;)
Beating A Dead Camel
Posted by Rastis in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
There has been no small storm of activity surrounding the Camel lately. Even the NYTimes is following the debate.
Let me again affirm that I am not attacking anyone personally with what I write. One is a mere google search away from discovering the plethora of critics who all say similar things. Recently some critics have switched from calling Rankin and others who support or use the Camel heretics, rather insisting that the method is arianism since the korbani plan of salvation is perceived as not emphasizing the deity of Christ. For the record, switching from “heretic” to “arian” is not much of change. I submit to you that those who call the Camel arianism do so either out of naïveté and ignorance or out of intellectual dishonesty.
Let’s level the playing field…
What would you think of a method of evangelism which looks something like this?
- Use hand selected stories from their tradition to teach the fuller meaning of Jesus
- Emphasize Jesus as Lord and Messiah [note the clever omission of deity] –the wedge here is not over Christ’s deity but over the resurrection.
- Call them to repentance and Baptism
Be careful in your judgment of such a plan because it is what Peter used after Pentecost. It is also what Stephen used, and Peter, and Paul. In all of the longest sermons in Acts, one is hard pressed to find the apostles preaching the divinity of Jesus. They always talk about him as the holy one, the anointed one, that one who was resurrected, the son of God, savior, the Christ, the messiah, Lord, and Judge. Was their preaching sufficient? Apparently so. When Paul does begin teaching “Nicene” Christology it is in the context of teaching the Church.
There is a big difference between giving a minimal but sufficient presentation of the Gospel and presenting a gospel which is contrary to the whole of scripture. Take FAITH for an example. I would assume that quite a few of you have used FAITH before. The divinity of Christ is not one of the tenants of the FAITH program [you big bunch of arians 
]. If the FAITH presentation were the stopping point, I would throw a big fit about it [methodologically, I do not like it and for the same reasons I do not use the Camel]. But the gospel is the first step for many into, hopefully, a life of discipleship. For some, myself included, I believe the discipleship process should start before conversion. I do not, and cannot, call FAITH arian primarily because arianism is not about what is not said, but about what is said. FAITH is not actively teaching that Jesus is not divine. Neither does it teach he is a solely created being. So what about the Camel? It is true that the Korbani plan does not emphasize the deity of Christ. That does not, however, make it arianism. It affirms his deity just as much as the biggest sermons in Acts do….
Many will make the claim that the whole gamut of Christian doctrine needs to be put upfront in the evangelism discussion with a Muslim. A researcher with the IMB who shall remain nameless for his security says that Muslims typically read the Bible between 3 to 5 times before coming to faith. I know that I did not even read it once through when I believed. How about you? I believed based on a simple presentation of the gospel. It is important to follow the example of Jesus and the apostles in knowing how far to go in teaching. Mark 4:33 says that Jesus spoke to them only as they were able to hear him. Go read through the first five or six chapters of John. There were many times where they made true but insufficient claims about his nature [prophet, teacher, rabbi, etc]. He even made them about himself. Rather than correcting them or teaching them more, he gave them what they could handle. He used bridging. He started from where they were to where he wanted them to be. Look at the feeding of the five thousand [Jn 6]. They were cultural Jews. I say this because he says that they do not follow the Law of Moses [Jn 7:19]. He did not bring them a new teaching initially. He started with their hunger and he fed them. That night he crossed the sea. Soon the masses followed. Having piqued their interest with the feeding the prior day, he used that as a teaching point. He began with something they should have known about: the Law. He bridged out of their discussion about the manna in the wilderness to talk about his true nature. He is the bread of life. Would belief in “the bread” save them? Vs. 58 indicates that it will: “This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
The Camel (and FAITH and other shorter presentations) does not affirm arianism. To call it arianism is to overlook the vast number of sermons and presentations which we make all the time, and at time “codify” which do not express the full embodiment of Nicene Christology. Perhaps we are more in love with strong words than we are with truth and love. For reasons of convenience, speed, and contextualization it is obvious why many presentations have opted for more minimal approach. That they do not express a fuller Christology does not mean that they are in contradiction to one. We often forget that the creeds were in response to heresy. To fail in presenting all that a creed does is not the same as vocalizing the various heresies opposed to the creeds. Can you imagine how long sermons and books would have to be if we were required to make statements concerning what we are not affirming?! That is absurd. I trust that when my pastor says that Jesus was “Prophet, Priest, and King” that he also holds to Nicea even though he may never articulate it.
I fear that if Jesus were to work with Muslims today that his methods would be decried as heretical er… “arian”. Back when Jesus did work in the Middle East, they did denigrate him just a few chapters later [Jn 8:48, 52]
Here are some questions to kick off the discussion:
Is understanding the deity of Christ necessary for salvation?
Is understanding the trinity necessary for salvation?
Is a “minimal” approach to the gospel acceptable?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
getting in the comments stream. I will be out and about; my paying job is making me work (imagine that). I will respond to all comments asap.
Brother Rastis,
1. No.
2. No.
3. What do you mean by “minimal approach?”
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
I think we should cut Ergun some slack. Remember that he is a strong apologist and a staunch defender of all things Christian Worldview. As such, he is prone to defend vociferously against anything that resembles the nose of the camel (and not just the C.A.M.E.L.) into the tent of orthodoxy, no matter how foolish that statement might be.
I think this is reflected in his “apology” to Jerry Rankin retracting his accusation of “liar” while continuing to assert that CAMEL is a lie. Like you, Rastis, I don’t think a lie is defined as failure to comprehensively articulate the truth.
I would highly recommend Caner read the chapter “Horrid Red Things” in C. S. Lewis’ _Miracles_. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=B51O4pc-KXoC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=horrid+red+things+lewis+miracles&source=bl&ots=QHFno0XV3U&sig=hQWzDaxih9gunCLyOX5dpYcp5Wo&hl=en&ei=Ft2gS_T2Do72NeTZgKwM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
FTME.
I would define a minimalist approach as being an evangelism presentation which is not full of all data on the subject. This means that most approaches are, in part, minimal.
For instance, when I look at FAITH or 4 spiritual laws, I don’t see much on the person and work of Christ. However, that does not mean that these two presentations are in opposition to a fuller understanding of the scriptures. The 4Laws tract is intentionally brief so that it can be printed in a small booklet and mass produced quickly and cheaply. FAITH is brief because they are trying to make it easy for a practitioner to learn.
Brother Rastis,
Then…
1. No.
2. No.
3. Yes.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
I think it is important for all people who speak for the church–or are all least perceived to be an official speaker for the church–to understand how people hear what they say, particularly when done on TV and radio. I was at the St Lewis convention meeting a few years back when Jerry Vines went after Muhammad. Everything he said was factually correct. But his grandstanding was not well received in the broader community–though the SBC loved it. Just because something is true does not mean that we ought to say it.
We act as if “if only the poor Muslims knew “…” about Islam, then their eyes would be opened.” The truth of the matter is that, typically, they already know it and us pointing it out amounts to saying “you’re fat, dumb and ugly.” For most Muslims, the barrier to Jesus is not intellectual, it is affective. This means that how we say things is as important, if not more so, than what we say.
And “Miracles” is one of his best! Thanks.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
I don’t see how a person could be saved if he/she does not understand the diety of Christ. Jesus says,
“I am the truth, the way, and the life, no man comes to the father except by me”. [John 14:6]
This is the verse that was on the scoreboard of the LA Colesium at the Billy Graham crusade in the early 1960s.
Brother Roger,
Brother Rastis references the Apostle Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:14-41 in his post above. Christ’s deity is not mentioned in this sermon yet many were forgiven and received the gift of the Holy Spirit after hearing it. This is not to say that as they continued in the Apostles’ teaching they did not come to understand the deity of Christ, but in the beginning it was not preached.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Rastis,
1. Yes, If Jesus is not God then why not just trust Mohammad?
2. No
3. The “minimal” approach must contain that Man is a sinner in need of a Savior. The Savior must be explained as having the ability to save.
As for your critique of FAITH. You seem to be using Jesus Christ as you would Tim Rogers. Rogers is my last name and that identifies me with the Rogers family located in the area I grew up. “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name. As a matter of fact Jesus was identified as Jesus of Nazareth. Remember, it was Andrew that said; “can anything good come out of Nazareth” ? “Christ” is the Greek word that that means “the anointed one” In the Hebrew “the anointed one” is Mesiah. The transliterated word Mesiah is our english word Messiah. That is the reason we refer to Jesus as “Jesus the Christ” or just The Messiah. If you remember within the FAITH outline there is a section on turning. The practitioner is presenting to the convert there needs to be a turning from and a turning towards. One turns from sin and self and one turns to “Christ”. While there is no point that brings about Jesus is divine there certainly is a presentation of “Christ” being the anointed one of God. Thus, divinity is tacitly understood both by the presenter and the convert.
As for the Camel method. It uses the point that the Koran speaks of Isa being born by Mary. Notice the difference and this is where the divinity of Jesus is denied. Isa of the Koran is a created being. Jesus was not created. Jesus was God before the Holy Spirit spoke Mary pregnant.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Roger,
Forgot to mention one other thing. Omission of a direct statement concerning Christ’s deity does not mean omission of his purity/sinlessness or exclusivity or messiahship, etc, etc. So, we can say that Christ is the way, the truth and the life and no man approaches the Father except through him and not touch on his divinity, though it is hinted at in that God himself is Truth and Life…
In fact, by simply proclaiming his purity/sinlessness one might inductively conclude that he is indeed divine.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Tim,
Two questions:
1. Could you please unpack how it is that a typical American understands that “The Anointed One” or “Messiah” or “Christ” is divine?
2. You seem to be denying that Jesus was born by Mary. Do you deny this as factual?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Thanks for the LINK to the NYTimes story; interesting indeed.
I hope many on this board and the NY Times will understand the Camel Method is not the only Baptist discussion in town.
Robert Parham and his http://www.differentbookscommonword.com is doing an excellent job with his documentary shown nationwide on many ABC affiliates and is having panel open to public discussions on the film in Houston/Raleigh Durham with many more in the hopper.
The scholars and community he brings to the discussion raises the level of the conversation considerably.
Of course “the deity of Christ was not preached” is under the assumption that the folks that were being preached to did not know the belief that the followers of the Way had: the deity of Christ. This further assumes that the audience were not familiar with the rumors floating around, and were totally unfamiliar with the claims of Jesus Himself (see John 8:58). Further this assumes that modern Muslims are totally as a group unfamiliar with the Christian doctrine of incarnation as it pertains to Jesus.
Somehow I am not buying that. Peter preached with the backdrop of Christ’s ministry having already gone before the people – even the pilgrims and proselytes in town on the day of Pentecost where not as a group totally ignorant of the preacher from Nazareth, or the claims by his followers about Him. While not specifically expressed in these passages (the deity of Christ) I do not know if one can make an argument that the belief of these followers were totally unknown by their audience. The audience of Muslims today are surely not totally unaware of the deity claims of Christ among Christians – specifically when the Q’ran goes out of its way to deny the divinity of Christ and the revelation of God in him.
By all accounts, one of the more effective witnesses in the Middle East is Zakaria Botros whose style is anything but CAMEL. He starts with the divinity claim of Christ in contrast with those who do not. I understand more than likely that foreign missionaries dare not take up his style in Muslim lands – he himself merely is on Television beaming into Muslim lands.
Rob
Interesting that Caner was kind enough to disable comments on his own site with regard to the press release in the NYT.
