Subjective Christianity

Live from Salt Lake City, Utah, this is heart of the Matter where we do all we can to try and worship God in Spirit and in Truth. I’m your host, Shawn McCraney.

Show 29 255 Sola Scriptura IX July 21st 2015
Let’s go right into a moment from the word. BOOM! (Run from the Word here)

The focus of this ministry has evolved over time as I have evolved (some would say as I have declined or de-evolved but I would disagree with that – how can we call an increase in patience and love de-evolution?) In any case we started hitting the LDS hard. Then we saw what was going on in the Evangelical World and hit it hard. Then we realized that hitting things hard is not the best approach. So we started looking at the HEART of the MATTER – faith in God through Jesus, loving God and Man . . . dying to division and differences, viewing the Bible contextually, challenging orthodoxy, etc. In essence and in the end we promote what we are calling Subjective Christianity or the idea that true Christianity is subjectively believed, braced and lived, that every individual is responsible before God for what they accept and reject and how they chose to love.

We have stepped back from allowing dogma to reign over our conversations and have tried to let the Spirit of Love reign in truth. Because this segment of the show is called “From the Word,” allow me to touch on some New Testament passages that endorse and support this approach – Just from Romans alone.

Biblical Endorsement

Paul says in Romans 8:33-34: Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Romans 12:3-10

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another.

Romans 14:1-10

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord,

Faith and Guidance

Every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

The jest of these passages are one in the same – let God through His Spirit lead and guide those who are His. I mean, let’s admit it here and now – we all believe what we believe anyway, no matter what.

And we are all going to die alone and go to God alone and give our report alone – so let’s celebrate the fact that God so loved the World that He sent His only begotten Son and those who believe on Him believe on Him by a very personal faith they received from Him.

And let’s back the fetch up on all the rest.

And with that, let’s take a minute for this little reminder from Cassidy:

(SHOW NEW SPOT HERE PLEASE)

Contributions of Erasmus

And with that how about a Word of Prayer.

PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER

Alright, let’s continue on where we left off last week where we introduced Erasmus and his contributions to the King James Version of the Bible due to his amazing knowledge of Latin and Greek. Erasmus wrote a number of other books in addition to his translations of the Bible from the Greek and Latin. By the 1530s, the writings of Erasmus accounted for 10 to 20 percent of all book sales in Europe. Some of the things that are credited to him are the adage, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" and the term Pandora’s Box – to name a few.

In the Christian area he wrote a book called, “Handbook of the Christian Soldier" (in 1503) which was translated into English a few years later by a young William Tyndale) a man we will discuss next week before Luther. In this little book Erasmus outlines the views of the normal Christian life, a subject he was impassioned about. To this man of great letters and learning, to this man whose translation of the Greek Mss were used to composed the King James Bible we learn that his greatest complaint against Christianity as it was practiced in his day was what he called, “formalism” which he described as “going through the motions of tradition without understanding their basis in the teachings of Christ.”

Erasmus on Formalism

That is an amazing insight from a practicing faithful Catholic. To Erasmus formalism can teach the soul how to worship God but they can also serve to hide or quench the spirit. His assessment were dead on when it came to the grave dangers of formalism, monasticism, saint worship, war, the spirit of class and the foibles of society. In my estimation he saw clearly and discerned correctly. In another book – which admittedly bordered on satire – he – (LISTEN) He extolled the reading of scripture “as vital because of its power to transform and motivate toward love.” He summarized his view as saying that “the New Testament is the law of Christ people are called to obey and that Christ

Erasmus and the Refusal to Divide

He also labored greatly on the works of the early church fathers including Jerome, Hilary, St Augustine and among the Greeks the works of Irenaeus, Origen, and Chrysostom. He wrote other satirical works and even a book that responded to Niccolo Machiavelli’s, The Prince, where Machiavelli said a leader would gain more by operating through fear but Erasmus claimed that a leader would gain the most by operating by love. Amidst all of this, there was a constant and tremendous pressure on him to leave the Catholic Church and join Luther.

