Pimping Jesus: consumerism and the red-light gospel

[jlay]

AOK,
That is why I think it is so important that we not bind ourselves up in religion. I say this to Protestants and Catholics alike. Do not simply accept the traditions of your church because they are old, or you grew up in them. How many Pharisees had that same argument?

[Byblos]

Jlay makes a good point too. But believers from different backgrounds including jlay, Byblos, and myself certainly find we have a lot more in common than not, despite very different positions, when imprisoned for being Christians by communist, facist, and Muslim state governments. When we end up in prison cells for our faith, we find ourselves supporting and praying for each other. Our debates take a back seat. And that speaks volumes, in my opinion, for the unity we share as partakers of Christ as the author of Hebrews pointed out despite our theological differences.

Amen.

[B. W.]

Wow, did not realize making a few comments would cause so great a response! Very good comments by everyone and so much so, that I decided to stay on the sidelines for awhile.

Now another point to Ponder:

John 6:37 states: “All that the Father gives me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” NKJV

John 6:47 states the importance of believing in Christ.

John 6:66 reveals that there were Disciples, yes, Disciples went back to home and their ways and did what? — Walked with him no more…

Questions:

Did these Disciples believe as verse 47 suggest or were they just marveling at Jesus instead? Disciples who marvel are disciples who do not believe and thus fall away.

Is one's belief based upon marveling or life altering believing? Which one will keep one from falling away?

Did Jesus come to sell free fire insurance or alter our very lives?
-
-
-

[jlay]

Did Jesus come to sell free fire insurance or alter our very lives?

Well he obviously came to seek and save that which is lost. The primary cause I guess you could say.

But if he did not come to alter our lives, then the new testment need not be more than a few chapters.

[B. W.]

Did Jesus come to sell free fire insurance or alter our very lives?

Well he obviously came to seek and save that which is lost. The primary cause I guess you could say.

But if he did not come to alter our lives, then the new testment need not be more than a few chapters.

Look at John 5:24 — “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” ESV

Then John 8:12 -- "Then Jesus spoke to them, again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life..." NKJV

Also John 8:51 says: "Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word he shall never see death." NKJV

Yes, Jesus came to alter and change our lives. How can good news remain good news if you are left as you are — in darkness?

Part and parcel of believing in Christ is movement, not stagnation, active believing not a static marveling kind of belief. Just think about being born of God's Spirit and now He resides inside of you.

How can He leave you to remain unsanctified? Jesus did more than offer free fire insurance.

The Lord inside us removes our darkness so we can learn to live according to his life giving light.

John 7:37, 38 -- “On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'" ESV-

Amazing! What constitutes living water - believe Christ and remain as you are comfortable in your darkness, or believing in Christ knowing that He will not leave you in your darkness?

John 8:36, "...Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed..." NKJV

Does our preaching, teaching, awake one into freedom or teach freedom as an option? Are we making disciples who marvel in belief saying — “Christ saved me so I can remain as I are!” Or disciples that shout, “Christ — changed my life — you can be free indeed!”
-
-
-

[jlay]

You got my vote BW.

This is what I have been asking from the get go.
What is saving faith? Is it merely making an intellectual ascent? I mean I know kids who beleive in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Where the rub seems to be is claiming that there is a 'move' as you suggest, and that this move is adding to the work of Christ. I think you and I can say, most assuredly, NO! that is not the case. We can't change our lives to earn salvation. But, are lives not changed through salvation? Trusting IN Christ is a response to Him. And how can one respond to Him, and not be moved as you say? When you read scripture like Luke 13:3-8 or JTB's preaching in Luke 3. It makes Jac's position seem at conflict.

I guess a lot of the confusion is my fault from asking the question, can one get saved, and then walk down the street and murder. And in truth this question doesn't really properly deal with the issue above. The ultimate question is what is 'saving faith?' The verses you supply speak to this very thing.

[Byblos]

How do you then reconcile that with the imputation vs. infusion aspect of salvation? If there's a real change (which I would of course agree with) then our sins aren't just covered up to make us look righteous, we actually become righteous, wouldn't you agree?

[jlay]

We become the righteousness of God. Those are words (imputed/infused) we use to assign meaning to what is happening through Christ, although the bible doesn't use those words at all. I'll be honest, I don't hear the term 'infused righteousness' used in protestant circles. You will hear things like, initial sanctification, progressive sanctificaion, total sanctification. It sounds like infused righteouness is similar to progressive sanctification.

