Science may end up being reconciled with religion Peggy, Its just a personal view that I think the chances are quite low.
Lets hope God helps me find truth also.
Dana,
I will listen to that link. I think though I might have heard it already. But will do so again.
Dana, I hear you regarding the rapture, why is it do you think that there are almost millions of differing intereptations going on the one book? why isn’t the word of God the same word, exactly, for everyone?
Bruce,Peggy, Dana,
You know how sometimes you will listen to someone about something such as Christian thinking, and you hear another perspective that makes very good sense to your brain and its very enlightening? Since I was a small child, and probably watched to much “lost in Space” I have had a big interest in science and it has become a kind of hobby. When I look at things in life, its the prism for me that makes the most sense. This is why I apply that kind of outlook to God and why I listen a lot to people that speak that kind of language that are believers and non believers alike.
This is where I get the view that science and religion don’t mix very well and that arguments about subjects like Thermodynamics or genetics etc, don’t support the case for the supernatural at least not yet. I am open to new information if anybody has any?
There must be others out there like me that had a road block they rammed through on some intellectual level? How do people maintain belief when the world appears so indifferent to us? How do you believe in Biblical creation of both the Universe and life here when the science points to a different story? What does everyone believe is the literal story to the myth?
Ivan,
You raise a point that vexes a lot of people, although I wouldn’t say there are “millions” of interpretations… The Roman Catholics and the Orthodox have fewer problems with this because of their view that scripture has arisen from the church as the church leaders were sensitive to the Holy Spirit over time- simplistic, I know, but they have a different starting point than Protestants.
One of the things that is being looked at again recently by Christians of all stripes is the concept of what sort of story the bible tells, and how that is connected to the history of the Jewish people up until and shortly after Jesus was on the scene. Yes, we can argue over verses, or even chunks of the text. But if we step back and look at what the whole thing is trying to say, there are things about which all Christians agree. Central to these is the figure of Jesus, what he said and did, and how his (at first only Jewish) followers struggled to made sense of it all. We are still grappling with the nuances of all of it lo these many years later. Jesus somehow hasn’t gone away.
BTW, in the New Testament the phrase “word of God”, when read in the larger context of the passage, nearly always refers to Jesus; when the writers want to refer to the holy text, the word of choice is “writings” (graphe).
Dana
Ivan, you need to correspond with RJS, who is a graduate level advisor and researcher in chemistry and physics. She can tell you how it makes sense for her.
My opinion about why many Christians must read and interpret the bible in a largely literal way is that they can’t manage living with ambiguity and paradox, which is a developmental skill. One of the things that vexes me is what I observe as Christians being afraid to grow up…
The bible isn’t about “proving that God exists.” The bible doesn’t give a lot of detail about how the physical universe came into being. How we, who are investigating quantum mechanics, have trouble putting the coming-into-being of the universe into words; how much more would a writer in the ancient near east struggle with this; and how beautiful is the description in Genesis! Not the violent and extremely bloody destruction of other creation stories, but something entirely different… The “story behind the literal myth” is that life comes from the trinitarian relationship of self-giving love. For me, the “how” of that is not so important anymore. It’s not like it’s repeatable in a lab
Well, read the archives with RJS’ posts and comments, and maybe she will agree to let Scot connect you.
Blessings-
Dana
Sorry Dana I was exaggerating once more. I have recently been very involved reading some textual critics. It surprises me that there is so much contention even about Jesus himself. As in what he is thought to have said against what people *think* he said.
Dana,
I don’t need connecting with anyone in regards to the understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics. What I am referring to, the average high school kid would know. There is no conflict with regard to our Universe and these laws. I am really, really sure about this.
best regards
Ivan.
(The “story behind the literal myth” is that life comes from the trinitarian relationship of self-giving love. For me, the “how” of that is not so important anymore. It’s not like it’s repeatable in a lab)
Actually Dana, it is. If your referring to the origins of life that is? There is a very famous experiment by a Guy called Miller. Had he had a geological time scale the likes that life had to evolve, I expect it would re-create life, in a laboratory. The evolution of the Universe is a rather complicated affair, and you wouldn’t want that starting in your lounge room! I am not sure either event has a whole lot to do with “self giving love” I’m not sure where you get this from?
I would though, love to see the fingerprints of God on something mind you. Wouldn’t that be great?!
