He saved others?

During the crucifixion narrative, in Mark 15v31 it says: 

"In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself!"

This seems a bit like an anachronism to me, because at this point in the story, Jesus hasn't 'saved' others. He has healed a lot of people, sure. And the Greek word for heal appears to be the same word as for rescue or save; σῴζω (or 'sōzō'). But it makes no sense for people observing the crucifixion to make any connection between someone healing people of diseases and having the ability to rescue themselves from the cross. Its like they are saying 'oh, he was a doctor, he must be a good escapologist as well...'; it makes no sense, in the context.

Where it does make sense is later, after Jesus gained a reputation for being a saviour - one able to save others from going to hell. Once there are Christians who believed in Jesus as saviour, it would make sense to look back on the cross and wonder why he couldn't save himself.

For these reasons I think this detail in the crucifixion story is not historically accurate, but was probably a literary construct, written by a Christian some time after the fact, putting words into the mouths of his imagined characters. I can't see how anyone would have really said that, when watching a real crucifixion.

Luke-Acts and the atonement

I've just discovered a debate that theologians have been having on and off for decades. The debate concerns whether or not the author of Luke-Acts believes that Jesus death had atoning power or not.

I'll admit, this came as something of a shock to me. While I've known for years that each of the gospel writers has their own agenda and their own take on who Jesus was and what he came to do, I actually thought that they all basically agreed on what Jesus death on the cross was all about. But apparently not.

For some time I've been meaning to read up on the things that Matthew changed when he expanded on Mark, and the things that Luke changed when he expanded on Mark, but had never really found the time. Now, quite by accident, I have stumbled upon this astounding claim:

When Luke used Mark to create his gospel, he deliberately removed verses that said that Jesus death was an atoning sacrifice. 

Specifically, the debate hangs on a few verses:

1. Mark 10:45 says "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." Luke uses much of Mark in his gospel, including material from immediately before and immediately after this, but omits this verse.
2. Luke 22:19-20 says "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." but some manuscripts only have "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body.'" that is, some manuscripts miss out the bit that suggests there is some atonement going on. I've just been reading Bart Ehrman (in 'The orthodox corruption of scripture') giving a very compelling case for why the shorter reading is the original. This is the only verse in Luke that suggests that Jesus's death has atoning power.
3. Acts 20:28 says "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." This is the only verse in Acts that suggests that Jesus's death has atoning power, and much like the verse in Luke, there is a good case to be made that these words were not part of the original.

Without Luke 22:19b-20 and Acts 20:28 there is no concept of atonement in all of Luke-Acts. When Jesus died, according to Luke, it wasn't on behalf of sinners.

So what is the cross all about according to Luke-Acts? Let's have a look at the preaching of Peter and Paul in Acts.

Peter's preaching in Acts 2 has this basic message:

Jesus was a man sent by God. We know he was sent by God because of the miracles. According to God's plan he was killed. God raised him to life. God made him Lord and Messiah. God gave him the Holy Spirit, which he now pours out on his followers. In order to get the Spirit you need to repent and be baptised in Jesus's name. The process of baptism forgives your sins.

The objective of Peter's message here is that you get the Holy Spirit. There is no atonement in Jesus's death. Forgiveness comes through repentance and baptism.

In Acts 3, Peter's preaching touches on similar themes, although here forgiveness comes through repentance and baptism isn't mentioned.

In Acts 4, Peter's message to the Sanhedrin is that salvation is found in Jesus, but this appears linked to his exalted current status, not to his death.

In Acts 5, Peter's words suggest that God gave Jesus the role of Saviour after his resurrection, so it was neither the death or resurrection that has saving power, but rather Jesus's current exalted status.

Stephen's preaching in Acts 7 doesn't actually include a 'gospel' message, but it is clear that it is the power of the risen Jesus that matters.

In Acts 8, the thing with Simon the Sorcerer is all about how you get the Holy Spirit. Again, this seems to be the objective of preaching in Acts. 

Again, in Acts 10, in Peter's preaching to Cornelius, it is what God did to Jesus after his ascension that matters, and believing in the risen Jesus is the way to receive the Holy Spirit.

The same basic message features in the preaching of Paul in Acts 13. Jesus was a good man, wrongly killed, vindicated by god, raised, and then made Son of God and Saviour. Some of the same is in Paul's famous preaching in Acts 17.