See: http://www.erguncaner.com/2010/03/13/press-articles-2010/
I agree with you, Rastis, when you say how we say something is equally as important as what we say. Early in January, our church’s missionary to Haiti was speaking about the work there and she shared a story about the country’s founding and how Haiti was the only country in the world which was dedicated at its constitutional founding to Satan. A short two weeks later following the earthquake Pat Robertson says the same thing we heard in church. The difference was, his was broadcast worldwide where he was derided in both the secular and Christian press.
It is interesting that not only was Robertson right, but that no one came to his defense, largely because of the way he was perceived to have said it. Equally as interesting is that our missionary reports thousands flocking to Christ in response to the crisis with churches meeting under tarps and growing by leaps and bounds. She is reporting a revival in Haiti since the earthquake and prays that it will continue. Just like Robertson speculate, she reports that spiritually, the earthquake was the best thing to hit the island of Haiti.
It’s not all in the “how” we say things, but there is a great deal in the “how” that can offset the “what.” Regardless of Caner’s motivations, the fact that this is reported out of context in the secular media does not speak well of Baptists.
1. No. In a sense, we do not “understand” Jesus’ divinity. Intellectually agreeing with the statement that Jesus was fully God should necessarily come out of discipleship, but that hardly suggests understanding any more than a child understands an airplane’s ability to fly.
2. No. Again, it should necessarily come out of discipleship.
3. Yes. This is really a moot question since your meaning of “minimal” is “essential points of the gospel.” The real debate is at what point does the Camel method make a minimal presentation of the gospel.
Tim,
Many people, unfortunately, do think of Christ as a surname. Your explanation of Messiah and Christ being understood as divinity doesn’t ring true for everyone. For the average white American in the Bible Belt, the Christian belief that Jesus is God is probably understood. But I don’t see anything in the Bible that necessitates that Jews understood the Messiah would be God. Furthermore, despite Rob’s affirmation, I don’t think that Christ’s divinity was necessarily understood by all who were there on the day of Pentecost (or in Paul’s discourse on the Aereopagus in Acts 17).
A short two weeks later following the earthquake Pat Robertson says the same thing we heard in church.
Actually, the problem was that he added a little tidbit about “ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other”. In other words, he was saying that he knew the earthquake was punishment by God. I mean, there aren’t at least a hundred other possiblities why God allowed or directly caused the earthquakes (tongue planted firmly in cheek).
I’ve got so many thoughts on this, I don’t know where to start…
I think I’ll start with your third question about minimalist approaches to evangelism. Although I recognize that, almost by definition, any approach we take is going to be minimalist to one degree or another, I am not a big fan of minimalist approaches in general, and feel their use has been a big hindrance to effective evangelism.
At the root of my concern is the oft-repeated mantra, we are called to make disciples, not converts. Even though we hear and say this all the time, that doesn’t make it any less true. According to Matt. 28:16-20, the call to make disciples includes, as a key (not minor) component, teaching them to obey everything Jesus commands us. I do not think it is a far stretch, hermeneutically, to include among these commands sound doctrine. In other words, in order to obey Christ’s Great Commission, we must have the ultimate aim of teaching the people with whom we share the gospel sound doctrine, and not just a few salient points, but rather the whole compendium of sound doctrine.
I think the “end-vision” we must have in mind in evangelism, discipleship, and missions (which we artificially divide into separate categories many times) is that expressed in Eph. 4:13–”until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Any evangelistic approach that tends to undermine and short-cut the full realization of the end-vision is, in my opinion, defective.
A question that comes to mind here is: What if we came up with an approach that would guarantee everyone, say, in Saudi Arabia, were to convert to Arianism, but never come to orthodox faith in Jesus as God? Would we take that as a victory for the Kingdom of God? Though it may sound extreme, personally, I don’t think so. Our “end-vision” is “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
Now, to get back to questions one and two. Whether or not it is necessary to understand the deity of Christ, or the Trinity, in order to make it to heaven when we die, it is definitely necessary to “reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
Now, this brings us to another question. Must we give the people we are seeking to lead in the path of discipleship the whole boatload all at once? I don’t think so. The book Sowing, Reaping, Keeping, by Lawrence Singlehurst, gives the following illustration. If you are trying to get a 5 ton load over a bridge that only supports 1 ton, you must do it in at least 5 different trips, carrying 1 ton or less each time. The reality is most people in the world, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, or Evangelical De-churched, are not able to support the whole 5 tons in one trip over the bridge.
This is the basic concept behind the Engle’s Scale. Every person we meet is at one stage or another in their journey of discipleship. Some have not yet reached the point of conversion, and so, they are at negative number growth points; others, after conversion, continue on in the journey of discipleship, to greater and greater positive number growth points (*whoever is reading this that is not familiar with the Engle’s Scale really need to Google it, and familiarize yourself with it). In any case, our goal is not always to bring someone from, say, negative 9 to 0 in a 30-minute gospel presentation. It is, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to try to determine where along the scale they are, and be used by God to bring them at least one step further along. Actually, when we try to bring someone too fast, from negative 9 to 0, I think we are in danger–as Keith Green pointed out in an article once–of performing “spiritual abortions.”
In any case, if I am making any sense at all so far, I think all of this underlies the problems with practically any minimalist or canned gospel presentation, be it the Camel, 4 Spiritual Laws, the Roman Road, or whatever. It fails to take into consideration all these dynamics. It may leave them at “0″ on the Engle’s Scale, when we must, if we are obedient to Christ’s command, take them ever further and further past that point. Or, it may try to get them to “0″ when the groundwork–either the intellectual understanding, of the affective element, or the conviction of the Holy Spirit–is not there yet, for them to make an honest life commitment to Christ yet.
Tim,
Thanks for joining the conversation. I find it interesting that your list of what must be believed in point three of comment 9 is devoid of any reference to Jesus’ divinity…
If what you say about the title of Christ being an indicator of divinity is true (and I would argue that it is not) then the Quran teaches the divinity of Jesus… It is replete with references to Jesus as “al-Masih” the Messiah. So you might want to be careful with that line of argumentation–People are going to think you are an “insider.”
David R,
Thanks for the comment. Love it!
I “over-blogged” in the last couple of weeks, so I’m trying to stay out of things, but I just can’t help myself.
1) The title of this article is brilliant.
2) I was under the impression that CAMEL was more of a preparatory, pre-evangelism approach.
Our approach to someone must be truth, but does not have to be systematic in detailing all truth. Any evangelism approach is going to have limited scope. You do not put an evangelism prospect through systematic theology classes first.
We do not have to explain all truth to those we evangelize, as long as we do not deceive.
Put me down for no no yes, too.
What can the lost person understand, WRT the Spiritual? Four things, as I see it (from scripture).
1) That God is. From the firmament.
2) Sin.
3) Death.
4) Righteousness.
The last three are what the Holy Spirit convicts of. I don’t see where Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would convict one of the trinity, or His deity. And since the natural man cannot (of his natural self) understand or know the “things of the Spirit”, I don’t see how those things which can only be known spiritually, can be understood prior to conversion and the indwelling Holy Spirit, other than those things God says He will reveal to them, or of which He will convict them.
In re David Rogers comment #17; would be fascinating indeed were he to panel and discuss his thoughts with Martin Accad, proff at the Baptist seminary in Beirut.
Four years ago Accad gave a most interesting series of lectures at Samford to the round praise of Timothy George, Tom Corts and the editor of the Alabama Baptist.
The Alabama Baptist Convention has a fraternal relationship of some sort with the Baptist Seminary in Beirut. Would be shameful if that became a victim of Ronnie Floyd’s task force; at same time question goes begging for more open discussion on these questions as obviously Accad entertains notions foreign to the Caners, and quite likely Rankin and possibly DAvid Rogers here on this board; though I am still thinking it through as I am trying to learn more and understand better.
Rogers thought on Arianism is interesting indeed; and how a hardline conviction would play in civic community where the Baptist hallmark of Separation of Church and State would be interesting for Accad, Rogers and Wake Forests’ Charles Kimball to pursue.
Great moment in Ethicsdaily.com’s Common Word at Andover Newton where the Muslim cleric asks Baptists for guidance in how to better develop notions of separation of church and state.
David Miller,
In the world of blogging you are a demiurge!
RE your second point. The most controversial part of the CAMEL is pre-evangelism. People are finally separating between his pre-evangelism to find a person of peace using Quranic bridging with his actual evangelism plan, the Korbani plan of salvation. It is the latter which is being called arianism for not emphasizing the deity of Christ.
It is interesting to note that in Paul’s summary of the essentials in 1 Cor 15, the divinity of Christ is not referenced directly. I think most of the apostles and Jesus talked about it metaphorically. These metaphors were understood to be actual claims, which is why they were wanting to kill Jesus every few chapters in John. It appears that workers in the Muslim world are not afforded the same courtesy without fear of being labeled as arians.
When speaking to the Jews, saying that Jesus was the Messiah most certainly was understood that you were saying that He was God.
Also, the Gospel is the virgin birth(Diety)…the perfect life lived(Diety)…the atoning death(Diety)…the resurrection(Diety)…and the ascension(Diety). That is the Gospel. And, we must repent, or turn from our sins to God; and we must put our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Uh hum….that’s LORD, or Master….and that’s CHRIST, or Messiah. Acts 20:20-21
David
How can a person be saved, if he doesnt even know who he is putting his faith in???????
C’mon, fellas.
David
David – What about people saved as children? How much theology do they need to know to be saved?
One of my colleagues is quite gifted in sharing the gospel with postmoderns and planting churches with them. Postmoderns tend to value relationships more than propositional truth. Evangelism with them in Canada is more effective with less “Four Spiritual Laws” and more along the lines of “Let me introduce you to someone who will change your life” — a relationship with Jesus. Since one of the common traits of postmodernism is the reticence to believe in “laws” and absolute statements of propositional truth, I asked my colleague once how he sought to convince a postmodern of the rather exclusive claims of Christ, such as John 14:6. My colleague responded, “I introduce them first to Jesus, then I let them hear it from Jesus Himself. Because they know Him and trust Him, they then believe Him.” Until they know Him personally they are not ready to grasp the doctrine. In fact, they are not even ready to set aside their prejudice against absolutes. But once they know Him and trust Him, then Jesus can change their way of thinking.
The 5-ton analogy is apt. Start with what they can handle, and through the process of relationship, “teach them to obey everything” He has commanded. I would hate to believe that someone may even accept the five tons of doctrine and still not know Him personally.
Rick,
Children have to be old enough to understand enough to get saved. That’s all a part in them reaching the age of accountability…that they’re able to understand enough to get saved.
I’m not saying that people have to have a theological degree in the Diety of Jesus, or in soteriology, either. But, they must understand some basic things in order to know enough to get saved. People must understand that they are sinners, in order for them to see the need to be saved. People must understand faith. They must know what repentance is. And, they most certainly need to know who Jesus is.
Listen, if they dont even know who Jesus is, then who are they turning to? who are they putting their faith in?
Kevin, but would you not agree that they must be able to understand some very basic things about sin, faith, and repentance; and about who Jesus is before they can be saved? I understand what you’re saying. I think I do. But, if I’m not, then tell me where I’m missing you. Because, before people can have a relationship with Jesus, they need to be forgiven of their sins, and they need to know who Jesus is. Right?
David
I’m googling to figure out if Rastis complimented me or insulted me by calling me a demiurge.