Yes it would…
The “self-giving love” idea is one of the things the best Christian thinkers have come up with to be able to say something about what sort of god God is, saying it in one fashion or another over the last 2000 years. I think that love is reflected, in one form at least, in a (ideally) mutual self-giving relationship between a man and a woman which engenders life. To me, that power to engender life is one of the “fingerprints”. So is the variety of life, texture, color, etc. or the apparent extravagance of seeds (living things produce many times more than what they actually need to produce to survive), or stars, or galaxies. None of this is “proof”- simply observation and the meaning I ascribe to it. I don’t think one can “prove” God exists, or doesn’t exist, by means of things we usually associate with the idea of “proving”.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear about what I was thinking wrt you corresponding with RJS- I was trying to say that she could tell you about her Christian belief and the interaction between that and her life as a scientist.
Yes, all the discussion about Jesus, still grappling with the meaning of what he said. I see that as a good thing, something that speaks of his continued importance/relevance, and something which should, in my view, be a characteristic of honest believers. I’m grateful to Scot for making a space for that to happen.
Best regards to you too-
Dana
Ivan in message 87. you said and I quote you verbatim “The Bible isn’t historically accurate at all.”
Here is an article that refutes the conditioned response of the Bible not being the most historically accurate book in existence today. Sorry I was unable to post just a link.
By Richard M. Fales, Ph.D.
No other ancient book is questioned or maligned like the Bible. Critics looking for the flyspeck in the masterpiece allege that there was a long span between the time the events in the New Testament occurred and when they were recorded. They claim another gap exists archaeologically between the earliest copies made and the autographs of the New Testament. In reality, the alleged spaces and so-called gaps exist only in the minds of the critics. Manuscript Evidence.
Aristotle’s Ode to Poetics was written between 384 and 322 B.C. The earliest copy of this work dates A.D. 1100, and there are only forty-nine extant manuscripts. The gap between the original writing and the earliest copy is 1,400 years. There are only seven extant manuscripts of Plato’s Tetralogies, written 427–347 B.C. The earliest copy is A.D. 900—a gap of over 1,200 years. What about the New Testament? Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30. The New Testament was written between A.D. 48 and 95. The oldest manuscripts date to the last quarter of the first century, and the second oldest A.D. 125. This gives us a narrow gap of thirty-five to forty years from the originals written by the apostles. From the early centuries, we have some 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Altogether, including Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic, we have a whopping 24,633 texts of the ancient New Testament to confirm the wording of the Scriptures. So the bottom line is, there was no great period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings. Nor is there a great time lapse between the original writings and the oldest copies.
With the great body of manuscript evidence, it can be proved, beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2,000 years ago. Corroborating Writings. Critics also charge that there are no ancient writings about Jesus outside the New Testament. This is another ridiculous claim. Writings confirming His birth, ministry, death, and resurrection include Flavius Josephus (A.D. 93), the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 70–200), Pliny the Younger’s letter to the Emperor Trajan (approx. A.D. 100), the Annals of Tacitus (A.D. 115–117), Mara Bar Serapion (sometime after A.D. 73), and Suetonius’ Life of Claudius and Life of Nero (A.D. 120).
Another point of contention arises when Bible critics have knowingly or unknowingly misled people by implying that Old and New Testament books were either excluded from or added into the canon of Scripture at the great ecumenical councils of A.D. 336, 382, 397, and 419. In fact, one result of these gatherings was to confirm the Church’s belief that the books already in the Bible were divinely inspired. Therefore, the Church, at these meetings, neither added to nor took away from the books of the Bible. At that time, the thirty-nine Old Testament books had already been accepted, and the New Testament, as it was written, simply grew up with the ancient Church. Each document, being accepted as it was penned in the first century, was then passed on to Christians of the next century. So, this foolishness about the Roman Emperor Constantine dropping books from the Bible is simply uneducated rumor.
Fulfilled Prophecies
Prophecies from the Old and New Testaments that have been fulfilled also add credibility to the Bible. The Scriptures predicted the rise and fall of great empires like Greece and Rome (Daniel 2:39, 40), and foretold the destruction of cities like Tyre and Sidon (Isaiah 23). Tyre’s demise is recorded by ancient historians, who tell how Alexander the Great lay siege to the city for seven months. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had failed in a 13-year attempt to capture the seacoast city and completely destroy its inhabitants. During the siege of 573 B.C., much of the population of Tyre moved to its new island home approximately half a mile from the land city. Here it remained surrounded by walls as high as 150 feet until judgment fell in 332 B.C. with the arrival of Alexander the Great. In the seven-month siege, he fulfilled the remainder of the prophecies (Zechariah 9:4; Ezekiel 26:12) concerning the city at sea by completely destroying Tyre, killing 8,000 of its inhabitants and selling 30,000 of its population into slavery. To reach the island, he scraped up the dust and rubble of the old land city of Tyre, just like the Bible predicted, and cast them into the sea, building a 200-footwide causeway out to the island. Alexander’s death and the murder of his two sons was also foretold in the Scripture. Another startling prophecy was Jesus’ detailed prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction, and the further spreading of the Jewish diaspora throughout the world, which is recorded in Luke 21. In A.D. 70, not only was Jerusalem destroyed by Titus, the future emperor of Rome, but another prediction of Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:1,2 came to pass—the complete destruction of the temple of God.