Throughout all the preaching of the apostles in Acts, the same basic message is evident: Jesus was a good man, wrongly killed. He was vindicated by God and raised from the dead. He became the Son of God and Saviour. He can forgive the sins of the repentant and give the Holy Spirit.

There is no atonement in the preaching in Acts. The cross is not central. There is barely any future hope of heaven or resurrection either. The gospel message in Luke-Acts is for now and it is this: repent, be baptised in the name of Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit. That is all.

How come I've never noticed this before? How come millions of Christians haven't noticed this either?

The 'gospel' of Luke and Acts is different to the gospel of the epistles and the other three gospels.

Another nail in the coffin of inerrancy.

...the reason for the hope that you have...

1 Peter 3:15 says: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

Its a famous verse, often quoted and applied by Christians. The thing is, in my experience, Christians usually seem to interpret the verse to mean something other than what it actually says. What it does not say is always be prepared to explain or defend why you believe what you believe, what it says is be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have.

So what is the hope that Christians have, and in what way is this hope different from the hope of non-Christians?

You see, I think pretty much everybody in the entire world hopes that when they die physically, that  this won't be the end of their consciousness, and that they'll go somewhere pleasant, possibly somewhere better than here. Pretty much everyone hopes that this is true, even if they don't actually believe it.

Hope and belief are totally different things. You can hope for many things that you may believe to be unlikely or impossible.

Why do we hope that death is not the end? Because we're human. And we worry about the future and the unknown. We hope that the future will generally be full of joy and happiness and relatively free from pain and suffering. We hope that this applies on this side of our inevitable death, but of course we hope that it continues beyond that too. 

So the Christian hope is really no different from the hope of everybody else. 

What Christianity (and other religious systems) brings to the table is a fear that there is potentially pain and suffering after death. For eternity. So adopting the Christian world-view actually increases the potential of worry for the future. (Likewise for other religions.) In a purely naturalistic world-view, there is probably the belief that death is the end of consciousness, and the faint hope that maybe its not, and there might be something nice beyond. But no real fear of death. (As Woody Allen said "I am not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens." As someone else said "Where I am, death is not, where death is, I am not" - why should you fear something which, by definition, you won't be there to experience?) But the real fear of judgement and possible damnation after death comes purely from a religious world-view.

The Christian hope for salvation in the hereafter is predicated on Christian belief in judgement and hell. Without the latter, there is no meaning in the former. The 'good news' of the gospel relies on acceptance of the bad news inherent in the gospel first. 

So the Christian, attempting to give a reason for their hope in Christ for salvation, first has to give a reason why they fear the possibility of hell. And the reason they fear hell is that they have been convinced by the bible or the church that they are inadequate and don't deserve anything but hell. They've been convinced that they are sinners. Which literally means that they have 'missed the mark' and having missed the mark, they don't deserve a prize, but rather actually deserve punishment. What sort of a system convinces people that they are bad people, failures and inadequate? Only one that seeks to control people. If God is good, the message would be one of empowerment, but it really isn't.

Last time I heard a time of 'open prayer' in church I was struck by how many people there prayed about their own inadequacy and weakness. The message of Christianity, and this is reinforced in the believer in many ways, is not only that they are weak and inadequate, but more than that, that they have to be weak in order to be saved.

So ultimately, the reason the Christian hopes in salvation through Christ is because they believe they are inadequate, don't deserve anything good, actually deserve punishment, and all they can do is admit weakness and hope on the grace of God.

I'm not sure that is really good news.

Across the Spectrum: Chapter 9 - The Salvation Debate

Previous posts have commented on:
Chapter 1 - The Inspiration Debate
Chapter 2 - The Providence Debate
Chapter 3 - The Foreknowledge Debate
Chapter 4 - The Genesis Debate
Chapter 5 - The Divine Image Debate
Chapter 6 - The Human Constitution Debate
Chapter 7 - The Christology Debate
Chapter 8 - The Atonement Debate

Chapter 9: The Salvation Debate
Position 1: TULIP (Calvinist)
Position 2: God wants all to be saved (Arminian)

So here we have another Calvinist vs. Arminian debate. As I said before, I was - more or less - raised a Clavinist and my beliefs have shifted very much towards Arminianism as time has gone on. Much of the material in this chapter parallels previous ones on the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Basically, the Calvinist position is that God chooses the 'elect', all of the elect will be saved, none of the non-elect will be saved, and nothing we humans can do will change that. If God elected you to be saved, you're going to heaven whatever you do, if God did not choose you, you're damned, even if you live a blameless life and seek to follow God's ways. The Arminian position is the flip side of this and claims that people are - in part - responsible for making the choices which determine if they will ultimately be saved or not.