Volfan,
I believe that the kerygma as repeated numerous times in Acts presents the bare essence of the gospel (1:14-36; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:30-32; 10:36-43) of what the remainder of the NT clarifies. These common factors that the early church seemed to repeat over and over are: (1) Jesus came from God, the God of Israel, who made the heaven and earth. (2) Men killed Christ, so in some sense, all are responsible for His death. (3) Yet, Christ’s death was according to God’s plan — acting through Christ’s death to bring man to himself. (4) Christ was raised — conquering man’s last enemy, death. (5) God through Christ has sent the Holy Spirit to bear witness to what God in Christ has done for sinful humanity. This kerygma calls for an inward change from a person — repentance and faith (2:38; 3:19; [8:37]; 10:43; 11:18; 13:39) and an outward expression of that inward change — baptism (2:38, 41; 8:36-38; 10:47-48). This transaction gives the respondent at least two things, forgiveness of sins (2:38; 3:19; 10:43; 13:38-39), and the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:38; 10:44-47; 13:52) to transform the person’s life to make them a new person.
This is the basic gospel I present to everyone — even to children. If that is too much for them to grasp, then for whatever reason, they are not yet ready to receive the gospel. I don’t know how we can water the above message down any further and be true to the NT gospel. At the same time, I am reticent to add too much more to the basic message presented there. I don’t find expansive christological teaching in these basic presentations of the gospel. I am not sure that is even evidenced in the gospel accounts of those who found “salvation.” The gospels and the rest of the NT certainly explain in a much fuller sense who Jesus is.
It was a compliment.
I don’t know how much I could have articulated about any theological points when I got saved. I honestly think that’s not the real issue or problem here. See, all this talk about contextualization and adapting to cultures is honky dory but it really doesn’t mean anything. Paul tells us that no matter what the message of the gospel is going to sound like a load of baloney to people-”to the Greeks foolishness and to the Jews a stumbling block”. You can go Camel, Turtle, or my personal favorite, Bar-b-que and it doesn’t matter. The message that God came in the person of His Son to die to pay for sins and that we must repent and trust in Christ to save us because nothing we do is good enough isn’t going to make any sense to any person in any culture.
Therefore, why all the worry about Camel, contexutalization, and adapting to the culture. How about some good, old fashioned, “foolishness of the cross” preaching and let the chips fall where they may?
Joe,
Why contextualize? Because all of the writers of the NT did both in their writing and in their recorded acts. Jesus contextualized his message to the people as well. Look at the samaritan woman at the well in John, or the feeding of the 5000 a few chapters later. in fact, one could say that Jesus is God’s contextualized Word to us… The very fact of the incarnation is evidence that God practices contextualization.
Joe,
How about you go and live in a different culture for several years and try to communicate the gospel, and then come back and tell us about it?
In my view, contexualization is not about adapting the message, but the presentation of the message. I present differently to a child than an adult. I presented differently to the young adult who in desperation came to my office (because in a phone call with his sister she said “find a preacher”), who did not own a Bible, did not know John from Genesis, than the man who came to my office with questions because he had read the Bible through more than once. Yes, I adapted my presentation, but the message I shared was the same.
It sounds good to say “preach it plain and let the chips fall where they may” but there is a little more to it than that. Jesus used stories to connect with peolpe where they lived. Paul said “I have become all things to all people so that I may by all means save some.” The fine line is making sure that in adapting the presentation we do not change the message.
Steve in Montana
Brother Rob,
First,
You said:
Abuna Zakaria Butros is actually highly contextual and quite adept at appropriating the Qu’ran and Hadith in order to communicate with Muslims. In fact, he even demonstrates the triune nature of God and the divinity of Christ with the Qur’an and Islamic interpreters.
Second, with regard to your assumption that everyone around knew Jesus claimed to be God, I have yet to hear that theory in any of my readings and it seems quite foreign to the Bible. Would you care to share your sources?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother David (007),
You said:
I have never understood the Bible to say this at all. In fact, in all of my theological readings and conversations I have never heard anyone say such a thing. Would you please share how you came to this conclusion?
Second question for you: What exactly do you think someone has to believe about Jesus to be saved? In other words – What are the minimums to begin the relationship?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Kevin,
RE: comment 27 – AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! It is the same with Muslims…. when they encounter Jesus as revealed in the Gospels, they are transformed!! The best thing we can do is make the introduction!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Joe,
You asked:
First, to insinuate that contextualization is not necessary is utterly ridiculous. Who was the last preacher you heard preaching in Greek? Oh, wait, Jesus spoke Aramaic… I guess the New Testament authors were contextual too. Everyone contextualizes to one degree or another… it is simply good communication. And you would agree that we should clearly COMMUNICATE the Gospel… wouldn’t you? Now, you might think that the CAMEL method or FAITH goes too far, that is fine. But you cannot just slam contextualization unless you are against clearly communicating the Gospel.
Second, those (in this comment thread) who are promoting contextualization of the Gospel so that it is understandable are doing so, not for more converts, but because it is the biblical model. If it was good enough for Jesus, Peter, Paul and John… maybe we oughta humble ourselves and follow their examples.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Rastis,
Apologies for so many comment here, but it is about time I come out of hiding and this is just the topic to get me to do so!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Joe,
Per David Rogers’ comment to you about culture, my suggestion would be the Warlpiri of Australia. I would pay $100 to see your first attempt to teach through Deuteronomy 6:5. Then I would pay $200 to be a fly on the wall for your second go at it. If I had more, believe me, I’d pay more.
Rastis,
Unfortunately I don’t have time to add anything substantive that hasn’t already been fleshed out well enough, but thank you for bringing up several very important issues to our mission.
Also, I had been posting as abulydia, but I’ll stick with Patrick from now on. Sorry guys, just changed my mind on what would be best.
Middle,
The Bible says nothing about “The Trinity” but the principle is in its pages. I am referring to “common knowledge of the community” – unwritten common knowledge stuff that require no corresponding affirmation. I am questioning specifically if the knowledge of the Christians and their understanding of the divinity of Christ was present with audiences who heard Peter (in example)spoke. I say that the information, if not found word of mouth rumors, certainly was found in those who lived in Jerusalem who witnessed those events in that time – they were quite aware of it, if not then, later. In the main on this point my post stands on its own with no further need of clarification.
The Q’ran itself is self-contradictory as to the divinity of Christ. Botros himself has listed ten demands for Muslim clerics and authorities – listed number 1, “Strike out all Q’ranic verses that deny the divinity of Jesus and the revelation of God in him” i.e. Surah 5:72-73, 75; 4:169; 3:59. Correct me if I am wrong, but Botros confronts Muslims and deconstructs the Q’ran so that Muslims will read the Scriptures – your statement seems to me to be a bit disingenuous and certainly some interesting spin over the nature of how Botros approaches the problem. I am NOT suggesting that foreign missionaries living in country use the same approach that Botros uses. Botros himself utilizes technology in order to reach a maximum audience, and makes no live appearances in hostile territory.
Rob
Brother Rob,
Re: “common knowledge of the community” – I do not know how you arrive at the conclusion that those Peter was preaching to in Acts 2 knew that Jesus claimed to be divine… from my perspective there is simply no evidence for such an assertion. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would think that they also knew such tidbits as he was “a man attested to them by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in their midst” and that he was “crucified” and “killed” yet Peter did communicate these pieces of information to the crowd. Why would he repeat these things and not the divine nature of Jesus if it is essential to understand in order to receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit? Second question: Do you think preaching the Gospel as Peter did in Acts 2 (meaning communicating the same information) would be a good way to share the Gospel with a crowd of Muslims?
Re: Abuna Zakaria Butros – First, I am not spinning anything. Given that I consider contextual preaching as “communicating that Gospel message in a way that the hears can understand,” he is highly contextual being conversant and well studied not only in Qur’an and Hadith but also in Islamic commentary. And yes, he does challenge anything Qur’anic that is not also biblical… but, but, but he also appropriates the Qur’an, Hadith and Tafsir in order to communicate the Gospel when it is consistent with the Gospel. Click here and read or listen to all portions in his “Questions about Faith” series that deal with the Trinity and the Incarnation if you like… they are full of references to Qur’an, Hadith and Tafsir. Again, no one is saying that contextual is the same as dancing around the issues. Rather, contextual is about clearly communicating the Gospel message in word and deed.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
1 Corinthians 9 .. say verses 19-23 .. suggests to me that Paul engaged in what somebody today would doubtless suggest is “contextualization”. Sounds to me like it worked for him.
Joe,
You said in #32:
“See, all this talk about contextualization and adapting to cultures is honky dory but it really doesn’t mean anything. Paul tells us that no matter what the message of the gospel is going to sound like a load of baloney to people-”to the Greeks foolishness and to the Jews a stumbling block”. You can go Camel, Turtle, or my personal favorite, Bar-b-que and it doesn’t matter. The message that God came in the person of His Son to die to pay for sins and that we must repent and trust in Christ to save us because nothing we do is good enough isn’t going to make any sense to any person in any culture.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but did you hear the gospel? Did you understand that God came in the person of his Son to die for your sins? Did you understand the message of repent and believe in Jesus?
I’m confused about this since you said that it “isn’t going to make any sense to any person in any culture.”
So what happened in your case? Did someone contextualize the message in a way you could understand it or are you still in a state where it doesn’t make any sense to you?
Just trying to figure out if what you said makes any sense even to you.
David. as a practicing expert in these matters, comment #34 seems just a bit snippy to me. Sounds more like something I’d have said than you.
FTME,
Your post #39 illustrates the problem.
If I were to ask a fish what it feels like to be wet, he couldn’t tell me, not because he isn’t wet, but because he knows of no other way to be. For that matter, if we could describe to him what it was like to be dry, not only would he be horrified at the prospect, he would probably view it as one of the most frightening and unnatural things possible.
Asking Americans to identify areas where the gospel was contextualized for them yields the same sort of response. We cannot conceive of any other way for the gospel to be. If we do, we think it is somehow horrendous, evil, monstrous and grossly heterodox.
This is why I recommend reading “The Jesus Sutras” (My review is on our site here: http://www.ill-legalism.com/jesussutrasbrrp.htm and even though it is a little dated, does carry a kernel of my thoughts on the matter) as an exercise to strip the gospel down to the message and look at how it appears in another culture that never went through the controversies western Christianity went through.
For instance, what would Christianity look like in a culture that never asked the questions regarding the eternal sonship of Jesus or the nature of the trinity? I’m not saying they DISbelieve it, just that in some cultures, no one even thought to ask the question. What if they never wondered about the ordo salutis? Just as importantly, what if they asked questions and discovered answers to things we never thought to ask?
This is pretty much a ticking bomb as far as topics go, but what if a lot of what we preach and teach and believe is in part an accretion of historical answers to particular questions that led us down a path from which we’ve been unable to turn back while other Christians in other places explored different questions?
Anyone want to take that topic on?
We had a missionary to Myanmar come to our church and part of his presentation was to do a role play. He was going to play the part of a Buddhist and the volunteers were going to try and witness to him.
The pastor “volunteered” me. (Confession: I was arriving late to SS and had not even had a chance to sit down yet so I was somewhat at a loss as to what I had been volunteered to at first.) My witness consisted first of all of asking questions about life, the weather, things. He noted right off the bat that I was American and he leaped to the assumption that I was a Christian. This led me to ask him what he understood Christians to be. He replied with some things (mostly wrong, mostly exaggerated) and I told him that while it was not a complete view of Christianity or entirely accurate, I could tell he had done some homework. His biggest hangup as a Buddhist was the idea of sin (since there is no such concept in Buddhism). Since it was clear that he wasn’t going to respond to anything from that angle I turned the tables on him by asking him to tell me about Buddhism.
I asked if he was able to maintain a consistent life on the Eightfold Path to Enlightenment. He confessed that he wasn’t and that it was difficult. I asked him if he knew anyone that stayed on the Eightfold Path. Of course he couldn’t cite anyone. I asked him if he wanted to reach Enlightenment. He said he did. I asked him what if I could introduce him to someone who not only never strayed from the Eightfold Path and not only had full Enlightenment but he described himself as the Light of the World and his mission as coming to this earth to bring Enlightenment to all men. Would he want to meet such a man? (Full disclosure: This is an incredibly abridged version of the interchange. He tried to start any number of rabbit trails on side issues, but I kept bringing him back to what he believed and why.)
