Question: If Jesus was born and lived without sin, as we can see from these scriptures:
2 Corinthians 5:21: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
Hebrews 4:15: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”
1 Peter 2:21-22: “…because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.”
1John 3:5: “And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”
And his cousin John baptized those seeking repentance and forgiveness of sin:
Acts 19: 4 “….Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance.”
Mark 1:4 “And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a for the forgiveness of sins…
Then why did Jesus come to the Jordan to be baptized?
Mark 1:9 “At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.”
Jesus’ Baptism was important for several reasons. First, it pictures His death and resurrection. Second, it symbolizes the believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Third, it marks His first public identification with those whose sins He would bear. Fourth, the event was a public affirmation of His Messiahship by the testimony that came directly from heaven (Matthew 3:17).
By: netprophet on January 4, 2009
at 12:40 am
The last statement is the only one verified by the Gospel record, NET, and that is His Sonship, not His Messiahship. Paul makes comment on the 1st and 2nd reasons in Romans 6–but number 3 is on shakey ground.
Obviously, it can’t be for the remission of sins, like all those other people.
Maybe Chris is trying to trap us with semantics?
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on January 4, 2009
at 3:10 am
Or is that Shaky ground?
Timiteo Canyon Road is on Shakey ground, being built next to an earthquake fault.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on January 4, 2009
at 3:11 am
No trap, Bruce. Serious question.
Net I understand how his baptism is viewed and essentially agree. Butyour first answer could apply to all of those baptized – a symbolic representation of worldly death and spiritual resurrection. The next two seem to be strongly linked to John’s Gospel, which I don’t believe has Jesus being baptized at all. I wonder why John left that important event out.
If it can’t be for the remission of sins, which is what John’s baptism was for, then why did Jesus submit to it? Or is there another way of looking at his divinity and what that means in regards to his ‘fully’ human life?
I don’t think we can discount the irreligiousness of this event, either. Baptisms were already being performed at the temple by priests. What John was doing in the desert was very much outside of proscribed tradition outside of the religious leader’s favor. By participating in John’s radical ministry could Jesus also have been making a political statement?
By: Christian Beyer on January 4, 2009
at 10:47 am
Ooh. Good one.
Perhaps the answer is quite simple: Maybe Jesus had motives that He did not tell anyone, and being baptized was a part of this.
On the other hand, here is a more complicated explanation, based on my recollection of a course “The Kingdom of God” by Loyd Melton of Erskine Theological Seminary.
Some suggest that John believed he himself was the harbringer of the Kingdom of God, and this was the motive of the baptism.
Through baptism, Jesus was officially asserting Himself as the Messiah.
Some suggest that through the incarnation, Jesus’s humanity may have blocked his knowledge of self–Melton raises this question.
In other words, His humanity was so total that it was possible for Jesus to err. Not to sin, but to err.
It is difficult to come to grips with such thoughts, as they go against orthodox thinking.
This was one assertion in Schweitzer’s “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” That Jesus believed the Kingdom was soon to arrive, etc., but that He was mistaken.
Maybe the most logical explanation is that Jesus simply wanted to show His approval of John’s work, and that it was time for the real Messiah to be revealed.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on January 4, 2009
at 11:20 am
“It is difficult to come to grips with such thoughts, as they go against orthodox thinking.”
Good point. But sometime ago those who formulated what we now know as Christian orthodoxy had to grapple with these thoughts. It’s a shame that we often hesitate to do so ourselves because we have allowed others to think for us. (Present company excepted
)
OK, if Jesus had some other “secret” cosmic motives, does that mean that he had little or no consideration for the direct import of what he was doing on the immediate historical scene? Wasn’t his baptism sending a strong message concerning his perception of his own life and his repentance for it? Even if he was ‘faking’ it? (Which I don’t really take seriously.)
And if it was the pivotal moment that revealed the Jewish Messiah, how does that change the meaning of the baptism itself? Was the Messiah supposed to be without sin? If one definition of sin is that it describes an attitude that goes against God and not necessarily the actions, or errors that you mention, then one could see how Jesus might have erred but not been sinful. (If not, then he would likely have been very popular in town as the man with all the right answers; “Hey Jesus, what’s the weather going to be like tomorrow?”) Is this idea in some way disputing his divinity?
Or does it all go back to the virgin birth and his avoidance of “original sin”?