Messianic Prophecies
In the Book of Daniel, the Bible prophesied the coming of the one and only Jewish Messiah prior to the temple’s demise. The Old Testament prophets declared He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) to a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12,13), die by crucifixion (Psalm 22), and be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9). There was only one person who fits all of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament who lived before A.D. 70: Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary. Yes, the Bible is an amazing book. (See also 1 Peter 1:25 footnote.)
Hi Bruce,
I hadn’t read this before, but I don’t think its actually correct. I have the reference material, and will try and confirm some of the things after work.
The problem as I see it, is the complete lack of material backing up the story of Jesus written by secular sources “in the time” of Jesus and not after. Yes, there is comments a plenty on the movement of Christianity but zip, during the very time Jesus was alive. The difficulties here are thus, The Romans kept all kinds of historical records on just about everything, but nothing on Jesus and the extraordinary events of such things as the dead rising and walking into Jerusalem. You would think at least one secular source would have noticed this wouldn’t you? We have detailed records of a secular nature of many other historical figures of that time but again nothing of Jesus. Why? (I don’t have the answer, but I do ask the question)
Really, the same goes for the prophesies. So many were not filled and some of these actual prophesies of Jesus himself. (Again I don’t know why, I just noted this in my reading of Jesus.)
I also need to point out that there are many differing versions of texts which were used to form our modern day Bibles. “Some” of those texts refer to Jesus being the product of a normal union of man and woman, and don’t back up the virgin birth story. Other texts, the original stuff first put together by people like the 1st century adoptionists even claim a second God, they have it that the universe is inhabited by two distinct and separate Gods.
Its an enormously complicated area of study, and I find it almost addictive to keep on delving into it.
Best regards
Ivan
Thank you for your comments Dana!
Dana 96
I follow you. I see what you mean I guess my take is a little different.
Kind regards
Ivan
Bruce,
(97) I didn’t mean it as the most historically inaccurate book of all time.
Its just way, way inaccurate. (And not just historically.)
I will try and dig you out some examples and post you a reference or 3. I have the books, I just need to dig out the examples. Stay with me on this ok?
Now you do understand the Prophesy thing don’t you?
Holy Bible hand written and put together some hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. Hand copied by scribes for centuries after. The material altered and massaged by thousands of people in order to have it appear coherent.
There is quite a bit of evidence for this going on, in fact Genesis has a very clear warning printed in the bible itself.
But really important prophesies regarding the end of the world, made by Jesus himself, really never came to pass.
I dig you out some more examples over the weekend.
This may neither be here nor there in terms of listening to your Bible.
Kind regards
Ivan
This is another ridiculous claim. Writings confirming His birth, ministry, death, and resurrection include Flavius Josephus (A.D. 93), the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 70–200), Pliny the Younger’s letter to the Emperor Trajan (approx. A.D. 100), the Annals of Tacitus (A.D. 115–117), Mara Bar Serapion (sometime after A.D. 73), and Suetonius’ Life of Claudius and Life of Nero (A.D. 120).
It incidentally isn’t *ridiculous*. What I said was:
There isn’t any secular writing about Jesus in the time of Jesus. That is, whilst he was alive. There is none.
We ought to talk about this some, because its interesting and somewhat baffling. I am not sure what the answer to it is. The comments you posted, were made after his death and about the emergence of the Christian movement. It isn’t very much that is said either.
Hey, I just wanted to go into this a little further. What I meant, was.. there isn’t a whole lot of secular or any other references to Jesus during his lifetime. The quotes you mentioned are almost fleeting.
Imagine, The whole events of Jesus unfolded last year. It would be big news wouldn’t it? Imagine some 2000 years ago, How big would it have been then? Huge? Humungous? Bigger than Ben Hur?
Now think of all the living witnesses. The multitudes as he ascended heaven. The multitudes fed with loaves and fishes the various miracle stories etc etc.
Clearly, many people were witnesses so says the Bible. The question is, Why did not one single secular official, council person, worker, guard, relation of someone cured, write a single document that lives today?
This is odd because documentation exists today on the most menial of things yet nothing on the biggest even of humankind?
Plenty of historical stuff exists about people older and younger than Jesus but nothing, Nothing on Jesus himself.
why?
Wouldn’t someone have written something confirming the “stirring up” of people in this Roman outpost? Wouldn’t some official document exist?
Yes we do have the Bible. But this is more complicated than it looks. I don’t have the answer, but does anyone else ever asked this question and gotten a reasonable response?
Regards
Ivan