Perfect lead-in to Jesus. He said in all the churches he has been in he had never seen that approach. Usually people fumble around and find themselves stymied because they don’t know anything about Buddhism and those that do don’t know how to communicate the gospel in Buddhist terms. He said he was going to take that back with him to Myanmar and use it.
It was unfair of our pastor to spring me on the missionary, but it was fun. Also it was interesting to watch the audience reaction. This was a combination of all the adult classes and my college age kids were used to seeing this sort of thing. Caught some of the oldsters by surprise, though. This gives me great hope and enthusiasm for the next generation of Christians coming up that they will know how to contextualize the gospel when the oldsters wont.
We do not have to compromise the truth to contextualize it. It is just a matter of translating from the culture we know to the culture they know.
Peter, Martha, Thomas, and others referred to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God. FTME, that sure sounds like they all thought that being the Christ was the same as calling Jesus divine.
David
John 6:69
John 11:27
Acts 2:36…and remember, the Jews looked upon the Messiah as the Son of God, or God the Son. Peter preached it.
David
Brother David (007),
You initially said:
I asked how you came to the conclusion that <emJews understood Messiah to mean divine. This is a discussion about evangelism, so we are talking about unbelieving Jews hearing Jesus preached as the Messiah understanding this as a claim to divinity. Now you gave us a nice list of believers whom you think considered Jesus to be divine… how about you now share with us how you came to the conclusion that “When speaking to the Jews, saying that Jesus was the Messiah most certainly was understood that you were saying He was God…”
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother David (007),
Now, let’s move on to just what those first century Jews who were steeped in the Old Testament understood the term Son of God to mean. You are here saying that it meant divine. Does this mean they thought Adam, angels, the nation of Israel, all those keeping the Mosaic covenant, Solomon & David were also divine?
It could be that because we have grown up in a rich christological environment that we make certain assumptions when reading the text. God progressively reveals Himself throughout the Bible. The culmination is “these last days” in which “He has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he uphold the universe by the word of his power.” He is “the image of the invisible God” if we have seen Jesus we have seen God. Clearly not what your average first century Jew had in mind when he heard the term Messiah. Many did eventually get it, but it was after being introduced to Jesus and his life and teachings.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Rick,
You said:
I have had this conversation four times this week. The Gospel answers the questions that all societies/cultures are asking. But we prefer to go tell them what our questions are and how the Gospel answers our questions. When we humble ourselves and attempt to understand their questions, then they share their questions and we can search the Scriptures for the answers to those questions burning inside of them… and the Gospel truly is Good News.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Robertson McQuilkin tells of the man fishing off a bridge. When another man asked him how many he had caught, he responded that he had not yet caught any. When asked what the “fisherman” was using for bait, he replied, “Blackberries.” “But fish don’t like blackberries!” The fisherman replied, “But I love blackberries.”
We might catch more men for Christ if we answer the questions the people are actually asking rather than the ones we want them to ask.
Rick – although I appreciate your efforts in trying to build a bridge to Buddhists, as someone who works with Buddhists I felt the need to comment. It is quite inaccurate to refer to Jesus as someone who “never strayed from the eightfold path.” The eightfold path revolves around following the basic principles of Buddhism, obeying the commandments of Buddhism, mind control and the 8th step – a mystical state in which one realizes intuitively the emptiness of all things – this last stage involves the mastery of occult powers, etc. This would be a very dangerous “path” to go down either in entry strategy or evangelism and would be very confusing. We definitely use things to contextualize and communicate the gospel in a way the people understand. I think this goes back to the very point of the post related to the camel method, (which I think is great to use as an ENTRY strategy – which is its purpose). We are always looking for how to communicate the gospel IN A WAY THE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND! If I have used all the fancy religious words, but the people haven’t heard the gospel, have I really presented the gospel?
FTME
Great stuff. Thanks for stirring the pot in my absence. It is good to have you back in action; I think you have a lot to add.
Well, when people refuse to see the evidence that is clearly put before them, what can else can you say?
Continue on in your wrong presentations of the Gospel, and let’s just hope and pray that God will use you and it in spite of your weak, errorneous proclamation of the Gospel.
David
PS. What kind of Jesus are you proclaiming to these people if He’s not the Son of God?
Rick, that is an awesome story about getting punked in Sunday school. Thanks for sharing. Evangelizing someone who does not hold to a basic cultural-Christian/western worldview is a big stretch for a lot of people. Just try presenting “eternal life” to someone who believes that existence is part of the problem…
We had a pastor put a small group through an evangelism course where he required us to write out the gospel in less than five minutes and without using Romans. The point was to teach us how much we rely on one system. I love it that the early apostles preached the gospel primarily out of the OT
David,
no one on here has said that he is not the son of God. That is the problem with your logic, to fail to say something is not the same as affirming the opposite.
If you truly hold that belief and then read some of the presentations in Acts, then you are going to wind up condemning many authors of scriptures if you are willing to look at it with open eyes.
Brother David (007),
Assuming your response in comment #56 is directed at me…
Thank you for demonstrating the weakness of your assertion with a refusal to offer evidence in support of it. The assertion being that first century Jews (not believers) understood the coming Messiah to be divine.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
All,
since we are moving into Buddhism a little, here is a link which gives a short description of the eightfold path:
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html
Anna,
Thanks for joining the conversation. Does your security level allow you to tell us where you are just for context?
I don’t think I would want to use their definitions to the terms, but redefining their terms can be a useful tool if they understand we are going somewhere new. I actually heard someone do this in the Islamic context with the pillars. The Muslim assumed that this man’s religion was weak since he didn’t have any pillars. They started going pillar by pillar. The man gave his version of the pillars to the Muslim who now had a new respect and more open ears to hear about this “new” religion. [one example would be "We pray five times a day, but in your religion you do not pray" "Are you kidding? you only pray five times a day?! We pray without ceasing!"]
Do you think such a re-appropriation of terms is legitimate?
Brother Rastis,
Glad to be back, but I will be out most of the day.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Do yall honestly think that the OT Saints had no idea of the Trinity? Do you honestly think that the teaching of the virgin birth in Isaiah would not make them understand that the Messiah was the Son of God? If not, who’s Son would He be? When the Messianic Psalms talk about the Messiah, and that He is God…the eternal King…that they didnt understand that the Messiah would be the Son of God? Do you honestly think that the Jewish leaders wanting to kill Jesus for all the statements He made about being the Messiah, and equal with the Father, means that they had no understanding whatsoever that the Messiah would be the Son of God?
Again, I ask you, what kind of Jesus are you leading people to, if you dont explain to them that Jesus is God, who came to the Earth as a man, so that He could die in our place?
You fellas are walking on very, very dangerous ground in your attempt to embrace the Camel and contextualization.
David
David,
1. Neither I nor FTME [and I am pretty sure that no one in this thread] use the Camel
2. Lots of us are concerned with the level of “drama” surrounding the discussion and would like to see it go down a notch or two.
3. Lots of us react when people make accusations concerning heresy, lying and arianism. Particularly when these accusations, if applied consistently, would condemn the writers of the scriptures, most pastors, and most seminary proffs [since at points we all appropriate a particular facet of christology to teach a certain point without explaining the full embodiment of that theology. According to the people who are making the accusations, omission is the same commission].
4. we all affirm that the NT believers affirmed the deity of Christ.
5. We all ourselves affirm the deity of Christ
6. We affirm that both the deity of Christ and the Trinity are in all of scripture. However, the average Jew in the first century did not understand either doctrines. If it was so clear, then why did Jesus and the NT writers spend so much time explaining it to them? Jesus and the author of Hebrews, in particular, spent time explaining some of the messianic psalms. If it was common knowledge, that would just appear redundant and unnecessary.
7. Would you please provide some source, any source, to back up your claims that any of the titles for Jesus bore specific and obvious divine connotation in first century minds, Jew or Greek? I resound what FTME said: I have never read a systematic theology, NT survey, OT survey, commentary, Bible dictionary, etc, which would affirm what you have said concerning the titles. [I am not saying that we cannot take a "deeper" look at certain passages to understand them that way, but I do not think that the commoner on the street understood that--hence the necessity for spirit filled revelation to explain it to them]
You need to read my comments #49 and 62 again. What else can I say if you just shrug those off?
David
Volfan,
I have appreciated debating you in the past, but your lack of candor in exposing your ignorance of Jewish perceptions of the Messiah is quite unbecoming of you.
Here is Matthew 22:41-46: While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’ If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
You asked, “Do you honestly think that … when the Messianic Psalms talk about the Messiah, and that He is God…the eternal King…that they didnt understand that the Messiah would be the Son of God?”
Evidently from this passage, they didn’t understand that the Messiah would be the Son of God, that is, deity. This wasn’t just some uninformed Jew who had no clue, but a group of the religious elite, Pharisees.
You also ask, “Do you honestly think that the Jewish leaders wanting to kill Jesus for all the statements He made about being the Messiah, and equal with the Father, means that they had no understanding whatsoever that the Messiah would be the Son of God?”
The problem is, if the Jews believed that the Messiah would be deity, wouldn’t they be upset if a Messiah claimed not to be divine? Instead, they determined Jesus couldn’t be the Messiah precisely because he claimed deity.
We’re not claiming that no one believed Jesus was divine or understood him to have claimed so. That’s why he was crucified. But we are claiming that a Divine Messiah was a foreign concept to most Jews of the time (especially the religious leaders) and Jesus’ divinity is not necessarily understood by the converts when they first believed, though it most certainly came afterwards (with the exception of Gnostics and people in the same line of thinking as Arius).
Brother Rastis,
Sorry that I left the conversation yesterday, but ministry duties called. Because this stream has taken the interest it has, I will just begin by answering your two questions. I know others may have asked me questions, but I only have time to answer these two and I will check back later.
1. Could you please unpack how it is that a typical American understands that “The Anointed One” or “Messiah” or “Christ” is divine? The typical American understands that God is God and Jesus is God. I encourage you to try and disprove this if you would like. Let me make it simple for you. In Sturgis, SD every year there is a huge biker rally. That little town swells to over 20,000 for this rally. There are many various motorcycle gangs there. I would encourage you to go and find a chapter of the Hell’s Angels and tell them that Jesus is not God. You would be surprised at their response. Or, just go out to California and go to the South Central LA. Find either the “Bloods” or the “Crips” and tell them that Jesus was only a man and he really is not God. I honestly do not encourage you to do this, but what I am saying in this convoluted analogy is even the most vile sinner knows that Jesus is God. I was asked to leave a home one evening because I asked this biker who was a member of the Hells Angels “why he was rejecting Jesus”. He responded that he believed in God and has never rejected him. You and I know that he was, but that is not the point. The point is that he saw Jesus and God as one.
2. You seem to be denying that Jesus was born by Mary. Do you deny this as factual? I have gone back and re-read my initial reply. For the life of me I cannot see where you can read that I have denied Jesus was born by Mary. I openly stated that the difference in the Koran and the Scripture is that Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Most Muslims, when you speak of Mary and Jesus, believe the God has sex with Mary in order for Jesus to be divine. Thus, they believe the Isa of the Koran is a created being.
Blessings,
Tim
PS. Jesus being born by the Virgin Mary is a factual event. However, the Koran’s rendering of this is not what makes it factual.