Remember Erasmus was committed to the Catholic Church but only to its virtues and he was willing to critique and criticize things that needed to be changed. On these grounds he has my greatest respect because he did NOT let zealotry blind him to the good Roman Catholicism produced but merely challenged the bad. As stated last week the work of Erasmus and his New Testament helped fan the flames of Martin Luther and his reformational activities which began in the year following the publication of his New Testament. As we are well aware, the issues that separated Catholicism and Luther’s nascent Protestantism produced a tremendous amount of rancor between the two sides and before long there was great pressure to choose sides.

Critique Over Allegiance

At the height of his literary career Erasmus was called to do the same but this was not his nature. His approach was to not care about sides but instead critique and openly criticize whatever he believed was unsupported by scripture and the early church fathers – no matter who said it or what “side” they represented. I admire this too and have never understood all or nothing hatred or endorsement for anything just because it’s the side a person leans toward. In all Erasmus’s criticisms of clerical follies and abuses, he always maintained – to the death – that he was not attacking the church itself or its doctrines, and had no enmity toward churchmen. In my estimation he above all other church reformers embodied the Spirit of Christ. Additionally, he retained his intellectual integrity amidst it all because he did NOT seek to build a following unto himself.

We know this because the letters he wrote were written in academic language – Greek and Latin – the language of scholars, something the masses were not. I mention all of these things to help validate his oppositional positions which are often lost in the popularity of those who appealed to revolution rather than reconciliation. Enter Martin Luther. Erasmus couldn’t help but notice Luther's criticism of the Catholic Church. At the onset he described Luther as "a mighty trumpet of gospel truth" while agreeing, "It is clear that many of the reforms for which Luther calls are urgently needed.” In turn Luther spoke with admiration of Erasmus's superior learning. But like any person seeking overthrow Luther wanted more from Erasmus than intellect – he wanted his allegiance.

The Divergence with Luther

In their early correspondence, Luther expressed boundless admiration for all Erasmus had done in the cause of a sound and reasonable Christianity but urged him to join the “Lutheran party.” Why? Couldn’t one person out of all who agreed with Luther could have remained behind? Did Luther have to have complete allegiance to his vision? Couldn’t he see the value of Erasmus as an allied force behind the scene? Naturally, Erasmus declined to commit himself, arguing that to do so would endanger his position as a leader in the movement for pure scholarship which he regarded as his purpose in life. In other words it was only as an independent scholar that Erasmus could hope to influence the reform of religion. But when Erasmus hesitated to support him, the straightforward Luther got angered and claimed Erasmus was avoiding his responsibility – suggesting it was either due to “cowardice or a lack of purpose.”

This was the first division between Luther and Erasmus and it was founded on the fact that Erasmus refused to join “team Luther.” It is a fact that in retrospect accentuates our purpose and point today – we do NOT need to divide. The Spirit of Christ abiding in all who are His plainly suggests that we can remain accepting while differing GREATLY in our approaches to the King. Any hesitancy on the part of Erasmus came not from lack of courage or conviction but rather from a concern over the mounting disorder and violence of the reformed movement was creating – remember – among PEOPLE WHO SOUGHT TO LOVE AND SERVE GOD IN

The Role of Erasmus in the Reformation

JESUS NAME. In a letter to Protestant Reformer Philip Melanchthon, Erasmus wrote in 1524: “I know nothing of your church; at the very least it contains people who will, I fear, overturn the whole system and drive the princes into using force to restrain good men and bad alike. The gospel, the word of God, faith, Christ, and Holy Spirit – these words are always on their lips; look at their lives and they speak quite another language.” Now remember, Erasmus was majorly informed on the contents of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers. He was a firsthand witness of the reformers and their followers and the Spirit they embodied, and He was ardently faithful to God and His purposes.

With that background we have to take his assessment of the reformers and those who followed them seriously – as seriously as we would take the assessment of a firsthand witness of Joseph Smith and his followers back in the day – it's only fair. Are you willing to do this, or will you toss Erasmus away simply because he did not have a huge following or because he remained Catholic, or because he might have even been a homosexual? I’m not saying that Erasmus and his assessment was completely correct but I am saying that all points of view play a role and what he observed in the Reformation was not all goodness and holiness and purity.