I don't have much to offer on this topic that I haven't said in previous posts. As far as I am concerned, Calvinistic reasoning relies on a few concepts which simply make no sense. The one which makes me most annoyed is the idea that God decides who will be sin, and yet the sinners are held morally responsible for the sins that God decided they would do, so he damns them (eternally) for it. There is no justice or morality in that belief and I must reject it.

The only option that makes rational sense to me here is that people are responsible (at least in part) for their own choices. The way of salvation must be open to all, even if the majority reject it or do not find the path.

Zaccheus

Luke 19v 1-10

He entered Jericho and was passing through. And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich. Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, "Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house." And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly. When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner." Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much." And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

I've heard a number of sermons that touch on the subject of Zaccheus, and most of them point out that he was (as far as the Jews were concerned) in the pay of the evil Empire and therefore a sinner.

What never occurred to me before was that at no point in the story does Zaccheus quit his job. Salvation comes to his house, yet he remains in the pay of the evil Empire.

What does this tell us about the way we relate to certain employers or occupations?

Atonement

I have doubts about the Atonement.

These fall broadly into two main thought strands:

1. What did Jesus actually achieve on the cross?
2. Could anyone else have achieved this?

But first, just a quick recap on what 'atonement' actually means.

A*tone"ment\, n.

1. (Literally, a setting at one.) Reconciliation; restoration of friendly relations; agreement; concord. [Archaic]
2. Satisfaction or reparation made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing of suffering that which will be received in satisfaction for an offense or injury; expiation; amends; -- with for. Specifically, in theology: The expiation of sin made by the obedience, personal suffering, and death of Christ.

Until I looked into this a few days ago, I hadn't realised that the English word 'atonement' was coined by William Tyndale when he was translating the bible, and couldn't find an existing word to fully convey the act by which sin was paid for and reconciliation with God was achieved.

So, it is claimed that Jesus's death on the cross somehow 'paid' for the damage due to sin and also restored the union between man and God which that sin had ruined. I think that's what most Protestant, Evangelical Christians mean by the word anyway.

Following on from the Levitical law and the concept of the flawless sacrifice, I can understand how it may be seen that as Jesus had lived a sinless earthly life, he was an appropriate sacrifice to pay for sin. But, I've recently come around to an understanding of Jesus's life as a picture of the perfect human life, that is the life he lived should actually be possible for other people to live out. In other words, it is possible (even if it might never have happened) that another human may have lived an entirely sinless life. I don't believe in original or inherited sin, so someone else could have done it. So the question is, could the other -theoretical- sinless human have died for the sins of the world?

Or is there some reason why a divine, sinless sacrifice was required?

Perhaps the plan was to wait for a sinless human to come along and atone for the sins of the world, but after a few thousand years of waiting, that hadn't happened and God had to step into the world and do it himself...? OK, so I don't believe that, but I don't really have any good reasons for that not being the case.

The NT makes it clear that the blood of animals can't atone for the sins of the world, so maybe the blood of a sinless man couldn't atone for it either. But why should the blood of a sinless God work then?

And what actually did Jesus's death do?

As I've said before, I can't buy the reasoning that it appeased God's righteous anger against us by satisfying His blood-lust. Or was it C.S. Lewis's Narnian explanation that when one who didn't deserve to die actually died, it broke the power of death?

Don't get me wrong, I believe that Jesus did manage to reconcile us to God by dying, but I'm just really unclear on why it worked or what was the mechanism...

Answers on a postcard please. (Or leave a comment, if you want.)

Lord, Saviour & Son of God

No, I'm not about to doubt that Jesus is any of these. So don't worry.

But I have been thinking of all the titles that Jesus is given in the New Testament, and I wonder if we really understand them in the way that the NT writers meant us to.

You see, everyone in the original readership of the gospels and the epistles was already familiar with concepts such as 'Lord' (kyrios), 'Saviour' (sōtēr) & 'Son of god' - Caesar was all of these!

Lord

Our contemporary understanding of the phrase 'Jesus is Lord' seems to be more or less equivalent to saying 'Jesus is God', that is, he is the ruler and creator of all things. Someone today can say that and it doesn't really have an impact on their life. Back when the NT was written though, the meaning was far more grounded, it meant 'Jesus is my master' and by declaring 'Jesus is Lord' people were more or less committing treason - in practice it meant 'Jesus is my master, Caesar is not'!