Isaiah 9:6….The Messiah is called what? By the OT Saints….a passage that all the Jews would know….
Isaiah 40:3…prepare the way for who? The Lord…your God….the Messiah.
Matthew 1:23..which is a quote of Isaiah 7:14…His name will be Emmanuel, or GOD WITH US. Do you think that the Jews of Jesus day and Peter’s day didnt know what this verse said, and couldnt understand what it taught? REally?
David
Andrew,
It was something that they had to be reminded of, and they had to be reminded of many things about the Scriptures due to their lostness. Jesus had to remind the lost, religious leaders of the Jews about many things of the Scriptures, and how they spoke of Him, due to their spiritual blindness. True. You are right.
But, the OT Saints are another story. Saved Believers are another matter. Yes? Would OT Saints, who would be able to see what the OT taught, not see that the Messiah was the Son of God? That He was part of the Trinity? Divine?
But, Andrew, your point really proves my point…that the witnessing of Jesus did point out the Diety of the Messiah, the Christ. That it was important for lost people to understand that Jesus is Diety in the witnessing that we do. I do believe that the Apostles were telling the lost Jews, and the Gentiles, that the Messiah was the Son of God…that He was divine…in their proclamation of the Good News.
Again, I say, that any Gospel that leaves out the Diety of Jesus is not the Gospel. Rastis and FTME, I’m not asking whether you believe in the diety of Jesus, or not. I’m saying that a lost person needs to understand that God came to Earth as a man thru a virgin, so that He could die for our sins. If you dont preach that, then what kind of a Jesus are you preaching? What kind of a Gospel are you proclaiming?
David
Brother Vol,
“Again, I say, that any Gospel that leaves out the Diety of Jesus is not the Gospel.”
Excellent! We use wisdom as we get to the point of explaining the essential of Christ’s diety.
The one sentence that you have given….sums it up.
Blessings,
Chris
I’m not rastis or FTME, but I would guess it’s the same gospel in Act 2 which mentions neither virgin birth nor deity, Acts 17, the Philippian jailer, etc.
Volfan, and others in the discussion with Volfan,
1. Can we not all agree with the illustration I give of the 5-ton bridge in comment #17?
2. Can we not all agree that the deity of Jesus is indeed included in the metaphorical 5 tons we eventually need to get across the bridge?
3. If so, does it really matter if the truck-load which contains the deity of Jesus is included in the first truck-load we take across the bridge, as long as we eventually get around to taking that particular truck-load across?
4. In my favorite gospel presentation for the context in which I worked with mostly nominal Roman Catholics in Spain–the Christianity Explained course–the very first lesson is on “Jesus, The Son of God.” For the context in which I was working, I felt this was appropriate. It was beginning with a point (and a necessary point, at that) on which there was likely mutual agreement. The point about salvation by grace alone and faith alone, which was a little harder pill to swallow for people from that cultural context, comes in lesson 4, not lesson 1. Once again, in that particular context, from my point of view, that was a good thing. But, it did need to be covered eventually. And, it needed to be covered in a clear way that was understandable to all.
5. If I were working in a Muslim context, I am not sure the Christianity Explained course, as it is laid out, would be the most effective gospel presentation. I think it may be better to deal with the various aspects of the gospel in a different order, and to perhaps emphasize certain aspects that dealt with the issues in their worldview more than other aspects. That is what cross-cultural missions is all about, to a certain extent: preaching and explaining the same gospel, but in a way that makes sense to them, and in a way that will help them to pay attention, and open themselves up to it, and the person and power of Jesus.
If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, it is essential that Jesus Christ is God. I get what everyone is saying about “mentioning” or “not mentioning” the “words” that Jesus is diety, but I would think that most everyone in the string will at some point begin to explain His (Jesus) diety as you disciple.
It seems most folks are trying to determine how and when…..
Andrew,
Also, when Jesus was talking to a Pharisee…lost, religious leader…about the new birth, He told Nicky in John 3:10,”…Are you a teacher of Israel, and you dont know these things?” It was something he should have known…from the OT.
The same is true about the Messiah being the Son of God. Their lostness led to their spiritual blindness concerning what the OT taught. You are very correct. And, the fact that Jesus was trying to help them see these things…about His diety…that He was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God….that He was equal with God the Father…should tell us something about our witnessing to the lost.
Rick,
In Acts 2:30, when Peter said that God would raise up Christ to sit on His throne, what do you think that said about the Christ, or the Messiah? which, of course, Peter declares is Jesus of Nazareth? The whole sermon by Peter in Acts 2 is declaring that Jesus is the Messiah, and that He is diety. I really dont understand how you can not see this.
Also, when the Jailer was told to believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, what do you think that word “Lord” would tell the jailer? What do you think that Paul meant by that title?
And, in Acts 17, when Paul was preaching at Mars Hill, and he told them that he could tell them who the unknown GOD was…the Creator And then, Paul goes on to tell them about Jesus being resurrected from the dead….well, dont you think that Paul was stressing the diety of Jesus to those Greeks before they cut him off by their resistance to hear anything about a resurrection? It sure does look like Paul was talking about GOD…Diety…when he was talking about Jesus here.
David
As far as the OT saints are concerned, I don’t think that any of us are qualified to say what they did and didn’t believe about the Messiah, and I don’t think that it really matters, unless you believe part of Jewish proselytizing before Christ had to include a reference to a divine Messiah for someone to become united to the Jewish community.
Do you think that Enoch or Noah understood the promise of the woman’s seed crushing the head of the serpent to be a promise that God would come to earth as a man to die as a sacrifice for their sins? I doubt they had much of a clue.
Though dealing with a different topic, this verse from Daniel 12:8-9 is appropriate: I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?”
He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.” Daniel was basically told that he wasn’t going to understand it because it wasn’t for him to know.
The OT saints didn’t understand everything that they prophesied and wrote down, and we have no way of knowing how Isaiah, Moses, David, or others understood the prophecies. Likewise, there is no way to ascertain what the OT saints believed about God in terms of Trinity, though it is possible.
Thus far we’ve established that these two statements are incorrect:
#24 When speaking to the Jews, saying that Jesus was the Messiah most certainly was understood that you were saying that He was God.
#62 Do you honestly think that the Jewish leaders wanting to kill Jesus for all the statements He made about being the Messiah, and equal with the Father, means that they had no understanding whatsoever that the Messiah would be the Son of God?
Continued,
Interesting. It seems that, despite their statements that Jesus was the Son of God, they didn’t quite grasp that meant divinity, or “God himself,” since we have statements like these:
After Martha’s affirmation that Jesus was the Son of God, she apparently didn’t think that he could raise the dead, John 11:39: “Take away the stone,” he said.
“But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.”
After three years together, one of Jesus’ closest friend says (presumably on behalf of the other 11), John 14:8-9: Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
David Rogers,
I’m not against all contextualizing. I agree that we must contextualize to some degree. Most assuredly, I would talk to a child different than an adult, when witnessing. And, I’m all for playing different styles of music in an attempt to reach a different kind of crowd. I understand that in some places a Pastor would need to wear a nice suit and tie, and drive a nice car; while wearing jeans and driving a Harley would be better in some places. Here, in my world, I wear nice, casual shirts and kakis, and I drive a pick up truck…which makes me fit in real good.
But, I do believe that some people go way over the line in trying to contextualize. Whether that be using the Camel, or preaching shallow, self help, Oprah Winfrey, feel good messages, instead of preaching and teaching the Bible. There are some people that go way over the line of being sound and wise and true to the Bible and good sense, in their attempt to contextualize.
David
Lastly (to go with #74 and #75)
You also said, “But, Andrew, your point really proves my point…that the witnessing of Jesus did point out the Diety of the Messiah, the Christ. That it was important for lost people to understand that Jesus is Diety in the witnessing that we do. I do believe that the Apostles were telling the lost Jews, and the Gentiles, that the Messiah was the Son of God…that He was divine…in their proclamation of the Good News.”
Jesus did affirm His own deity, yes. And I agree that in the Matthew 22 passage and the parallel passages He was trying to lead the Pharisees to that conclusion (or at least to confuse them, which seems to be what happened). I also agree that it is important to show that Jesus is God when we witness. No one has denied this. Likewise, I agree that the Apostles were teaching both the lost and the saved about the deity of Christ, but it is not readily apparent in their recorded sermons. That doesn’t mean they didn’t touch on the subject, but I would hardly say that it was understood or a given, as you assert, and I don’t see from the Bible that having a concrete understanding of the divinity of Christ was a prerequisite for saving faith, though it should be explained and believed.
Volfan,
Okay, good. Maybe we’re making a little progress here. I wouldn’t have expected you to say anything else here. And that is a good thing.
Now, do you also agree that, at times, a helpful method of appropriate contextualization of our gospel presentation is to change the order of the essential elements of the gospel?
In other words, do you recognize the legitimacy of sharing part of the gospel in one presentation, and reserving other parts of the gospel for another presentation?
Andrew,
People in the OT were saved just like people in the NT time are saved…by grace thru faith. While we look back at the atoning death of Jesus on the cross; the OT Saints looked for a coming Messiah, who die for their sins. While we know His name…Jesus….the OT Saints did not.
Even in the days of Adam, the OT Saints were taught that a blood sacrifice was required to cover their sins. And, they believed God, and it was accounted to them for righteousness. Also, what do you think the whole ordeal with Abraham and Isaac on the mountain…with Abraham ready to sacrifice his own son, before God stopped him and provided a ram, was telling them? What about Abraham being glad to see Jesus? that he rejoiced in being with the pre-incarnate Christ Jesus? What about the sacrificial system…in the temple..as taught by the OT? What did it say about a Messiah coming to die?
I believe that the OT Saints knew a lot more than what some people give them credit for.
David
David Rogers,
I do agree that approaching people is different for different people. No doubt. Presenting what part of the Gospel is dependent on what some people are ready for….no doubt. But, for some people to say that the Gospel can be preached, and people can be saved, without people knowing the Diety of Jesus, is not right. It’s wrong.
Again, what kind of Jesus are they accepting, if He’s not God?
David
Volfan,
When were the apostles saved?
David,
My point was not what I thought about the passage, but what the passage said. It is clear from your arguments that there is no direct unambiguous statement of the deity of Christ along the lines of any of the historic creeds.
Yes, Peter affirmed his Messiahship. Christianity argued about what this actually meant for centuries afterward until finally drafting a creedal statement that was unambiguous.
And if Paul was “stessing the deity of Christ” then he did it in a pretty slick way because he did it without explicit language.
Bottom line: Your objection to the camel method is groundless because if we apply the same arguments you use to support the mention of the deity of Christ in Peter and Paul’s teaching, then the camel method meets the criteria you’ve outlined. It affirms the Messiahship of Jesus, which by YOUR description, is sufficient to affirm the deity of Christ. It discussed the resurrection of Jesus which by YOUR description alludes to the deity of Christ. Therefore, using your criteria, the camel method stacks up as a method similar to that used in the NT.
Can you please show me how it does not?
Andrew,
It sure looks to me like some people in here were saying that people didnt have to know that Jesus is God, in order to be saved. It sure does seem to me that there are some people in this comment thread, who think that it’s not important that the lost be told about the Diety of Jesus…that people dont need to know this essential fact about Jesus. If people in this comment thread, and from the OP, arent saying that people can be saved without knowing who Jesus was, and that it’s not important to tell the lost who He was and is; then I must not be able to read and comprehend at all.
Again, I have to say it….what kind of Jesus are these people supposingly putting their faith in, if they dont know that He’s Diety?
David
Volfan,
If anyone here is saying that the deity of Jesus is an optional part of the gospel, that you could just as well get by with it, or without it, I sure missed that. And, if anyone is saying that, I certainly do not agree.