Erasmus' Critique on The Reformers

In 1529, Erasmus wrote something called, “An epistle against those who falsely boast they are Evangelicals.” Here he begins to complain of the doctrines and morals of the Reformers, saying: “You declaim bitterly against the luxury of priests, the ambition of bishops, the tyranny of the Roman Pontiff, and the babbling of the sophists; against our prayers, fasts, and Masses; and you are not content to retrench the abuses that may be in these things, but must needs abolish them entirely… Look around on this ‘Evangelical’ generation, and observe whether amongst them less indulgence is given to luxury, lust, or avarice, than amongst those whom you so detest. Show me any one person who by 'that Gospel' has been reclaimed from drunkenness to sobriety, from fury and passion to meekness, from avarice to liberality, from reviling to well-speaking, from wantonness to modesty. I will show you a great many who have become worse through following it…. The solemn prayers of the Church are abolished, but now there are very many who never pray at all….

I have never entered their conventicles, but I have sometimes seen them returning from their sermons, the countenances of all of them displaying rage, and wonderful ferocity, as though they were animated by the evil spirit….

Whoever beheld in their meetings any one of them shedding tears, smiting his breast, or grieving for his sins ?…

Confession to the priest is abolished, but very few now confess to God…. They have fled from Judaism that they may become Epicureans.”

The Dialectical Process

Did Erasmus have a valid point? When the pendulum swings it certainly swings wide, does it not? In many ways what was happening between Catholicism and the Protestants, between Erasmus and Luther pictured what Hegel created and called “the dialectic.” For more than a millennia philosophers, like the Christians who would flow in behind them, would spout their philosophy as “the true philosophy.” From Paramedies and Heraclitus, to Socrates and Aristotle, to Decarte and Kant, everyone wanted to author and bottle and sell their special brand of Philosophy as right.

Well along comes Hegel and he says that this is a historical process whereby we everything sort of grows by feeding and fighting off each other which enables them to arrive at new truths. Hegel proposed that instead of one form being right or absolute that it would serve as an element that would serve to produce future truths. Using religion it might look like this: Church A says, “Jesus was all Man.” This is what Hegel called a thesis statement. Church B, in an affront to church A’s thesis provides an antithesis claim and says: “Jesus was all God.” From these two perspectives colliding and conflicting and challenging each other, we arrive at a SYNTHESIS of the TWO: “Jesus was all man and all God.” In time, this synthesis will become the New Thesis – which of course will be at some time or another challenged by a new ANTITHESIS – and on and on and on.

When Luther confronted Catholicism we have the conflict, the dialectic with Catholicism representing a historical thesis, Luther (backed by the work of Erasmus providing a

Subjective Christianity and Existentialism

ANTITHESIS, with the Lutheran church becoming the Synthesis . . . which ultimately because the New Thesis and from there we have today grown to tens and tens of thousands of Synthesis Religions around the Word – all claiming Jesus in some form or another. You may not like me – why would you. You may not agree with me on this point of doctrine or another. You may believe that my opinions are outside the pale of the Bible – but I’m telling you – humbly and in the cause of Christian peace, THAT IN THE FACE of where we are today, there is truly ONLY one way to approach each other in the Christian faith –

Subjectively. We preach and teach and share Jesus. We let the Holy Spirit guide and lead us to know who He is personally. We teach the Bible to the best of our respective abilities and we let EVERYTHING else go.

Kierkegaard's Influence

Interestingly enough, in philosophical circles, Hegel and his dialectic was NOT the end. In my estimation several approaches have come and gone but the one that continues to thrive – both in reality, and therefore functionality and with purpose – is existentialism, founded by Christian believer Soren Kierkegaard. I find it utterly amazing (and absolutely the work of God) that Kierkegaard’s views on Subjective Christianity are truly the only solution to the condition of the church today – which, admittedly, were not authored by him but Christ Himself. He could just discern them from scripture. Applying Kierkegaard's model of Existentialism to the faith we can indeed be freed to love.