We are never righteous because of what we do, but what he has done. I'm sure you agree on that basic premise. I wouldn't just say our sins are covered. The bible infers a washing away. That they are in fact removed from us, imputed to Christ at the cross. Buried at the deepest depths. As far as the east is from the west. I think this is where you will find some variance from the RCC and prostestant positions.

If I could borrow the term, I would say the infusion is the power of the Holy Spirit manifesting itself through the believer. As the believer continues to respond, the flow of God through the believer becomes more evident. But we have to be very careful here to not slip back into religion.

I have mentioned many times over the years the difference in trying and trusting. 'Trying' to be holy sounds like a noble thing. It is really a futile thing. Trusting in God as a believer is how we open the flow of God. It is all about sourcing. What is your source? Self-discipline. Gandhi had that. Monks have that. Muslims have that. Maybe it is religion. You know, following what a church says to do. (Not that this is wrong, in and of itself) Or is it that we are trusting, looking to him. He is the light of the world. If we trust Him, and look unto Him, He will direct our paths. In Him there is no darkness. If the source is human power, often what manifests is religion. Rules, things to say, repeat, do, and do again. Kneel, stand up, sit down, pray this, pray that. It has an air of holiness, but at its core it is a counterfeit. I can't speak for all RCCs but I think this is where I see the biggest problem. Keep in mind I have a men's bible study in which Catholic men participate. This is an area of feedback, where they fill like they have been prescribed religious things to do, as opposed to walking in the spirit and light of Christ. I am not saying the things themselves are wrong. I am saying that the heart motive is what matters. Remember how the Lord rebuked the Israelites for their sacrifices. They were following the commands, but their hearts were far from God. Many have grown up with prescriptive Catholicism, but don't have a 'walk' with the Lord. It becomes a 'me' centered deal. 'Here are the things YOU need to DO, to be a good Catholic.'

Let me give you an example of conversations I've had.
Are you a Christian?
-I'm a Catholic
Are you a Christian?
-I grew up Catholic.
What do you mean?
-I went to mass, I went through the sacrements, etc.
So you grew up in a Catholic family?
-Yes
Have you trusted in Christ as your personal savior?
-I believe in Jesus.
Have you placed your trust in Him for your salvation, have you been born again?
-We dont use that term.
Jesus used that term in John 3. He said to Nicodemus, you MUST be born again. What does it mean to trust in Jesus?
-I'm not sure......

This isn't an uncommone occurance. And I don't say that to pick on you or any RCCs. I'm just sharing with you. I could just as easily give you some similar examples in the protestant church.

[Jac3510]

When you read scripture like Luke 13:3-8 or JTB's preaching in Luke 3. It makes Jac's position seem at conflict.

Do it doesn't.

• I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: (KJV)

Notice a few things:

1. The people who died when the tower fell were no more sinners than the next. Thus, Jesus teaches the equality of sinners. If we are all equally sinful, it doesn't make much sense to say that a lack of sin in my life is any kind of evidence of salvation or that the presence of it is any kind of evidence against it.

2. More importantly, Jesus said that unless they (the people to whom He spoke) repented, they would likewise perish. The word "likewise" is the word homoios, which means "in the same manner" or "likewise." It is a comparative word. Jesus was talking about the physical, not spiritual, death of the people in that tragedy. He simply says that if the people didn't repent, then they would suffer the same fate. They would LIKEWISE perish. You can't say one was physical death and the other spiritual, because then, the "likewise" doesn't fit.

We either take Jesus' words seriously or we don't.

BTW, the people didn't repent, and as it turned out, they did perish in the same way. In AD 70.

3. The parable has nothing to do with an individuals spiritual death. Jesus is speaking of the nation of Israel as a tree that does not bear fruit. Just as such a tree is useless to its master and must be destroyed, so Israel, who did not accept Jesus, would be destroyed (fits perfectly in the context above!).

On the other hand, if you make this about the individual believer, then you have to take this as one's losing of their salvation, not for doing evil works, but for NOT doing good works. Why? Because if this is an individual not producing good works (fruit), then they are torn up and destroyed.

