6 ms·

> ...the mainstream Christian opinion that the Old Testament is vengeful and the New Testament is merciful... That's not mainstream Christian opinion. It's cal

by geowwy 9y ago

> ...the mainstream Christian opinion that the Old Testament is vengeful and the New Testament is merciful... That's not mainstream Christian opinion. It's called Marcionism and it's universally condemned by mainstream Christianity.

linkregister 9y ago
Your characterization of my viewpoint is highly distorted. No credible mainstream Christian rejects the Old Testament.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  The "it" to which gp refers is not the old testament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
  - nl 9y ago
    Yes, but saying that @linkregister's views are Marcionism does misrepresent their views completely. Marcionism is nothing like what linkregister is claiming.
nl 9y ago
That's not mainstream Christian opinion. It's fair to say it misses many subtleties of mainstream Christian view, but it is still more true than untrue. The theology of sanctifying grace[1] and the mercy of salvation[2] are both New Testament ideals which are the core of mainstream Christian theology. It's called Marcionism and it's universally condemned by mainstream Christianity. Marcionism is a whole other thing, involving two gods: Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. The idea of there being two, separate gods is what made it heretical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_in_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_in_Christianity [2] https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-mercy-72461 https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-merc...
- macawfish 9y ago
  Another example in evangelical Christianity is the "new covenant vs old covenant" theology.
  - jorangreef 9y ago
    The difference between New Covenant and Old Covenant is a matter of a change in place, not a matter of a change in God's character (which stays the same). The Old Covenant was the law written on tablets of stone, see Exodus 33-34. The New Covenant is the law written on tablets of human hearts, see Ezekiel 36. The place changes from "tablets of stone" to "tablets of human hearts". It's also critical to understand that both covenants were given to those who were ALREADY God's people, saved on the basis of grace, through faith. The Old Covenant was given to those who had already been saved out of Egypt by God's powerful grace. The New Covenant is written on the hearts of those who are saved through faith in Christ's suffering, death and resurrection on their behalf. The Exodus then, rightly understood, is a foreshadowing of the need to be saved from slavery to sin (Jesus' own commentary in John 8). Salvation in both OT and NT has always been on the basis of faith, see Abraham ("and his faith was counted to him as righteousness" - and this long before the Law was given). Salvation has never been on the basis of Law-keeping since the Law was given to fallen man after the events of Genesis 3 (Romans 5). We are not sinners because we break the Law. We break the Law because we are sinners. The Law makes people conscious of sin, and drives them to the grace of God. Once there, the Law shows people how to be godly, because the Law reflects God's own character. So the difference is where the Law is written, not the contents of the Law itself. As Jesus said, the Law is to "love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself". But knowing that, or trying to keep the Law externally will only lead to a knowledge of sin. It's faith in Christ alone which saves. We are not saved BY works, but FOR works and then again only once we are saved (Ephesians 2), and that by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, according to God's words alone, for God's glory alone.
    - macawfish 9y ago
      I'm referring to this theology more as a cultural and mythological phenomenon, which is why I specified "evangelical". If you step outside of the text for a minute and look at how these things have gotten unpacked, maybe you will catch what I mean. Many people interpret the new covenant as God's change of heart. I don't think it is internally possible to acknowledge that the new testament and old testament gods are "different", for that would be a surface violation of monotheism, which is the common understanding of Moses' "first commandment". (this is problematic on many levels, but its the state of popular Christianity). To many Christians, Moses' first commandment is still wrapped up in "put no god before me", which they interpret to mean that Buddhists and Muslims can't "get saved" or some other similar thing. Ugh. The point being that its not safe for some fearful Christians to acknowledge that in their own belief system, "god" takes radically different characters in different contexts... That's too much cognitive dissonance and flirts with a violation of monotheism. The same cognitive dissonance hovers around trinitarian theology, which people also idolize. Whereas in popular practice, there are myths saying God changes his basic agreement with humankind, and that it represents a change of heart. That God has a moment. Even if theologically the idea of the old and new covenants is that human beings have come to a fresh relationship with god through some realization and change in their hearts, in evangelicalism it is too commonly is unpacked as "God used to be angry, but now he forgives us. Specifically because of Jesus sacrifice, we get a 'second chance.' Don't blow it." I understand what your saying too, and find it compelling. I just don't wanna ignore the cultural myths attached to these theologies. Those are what make it a religion... how people unpack it. All that said, I really do like your interpretation of the kernel of these theologies. I'd also point out that Jesus says "I came to fill up the law". Jesus emphasized the positive character of the law, whereas Moses' was prohibitive, framed in negative terms. A lot of messianic type folks miss that one. They interpret this as a statement of pending apocalypse. But it's really just more of a throwback to the original grace, and simple righteousness, of an integrated passion for your life and the people in it. "What does the lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your god?" says Micah as he forecasts that some of the the poorest, marginalized people will realize, in a major way, that the answer to that question is "not much else".

by geowwy 9y ago

linkregister 9y ago

Your characterization of my viewpoint is highly distorted. No credible mainstream Christian rejects the Old Testament.