In addition to his perceived moral failings of the Reformers, Erasmus also dreaded any change in doctrine, citing the long history of the Church as a bulwark against innovation. In book I of his Hyperaspistes he puts the matter bluntly to Luther himself:

Erasmus and the Reformation

“We are dealing with this: Would a stable mind depart from the opinion handed down by so many men famous for holiness and miracles, depart from the decisions of the Church, and commit our souls to the faith of someone like you who has sprung up just now with a few followers, although the leading men of your flock do not agree either with you or among themselves – indeed though you do not even agree with yourself, since in this same Assertion you say one thing in the beginning and something else later on, recanting what you said before.”

Continuing his chastisement of Luther—and undoubtedly put off by what he comically said was "no pure interpretation of Scripture anywhere but in Wittenberg" Erasmus then touches upon another important point of the controversy to Luther, saying: “You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the lord of Holy Scripture.”

Erasmus was on to something here. His point to Luther was, “You claim sola scriptura, sola scriptura, but demand people adhere to your interpretation of scripture alone.” Erasmus saw through the hole in the whole matter. Unfortunately, this has been the standard of Protestantism – UNLESS YOU SEE AND INTERPRET SCRIPTURE AS WE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE YOU ARE IN THE WRONG. The formula for thousands of denominations all seeking to own the one true way. Which – listen – is IMPOSSIBLE. So Subjectivism continues to be the only viable answer to Christianity.

Unlike Luther, Erasmus was not in support of division and said: "I detest dissension because it goes both against the teachings of Christ and against a secret inclination of nature. I doubt that either side in the dispute can be suppressed without grave loss."

In his catechism of 1533 titled, Explanation of the Apostles' Creed, Erasmus took a stand against Luther's teaching by asserting the unwritten Sacred Tradition as just as valid a source of revelation as the Bible. He did this by enumerating the Deuterocanonical books in the canon of the Bible and by acknowledging seven sacraments. He additionally supported lay access to the Bible. In a letter Luther resorted to the rhetorical tools found in the mouths of many Evangelicals today when they are disagreed with and called Erasmus a "viper," "liar," and "the very mouth and organ of Satan." Like anyone seeking for peace and unity Erasmus was also accused by the Catholic Monks who said that.

Erasmus and Luther's Theological Debate

He had: "prepared the way and was responsible for Martin Luther. Erasmus, they said, had laid the egg, and Luther had hatched it.” In response Erasmus, ever witty, dismissed the charge, and claimed that “Luther had hatched a different bird entirely.”

Finally, while attempting to avoid most theological debates Erasmus did argue for one – a human beings “freedom of choice.” Drawing on his astute knowledge of scripture and a large array of notable authorities Origen, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, in addition to Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Erasmus argued that human beings have free will. Luther agressively disagreed.

He was also very big on religious toleration saying, even in the face of his own Roman Catholism that “outward signs were not important; what mattered was the believer's direct relationship with God, which he noted "as the [Catholic] church believes.”

The Legacy and Impact of Erasmus

Erasmus died suddenly from dissentary and according to his friend, his last words were, “Dear God).” Erasmus, like Kierkegaard after him, set an example of Christianity that Luther could have more seriously considered. It would have saved millions of lives – a number somewhere in the tens of millions. It’s not that Luther was all wrong. His criticisms against the machine were, in my estimation, legitimate. But dogma and doctrinal demands and denominationalisms are, as Erasmus and Kierkegaard pointed out, subjective. Luther didn’t offer true subjective religion – only the promise of it. What was delivered was really just more of the same.

Let’s Open up the phone lines: (801)

And while the ops are clearing your calls let’s take one more look at this really important spot: SHOW NEW SPOT AGAIN HERE.

Personal Experiences and Queries

Emails

From: Heather
Subject: Leaving the LDS/Mormon faith.
Message Body:

Hi, I have become a huge fan of Heart of the Matter. I do not believe in the Mormon church and I am looking for help in just how I need to leave. I also find myself struggling with belief in any God or Jesus (I really don’t know how to explain it). Looking for help and maybe some answers. Thanks, Heather

FROM CANADA

From: Pat
Subject: mments
Message Body:

Again, I really like your sincerity in how you challenge anything orthodox (though I believe in many of the basic creedal tenents), but also allow people to think for themselves.