Romans 10v9: "...if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

These days, that verse has a very cerebral slant - all you have to do is say something (with your mouth) and believe something (in your head) and you will be saved (whatever that means, see below). But to the first century nobody would say 'Jesus is Lord' unless they had decided to change their lifestyle to follow Jesus. And the 'believe' (pisteuō) bit also implies action, not merely head-acknowledgement.

Saviour

These days we kind of understand salvation in terms of Jesus saving us from the world - when we die we will get to go to heaven, or something like that. But the first century concept of salvation was very much salvation in the world. Caesar was the saviour in that he had established peace (the 'pax Romana') in all the Roman world. The Greek word sōtēr has three meanings, saviour, deliverer and preserver. So when we say that Jesus is saviour, we're talking about an ongoing preservation of us in the world as well as any future aspirations. He's saved us and delivered us from our sins, enabling us to live in the Kingdom now - when we're in the world. There's a nice turn of phrase in Acts (2v47, also in I Cor 1v18 and 2 Cor 2v15) which speaks of the believers as being those who are being saved. Its not a one-off event, but an ongoing process. (That thought takes me back to an old sermon that is well worth a listen).

Son of God

Just a wee comment in passing, but 'son of god' was not a particularly radical assertion in the ancient world. Many of the Greek, Roman and Egyptian heroes were sons of gods. Many of the Roman emperors were proclaimed to be gods after they died, so their sons were (by definition) sons of a god. But, of course, in Jewish circles that was a radical assertion. It was claimed that Jesus was the only Son of the only God.

But in all these things, those who wrote about Jesus were being subversive. They were presenting Jesus - on many levels - as the one who should replace Caesar in the lives of Christians. Most of the letters were written to churches in the Roman world, presumably full of people whose self-identity was bound up in being a Roman. Yet the call of the NT writers is to completely change your self-identity. In every way that folks back then relied on Rome or Caesar for identity, support, authority, etc., etc., the subtle message in the NT is that Christ replaces, supplants or completely over-rules in all instances.

I wonder what that looks like today?

Our concept of God

"What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us. Worship is pure or base as the worshiper entertains high or low thoughts of God.

For this reason the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like. We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company of Christians that composes the Church. Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God, just as her most significant message is what she says about Him or leaves unsaid, for her silence is often more eloquent than her speech."

A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (Chapter 1)

On one level it all comes down to this - How do we view God - because that perception will influence everything in our life and worship.

And yet, I can't help but think that the other perception is more important still - How does God view us?

"Well done good and faithful servant" or "I never knew you"?

Hope

Romans 15v13

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 24v18-25

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

2 Corinthians 3v11-12

And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.

Colossians 1v27

Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Hebrews 11v1

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

I've always been suspicious of the word 'hope' in the New Testament. There are many instances of it as well as those I quote above. Its such an uncertain word. It is quite possible to hope for something that never happens. I had hoped to get certain grades in my finals as an undergrad, but didn't quite get them. I got a 2(ii) degree not the 2(i) that I had hoped for. Hope is not certainty.

And yet hope is a word that is hard to avoid in the New Testament. Paul, Peter, the writer to the Hebrews - all of them speak of the Christian life as being a life of hope.

Not assurance.

No guarantees.

No certainty.

Hope.

I have always tried to ignore that. I convinced myself (and many preachers backed up this belief) that a great many things in the Christian life were certain. But now that I am scrutinising my beliefs I find that many things I once took to be assured, guaranteed, promised or certain are actually nothing of the kind. They're just my hopes. Of course, many of those things are not wrong to hope for, but they might be misplaced hopes. They might not happen.

Look at some of the 'hope' verses in the NT. Here are some of the hopes:

• We hope that creation will be liberated from bondage & decay (Romans 24)
• We hope for the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23v6)
• We hope for salvation (1 Thess 5v8)
• We hope to be adopted sons of God (Romans 24)
• We hope for future glory (Colossians 1v27)
• We hope for eternal life (Titus - various verses)

I have heard preachers assure me that all these things are guaranteed. But that's not what the New Testament says!

But enough negativity. I don't say all this because I've lost hope. Quite the opposite. I now see the value of hope.