By: Christian Beyer on January 4, 2009
at 11:32 am
Chris, I am starting to be very confused by some of your comments on the subjects you post. As you know nearly all Scripture is subject to interpretation to some degree or another and it is unlikely for any two people to agree 100% on any give controversy, but if it is your, and your readers objective to find the truth of the matter then these debates are failing miserably. To simply debate for the sake of argument is a waste of time.
I personally believe that the Bible is a text created by men seeking the truth and being inspired by God to deliver a message. The same Spirit who inspired it also interprets it to the inspired reader in a spiritual manner received through faith. Thus we find truth to be a factor that is highly subjective and individualistic. There comes a point in ones search that they must build their faith and beliefs to an individually acceptable truth that is logically sound. Your flipping back and forth with statements like; “not that I don’t believe this or that, or I believe in this but others believe in that and that is just as believable as this. Very non-committal. This is what is confusing for me. I have no idea anymore what it is that you believe as far as God and Jesus is concerned.
One good example is when Jesus makes a direct statement such as, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father”, and I say that this is logical proof within the context of the entire Bible as to both the Trinity (in consideration of all the other passages that imply the same thing) and Jesus’ Divinity. This is my truth and if we share the same Holy Spirit it should be yours also. At least to the degree that there is much more Scriptural and logical evidence to back it up than there is to deny it. How can you ever have a healthy relationship with Jesus or the Scriptures if you are so non-committal and blown by every wind of doctrine that comes along? Remember what Jesus said about being lukewarm?
Bottom line… I’m asking if there is anything that you consider an absolute truth in your spiritual understanding? Anything that you are totally committed too, that you will stand by until proven wrong? If so please share it.
These comments are not meant to insult you or put you down or by argumentative
By: netprophet on January 4, 2009
at 5:17 pm
No, not a secret cosmic motive. Maybe he just wanted to be baptized–and at the moment of the action things became more dramatic than expected.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on January 4, 2009
at 5:58 pm
When Jesus came to this world people were being baptized, I mean it is a culture, so that’s it. I think the question should be why has man come to practice baptism or something like that.
I dont believe in marriage but me and my wife were wed twice! Maybe the priest was wondering what me and my wife were whispering. ["your right is my right, if there is no love just say so and there will be freedom" that the vow we made when we started together since there is no divorce in the Philippines.] The wedding was for the folks who demanded it.
By: rltj on January 5, 2009
at 3:50 am
OK, Bruce. But;
“No, not a secret cosmic motive.”
would seem to go against your suggestion that;
“Perhaps the answer is quite simple: Maybe Jesus had motives that He did not tell anyone, and being baptized was a part of this.”
This last suggestion implies that Jesus was not, at least in all cases, prescient.
By: Christian Beyer on January 5, 2009
at 9:33 am
Net, no offense taken. But I don’t see why you should be so distraught about what I might believe. It is unlikely to be precisely what you believe and I am unsure as to why this concerns you so. I think one of the problems with religion is an insistence that there always be a consensus on what some (not everyone) agree are the ‘essentials’.
I may come across as ‘non-committal’ because I am not as intrested in presenting my beliefs as I am in stimulating discussion. In this particular thread I am curious as to how different people might respond to the question I raised. My intent is not to question one’s personal faith but to explore the different ways people may look at God and how these ways relate to orthodoxy. To suggest the possibility that Jesus may have been repentant at the Jordan does not have to infer any lack of divinity, but only questions one particular way in which we see the paradox of him being ‘fully man’ as well as ‘fully God”.
Concerning the Trinity discussion, that post was not about questioning the Trinity but questioning the doctrine of Sola Fide. With all due respect, even your supports for the Trinity still require some sort of imaginative scriptural interpretations (the doctrine is not explicitly presented) and this seems to be at odds with the tendency of some who accept this doctrine but insist upon literal biblical readings. On top of this there are those, such as Bruce, who can persuasively suggest that there are elements of Trinitarian doctrine that are rooted in Greek philosophy. Not that this de-ligitimizes the doctrine.
In this context why is it necessary to make a proclamation of faith? Not too long ago, when I was a over-zealous, born-again evangelical, I remember pillorying my brother along these lines. Upon questioning he insisted that his faith was personal and he’d rather not discuss it at the time. I (arrogantly) told him that if he would not speak his faith aloud then he likely had no faith at all. Since then (only about 5 years ago), after having witnessed so many different Christians make so many confidemt, yet much different, assertions about their faith, I have come to a different understanding. Dogmatic proclamations that suggest that there is no room for maneuvering tend to discourage open and diverse conversation.