Thanks for your hard work in studying the Bible. Have been watching a few years since you were on the Drew Marshall show, a “spiritual show” up here near Toronto Canada.

Take care.

(Mr) Pat Colucci

The Christian Experience

RESPONSE

More and more I am personally understanding the score of what it means to be a Christian and I gotta tell you the picture ain’t pretty. Now, individual believers can alter this picture anytime they want – all they have to do is seek to please men more than God. Do that, and the pain stops. But as long as a person is bent on pleasing God and NOT men, this is the biblical picture awaiting them. Ready?

• Jesus was born and His birth was celebrated. Just like when we are born again our “birth from above ” is celebrated. Everyone is our friend – you’re the newest member of the Kingdom – Praise God. And as a babe every really likes you because they get to not only love on you as a babe they get to direct you and tell you how to think and be.

And in the Biblical narrative . . .

• Jesus grew in wisdom and stature. He lived His life, had a trade, friends in the community (it is assumed).

We do the same as believers – we continue to live our lives as new borns, preparing ourselves and letting God prepare us for His causes and purposes.

• Then “His Time had come” and Jesus – our Lord – entered into ministry full time. At this point He tells others to “follow Him.” Yes, there were sacrifices – He had to leave the comforts of home and friends – the carpenters Son was stepping out now. And while the early ministry had presented with obvious sacrifices (the Son of Man had no place to rest His head) it was a time of great support and acceptance. The masses love to flock and get involved in “the next new thing,” right?

Main Topic: Following in Christ's Footsteps

It was revival. Miracles. Lives changed. Lots of support. Lots going on. “This is the King we have been looking for,” they said. It’s the same with us – to varying degrees. Following Him, we step out and do what God has prepared us to do. Yes, there are sacrifices, but the response is phenomenal. So phenomenal that many people stop seeking to please Him at this point and start seeking to please the people around them. They strive to build and recreate this early excitement – weekend and week out. But not Jesus. Listen – and NOT THOSE WHO FOLLOW JESUS.

• See, as the masses grew, they did what masses do… they make demands, which are typically demands for comfort. They want to be entertained, they want to elect Kings from among themselves to protect them and ensure their future, and they want to be fed – both with food and spiritual reassurances. And so in Jesus' ministry, He had to start letting them know that He was not going to be their earthly King, that they ought to seek eternal food rather than food that perishes, and that they needed to hear the hard things of the Kingdom. At one point, when Jesus told the disciples that they had to eat His flesh and blood and people got offended – so offended that John tells us:

John 6:66 “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”

The Cost of True Discipleship

Are we to expect ANYTHING different in our walk with Christ our King than this? Didn’t John need to decrease so Christ could increase? Is this not the lot of every believer? If so, why do we herald churches and pastors and ministries that grow and grow and grow when the opposite model is presented throughout scripture IN THE LIVES of INDIVIDUAL followers of Him.

• And what happened to Our King once the masses started leaving Him? It was a descent to death. First, He lost the masses, then He lost a key disciple, then the rest scattered leaving Him, then the Senior Apostle denied Him, then He was taken by the most ardent outwardly religious folks of His day and they had Him stripped, beaten, mocked, and killed – alone – on a cross, like a thief, like a criminal, outside the City gates where society thrives.

Listen – are ANY true followers of Him to expect ANYTHING different in their lives? We say we believe and read and trust the Bible – why don’t we embrace and seek and expect THIS model to be played out in our lives instead of hailing models of mass appeal and worldly success, and the praise of men?

A Paradox of Faith

Why? Because just as Jesus said, “Few be there that find it.” It’s paradoxical, isn’t it? I am a total reconciliationist and am committed to the idea (From the Bible) that God through Christ will ultimately reconcile all people to Himself. But don’t get me wrong – I am just as committed to the fact that God has His Children, and His Children – like His only begotten Son who came before them – will suffer a very similar model as His Son, despised and rejected by the most religious men but who will, through suffering, become joint-heirs with Him. They – and you know who you are – are truly NOT of this World.