Without hope we have nothing to drive us on. Without hope we will not strive to be better. Without hope we will not pray as we should. Without hope we will not come back to God in worship. Without hope we cannot get any of the things that aren't assured. With hope we might.

Faith is being sure of what we hope for (Heb 11v1). In other words, faith is living your life as if the things you hope for were assured. If we hope for good and honourable things, such faith produces good fruit - even if the hopes are never realised. If we hope that our friends will be saved, we will take the gospel to them. Some will be saved. Others will not. But if we don't have the hope we won't speak to any of them. No assurances, but living by hope/faith produces results.

But what of the other things? Salvation? Eternal life? Future glory? What if they come to nothing? Well, I hope that they don't. But maybe I'm wrong. However, I can see no benefit to living as if you believed them to be false and immense benefits in living as if you believe them to be true.

And now the big one. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father but by me" - I hope that is true. But nothing, outwith the pages of the bible, actually guarantees that. Yet I hope. I live in hope. If I am right, I gain everything. If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

There are an awful lot of unknowns in the Christian life that people fill in with hope. When will Christ come again? No idea. But I have hopes... What will 'heaven' be like? No idea. But I have hopes... and so on. Chances are I will be wrong on some of my hopes. But I still lose nothing.

I have finally accepted hope as a good thing. I hope you do too.

Us and them

I was raised with a very polarised view of salvation. You were either (a) a Christian and were saved, or (b) a non-Christian and were not. There was a clearly defined line which you had to cross to pass from one state to the other. Kind of like in this picture:Each black dot with a letter on it represents a person. If a person is to the right of the line, in the green zone (i.e. B, F and C), they are a Christian and are saved. If a person is to the left of the line, in the red zone (i.e. D, E and A), then they are not. The church I grew up in would try to reach out to those who were not saved, but were close, i.e. 'A', but would have little or nothing to do with those who were further away, i.e. D and E.

Over the years I've cone to a very different understanding of Salvation which is a lot more fuzzy in some regards. The line has become blurred. Indeed I'm not sure the line exists, as such.

Suppose person 'A' is slowly drifing right. At current rate of travel they will cross the line on Wednesday of next week. If they die on Tuesday they go to hell, if they die on Thursday they go to heaven. It can't work like that! I'm pretty sure God isn't like that.

And what about person 'B', in the green but slowly drifting left? In order to ensure their salvation, the best thing to do would be to kill them before they cross the line...? Nonsense! It doesn't work like that.

There is no line.

Steve Chalke's 'controversial' book 'The Lost Message of Jesus' touches on this issue. While he may not have expressed it in these terms, this is the gist of one of his points. It doesn't so much matter which side of the line somone is on, but rather their direction of travel is what is important. More like this:

Here the differnce between 'A' and 'B' is more apparent. Even though they are quite close, they are travelling in opposite directions. To use new testament teminology, I'd go as far as to say that 'A' is 'being saved' (1 Cor 1v18, 2 Cor 2v15). Indeed, despite being much further into the red, 'D' is also heading in the right direction and I wouldn't be too surprised if folk who died in a state like that - apparently far away from the Kingdom - will be found in glory.

'B' on the other hand is heading the other way. He is losing his salvation. And what about 'F'? There are a great many folk in the church who are neither growing in righteousness or apparently backsliding. They just pootle along. I wouldn't be surpriesd if it was to people such as these who Jesus said "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you." (Matthew 21v32)

What is the point of saying all this? To prompt us to widen our sights - we should not just direct our energies to 'evangelising' those just outside the church, but we should be aware that others, further out, may be more receptive to the gospel than we think. And also to note that we shouldn't let people be once they are 'saved'. We need to encourage all to be heading in the right direction.

My non-deconversion...

The Infidel Guy is re-posting many of his old radio shows on his podcast stream at the moment. Last week, I ended up listening to an old show that I had listened to over a year ago. I even commented on it back then. The show was an interview with an ex-fundamentalist (her word), ex-wife of a Baptist pastor. She 'deconverted' and is now an atheist.

When I re-listened to the show one thing struck me - she had had all the same doubts as me, all the same issues that I have raised on this blog. Yet she abandoned her faith as a result of the questions. I didn't.

Why is that? How can the same questions lead to different answers for two different people?

I keep coming back to the same conclusions that I commented on the first time round - it is the difference between head-knowledge and experience. For her, Christianity was entirely a system of belief, built on things she knew from a book. For me, there is much more to it than that, I only became a Christian when I saw the effects of God in people's lives. I know he is there, not from a book, but having seen and felt him.