However, what is in question, at least as I understand it, is exactly when and how do we take that particular truck-load over the bridge, if we want to see Muslims come to faith in Christ, and come to be, in God’s time, full-fledged disciples of Jesus.
If I am misrepresenting anyone here, I would sure like to know it.
David asked:
Again, I have to say it….what kind of Jesus are these people supposingly putting their faith in, if they dont know that He’s Diety?
Andrew quotes John 14:8-9: Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
So let me put it to you, David:
1. Was Philip saved at this point?
2. It is clear that he did not believe Jesus and the Father were one because he asked Jesus to show them the Father.
3. What kind of Jesus are these people (i.e. the 11) supposingly putting their faith in, if they dont know that He’s Diety?
rick
Rick,
If you cant see what I’ve already shown you, I’m not sure what else I could say to you that you would accept. I dont think there’s anything that I could say to you, or show you, that you would accept.
I mean, I just showed you in Acts 17 where Paul was telling the Greeks on Mars Hill that the unknown God…the Creator…was the one who was resurrected….which is Jesus is it not? Paul called Jesus God. He called Him Creator. That’s what he told those Greeks that day!!!!
I also shared with you that Peter told those Jews in Acts 2 that Christ would sit on the throne of God. The Messiah would sit on this throne forever. Who do you think they would think could sit on the throne and rule the world forever? What do you think that Peter was trying to get them to see about Jesus of Nazareth here? He was the promised one from the lineage of King David. He was the above David, and David would call him Lord. He was called both Lord and Christ by Peter. How much plainer can it get? I’m baffled that you cant see this?
David
Imaginary scenario:
The inaugural meeting of the band of disciples of Jesus. Jesus gets up in front of the 12, and tells them, “Everyone listen up. If you are going to be a member of this band of disciples, there is one thing you need to have absolutely clear up front: I am God. If you can’t agree with that, you might as well get out of the band of disciples right now.”
Rastis asked, “Is understanding the deity of Christ necessary for salvation?”
Then, in the comment thread, right up there in the front, many answered NO.
David Rogers, scroll up and you can see this.
David
Volfan,
I think maybe the point of disagreement here is: Where do you draw the line between understanding something, accepting something, and denying something?
David,
I am no longer arguing with you. I AGREE with you that the messages of Peter and Paul are SUFFICIENT even though they are not comprehensive messages.
Now, let me quote the original point in Rastis’ post: “There is a big difference between giving a minimal but sufficient presentation of the Gospel and presenting a gospel which is contrary to the whole of scripture.”
You have made a good case that Peter and Paul, even though their treatment was not comprehensive or explicit was SUFFICIENT to address the audience regarding the nature of Jesus Christ.
So please lay out your case why the camel method, doing the exact same thing that Peter and Paul did (i.e declare the Messiahship of Jesus Christ as Rastis points out) is insufficient. What is “missing” from the camel method that is present in the sermons of Peter and Paul in Acts 2 and Acts 17?
Rick,
Does the Camel method call Jesus “God,” “Creator,” who will sit on the throne of God to rule the universe forever; as do Peter and Paul? That’s how they preached.
Does the Camel method tell the Muslims that Jesus and the Father are one? that Jesus is “I am?” that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one will come to the Father except thru Jesus? Jesus said these things and lots more affirming His diety and His exclusiveness. That’s how He preached.
David R.,
In regards to your imaginary scenario in comment #87. What if someone like Benny Hinn walked into a factory, and told those people to quit their jobs, leave their families and friends, leave their hometowns, and follow him to learn about God and to do God’s work; how many do you think would quit to follow this man?
Why do you think that the disciples forsook all to follow the Man, Jesus? What made them leave it all to follow Him? Dont you think that they knew just a little bit more about Jesus than what we’re told? Maybe from John the Baptist? Or, maybe from hearing Jesus’ teaching at times that we’re not told about? I mean, what in the world would make fishermen leave their boats, and tax collectors leave their money making jobs, and leave their friends and family, and leave their hometown to follow Jesus of Nazareth?
Also, David, it’s not about rejecting or accepting….Rastis and the others in this comment stream were talking about understanding. That’s what we’re talking about. So, again, if someone does not understand that Jesus is Diety, then what kind of Jesus would they be putting their faith in, if they prayed and asked “Jesus” to come into their life? What kind of “Jesus” would they be accepting, or committing to, by faith?
David
Brother David R., Rick, Rastis, FTME and others,
Man, you are wearing my Brother Vol007 down. I must say he is standing strong.
Seriously, and I am not speaking for Brother David W. as he has done a great job himself. The 5 tons across the bridge analogy is a great point of agreement. I believe where disagreement would set is concerns the point of presenting who we are talking about saves. Lets say that you are speaking to a Muslim. You tell him that you are a muslim also. “Muslim” in linguistical terms means “god follower”. However, you not only tell that person that you are a muslim but you are a “Pakka Muslim”, meaning you are a surrendered follower of God. You are not taking anyone across the bridge. As a matter of fact you just added more baggage to take across the bridge. Why? Once you have placed yourself in that type of context you are passed the gate marked “syncretism”. I think it is in New Guinea that a tribal folk story is told of one former chief that had to give his son to some other tribes in order to save his tribe. A group of M’s were serving trying to find how to share the Gospel because the tribe was so closed. When they heard this folk story they were able to express it and then use that story to point to God. They explained John 3:16 using that story as the illustration. That is contextualism. However, the Camel Method is syncretism
Thus, getting the 5 tons across the bridge is needing to be done in 5 trips. However, the first trip cannot contain 1 ton to get across, with a need to bring 900,000 lbs back across because you were only able to give 100,000 lbs of the gospel and 900,000 lbs of culture. You will eventually mix too much of culture in with the pure gospel thus winding up with a big pot of religious stew.
Blessings,
Tim
Volfan,
Are you suggesting that, when James, John, Peter, and Andrew left their nets to become disciples of Jesus that they already knew He was God? If so, that’s the first time I ever heard that.
Also, if the Camel method & Korbani plan of salvation were all we ever told people in our discipleship efforts with them, I would have serious problems with that as well. But, I don’t hear anyone arguing that either, or both of these together, is the end-all of everything. It is a beginning point.
As I said in my comment #17, the “end-vision” is “that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” We should not be content with leaving them at “0″ on the Engle’s Scale. Or at “-1. Or at “+1″. But, neither do we need to be in too big of a rush to bring them from “-9″ all the way up to “0″ in a 30-minute presentation.
I’m getting the idea that there is such a thing as Theolatry, and we Southern Baptists seem to have more of it than any of the four other denominations I’ve been a part of.
Tim,
I can somewhat see your point. Indeed, we don’t want to include extra baggage in the truck-load we are going to have to take back over the bridge again, later on. That makes sense.
I guess what this hinges on is: Do the terms and information communicated actually make for extra baggage or not? What may seem like a confusing term or deceptive language to us, in our cultural context, may not seem like that from within another cultural context. Personally, I think it is best to leave it up to those who have lived and worked within a particular context to sort those questions out.
Here is an illustration. In Spain, when people asked me what I did for a living, the most honest and clearest response, from our American Southern Baptist perspective, would be for me to say, “I am a Baptist missionary.” However, if this were the initial answer I were to give to that question, I would be confusing matters, and misleading the person who asked me, more than I would be honestly clearing them up. This is because the term “Baptist” and the term “missionary” mean something totally different to them than they mean to us. They would already be judging what I had to tell them, based on their own cultural conception, before they ever really understood what it was all about.
At the same time, I think it would be important, when answering this question, to always do so in such a way as to never have to come back later, and say, “I didn’t really mean that.” If, for instance, the person asking me that question, 3 years down the road, got saved, traveled to America, went to Richmond, and toured the IMB headquarters, and found out I was with the IMB, would they have felt I was deceiving them earlier? If so, then, yes, indeed, I have not been as forthright as I should. But, that doesn’t mean I have to use the same language I would when I answer the question to someone here in the States. Nor, does it mean I have to spill all the beans the first time someone asks me either.
Does that make sense?
In the confines of this discussion I do think David Rogers has the high ground, the most thoughtful within the framework you have established.
That said, Tim Rogers offers up an analogy that for me proves the point of the baggage of the Con Resurgence.
The Conservative Resurgence carried as much cultural baggage across the Bridge and made as much porridge in my opinion as Tim Rogers fears in the Camel Method witness to other faiths.
Again, though I know it grates on many of you, this discussion has been fast forwarded eschatons if you would have the courage to open mindedly view and engage the discussion provoked by http://www.differentbookscommonword.com documentary.
There was a great quote by Tolstoy last night on Charlie Rose that is most appropo here. I hope maybe to be able to turn it up for you later, not only for the Camel Method discussion, but instructive for the flaws of the Conservative Resurgence as Tim Rogers baggage is carried across the bridge.
Wow, David, I can’t even AGREE with you and have you concede the point, can I? Simply amazing.
You said: “Does the Camel method call Jesus “God,” “Creator,” who will sit on the throne of God to rule the universe forever; as do Peter and Paul? That’s how they preached.”
That’s the minimum requirement? To call Jesus God and announce that he is the creator who will rule forever? In: http://www.christianindex.org/3313.article.print
We read the opening two paragraphs:
RICHMOND, Va. — In his book, The Camel – How Muslims are Coming to Faith in Christ!, Kevin Greeson reveals an old Muslim proverb, declaring, “… Allah has one hundred names. And … he has revealed 99 of his names to the sons of men that they may know and worship him. But one name, the one-hundredth name, he has told only to the camel. And, the camel, he is not talking.”
Greeson contends that the one-hundredth name for God is Isa al-Masih (Jesus Christ) and the Camel Method of witnessing to Muslims involves taking a passage from the Qur’an (the Muslim bible) referencing Isa al-Masih, and using it as a bridge to the Bible and to sharing God’s plan of salvation.
Apparently, the book’s author has no problem calling Jesus God when speaking to Muslims. But you would say this statement is insufficient? Am I understanding you correctly?
[...] are seeing The Camel Method debated on SBC Impact where two of our contributors have tried to engage the theological side of the debate. However, [...]
Vol,
We can guess all we want about what OT saints concluded about the revelation God gave them regarding a future deliverer. However, it is highly unlikely that they would have read it and understood it the same way we do this side of the Cross. I stand by what I said in comment #74: “The OT saints didn’t understand everything that they prophesied and wrote down, and we have no way of knowing how Isaiah, Moses, David, or others understood the prophecies.”
Either way, I don’t understand how you know so well what the OT believers and NT disciples believed about the Messiah. I find it interesting that you said in #91, “Why do you think that the disciples forsook all to follow the Man, Jesus? What made them leave it all to follow Him? Dont you think that they knew just a little bit more about Jesus than what we’re told? Maybe from John the Baptist? Or, maybe from hearing Jesus’ teaching at times that we’re not told about? I mean, what in the world would make fishermen leave their boats, and tax collectors leave their money making jobs, and leave their friends and family, and leave their hometown to follow Jesus of Nazareth?”
By your statement you must also be saying that Judas Iscariot was convinced of Jesus’ divinity when he followed Him as well? Now it appears we have two conflicting assessments. Judas wouldn’t have followed Jesus unless he believed He was divine. But Judas wouldn’t have betrayed Jesus and then killed himself if he believed He was divine. I’d be interested to hear you explain that.
Also, you haven’t explained what was going on in Martha’s head or Phillip’s head when they made statements that didn’t agree with their conviction that Jesus was God (my comment #75).
Here is the Tolstoy quote for Camel Method and Inerrancy Baggage Tim Rogers brought to mind a few posts back:
http://www.thebasispoint.com/2010/03/17/tolstoy-quote-that-opens-michael-lewis-new-book/
Judas was not in it for following the Messiah, the Son of God, or anyone else. Judas was in it for the money he could steal. Judas was a lost man, who thought that he could get in on the Messiah taking over the world, and thus, be in the money since he was in good with the Messiah King. Of course, when Judas finally realized that Jesus wasnt gonna set up His kingdom at that time, by freeing Israel from the rule of the Romans, then he sold out Jesus for what he loved the most….money.
DAvid
Are you saying, David, that Judas did not cast out demons, baptize, heal the sick, or do any of the other works that the other apostles did?
Rick,
Your agreement with me came with a lack of answering my main concern with this post and some of the comments in here. The post, and the comments made, were that a person could get saved without knowing that Jesus is God, or divine. The statement made was that knowing about the diety of Jesus was not necessary. That’s my concern.
Also, I’m just telling you how Peter, Paul, and Jesus preached the Gospel…to the Jews and also to the Greeks….so, why shouldnt we do the same? Do we know more than they do? Listen to Paul describe his preaching of the Gospel to all sorts of cultures. Read Acts 20:20-21.
Andrew,
So, you think that the disciples were fishing, and Jesus came along, and they left everything…not even knowing who Jesus was? Having no idea who He was, whatsoever? They just left their jobs and families and friends…even their hometowns…..to follow some Man that they had no idea who He was? Is that what you’re saying, Andrew?
David
Rick,
I just said that Judas was a lost man with impure motives. Why would you bring up all that other stuff?
David
Volfan,
Since you asked me the same thing earlier as you are asking Andrew now:
“So, you think that the disciples were fishing, and Jesus came along, and they left everything…not even knowing who Jesus was? Having no idea who He was, whatsoever? They just left their jobs and families and friends…even their hometowns…..to follow some Man that they had no idea who He was? Is that what you’re saying, Andrew?”
I think you are making a false dichotomy. Yes, they knew some things about Jesus. Maybe they heard John the Baptist say “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.” And, surely, they were drawn by Jesus’ magnetism, and knew there was something special about Him.
But, from what I gather from Scripture, it is almost certain that, at the point they left their nets to follow Him, they did not recognize Him as God, nor did they realize that He claimed to be God.
David,
You said, “The post, and the comments made, were that a person could get saved without knowing that Jesus is God, or divine. The statement made was that knowing about the diety (sic) of Jesus was not necessary. That’s my concern.”
Andrew and I have shown that the apostles did not know enough about the deity of Christ to know that when they looked at Jesus they were also seeing the Father. You have not answered whether they were saved at this time or sometime after Jesus’ ascension. The general consensus is that the apostles did NOT know Jesus was divine during his earthly ministry, yet they were saved. That seems to put to rest your objection.
On the other side, I pointed out that Greeson (according to his own words) DOES say that Jesus is God to Muslims, something you say is a requirement for salvation.
So, at this point I am really trying to figure our what you are arguing for or against.
You say one has to have a clear knowledge of the deity of Christ to be a believer even though the apostles didn’t.
The camel method asserts the deity of Christ as evidenced by the quote above, yet you say it is insufficient to bring Muslims to a saving faith (in clear contradiction to all the supposed results touted on the web site).
Can you tell me what is wrong with the Camel method if it meets your criteria for acknowledging the divinity of Christ and why if it is so important the disciples were saved even though they didn’t understand it according to Jesus’ admission?
rick
I’m curious, David.
Do you believe a lost man with impure motives would baptize, heal, exorcise demons and do all the other stuff the the other 11 did? Or was he prevented from doing that by his lost condition? If so, then why didn’t the other 11 immediately recognize him as the one who would betray Christ because unlike all the other apostles he couldn’t baptize, perform miracles, and cast out demons?
rick
Foxy,
A liberal Alabama Baptist expressing the thoughts of a Russian pacifist to describe me really does make me lose about one nano-second of sleep because of my concern of what you think.
Thanks for your words of encouragement.
Blessings,
Tim
Rick,
What have actually “proven” in your argument?
Did John the Baptist know Jesus was the Son of God? Were various members of the Twelve his disciples before they followed Christ? Would it be possible that John told his disciples who Jesus was? Did the Twelve have any relationship with Christ before they left their careers and followed Him?
When John the Baptist was in prison did he or did he not send to Jesus asking if He were truly who He claimed to be? If John had not had an idea that Jesus was the Christ, what would have motivated him in his human doubts?
What does Matthew 13:51-52 mean? What “things” did they assure Jesus that they understood? Why did He not rebuke them for saying they understood if they did not understand? What mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven were the Apostles given to know? What mysteries were those who rejected the belief of Jesus to be the Christ not given to know? (Matthew 13:10-17) What does John 8:56 reveal of Abraham? Explain Hebrews 11:13-16 without the “strangers and pilgrims” having at least a glimpse of Christ the Son to come? Explain 1 Peter 1:10-12 with full assurance that all those of “Old” had no concept of the Son of God coming in the flesh?
Deal with Daniel’s prophesies about the coming of…… Oh, yeah, I forgot, you do not believe Sixth Century Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel. Let’s just let that one go all together, right? How do you explain Mark 1:15? For that matter how do you explain the first chapter of Mark without the idea that some believed Jesus to be the Son of God?
Why would those who opposed Jesus have argued He got His power from Satan were not many others already saying He was the Son of God? What were they presenting their argument against if not that Jesus was/is God?
You have proven only that you take a low view of the power of the Spirit to convince men of any generation of the truth.
CB,
Comparing what you said here: “Oh, yeah, I forgot, you do not believe Sixth Century Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel.”
With what I said here: http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/03/12/is-inerrancy-in-error/ in message #143 “Do I believe that during his long and prosperous life that extended across two separate empires that a Jewish captive rose from slavery to trusted imperial adviser and that he accomplished a great deal, much of it recorded and that either late in his life at his direction or merely with his approval that his works were compiled by an aide, possibly even working under his direction, for return to Jerusalem and eventual preservation by Ezra, and that his birth name was Daniel? Probably.”
And again in message #175 I said, “Second – Yes, I agree with you that there is good reason to believe that Daniel was personally and materially involved in the compilation of the book that bears his name.”
And in response to your question in #192, “Do you or do you not believe God gave, by divine inspiration, the content of the Book of Daniel to a historic figure named Daniel between 605 B.C. and 536 B.C.?”
I replied in message #213, “My answer is yes, I believe that Daniel was the person responsible for the book that bears his name.”
I cannot tell if you thoroughly misunderstood the clear content of my previous posts or if you are just trying to provoke me. In either case, I’m at a loss as to how to respond to your questions here.
If I am being consistently misunderstood, then there really is no point to me posting one more reply only to have it misunderstood as thoroughly as my previous replies.
If I am being provoked, then why should I rise to the occasion?
Beyond that, I have no idea what you are talking about. You have not articulated the argument I am allegedly making so it is difficult for me to know if you are arguing against something I’ve actually written or only something you imagine me to have written. It is clear that you have an active imagination in this regard since you imagine me not to believe that Daniel was the author of the book that bears his name even though I there is ample proof to the contrary.
So before I attempt to answer your questions, let me know what argument you think I am making. I’m curious to see if I’ve been able to clearly communicate my intent. If not, I will beg off the discussion as a hopelessly inept communicator.
As I understand David W., he is attempting to make the case that a person must believe in the deity of Christ before he can be saved. Are you trying to support David’s argument or refute it by asking me rhetorical questions?
Your concluding paragraph is most mystifying of all. You said, “You have proven only that you take a low view of the power of the Spirit to convince men of any generation of the truth.” Can you show me where I have done this? I don’t actually recall mentioning the Holy Spirit in any post I’ve made on this thread, nor His role in convincing men of the truth. I’m not sure if you’re stating this rather cryptic accusation just to get my dander up (which would be malicious, of course) or if it is stemming from my inability to articulate salient points.
Any clarity you could bring to this would be appreciated.
Rick:
I think this is the link some of the Brethren were looking for; then again if CB Scott as a disciple of our Friend Paige Patterson already had all the inerrant answers, then what does it matter.
Tim Rogers;
Let me name some other Liberal Alabama Baptists by your calculus
Andy Westmoreland,President of Samford.
Timothy George cause he breaks bread with the BWA
The Staff of the WMU cause they don’t cater to BFM 2000
Oh, the link, the link for yall’s edification:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/bdaniel.html
Tolstoy good enough for Malcolm Muggeridge and William F. Buckley but not good enough for the preponderance of narrow pontificators here.
Oh Well…….
You’ll have to excuse me, Stephen. I’m more of a Dostoevsky fan than Tolsty. For that matter, give me an afternoon of Chekov to a Rachmaninoff soundtrack and that’s all the errancy I need.
Gentlemen,
seriously…. do we really need to go back into the CR yet again?
Rastis,
Only if you promise to change the title to “Beating a Dead Horse.”
rick
Rick,
I kinda thought you would go off on that and leave entirely the heart oft he comment.:-)
My comment related to you stating:
“Andrew and I have shown that the apostles did not know enough about the deity of Christ to know that when they looked at Jesus they were also seeing the Father. You have not answered whether they were saved at this time or sometime after Jesus’ ascension. The general consensus is that the apostles did NOT know Jesus was divine during his earthly ministry, yet they were saved. That seems to put to rest your objection.”
The truth is that you do not know the “general consensus” of this any more than you know the general consensus among conservative schlarship as to the date and authorship of Daniel.
Wow, that was fun to read. Looks like at the end of the day every one made their position known and no one in the discussion changed his mind… but at least the rest of our readers have a few different positions to weigh. Good stuff!
Peace to you brothers,
From the Middle East
Thanks for clarifying, CB. At least now I know what you are arguing.
So you really have no interest in the subject of the argument, just looking for another opportunity to expose my ignorance? I’ll oblige you.
I am such an ignorant fool. You’re right! I have absolutely no clue what the consensus is since all I have ever read is the Bible.
Please feel free to remedy my ignorance and demonstrate through the use of copious citations how the consensus of biblical scholarship actually does affirm that disciples were fully cognizant of the deity of Christ during his earthly ministry, prior to his resurrection.
I have been duly humbled by your stunning riposte and look forward to the overwhelming burden of proof that will assuage my dimwitted foolishness.
Rick,
Your confession is duly noted now for all of prosperity.
Now to quote you from an earlier post:
“Back to your regularly scheduled programing.”
I never spell posterity right. I should have just said Rick, Your confession is duly noted for all future generations.
And I was rude in not thanking you Rick for your heart felt confession. So, thank you Rick.
CB,
So it’s just personal pot shots then? You’re not even remotely interested in engaging the topic? At the very least, make me wallow in my shame by documenting the “general consensus” for me to show how truly wrong I was. Where is your overwhelming evidence that I don’t know what I’m talking about?
Please don’t leave this kettle smug in the knowledge that he was called black by a pot.
rick
Rick,
The truth is, as I have stated more than once, I know nothing of the Camel. Never used it, much less have I even read it. But I did engage you in what you said you and Andrew said you had proven. I just asked questions relating to the substance of your “proof” and how you would deal with those things. If you don’t want to deal with that, then go ahead. If not, don’t.
BTW, have you read the Camel Method for yourself?
Guys,
I think you need to do your best to make it to Bozos, and talk it out over a good plate of BBQ.
Well David,
You and Vol have never given me an invitation to your little party. It might be a wonderful day trip. Who knows?
CB,
The invitation is open to all, even you. It looks like Vol is wimping out on us, though.