So, actually, this completely supports my position and totally undermines any other view. Unless you believe that good works keep you saved, you have to take it as a reference to Israel, not to individuals. And if to Israel, then the threat is their physical destruction. And if so, then this is another example of repentance not being necessary for personal salvation (that's all just about faith), but about it being necessary for ISRAEL to receive the kingdom. In a similar way, when Christians repent, we restore our fellowship with God. But just as Israel could be destroyed for its non-repentance, so too can the Christian. But if the Christian can be destroyed for his non-repentance, then it is evident that a Christian CAN live in a state of rebellion and thus NOT BE SANCTIFIED.

Will still get to other comments in this thread later.

edit: I'm also looking forward to Byblos' response to J's last statement . . .J, I think you totally missed his point. What you are going to find if you keep up this conversation with him is that you and he completely agree on righteousness--you just choose to use the term imputed, whereas Catholics are more precise and call it what it is: infusion. Just because you don't hear it called that in protestant circles doesn't mean much . . . and when you find yourself at a common agreement, please remember what I said before: there are only two logical positions (no matter how much you protest) . . . Everything in the middle is just watered down Catholicism. Like I said before, if I was going to reject the view I hold here, I'd be intellectually honest enough not to water down my position. I'd embrace the Catholicism that logically and necessarily follows.

[Byblos]

I understand what you're saying J and I completely agree. Catholic, Protestant or whatever, it is God through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit that we are able to do good and strive to be holy, no matter the formula. Great post J, thanks.

[jlay]

Jac,
Thanks, that makes sense. I'm going to pmail you something. I'd like you to take a look at it and pick it apart for me.

Joel

[Byblos]

edit: I'm also looking forward to Byblos' response to J's last statement . . .J, I think you totally missed his point. What you are going to find if you keep up this conversation with him is that you and he completely agree on righteousness--you just choose to use the term imputed, whereas Catholics are more precise and call it what it is: infusion. Just because you don't hear it called that in protestant circles doesn't mean much . . . and when you find yourself at a common agreement, please remember what I said before: there are only two logical positions (no matter how much you protest) . . . Everything in the middle is just watered down Catholicism. Like I said before, if I was going to reject the view I hold here, I'd be intellectually honest enough not to water down my position. I'd embrace the Catholicism that logically and necessarily follows.

How did I do with my response Jac?

P.S. You make it sound as if I had some hidden agenda, Jac. I can't really tell but that's what it sounds like to me. Although I've known you long enough to know you don't shy away from saying exactly what's on your mind so perhaps it's my sensitivity to the subject and the fact that I've made it a point not to engage in debates about anything Catholic on this board. That's just something I won't do because it goes against every reason why I joined this site and why I'm still here (primarily as a Christian and secondarily as an OECer). Anyway, for what it's worth, my last response above was and is what I truly believe in my heart.

Blessings.

[jlay]

Jac,

In my study of the two terms I dont see how they are the same.

Imputed means by Grace alone through faith alone.
Infused means that there is a process where one is being made righteous. The protestants pretty well break those down into two different events. Justification and progressive sanctification.

I would look at Ephesians 2:8 as the evidence that when one comes to true saving faith, they are justified at that point. I would also look at Eph. 2:10 as evidence that God loves us too much to let us stay like we are.
John 14:12. 'I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.' That doesn't mean we are adding to the saving work God has done. But that because of this saving grace, God created us for good works, which HE prepared.
Or Heb 13: 20-21. 'May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.'
I would say that because of salvation the beleiver now has the capacity for these things above. And, no Jac, it doesn't make the believer any more saved. It only evidences that a saving work did occur.

I would have to conceed that yes, we can't judge salvation in itself by what one does or doesn't do. Actually we can't judge the heart of a man at all. We open up a big ole can of worms when we do. I'm still trying to reconcile all this to Romans 8, John 14 and 15. Looking forward to your feedback.

[Jac3510]

How did I do with my response Jac?

I expected nothing less than agreement -- I was half expecting you to point out that your agreement was actually the main point!