And this blog is just about the conversation, Net. I’m glad you are part of it and are glad that you can feel comfortable enough to speak your mind.
By: Christian Beyer on January 5, 2009
at 9:49 am
Ok Chris, all that is well and good. To test this proclamation you have made, let me say this. There is only one answer to “why Jesus was baptized” that is Scripturally sound, “to fulfill all righteousness”, Mt. 3:15. Everything else is conjecture or speculation and subject to interpretation.
John called Jesus the “Lamb of God” referencing both His Son ship and the Jewish ritual of atonement that required the sacrifice of an unspotted lamb. Jesus’ claim to fulfill this requirement once and for all is the foundation of Christian faith. John had prophesied to those seeking his water baptism; “but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire”, and that they would know the Christ by the witness of a dove descending from heaven unto Him. After Jesus’ baptism the heavens opened and a dove (the Holy Spirit, who repeated this at Pentecost with the Apostles) did indeed do this along with an affirmation by the voice of God saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 3:16/17. What more is needed to answer the question?
By: netprophet on January 5, 2009
at 1:46 pm
That is one very popular way of looking at this. And I don’t disagree but am trying to see how we end up getting there.
For example, that is what is said in Matthew, but not in Mark (about fulfilling righteousness, that is). And John’s Gospel, where the Baptist is calling Jesus the Lamb of God, does not have Jesus being baptized at all. Which is curious, I think. Why is that?
And what does it mean that his baptism was to ‘fulfill all righteousness’? Seriously, I don’t think that is as obvious a statement as you make it out to be. But then I’m a tad dense
.
By: Christian Beyer on January 5, 2009
at 2:04 pm
If not as obvious, implies you have heard another or have one of your own that makes it less obvious. Care to elaborate? I think my explanation was simple and clear. The gospels are by three different authors from three different viewpoints but they don’t contradict each other. They better complete the testimony. Don’t you think?
By: netprophet on January 5, 2009
at 4:46 pm
Net, I’m not trying to be cute here. I don’t really know what the “to fulfill all righteousness” means and until today never gave this particular phrase any thought. Like so many words and phrases used in English, particularly religious English, it seems that the meaning is taken for granted. I could Google it but I am interested in hearing what you say first.
By: Christian Beyer on January 5, 2009
at 4:52 pm
I can tell you what I think but it would be better if you discern your own meaning from this line of thought:
Jesus said that He came not to change the law but to “fulfill the law.” Prior to the law and His sacrifice, righteousness was considered acceptable to God. Fulfilling righteousness and fulling the law is fulling all that is required by God to be considered the spotless lamb that could atone for the sin that separated man from God and open again the fellowship that Christ provided. You take it from there.
By: netprophet on January 5, 2009
at 5:15 pm
When Jesus says that he does not abolish the law but fulfills it, what it means to me (my discernment) is that he shows us the only perfect example of what someone who is truly obedient to God’s law looks like. Being one with the Father, he does not posses the sin of self absorption and lives and dies in complete and total sacrifice to God as well as to God’s undeserving children.
Is Jesus’ sacrifice perfect or is he the perfect sacrifice? There is a telling difference. Likely it is both. But (I think) that there is often too much emphasis placed on the idea that Jesus is only the satisfactory scapegoat needed to compensate God for Adam’s sin, especially if we ignore the aspect of the example Jesus sets for us. If he is both fully man and fully God then we cannot dismiss his humanity.
And that is what intrigues me about his life, and the way he lived among his fellow Jews. Was he always aware of his divinity? Did he perhaps only begin to glimpse it at the time in which the Spirit descended upon him and God pronounced his favor? There have been apocryphal and generally discredited ‘gospels’ written that have gone far to suggest that Jesus used to perform (sometimes macabre) miracles as a child. I remember hearing these stories as a young Catholic boy and they have all the earmarks of mythological hero worship. Why is it necessary to see Jesus as having this dual nature all his life?
I think it is possible (and it often happens) when one’s view of God’s incarnation as Jesus tends to focus either too much on his divinity or too much on his humanity.
By: Christian Beyer on January 5, 2009
at 5:36 pm
There you go! I agree. Especially the last paragraph.