Godel_unicode 9y ago
The "it" to which gp refers is not the old testament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
- nl 9y ago
  Yes, but saying that @linkregister's views are Marcionism does misrepresent their views completely. Marcionism is nothing like what linkregister is claiming.

nl 9y ago

That's not mainstream Christian opinion. It's fair to say it misses many subtleties of mainstream Christian view, but it is still more true than untrue. The theology of sanctifying grace[1] and the mercy of salvation[2] are both New Testament ideals which are the core of mainstream Christian theology. It's called Marcionism and it's universally condemned by mainstream Christianity. Marcionism is a whole other thing, involving two gods: Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. The idea of there being two, separate gods is what made it heretical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_in_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_in_Christianity [2] https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-mercy-72461 https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-merc...

macawfish 9y ago
Another example in evangelical Christianity is the "new covenant vs old covenant" theology.
- jorangreef 9y ago
  The difference between New Covenant and Old Covenant is a matter of a change in place, not a matter of a change in God's character (which stays the same). The Old Covenant was the law written on tablets of stone, see Exodus 33-34. The New Covenant is the law written on tablets of human hearts, see Ezekiel 36. The place changes from "tablets of stone" to "tablets of human hearts". It's also critical to understand that both covenants were given to those who were ALREADY God's people, saved on the basis of grace, through faith. The Old Covenant was given to those who had already been saved out of Egypt by God's powerful grace. The New Covenant is written on the hearts of those who are saved through faith in Christ's suffering, death and resurrection on their behalf. The Exodus then, rightly understood, is a foreshadowing of the need to be saved from slavery to sin (Jesus' own commentary in John 8). Salvation in both OT and NT has always been on the basis of faith, see Abraham ("and his faith was counted to him as righteousness" - and this long before the Law was given). Salvation has never been on the basis of Law-keeping since the Law was given to fallen man after the events of Genesis 3 (Romans 5). We are not sinners because we break the Law. We break the Law because we are sinners. The Law makes people conscious of sin, and drives them to the grace of God. Once there, the Law shows people how to be godly, because the Law reflects God's own character. So the difference is where the Law is written, not the contents of the Law itself. As Jesus said, the Law is to "love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself". But knowing that, or trying to keep the Law externally will only lead to a knowledge of sin. It's faith in Christ alone which saves. We are not saved BY works, but FOR works and then again only once we are saved (Ephesians 2), and that by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, according to God's words alone, for God's glory alone.
  - macawfish 9y ago
    I'm referring to this theology more as a cultural and mythological phenomenon, which is why I specified "evangelical". If you step outside of the text for a minute and look at how these things have gotten unpacked, maybe you will catch what I mean. Many people interpret the new covenant as God's change of heart. I don't think it is internally possible to acknowledge that the new testament and old testament gods are "different", for that would be a surface violation of monotheism, which is the common understanding of Moses' "first commandment". (this is problematic on many levels, but its the state of popular Christianity). To many Christians, Moses' first commandment is still wrapped up in "put no god before me", which they interpret to mean that Buddhists and Muslims can't "get saved" or some other similar thing. Ugh. The point being that its not safe for some fearful Christians to acknowledge that in their own belief system, "god" takes radically different characters in different contexts... That's too much cognitive dissonance and flirts with a violation of monotheism. The same cognitive dissonance hovers around trinitarian theology, which people also idolize. Whereas in popular practice, there are myths saying God changes his basic agreement with humankind, and that it represents a change of heart. That God has a moment. Even if theologically the idea of the old and new covenants is that human beings have come to a fresh relationship with god through some realization and change in their hearts, in evangelicalism it is too commonly is unpacked as "God used to be angry, but now he forgives us. Specifically because of Jesus sacrifice, we get a 'second chance.' Don't blow it." I understand what your saying too, and find it compelling. I just don't wanna ignore the cultural myths attached to these theologies. Those are what make it a religion... how people unpack it. All that said, I really do like your interpretation of the kernel of these theologies. I'd also point out that Jesus says "I came to fill up the law". Jesus emphasized the positive character of the law, whereas Moses' was prohibitive, framed in negative terms. A lot of messianic type folks miss that one. They interpret this as a statement of pending apocalypse. But it's really just more of a throwback to the original grace, and simple righteousness, of an integrated passion for your life and the people in it. "What does the lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your god?" says Micah as he forecasts that some of the the poorest, marginalized people will realize, in a major way, that the answer to that question is "not much else".