Just got in from a long road trip. My blackberry has been dinging like crazy! It has been an exercise in patience to have something to say and be forced to wait… I will try to reply to some of the comments tomorrow. In the meanwhile, for those who view the the messianic titles to be significant of divinity, what are we to make of Isa 45:1?
“Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed?
Is Cryus divine?
“Even” you?
Most moving invitation I have ever had David.
CB,
Let me reword that: “especially you.” How’s that?
Thank you for clarifying, CB.
I believe Bozo’s is the best solution but it’s probably just as easy to get there from Birmingham as it is from Columbus, Ohio.
Vol & CB,
With the debate going back and forth, I’d like to clarify what it is that I affirm and deny, just so as to avoid any confusion about my convictions.
AREAS OF MUTUAL AGREEMENT
I AFFIRM that I would be very suspect of a witnessing approach that doesn’t touch on the divinity of Jesus, even in America, since we ought not to assume our hearers understand it merely because they’re familiar with Christianity.
I AFFIRM that the incarnation, the trinity (including the deity of Christ), atonement, etc. are all important doctrines of the Christian faith and are part of the gospel.
AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT
I DENY that the terms “Messiah/Christ” and “Son of God” were necessarily understood by Jews and/or Gentiles at the time as referring to the divinity of the person they describe. I AFFIRM that these terms support the concept that Jesus is divine in light of the Scriptures through the illumination by the Holy Spirit.
I DENY that Scripture clearly affirms that any of the OT saints (from Enoch to Malachi) understood the Messiah would be God in human form. I AFFIRM that Scripture is silent as to whether or not the OT saints understood God’s promises to be referring to a divine Messiah.
I DENY that Scripture clearly affirms that any of the early followers of Christ understood that Jesus was God in human form prior to his resurrection. I AFFIRM that Christ’s followers made statements that were wiser and truer than they knew, but I DENY that they understood the implications of those statements until after His resurrection.
I AFFIRM that Jesus (during his ministry) and the Apostles (after the resurrection) taught Jesus’ divinity.
I AFFIRM that some who became believers were not convinced/aware of Jesus’ deity at their conversion. I DENY that Scripture explicitly states that understanding and belief in the divinity of Christ is a prerequisite for saving faith. I further DENY that Scripture’s silence on this issue means it was implicitly understood.
I DENY that a true Christian could permanently consciously reject the divinity of Christ.
I AFFIRM that Jesus’ divinity should be addressed as soon as possible if a person did not believe/know it at their conversion.
What Andrew said.
I hate to have just a “me too” post, but he nails it.
Brother Andrew,
I like your affirmations above and would like to add that because we have such a rich theological history and are so influenced by Greek philosophy, we tend to start with a concept we have heard and then research it. The disciples of Jesus were (1) not Greek thinking but Semitic and (2) not familiar with the rich history of theology and centuries of reflection upon Christ that we now have. So, they observed Jesus life and teachings and then drew conclusions. In fact, John’s entire Gospel is written as his reflection upon the life of Jesus so that we may know who Jesus is. Yesterday I was listening to John’s Gospel and found it intriguing that immediately following the miracle at Cana, John makes this comment:
While performing the miracle, Jesus said nothing about his nature. He did not need to, it was inductively concluded.
This, in turn, reminded me of another story, actually several others, of Muslims I know who have come to faith. In this particular one, the topic of Jesus’ divine nature had not been brought up, but this Muslim friend had recognized Jesus as special and savior. He believed that Jesus was pure/sinless, died on the cross for his sins and was resurrected and that he had no chance of being near to God but through Jesus. He had also committed to following Jesus. And as he read the Gospels with a brother in Christ, he read the words of Jesus commanding us to love our enemies and started getting all excited. The brother asked him, “What is it?” He replied, “Jesus is God! Jesus is God!” So, he asked, “Okay. Yes. Why are you saying this?” His response, “Only God could say such a thing! Jesus is God! Jesus is God!”
Those who have not been exposed to our rich christological history learn who Jesus is by being exposed to his life and teachings and then they come to the conclusion that he is divine… just as the Apostles did. It is a process.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Volfan
RE #49 #62
I think we all agree that NT believers understood the divinity of Jesus. That is not the same as saying that the average Joe on the street understood that the person who would be the messiah would also be God. The author of Hebrews spends a great deal of time showing that 1, he is divine, and 2, this is the best of all possible solutions.
At this point, there is something more foundational to our discussion linguistically. Words have different denotative and connotative meanings. The denotative meaning of a word is its lexical definition. Lexically the messianic titles for messiah do not have divine implications. Preaching Jesus as savior and Lord is not the same, lexically, as calling him divine. If it is the same, as you appear to assert, then you really should have no problem with the Camel which Preaches him as messiah, savior, and lord. Calling the camel arianism and holding your understanding of the messianic titles is self stultifying. Furthermore, I give the same warning to you as I gave to Tim R.: if you think that the titles themselves express his divine nature, then, since the Quran is replete with references to Jesus as Messiah, are you saying that the Quran teaches the divinity of Jesus? I think you have taken bridging to an extreme…
Lexically, you are at a dead end.
Connotative meanings have to do with what a word means through usage in particular contexts. This is where you guys are saying that due to early beliefs and interpretations we see that this is what the word means originally. But that is something entirely different. Remember, the original point of the post was to show that 1, the camel is not in fact arianism, and 2, we need to be careful with such assertions since many evangelism plans [the SBC one included] would fall under the same condemnation. The problem with connotative meanings is that they change based on the community. Son of God to us in the west has divine connotations. In the middle east, it is blasphemous because the metaphor is understood literally to mean that God had physical relations with Mary [and that is not what we believe!]. Son of God to the Greeks has a completely different connotation. What was Hercules? He was the son of Zeus. He was neither fully human nor fully divine. He was more like a comic book action hero. We can do this same assessment of all of the messianic titles. As believers, we know the messiah to be divine [in spite of the fact that the title does not mean that lexically]. How do Jews, 1st cent or modern, understand the title Messiah? Talk to a Rabbi, he will talk about it like a political office that someone with the right credentials, abilities, and ambitions could step into.
We can argue all day about what the connotative meaning ought to be. However, when we are on the street, we have to deal with what the connotative meanings in the minds of our listeners actually are. This is where David R’s bridge illustration is handy. Some things are complete land mines and we need to figure out ways to accurately convey the information in a way which will be heard and understood. If they are going to reject Jesus, we want them to reject him not some presentation of him which did not understand certain loaded terms.
Tim Rogers
RE #92
The illustration of which you speak is from Don Richardson’s “Peace Child.” He is the one responsible for the term “redemptive analogy” The idea behind a redemptive analogy is that, in his grace, God has placed certain religio-cultural facets in pagan cultures which serve as a bridge. They provide some point of contact from which to bridge to the gospel. In his experience, he gave the people the typical western presentation. While they were not hostile to the “pure gospel,” they were simply uninterested. When he put the gospel in their local terms and began answering their actual questions, then he was able to see results. He used the pagan ritual for establishing peace between tribes as a metaphor for God who sent his peace child, Jesus to us.
Richardson asserts that most/all cultures have redemptive analogies present and they are often the doorway to effective ministry. Do you think God has a redemptive analogy for the Muslim world? Might it be that quranic bridging is the redemptive analogy for Muslims?
Thank you for bringing up this valuable dimension to this discussion.
Tim R.
Can you define what you mean by syncretism and contextualization?
Volfan,
You asked why the disciples would leave and follow Jesus. They left their nets because of what Jesus told them. He referenced “fishers of men” which is a reference from Jer 16:16. That is the passage which talks about the restoration of Israel. Why is it that there were thousands of people sitting around on a hillside just listening? The wilderness was the gathering place for the Maccabees a few generations prior. Both of these examples had to do with the building messianic hope. When Jesus came initially, they presumed that he would be a political-military leader who would restore the nation back to Israel. This was a misconception surrounding the concept of messiah-ship even after the resurrection and even among the disciples! Acts 1:6 “So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?””
Andrew,
My contention was with this statement by Rick:
““Andrew and I have shown that the apostles did not know enough about the deity of Christ to know that when they looked at Jesus they were also seeing the Father.”
The truth is, you have not “shown”/”proven” that. What you have done is to “affirm” that you believe those things. I gave the examples in comment #109 of possible arguments in opposition. Although none of them can be conclusive.
What we do know is that OT prophets did get “glimpses” of things which gave them hope and fueled their faith. Under inspiration some of them wrote specific things God revealed to them and we have those things preserved in the Canon. In my opinion, we do not have their every thought and concept.
The same is true of the guys in the NT. We have some ideas as to what they knew because there are inspired Writings in the NT that give us additional “glimpses” as to what they knew just the same as do the OT Writings give us the same of the OT guys.
The truth is Andrew, I greatly agree with your affirmations. I also appreciate the way you “couched” those things of which you deny. You did not present you case as absolutes. You can’t. For that matter, neither can Vol present his affirmations or denials as absolutes either concerning what OT and NT guys knew or did not know at a specific time prior to the Resurrection of Jesus.
Andrew, I challenged Rick due to the way he stated his position as that which the two of you had shown/proven to be absolute. In addition, I challenged him due to the manner he condescends toward Vol as if he grasps theological concepts Vol has never heard of and he needs to school him. That is far from the case. I have been reading Vol’s posts and comments for four years. I have been reading Rick for the last few months. Therefore I affirm the following:
it would do Rick well to get on his horse and ride down from Ohio to Tennessee and let Ole Vol school him in theology for a month or so. It would help him immensely.
Andrew,
In addition and about the Camel. As I have said more than once, I know nothing of the Camel Method. I have never read it. Back in another life I did smoke a lot of Camels while roaming in various places on this earth. But after I got saved I have never engaged a Camel to aid me in telling the Story of Jesus. As I stated in the last Camel post by Rastis, I have just told my story to those who would hear me and how my story intersected with the Good Story of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. That “method” has work in various places on this earth and I have not smoked not even one Camel during, before or after the telling of my story and His Story.
Andrew, I do believe that today, you and I have enough verifiable information to say to anyone, anywhere, anytime that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God and He is the only way to the Father.
That I believe. That I affirm. And I will deny that any person is a Christian who will not affirm the same.
Glad you quit smokin CB.
Had more to say but don’t feel like I know you as well as I know John Killian so I may run it by him first.
The gospel is simple. How much information is needed for each person is relative to their circumstance and age. Even if we get all this right it is not enough. We sow the seed and God is the one that reaps the harvest. God the Holy Spirit does things to people’s hearts that we can’t see or know outside what we are told from Scripture. We must give God the credit for any salvation of mankind.
Here is one thing everyone is over looking but commenting on. EC ask for forgiveness for stepping over the line. This is perhaps one of the biggest tools God’s Holy Spirit will use to convince the lost of their need for Him. We have in action a true demonstration of Christians submitting to God’s will “His Word” and it being witnesses, the world gets to see it demonstrated in public by the news. No this is not a mistake as it is assume because it is who we are, sinners saved by Grace through faith and the Christian walk played out in real life. This confounds the lost and to the tender in heart of which the Holy Spirit is preparing for salvation a sign or conformation of genuineness. What is taking place is what is supposed to take place. We must be sure that sometimes we simply complicate the process but we are simply sinners saved by Grace through Faith. No excuses that is just who we are.
CB,
Sorry for not responding right away. I’ve been off. But thanks. I think there isn’t much of a difference in what we think. I likewise have no experience with the Camel Method and don’t see myself learning it any time soon.
Wade Burleson has a blog on the Falwell, Jr. Endorsed revised Biography of the Caner Brother at Lynchburg. Pretty strong take has Wade, posted Monday April 12.