By: netprophet on January 5, 2009
at 6:22 pm
If you’d like to view my view of the Trinity check out my blog and let me know what you think.
Thanks Chris
By: netprophet on January 5, 2009
at 6:34 pm
Whew! That was close. I was becoming afraid that we might end up throwing food at each other.
BTW – did you catch that Rogue Minister (another blog friend) is also in the culinary field?
I will check it out and thank you.
By: Christian Beyer on January 5, 2009
at 6:40 pm
THE SYNAXARION (ABRIDGED) of the Morning service for the Theophany (Feast of the Baptism)
Reader: Today in the Holy Orthodox Church we celebrate the Holy Theophany, or Epiphany, of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. When our Lord reached thirty years from His physical birth, He began His teaching and saving work. He Himself signified this “beginning of the January 06 Festal Orthros 11 Theophany of Christ beginning” by His baptism in the River Jordan. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, “The beginning of the world: water; the beginning of the Good News: Jordan.” At the time of the baptism of the
Lord in water, the Father was revealed to the sense of hearing; the Spirit was revealed to the sense of sight, and in addition to these, the Son was revealed to the sense of touch. The Father uttered His witness about the Son, the Son was baptized in the water, and the Holy Spirit in the
form of a dove hovered above the water. When John the Baptist witnessed and said about Christ, “Behold, the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world.” When John immersed and baptized the Lord in the Jordan, the mission of Christ in the world and the path of our salvation was shown. That is to say: The Lord took upon Himself the sins of mankind and died under them (immersion) and became alive again (the coming out of the water); and we must die as the old sinful man and become alive again as cleansed, renewed and regenerated. This is the Savior and this is the path of salvation. The Feast of the Epiphany (Theophany in Greek) is also called the Feast of Illumination. For us, the event in the River Jordan illuminates, by manifesting to us God as Trinity, consubstantial and undivided. Also, every one of us through baptism in water is illumined by this, that we become adopted by the Father of Lights through the merits of the Son and the power of the Holy Spirit. To Him be glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
By: vernet1 on January 5, 2009
at 10:55 pm
Cool. Thanks DTW. Upon our illumination should we also hear God the father say; “This is my son (or daughter) of whom I am well pleased” ?
By: Christian Beyer on January 5, 2009
at 11:26 pm
Anyway, as I said, maybe Jesus was just trying to blend in (based on kenosis, Philippians 2:7) and simply appeared to be following the crowd. When He went into the water, things got interesting.
Maybe the fireworks, so to speak, were not planned.
By: logiopsychopathivorytowerdweller on January 6, 2009
at 10:24 am
A group of us were talking about this last night. Someone related that they had read in some lectionary guide that perhaps Jesus was making a point of being identified with those who John was baptizing. What was happening at the Jordan was garnering some notoriety and a fair amount of criticism from the religious leaders. As a future rabbi Jesus was establishing his radical bona fides.
By: Christian Beyer on January 6, 2009
at 10:38 am
An interesting question and one I’d never asked myself. Some signal event had to announce the beginning of his ministry and what better than his symbolic death and resurrection–also providing a nice symmetry to the rest of the story.
By: Carl Geo. Austin on January 7, 2009
at 11:47 am
Since baptism was already practiced before the time of Christ so it may be asked ‘Why were people baptized’ and there is the answer ‘Why was Christ baptized’.
It was already culture, a practice based on belief – religious belief.
I guess the fuss is because it was no ordinary person who got baptized. Or, did it have a special, extra ordinary meaning because it was the Christ?
By: rltj on January 7, 2009
at 3:34 pm
I think Jesus simply wanted to be identified and to show that he was one with the mass. No different from everyone else. The man.
By: rltj on January 7, 2009
at 3:45 pm
Carl, welcome. Yes, I agree that looking backward from after his resurrection that his baptism is, in addition to everything else, singularly symbolic. But what are some other reasons?
rltj makes a good point that Jesus may want to be identified with a certain religious group or mindset. But at the Jordan he does not receive a typical Jewish baptism. It is ireligious, it is not particularly respectful of Jewish traditions and customs. Baptisms took place at the temple and were performed by priests. John, who was not a priest, was in some respects thumbing his nose at the mainline religious people of his time.
By: Christian Beyer on January 7, 2009
at 4:28 pm
Have you considered Jesus was both sanctifying water as the means of our baptismal grace and instead of Himself being “cleansed” for He had no sin His baptismal act placed upon his shoulders all the sins of mankind past, present, and future and so on that day and that moment began His walk to the cross.
