Are Christians harmless? (page 23)

ozziepost

I think there have been some good, positive answers by many here on this subject eh?

well I had my doubts early on but.....yeah, it's OK!

cheers, Ozzie (in his upside down world)

LittleToe

Didier:

Still, there is a logical hiatus between the question and the answer.

I agree. If the logic were to stand entirely alone it would be dissatisfying.

This has to do with the parallel teachings about (1) being justified by Christ's death (= legal problem, solved in rhetorics) and (2) being saved with/in the risen Christ (religious problem, solved in mystical experience). Actually these are strictly parallel: they never meet.

I'm not sure I would go quite that far, though I think I understand your perspective.
I hope Gumby wont mind us digressing a moment, since the thread seems relatively spent on the original topic:

We could be justified without being saved.

Agreed. IMHO this is seen even in the JW position with the "Adam's scales" analogy.
Adamic sin is atoned for, but salvation cannot be known (to them).

We could be saved without being justified.

You might need to elaborate on that one for me. To my understanding it's entirely because we have been freely justified that we are able to be graciously saved. One precedes the other. In my mind it's one of the things that sets apart Christian "works-less" doctrine from most other religions including JW's (I knew I could tenuously bring it back towards the topic ).

IMO Paul often intertwines the subjects but never logically connects them.

I further suspect that he anticipates their rememberance of his teaching them in person. There seem to be so many "milk-like" things that he assumes the reader's knowledge of.

Narkissos

We could be saved without being justified.

You might need to elaborate on that one for me. To my understanding it's entirely because we have been freely justified that we are able to be graciously saved. One precedes the other. In my mind it's one of the things that sets apart Christian "works-less" doctrine from most other religions including JW's (I knew I could tenuously bring it back towards the topic ).

To me it is quite simple, because the problem of justification is a completely formal, artificial one, and it is secondary to the religious experience.

Let me imagine the following scenario for Pauline christianity: in the outskirts of Hellenistic judaism, a new "sect" is forming, including Jews, circumcised proselytes, and uncircumcised Gentile sympathizers attracted to Judaism in general (the "God-fearing") or to the sect specifically. All are tied together by a common religious experience, similar to what happened in a number of Hellenistic mystery cults (implying border-crossing communion, a new worldview, and some charismatic experience).

But in this particular case the experience is bound to raise questions, and the centrifugal forces in the new community will immediately surface. The main problem being the difference between people as to their links to the old religion (Judaism). A very strong link for some, nothing at all for others. The future of the new religious experience is threatened as some do not want to cut the ties with Judaism, whereas others do not want to become Jews. Remember, all have already experienced their "salvation" without having to do either this or that.

Everybody feels the need to figure out what they have been living. All have to rationalize their experience, and the resulting apology has to work for each one's mind, for the community at large and for the different cultures they come from. So in this particular case it needs to take in (1) the Jewish Scriptures, (2) the Hellenistic religious philosophy, and (3) the Roman legal and judicial rhetorics.

Paul's doctrine of justification providentially (and politically) comes up with a blend of these three ingredients, which appears to be acceptable to a sufficient majority. Of course he will be rejected by the far ends of the spectrum (from his POV): (1) the Jews who shared in the experience as Jews but never intended to become anything else, (2) the believers who did not want their experience tied (even rhetorically) with the Jewish law.

But aside for those political necessities you can well imagine other rationalizations of the religious experience:

1) (From the Jewish POV, e.g. James): God is attracting Gentiles to His people, now they have to be followers of the Law to be saved with His people.

2) (From the protoGnostic POV, e.g. John?): God has nothing to do with the Jewish Law, he now saves anyone who comes to him, by revealing his/her true divine nature.

In either case, salvation without justification (QED ).

(Or: I know I cannot be justified before Gumby for such an outrageous hijacking of his thread. I hope I'll be saved from his wrath however.)

LittleToe

S'ok, I'll keep Gumby at bay:
There, that should keep him occupied...

You don't see Paul as a third way, structuring the salvation as growing out of a finished work of (Roman) justification?
(I might be misreading you. It's been a long day. I'll reread this sometime tonight)

Meanwhile, thank you very much, for your reply.

gumby

Nice to see you back LT on this dicussion

I hope Gumby wont mind us digressing a moment, since the thread seems relatively spent on the original topic:

You guys can talk about whatever you like.....S,ok

I'm enjoying watching and popping in here and there.

Gumby

Narkissos

Ross,

You've been quite effective in "rubbing Gumbaal's face" (from a Hebrew idiom for "appeasing the deity").

I was trying to imagine a possible genesis for the Pauline idea of justification. In this regard I see it as secondary to the religious experience of "salvation" in early Hellenistic Christian communities.

IOW, I picture the "Paul" of Romans stepping in existing "churches" which he had not created (in contrast to the Acts which make him a missionary, but interestingly do not mention his specific doctrine) and promoting "his Gospel" as a way of rationalizing their experience, easing the tensions and, perhaps, taking some control. (Note that in Romans the author admittedly doesn't know most of his readers.)

What does he say? The "salvation" you are experiencing could not be real and valid if you hadn't first been "justified", accepted by God (the God of the Jews) as the sinners you were, on the basis of mere faith. But that was written in the Jewish Torah (Abraham's case, which Paul interprets against all the Jewish tradition as meaning "justification without works"). So you are OK with the God of the Jews, without practicing the works of the Torah.

In his doctrine, "justification" is indeed a prerequisite for "salvation". But actually it moves backwards, as the believers did not believe that before Paul stepped in. It is all a posteriori rationalization: the justification of pagan believers is, in effect, a justification of the Pauline communities (and of Paul's ministry) before Judaism in general and the party of James in particular. The money collection for the "saints in Judea" is supposed to sugar the pill. But this won't work.

Of course, when centuries later Luther discovers the Pauline rhetorics he will make a very different use of it. In Protestant exegesis "justification by faith alone, without works" becomes the central doctrine (a point which had curiously been missed by everybody in 14 centuries of previous exegesis), which now has to be accepted and believed for salvation. If I caricature a little: faith is replaced by faith in faith.

Let me try a comparison fwiw:

- the Pauline doctrine of justification is telling a patient who is being cured that he wouldn't have been cured had he not trusted the doctor. This may be right, but it doesn't change so much for the patient;

- the Protestant doctrine of justification is telling a patient that he will not be cured if he doesn't trust the doctor. Not exactly the same thing.

LittleToe

Didier:
I'm a little clearer on what you're saying now, thanks!
Paul effectively creates a synthesis, which appeases (or at least assuages) most parties, yes? He produces a mechanism for justification that gives a theoretical framework behind the "gnosis".

As for Gumbaal, I'd rather rub his face than suckle the paps of Gumbishtar

gumby

Paul effectively creates a synthesis, which appeases (or at least assuages) most parties, yes? He produces a mechanism for justification that gives a theoretical framework behind the "gnosis".

And the average laity person who for centuries has been reading these writings......is SUPPOSE to know all that?

This is one problem I've always had as regards exegesis of the bible. It takes dictionaries, commentaries, greek to said language books......to understand much of the bible. How did/do 'common people' deal with this dilema who do not have these avenues?

Gumby

LittleToe

Gumby:
For starters, I have a sneaky suspicion they knew Greek!

Secondly, they were probably far more experiential, and were likely glad someone could put some kind of psuedo-logical framework around this. It would have been comforting, though it certainly seems to have caused as much argument then as it does now. The Greeks were like that, doncha know

Edited to add a missing smiley.

gumby

For starters, I have a sneaky suspicion they knew Greek!

Lame answer!

Lets say we drop off a million bibles to some muslims at this moment........do your words apply then .....ya biastard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!( that theres a sheep a tryin ta git outta a da rain )

Gumby

Are Christians harmless?

Share this