[qote]P.S. You make it sound as if I had some hidden agenda, Jac. I can't really tell but that's what it sounds like to me. Although I've known you long enough to know you don't shy away from saying exactly what's on your mind so perhaps it's my sensitivity to the subject and the fact that I've made it a point not to engage in debates about anything Catholic on this board. That's just something I won't do because it goes against every reason why I joined this site and why I'm still here (primarily as a Christian and secondarily as an OECer). Anyway, for what it's worth, my last response above was and is what I truly believe in my heart. [/quote]
No hidden agenda. I said early on that I knew that you weren't making these posts to make the point that I've been making. I, however, have been and AM trying to make the point that--bluntly--if you aren't going to take the Free Grace view of salvation, you may as well be intellectually honest and be Catholic. I hardly think I've been "hidden" about that.

Again, I know that you aren't trying to make that point. I know that you aren't here to defend your Catholicism (although I genuinely appreciate your explanations/clarifications--I've learned quite a lot). I don't mean to put you in an uncomfortable position. Actually, if I have a "hidden" agenda, it would be to get non-Catholics to recognize that there hasn't been a fight between the Protestant and Catholic church in forever. The moment the final perseverance of the saints was codified at Westminster, everyone became Catholic again. My "hidden agenda" is to show people just how radical the Free Grace view is, because, frankly, I think that most people think it is nothing more than a matter of semantics. Naturally, I wish everyone would adopt the view, but among those who don't, I want them to be intellectually consistent (the same thing I tell EVERYONE with whom I debate, regardless of the issue), and I want them to understand what they are rejecting. For the most part, I think most people do neither of those.

But, again, I don't think I've been really subtle about any of that, have I?

For what it is worth, I've do this quite often in political debates as well. I'm far more likely to sign off on someone's argument with whom I starkly disagree but who is intellectually honest against someone with whom I only slightly disagree but I think is being intellectually dishonest than otherwise. To me, the conclusions of any debate are secondary. Methodology comes first, because if we can all agree on methodology--or if we can agree to be honest in our methodologies, even if we disagree on which one to adopt--then we can rationally accept one another's positions, even as we disagree with them. I don't have to be "tolerant" of anyone that way (which I think is fundamentally negative anyway--its very arrogant to say you "tolerate" somoene). I can genuinely appreciate their theology/philosophy even as I reject it as my own, and thus, I can genuinely respect the person saying it.

[Jac3510]

Jac,

In my study of the two terms I dont see how they are the same.

Imputed means by Grace alone through faith alone.
Infused means that there is a process where one is being made righteous. The protestants pretty well break those down into two different events. Justification and progressive sanctification.

You are right that infusion and imputation are different. I am concerned, however, that most protestants say they believe in imputation even as their doctrine defends infusion. Take the article in the OP as an example. Here we have someone who basically confuses progressive sanctification with justification. Most people think of progressive sanctification in terms that could be described as an infusion of righteousness. I become more and more like Christ--it is the necessary result of justification. As a result, justification (the imputation part) is seen as the planting of a seed, and progressive sanctification is seen as the growing of that seed. But if that is the case, the justification is just the first part of infusion!

I, for one, would take a different view on progressive sanctification. I believe in imputation, not infusion. The day I was justified (imputed with the righteousness of Christ), I got ALL the Jesus and Holy Spirit I am ever going to get. I don't get infused with "more Jesus" or "more righteousness," not even in the progressive sense. I don't have a "baby new spirit" that needs to grow up. The righteousness I receive upon placing my faith in Christ is total, absolute, non-divisible, and completely imputed. There is no room for infusion or progression of any kind as it relates to righteousness.

We can talk about how I DO view santification, then, later, if you like. I'm just trying explain why I think that you either believe in imputation OR infusion. There is no middle ground. You can't have imputed righteousness in justification AND infused righteousness in sanctification. If you believe in infused righteousness, then adopt the position fully and all that comes with it. If you believe in imputed righteousness, then adopt the position fully and all that comes with it.

I would look at Ephesians 2:8 as the evidence that when one comes to true saving faith, they are justified at that point. I would also look at Eph. 2:10 as evidence that God loves us too much to let us stay like we are.

But it doesn't say that He does or doesn't want us to "stay like we are." I certainly agree that we should change our behavior, but as soon as I use the word behavior, you can see all the red flags that go up! Is salvation just something that is an means to get us to ACT better? Please. Psychology can do that (which takes us back to our original disagreement). But going back to the text, again, it says nothing about staying like we are. It says that the purpose of our salvation is so that we would be God's worksmanship--which we ARE, no matter what--but so that we might DEMONSTRATE that new reality to the world, God has prepared for us good works that we might do. We have no scriptural warrant, though, for confusing the demonstration of the work with the reality of the work.