By: +Michael on January 7, 2009
at 5:16 pm
Hello, Michael. Welcome.
No, I’ve never head that before. That’s an interesting suggestion. I just visited your website – is this idea part of modern Catholic doctrine or is it unique to the autocephalous churches? And is there scriptural support for this, either in the canon or in the deuterocanonical books? As I said I don’t remember hearing this, but it is certainly worth considering. Which I’m going to have to do so more before responding.
By: Christian Beyer on January 7, 2009
at 5:21 pm
Actually what I wrote is an extrapolation of that which has been taught for many centuries by the Eastern Orthodox.
Baptism was practiced in antiquity for different purification rituals. The Israelites practiced this as evidence by John the Baptist ministry towards repentance and forgiveness of sins. All this changed dramatically when Christ came to be baptized by John in the Jordan River.
On one hand we have the revelation of the Holy Trinity (Father as the voice from heaven, Holy Spirit descending as a dove, and Christ as the beloved Son).
On the other hand, the meaning of baptism changes for when Jesus was baptized, He was in no need of cleansing because He was without sin. However, by Jesus’ divine nature He purified the waters of the Jordan and through them the whole creation.
And by stepping into the unclean waters of baptism He was also stepping into this world of sin and the beginning of His ministry of salvation and sacrifice on the cross.
By: +Michael on January 7, 2009
at 9:11 pm
I think:
1) Jesus wanted to rub elbows with all the sinners on the Jordan so we would understand he identifies with us.
2) That Jesus might have had a “Really? Me, God?” kind of moment when God said “You are my son, my Beloved, with you I am well pleased.” If anyone teaches us about humility and servant leadership, it’s Jesus. Even if he didn’t sin, he might not have considered himself worthy to be God’s Son. Hard to know with only one narrative of his childhood in the Scripture who Jesus really considered himself growing up. When he was a teen and his parents ordered him to sweep up the shop, was he thinking, “Someday you’ll find out who I really am, and then you’ll be sorry?” (I have teenagers. I know how the really human ones think.)
And maybe he really was sorry–that people wouldn’t catch the vision God has for the world. When we confess our sins in church, we’re not just confessing our personal transgressions, but those of a broken society, as well. (I’m Presbyterian–other faiths have different takes on this.)
3) If you compare the Mark 1:9-11 text with the other lectionary text for Sunday, Acts 19:1-6, the act of getting wet doesn’t really mean much if you don’t get Jesus. I don’t think John really knew what he was doing when he baptized, either, other than giving people a mechanical means to focus on God.
Interesting discussion.
By: Deb on January 9, 2009
at 12:39 pm
Deb, welcome a aboard!
I really like your take on Jesus’ baptism. You’ve done an amazing job of articulating pretty much how I see it as well. I think this is very balanced view of his humanity and divinity.
Some of us have been talking of the troubles with how some interpret Acts 19 1-6. I’ve heard people use this verse to question the authenticity of a different style of baptism; immersion, sprinkling, dunking, infant vs. adult. And of course there is the currently very popular idea that unless we begin to speak in tongues then it was not a true ‘baptism’. Your spin on this reminds me of Paul (in Romans?) saying that circumcision is meaningless unless the heart has been circumcised as well. Not to split hairs, but I would think this inward change often occurs before the outward act.
Thanks for adding to the discussion and please keep coming back. Meanwhile, everyone should visit Deb’s site. It’s worth checking out.
By: Christian Beyer on January 9, 2009
at 4:36 pm
We might also look at the fact that John the Baptist was a prophet. He had a rather large following of Jews who also did not respect the religion of the Pharisees. He foretold of both the dove descending on Jesus and in mat. 3:11 and Luke 3:16 “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire.” (Possibly a precursor of Pentecost?)
Now this in context with the times, was an affirmation announcing the CHRIST, who all the Jews where waiting to come and bring their promised salvation (establish His kingdom and rule), Has arrived on earth and is coming to John to be baptized as prophesied.
Mat. Chapter 3 is short and to the point and I think it says it all pretty clear, at least for the Jews of the time. Those that understood the prophets such as Esaias and Isaiah, who foretold of John himself and the Christ. Jesus actually needed to be baptized, both to fulfill Prophesy and to be identified as the Christ.
