Two classes of Christians after all?

by Narkissos 36 Replies latest jw friends

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Euph:
    Theologically I'm not a Universalist, I'm a Moderate Calvinist. By that frame of reference Hitler likely isn't in heaven, and life is a gift, rather than something we earn. To understand my position you need to understand that I don't hold to the idea of cookie-cut Christians. Variety is the spice of life. Oftentimes the only thing in common is Christ.

    Matthew 16:24,25 and 7:13,14

    All are equal, life is a gift, but each has different "gifts", purpose, and role in life and none should judge the other in that. Suffering and avenues of service are by degree, and the execution therein is due to providence. Regardless, the main focus is Christ and a life of faith and love.

    Matthew 10:41,42 and 25:40

    All are equal, life is a gift, but each has different "gifts", purpose, and role in life and none should judge the other in that. Suffering and avenues of service are by degree, and the execution therein is due to providence. Regardless, the main focus is Christ and a life of faith and love.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Terry,

    We are not exactly talking about the same topic.

    You describe a possible scenario of the multiple origins of early Christian diversity. I was trying to point out how, within each one of the conflicting early Christian movements, a diversity of faith / fate, vocation / way of life, was acknowledged and dealt with, according to a quasi-economic pattern of salvific "exchange".

    In Paulinism, the "apostles" work and suffer so that the (mostly Gentile) believers may be saved, theoretically by faith alone, practically through submission and respect to the "apostles".

    In Judeo-Christianity, the "disciples" have to forsake everything so that the (first Jewish, then Gentile) believers may be saved, theoretically by simple observation of the Law, practically through supporting the disciples.

    In each one of those "early Christian" movements "salvation" is not a simple gift / way common to all, but is worked through mutual exchange between (at least) two categories of people with a pretty different vocation or way of life. Speaking of "classes" is of course excessive (I used the word as a provocative allusion to WT theology), but I guess you see my point.

    Btw the relationship between Jews and Gentiles can be described through a similar "economical" pattern, both sides of the misunderstanding.

    E.g., from the Pauline standpoint, in the diplomatic statement of Romans 15:27 about the Gentile gifts to the Jews: "They were pleased to do this, and indeed they owe it to them; for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things."

    Or, from the remarkable Jewish anti-Jewish standpoint of Matthew, 8:10ff: "Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 21:43: The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom."

    Ross,

    I understand your reaction because this aspect of NT theology is one I only reluctantly came to, probably due to bad JW memories. However, I think it was an essential part of early Christianity, making it very different from modern Protestant individualism, which retained the Pauline motto "salvation by faith alone" but toned down the at least equally Pauline theology of the collective body of Christ. The idea that people are not saved alone but one through another, in a potentially infinite number of ways, is quite worth meditating imo, even in a post-Christian perspective such as mine.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Euph:In connection with the Lukian sayings, note the context of the first passage. Rather than merely not being against Jesus, the man was actually using his name and allegedly with good intent. I see no contradiction when you consider the context of the occurance.

    Why am I put in mind of Mark 10:2, 3? How do you reply?

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Didier:
    Ah, I think I now see the thrust of what you are considering here. Very good.

    If Christ is in each believer, surely it would behoove each to act in a right manner to their brethren (and all others, for who knows but that they might assist an angel unbeknown, as Spurgeon alluded to in his preaching to the "elect").

    For this reason many engage in communal worship, even if it is separate from Rome. Bearing in mind that the Reformation hadn't originally intended a division in the church (body of Christ), and Augustine's words about unity and diversity ring loud in my ears...

  • Van Gogh
    Van Gogh

    Thanks Narkissos.

    I must, of course, admit that my perspective on your question and Christianity is still very much subjective and is still colored by traditional idealism to say the least. Of course I know way too little about the bare irrational facts that hence need to be "rearranged" by a kind of spiritually induced common sense and intuitive reasoning.

    I have learnt a lot yet again tonight, particularly also from the comments made by Terry. I never imagined that finding out that the core of the WTS is based on pseudo-logic, falsehoods, and distortions, if not outright lies and deception, would also by definition, to a large extent, invalidate most of what can be accepted as fact in the Scriptures. If you apply true common sense and logic to the WTS and JWism, it logically follows that these must also be applied to the Bible and even God himself.

    This ongoing realization is what has come as a great surprise to me as I always understood that becoming, for example, an atheist, after leaving the WTS, was proof that trust had been placed in men rather than God from the start, and that one simply had never truly believed in the Bible God from the start. As it is, it turns out that it is exactly that, what I have been doing al along. A shocking look in the mirror!

    I am, of course, obligated to educate myself on this subject. Although previously revered "truths" are evaporating for me rapidly now, I would like to express that I find the increase in unanswerable questions to be somewhat of a relief from a rigid belief system that never allowed any. I like it.A pact with the Devil..?

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism
    Little Toe wrote:All are equal, life is a gift, but each has different "gifts", purpose, and role in life and none should judge the other in that. Suffering and avenues of service are by degree, and the execution therein is due to providence. Regardless, the main focus is Christ and a life of faith and love.

    So, the requirements for salvation are different depending on what each person is called to, but that's okay because the fulfillment of those requirements is through divine providence anyway. Is that a fair description?

    I see no contradiction when you consider the context of the occurance.

    So Jesus was not actually making a general pronouncement beyond the circumstances of the specific occurrence. Gotcha.

    (Okay, that was a little unfair of me. The statements could be differentiated as 'anyone doing good is okay, even if they're not with me' as opposed to 'anyone not doing good is doing bad.' I honestly don't see much justification for that in the text, but I asked how you reconcile them, and you did answer.)

    Little Toe wrote:Why am I put in mind of Mark 10:2, 3? How do you reply?

    I think the Pharisees were damn smart people. Of course, there is a plausible theory that Jesus himself was a Pharisee, or at least Pharisaically educated. In any case, his genius was that he understood the concept of 'framing'. He realized that if you actually try to rebut your opponent's logic, you've conceded the battle to them. Instead, you have to change the terms of the argument, and if possible, put them on the defensive. It may not be kosher in academic debate, which is what the Pharisees were accustomed to, but it plays well to the crowds. Which I guess shows that Jesus would do really well on TV if he were around nowadays.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Euph,

    The sociological approach to early Christianity, as pioneered by Gerd Theissen, is a fascinating field indeed. And the fact that the most obviously anti-Pauline writing in the NT, i.e. the epistle of James, also contains the most violent charges against social discrimination, is certainly not fortuitous.

    Ross,

    Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, VII, 13) quotes an early Christian work often called Traditions of Matthias as saying: "If the neighbour of an elect man sin, the elect man has sinned. For had he conducted himself as the Word prescribes, his neighbour also would have been filled with such reverence for the life he led as not to sin."

    Not even Hitler's "sins" are isolated imo.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    I would like to express that I find the increase in unanswerable questions to be somewhat of a relief from a rigid belief system that never allowed any. I like it.A pact with the Devil..?

    The Word was with God,

    But the Question mark was with the devil?

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    "Not even Hitler's "sins" are isolated imo."

    cf. 2000 US election

    :D Happy New Year Didier, Ross, Euph, and the fng ;)

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    Happy New Year, you f---ing Godwin's Law invoker.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit