You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
December 07, 2004
"Christianity Maybe an Antichrist"
Dwight Friesen writes:
Christ trumps all religious systems. Jesus Christ did not create a religion, he lived meta-religion; no religion could contain him.Read the rest here.
Challenging stuff, but very well said.
Posted at 1:50 pm
Trackbacks (1):Jesus of Islam
"Jesus" is one of those names that you grow up hearing and when spoken invokes an image for practically everyone around the world. For Christians he is a living and real presence in their lives. For others, growing up in…
Sent on December 14, 2004 at 9:19 pm , via A Dervish's Du`a'
Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (11):
Great article!! :) I would say that anything taken to an extreme can be a form of antichrist I guess, I don’t know. I originally thought Christianity encompassed what Jesus said and did and included what Paul said being that it is God breathed as well. But I know that if we take the do’s and don’ts too much (we obey God because Jesus and God’s word does tell us to do and not do certain things)and not look at the heart then we face the possibilty of being in the Pharisee category. The other extreme can be summed up in Romans 8:1. It is such a balance and both extremes are I guess antichrist. I originally thought antichrist was set up by Satan but I still need to think about this. Thank you for making me think with this post. :)
dh () - December 07, 2004 at 4:11 pm
well, expectedly, i have reservations about such statements like “ he didnt come to teach the law but fulfill it”. its inconsistent to say that he didn’t teach the law but suggested that we follow him. what example did he set? he kept the law. the comment about extremeties, as even scripture suggests, heart with out knowledge and vice versa are unwise and strongly cautioned. however, in my opinion, this writing in itself, really is more heavy on the heart side and seems less interested in theology. thus, throwing it off balance and becoming self refuting in regards balance and extremes. if i might suggest a more balance writing: http://www.branchofhope.org/documents/ga..
my two cents anyway….
my two cents anyway….
Dennisthemenace () - December 07, 2004 at 5:36 pm
hmmm…i agree with the article, and i also agree with dennis’ idea about teaching/fulfilling the law. Jesus did both, to be sure. at the same time, however, i think it’s nit-picky to say the imbalanced presentation makes the article “self-refuting”. in fact, i think the whole of what the article talks about is, at its core, a theological question. sure, the author addresses it along the lines of the heart, but to say it’s not interested in theology doesnt add up. likewise, it seems that Jesus generally didnt back up what he said with theological expositions, but tackled the core theological issues at hand via peoples’ hearts. true, this article isnt, say, Lewis quality, but it makes an excellent point and makes it well.
jared () - December 08, 2004 at 5:36 pm
Well, I don’t know Dwight Friesen personally, but I do know a little about him — he and the pastor of my church are friends. Anyway, of the things I know about him, he is definitely not lax on theology — even if it does come from his heart. If you’d like, read more about him at his website:
http://www.dwightfriesen.com/
In any case, I appreciated his words, and as I said: “Challenging stuff.” Historically, this may not be the kind of thing we’d like to attach to the “label” of “our” faith, but it is well worth using as a check-and-balance (in my opinion).
http://www.dwightfriesen.com/
In any case, I appreciated his words, and as I said: “Challenging stuff.” Historically, this may not be the kind of thing we’d like to attach to the “label” of “our” faith, but it is well worth using as a check-and-balance (in my opinion).
timsamoff () (URL) - December 09, 2004 at 07:58 am
P.S. Dennis ~ I think that the PDF you shared is pretty good — definitely a well-founded, classical look at Jesus and the Law (I recommend anyone who visits here read it).
But, I think that the classical view of Jesus and the Law may try to combine Jesus’s role in the holy trinity to much with the Father’s role — I don’t know, this is something I’m wrestling with right now and it may deserve it’s own Blog entry!
What I mean (quite shortly) is that I don’t know if Jesus’s part in the Kingdom has anything to do with the Law per se — that, quite possibly, may still lay on the Father’s head. And, yes, I know that the Three are One and all — none of these thoughts are truly fleshed out at this moment. I do know that Jesus did not come to judge the world, but to save it — judgment was always (and will always be?) up to the Father… So, as far as the Dwight’s statement, “Though he was a Jewish Rabbi, he didn’t teach the law, he fulfilled it” — or any other statement you might want to choose from his essay — might, in fact, be theologically sound in that Christ’s role on earth wasn’t to establish any sort of religious system, but to buck it… Etc., etc., etc.
I need to think on this some more.
But, I think that the classical view of Jesus and the Law may try to combine Jesus’s role in the holy trinity to much with the Father’s role — I don’t know, this is something I’m wrestling with right now and it may deserve it’s own Blog entry!
What I mean (quite shortly) is that I don’t know if Jesus’s part in the Kingdom has anything to do with the Law per se — that, quite possibly, may still lay on the Father’s head. And, yes, I know that the Three are One and all — none of these thoughts are truly fleshed out at this moment. I do know that Jesus did not come to judge the world, but to save it — judgment was always (and will always be?) up to the Father… So, as far as the Dwight’s statement, “Though he was a Jewish Rabbi, he didn’t teach the law, he fulfilled it” — or any other statement you might want to choose from his essay — might, in fact, be theologically sound in that Christ’s role on earth wasn’t to establish any sort of religious system, but to buck it… Etc., etc., etc.
I need to think on this some more.
timsamoff () (URL) - December 09, 2004 at 08:08 am
Hey Tim, interesting thoughts…I would say that Jesus absolutely has a role as judge. Check out these verses: John 5:24-28, II Timiothy 4:1-3, Matthew 7:21-23, I Peter 4:1-5, Acts 10:40-42, Romans 2:16, John 3:17, Matthew 10:32-34.
Also, I would say that Jesus part in the kingdom is inseperably related to the Law. He came to fulfill as well as transcend and redefine it. The most obvious example of this is His death on the cross, but a less dramatic (and more subtle) example would be His sermon in Matthew 5 where he shows us that the Law is, at its core, an issue of the heart. Also, I think its to simplistic to say that He merely came to buck a system—why would God give the Israelites the Law merely to undermine it later on? Sure it became systemetized and religious, but Jesus came and showed us what the Law was meant to be and supposed to do for us, what God intended for us all along. Does that make sense?
Also, I would say that Jesus part in the kingdom is inseperably related to the Law. He came to fulfill as well as transcend and redefine it. The most obvious example of this is His death on the cross, but a less dramatic (and more subtle) example would be His sermon in Matthew 5 where he shows us that the Law is, at its core, an issue of the heart. Also, I think its to simplistic to say that He merely came to buck a system—why would God give the Israelites the Law merely to undermine it later on? Sure it became systemetized and religious, but Jesus came and showed us what the Law was meant to be and supposed to do for us, what God intended for us all along. Does that make sense?
jared () - December 09, 2004 at 7:34 pm
oops…not sure how John 3:17 slipped in there! still a good one, though.
jared () - December 09, 2004 at 8:37 pm
Jesus did say, “if you love me keep my commandments”. I like what you had to say Jared. I also think there has to be a balance hence my first post. Romans 8:1 is a great passage. It is not do’s and don’ts it is heart but part of the heart is living for Him as much as possible. Analogy: When I obey my dad I do it because I love Him. (I also am instructed to do so) but my love for my dad makes me to want to do the right things not because I’m instructed to. This is the same way I try to live for Christ.
DH () - December 10, 2004 at 08:27 am
absolutely, dh. well said.
jared () - December 10, 2004 at 11:41 am
you guys are cool. thats from my “heart”. haha.
Dennisthemenace () - December 10, 2004 at 7:03 pm
Hey, guys… Sorry I stopped commenting on this one — you all have provided a lot for me to think about — and read, etc. I may be coming up with something new about it all soon, so keep reading/commenting!
timsamoff () (URL) - December 11, 2004 at 08:23 am