[qupte]John 14:12. 'I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.' That doesn't mean we are adding to the saving work God has done. But that because of this saving grace, God created us for good works, which HE prepared.[/quote]
Yes, anyone who HAS faith in Christ WILL do good works (that is repeated and expanded in John 15--it is all in the same context). Notice the present tense of the word "has" in "has faith." The bottom line is that the same faith that saves is the faith that sanctifies (which stands in STRONG contrast to the works-basd sanctification I think most are taught). If a person places their faith in Christ, they receive eternal life. To the extent that they keep their faith in Christ, they WILL produce good works.

Read the paper I wrote that I linked to you earlier in this thread. I try to show in some detail that that idea is the central theme of the Gospel of John.

In any case, if a person stops putting their faith in Christ alone, then you can expect them to NOT produce fruit. Does that mean they are not saved? Nope. Does it mean that they lost their salvation? Nope. It means just what it says on the surface. You don't have faith in Christ (you don't abide in Him), you don't produce fruit. That says nothing about whether or not you were ever saved to begin with.

Bottom line: good works are linked to (abiding) faith in Christ. They are not linked to having eternal life. You can have the latter without the former simply by not believing in Him.

Or Heb 13: 20-21. 'May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.'

You can take "equip" here in two ways, neither of which support the necessity of progressive sanctification:

1. Equipping could be giving us the tools to allow us to the work to which we are called (the most obvious view): in this case, just because someone receives the tools doesn't mean they will use them. That is their choice (remember the whole free will thing!);
2. Equipping could be taken as a direct reference to progressive sanctification, that is, our actually doing good works: in thise case, though, we must note the entire phrase is optative, not indicative. It does not say "God . . . has equipped you . . ." but "May God . . . equip you." On what basis would God equip this way? In context with the rest of the book, on our holding fast our confession (again, the free will thing!).

I opt for the former view because I think it fits the context of the entire book much better, but, again, I don't see anywhere that this says that Christians will necessarily bear good fruit. In fact, the entire argument to the book of Hebrews it that we must be careful, because it is possible for believers to fall away!

I would say that because of salvation the beleiver now has the capacity for these things above. And, no Jac, it doesn't make the believer any more saved. It only evidences that a saving work did occur.

I would have to conceed that yes, we can't judge salvation in itself by what one does or doesn't do. Actually we can't judge the heart of a man at all. We open up a big ole can of worms when we do. I'm still trying to reconcile all this to Romans 8, John 14 and 15. Looking forward to your feedback.

I agree that the believer HAS the capacity. It is not progressively given to them. They have it in full no less they day they are born than the fiftieth year of their faithful service to Christ. Again, I believe in imputation. Since you do, too, I would encourage you to adopt a full view of imputation . . . We can do Rom 8 later. I think we did John 14 here, and I've provided a model for John 15 (which I think is one of the strongest supporting passages in all the Bible for my view!).

I think, at bottom, the Protestant Reformation was about the rediscovery of the doctrine of imputation. A lot of things led to that discovery--sola scriptura, among them. But the core issue for Luther and the others was imputation. Unfortunately, when people saw the ramifications of imputation proper, they shyed away . . .the developed the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, either postively, as in Calvinism, or negatively, as in Arminianism. In that, while in form they were Protestants, in heart they remained Catholic. There are, my friend, only two views:

Finally imputed salvation (the free grace view) or progressively infused sanctification (the Catholic view). All claim it is by faith. Some say it is by acts of faith (the sacraments, repentance, baptism, faith itself!); some say it is by simple faith (trust alone); but the bedrock issue is whether or not salvation is, as I have said before, this:

Either salvation is imputed, immediate, total, and logically assured (OSAS) or infused, mediate, progressive, and morally assured (Catholicism)

Let me qualify for the last time that I'm not speaking negatively of Catholicism here. I am drawing the firm distinction that must be made. I am convinced there are just as many saved Catholics as saved Protestants and condemned on both sides as well. But with reference to our discussion, there can be only one proper theology, and before we can decide what it is, we must defined the terms. This, then, I believe, is the sin qua non. Hope that helps, and I do again apologize if I now or have ever come across as angry, harsh, condemning, or anything at all like that.

edit: btw, i got your pmail, but no link!