Now I'm not saying, as many have said to her, that she can't have been a real Christian in the first place. What makes you a Christian? Well, the biblical answer (Romans 10v9) 'if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved'... As far as I can tell, she used to satisfy those criteria. But when she lost her faith in the historical accuracy of the bible, she lost her faith in Jesus.

When trying to get my head around the differences between her and me, I came up with this (probably not very good) analogy:

Strange as it might seem to us non-Americans, there are a great many supporters of President Bush in the USA. Many of them will never have met him; does that make them not-real supporters? Of course not. Now, with carefully presented arguments and evidence, it might be possible to convinvce one of those supporters who have never met the man that he is, in fact, an entirely fictional character - devised by the government to fool the people. Policy decisions are made by other folk in the administration and the face on the TV is just an actor. Someone who has never met him might be persuaded by this reasoning. However, if you tried that reasoning on somebody who had actually met him or knew him, it wouldn't work because their experience of the man would hold a greater weight than any body of evidence presented. Does that make sense?

I'm just saddened that the woman interviewed on the Infidel Guy show never actually experienced the real Jesus. Maybe she will yet.

Salvation on other planets?

This post is a bit more 'out there' than most of my musings, but please stick with me...

Larry Norman once sang these words:

"...and if there's life on other planets then I'm sure that He must know and He's been there once already and has died to save their souls..."

Song: 'UFO' from the album: 'In Another Land' (1976)

The bible was written in a time when the world was flat, the sun orbited the earth and stars were small lights that lit up the night. The very concept of other planets, let alone other planets capable of supporting life, had not yet been conceived. Everything in the bible relates to us - earthbound humans.

But what if there is life on other planets?

We know that 'Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God' (1 Peter 3v18). But does Christ's sacrifice on this planet atone for the sins of the whole universe? Or is it like Larry Norman says, that Christ will have had to die on all other inhabited (and fallen) planets to save them too?

I'm pretty sure that there are other inhabited planets out there in the universe, probably loads of them. Has Christ died loads of times?

Or is it like C.S. Lewis describes it in his 'Out of the silent planet' trilogy - where only earth has fallen and all other planets are in harmony with God?

I realise there is no way we can actually come up with a definite answer to this question, but I'm interested in the opinions of my regular readers (I know some of you read sci-fi, so you must have opinions on such things...), so what do you think?

---

My take on it is this - it must be a once for all sacrifice. If there are beings on other planets in need of salvation then Christ must have been incarnated there as well - at the same time - and all the various incarnations of him must have been crucified (or whatever the local execution method might have been) simultaneously. However, I don't hold to this opinion very strongly, I'm sure I could be persuaded out of it by intelligent reasoning... ;o)

Sin and Salvation

I just received a new comment on an old blog post. Rather than continue the discussion there, I've decided to start a whole new one here...

The anonymous comment said:

"All of the world's problems began when Adam and Eve broke God's law...that is what sin is, the breaking of God's law. I don't mean to sound condescending, but there are no levels or measures of sin, the bible says that our very best is as dirty rags, that is why His grace is through His sacrifice which He provided Himself...Read your bible every day and do what it says..."

The issue I have here is that the commenter (in general agreement with a huge portion of Christianity) is blaming all the world's problems on two people I really don't believe existed - or rather I don't believe the two characters described in the bible were two individual people. Perhaps there really were two people called Adam and Eve, but I am certain that they were not the first man and first woman and I am pretty certain that their eating of a piece of fruit was not the event which introduced sin to the world.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that sin isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that Jesus didn't need to die to atone for our sins, but I'm questioning the supposed origin of sin.

I've made this point before on this blog, but nobody commented then so I'll keep following this train of thought for a bit.

If we can't blame sin on two people about six thousand years ago, where did it come from?

If there really is no 'original sin' would it be possible (however unlikely) for someone (other than the Son of God) to live a perfect and sinless life? (By the way, how can we be sure that Jesus lived a sinless life? It is clear that he got angry and even cursed a poor defenceless fig tree for no good reason on at least one occasion - if we did this, would it not be considered 'sin'?)

Would such a person need salvation?

The bible makes it clear that Jesus is the only way for us to be reconciled to God. But who are the 'us' in this arrangement? All people or all sinners? Or are the two categories the same thing?

Any thoughts anyone?

I'm sure I had something more to say here, but I've forgotten. Maybe later...