Just something to consider… makes sense to me.
By: netprophet on January 10, 2009
at 1:54 pm
Because Christ during his time was in fact a religious dissident in the eyes of the established religion which was Judaism. Apparently people everywhere he went were awed by should we say progressive religious teachings he gave.
He viewed the pharisees as statics and degenerates and they hated him.
There was no fuss when John baptised him at the river. No crowd like that around pop and rock stars today.
By: rltjs on January 10, 2009
at 3:50 pm
Paul says that no one can proclaim Jesus as Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit. That is great comfort to us Frozen Chosen, who would like some kind of warning, thank you very much, if you feel a bout of speaking in tongues coming on.
. Speaking in tongues, by the way, is in a list of many gifts Paul lists–not all of us have the same gifts.
I think it’s interesting to note that Quakers, for instance, don’t practice the “external” rite of baptism because they believe it’s an inward change that’s important.
I’ve always been a bit disturbed by people who believe baptism is a kind of a hex against hell–as long as you’re sprinkled, you’re good to go. That turns our salvation into something WE do, instead of something God does for us through Christ. If baptism doesn’t mean any more than that, then let’s just line everyone up at the water fountain and splash them as they go by, just to be safe.
I tend to agree that it’s the inward change (our baptism by the Holy Spirit?) that leads us to want to our faith public by baptism. Baptism is only the beginning of our spiritual life, not it’s completion. (In the really olden days, I’ve read no one was baptized until on their death bed. You’d sure hope you had a little warning of when you were going to die.)
Thanks for your nice comment on my blog. I have gotten behind on posting after being blindsided by Christmas and Advent and spending this week wrangling with very unruly sermon on Jesus’s baptism (which is how I found your blog, googling the question of whether Jesus really baptized anyone himself. Scripture is not very clear on that.) There are not a lot of forums out there where you might feel comfortable (if not down right flirting with heresy) wrestling with some of these questions. I’m glad to meet you.
By: Deb on January 10, 2009
at 7:29 pm
Net, makes sense to me as well. It is amazing how God can consistently be firing on all cylinders, isn’t it. The key is to make sure our timing isn’t off. (I know…that was awful, but I couldn’t resist
)
“Because Christ during his time was in fact a religious dissident in the eyes of the established religion which was Judaism”
I agree, rltjs – up to a point. Those religious leaders who he argued with did not represent all of the devout (of which he was one) nor did they represent all of the Jewish leadership of the time. There was not quite the differences of theological opinion that Christianity experiences today but there were more than just the Pharisees, Sadducee, Essenes and Zealots that we are familiar with. They were, however, the ones who were using God to prop up their own complicity in a domination system that ‘prospered’ them quite nicely.
By: Christian Beyer on January 10, 2009
at 8:07 pm
“Speaking in tongues, by the way, is in a list of many gifts Paul lists–not all of us have the same gifts.’
True. Personally I don’t see the gift of tongues in the same way that the Pentecostals have come to see it. My daughter’s future mother in law has this gift; she speaks about 11 languages. I don’t think, however, she was gifted with this at her baptism. Just as I don’t think that the gift of prophecy is the ability to foretell the future (or read the prophetic biblical signs that some see around us). In keeping with the Old Testament traditions (as well as that of Jesus) , Martin Luther King Jr. was a prophet, William Wilberforce was a prophet and (to me) Jim Wallace is a prophet. Someone who stands athwart history and pisses off the “powers that be” by pointing out where they are wrong. Not all prophets are Jews or Christians either.
“There are not a lot of forums out there where you might feel comfortable (if not down right flirting with heresy) wrestling with some of these questions.”
I agree. I have come to proudly (perhaps a little perversely) wear the mantle of heretic, so many have accused me of this. I am sure that I am not even close to being correct in all the ways that I look at things – Lord knows I have changed my mind many times over the years. Some say that this merely a lack of conviction. Of course, I disagree. I think this is the result of allowing myself the freedom to question what has been fed me by ‘authority’ and to discover my own way towards the truth. I am glad that you and others like you are willing to do the same, even if we do not always agree.
I firmly believe that unless we are all willing to engage in addressing the questions of faith with an open mind and within the context of our times, then Christianity will become about as relevant to the world as the myths of Greece and Rome.
Nice to meet you as well.
By: Christian Beyer on January 10, 2009
at 8:26 pm