Teaching The Narrow Way

I had a interesting talk with someone who was elected vice president of an entire Christian denomination although I will not say which one both to respect his privacy and in case I am accidentally misrepresenting him through a incorrect memory or improper wording. I managed to convince him that it is morally wrong for police to use violence to uphold some laws or tax people. I did not claim that it was morally wrong to pay taxes only morally wrong to collect taxes. In some cases this might even include that it is morally wrong to use violence to enforce a law that does not require a subject to sin in order to conform to the law. And he pointed out that even though it is morally wrong wrong for them to do so you should still obey them unless they ask you to do something morally wrong so they are more likely to listen to you and that very well might be true.

I even convinced him that this logically shows that if government officials are defined as the people who have a moral exemption in which they can morally legitimately use violence when it would be morally wrong for them to use violence if they were not government officials then government being defined as the set of government officials can not exist in reality and this leads to anarchy or the presence of no morally legitimate mortal ruling class being the present reality. I convinced him of this based on the moral commands that would prohibit murder, violence and kidnapping in the old and new testamtest. But the bizarre thing is he then said I agree with you but this is not important because I only need to preach the gospel and I do not need to teach people about a anarchist philosophy even though the anarchist philosophy you told me is true. But this is simply untrue.

You are not preaching the gospel correctly unless you teach God's moral principles. If "the Gospel is the good news that Jesus came to save us from our sins," as I heard many preachers from that denomination say then how can we be saved by preaching if those who hear the words, receive them and apply them are no less violent than as if they did not hear them at all. True obedience to the gospel can only lead to an anarchist lifestyle or at least a desire for and attempt at a anarchist lifestyle even if people do not call it anarchy as the label, for true obedience to the gospel within a society will certainly not lead to more violence in that society if the gospel really saves people from all their sins including violence. How can they be saved from violence if they are collectively ever more harming each other with violence through granting a moral exception to government officials.

If you watch the way of the master they insist you should convince someone of their knowledge that they disobeyed the law of God before you share the gospel, because it makes no sense to persuade someone who does not believe they are guilty that they need to be forgiven or pardoned or "justified." But how foolish it would be to go through all ten commandments as they do and then say unless you are doing it on behalf of the government then it is ok to violate the command and not a sin every time. Yet this is what most Churches do. If this denominational Vice President was truly preaching the gospel he would be preaching an anarchist philosophy. If this gospel as such people claim to believe in truly should be preached in such a way as to take account for the listeners state of mind and present knowledge when you preach it correctly it is obligatory in many cases to point out that there is no moral exception for doing things on behalf of the government or authority figures to correct the incorrect version of the gospel many already believe in that there is such a exception because that is what is preached in most "Churches" and that is the moral framework most people who have never even heard "Christian" preachers often believe having been taught such a moral exception by most of the rest of society at large in every place recognized as a State by the United Nations in all the world.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 September 20

Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is just!

https://biblehub.com/romans/3-8.htm

Accessed 2018 September 20

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2&version=NIV

https://web.archive.org/web/20180920164023/https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2&version=NIV

14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Slaves to Righteousness

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+6&version=NIV

Accessed 2018 September 20

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel

https://web.archive.org/web/20180920162620/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel

VI. The Third Use of the Law.

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
The Principal Question In This Controversy.

1] Since the Law was given to men for three reasons: first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]; secondly, that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they are regenerate and [much of] the flesh notwithstanding cleaves to them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning the third use of the Law, namely, whether it is to be urged or not upon regenerate Christians. The one side has said, Yea; the other, Nay.

http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20180920163340/http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180920163657/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

4.5 Law and Gospel

31.We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel "apart from works prescribed by the law" (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God's commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God's will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also.

32.Lutherans state that the distinction and right ordering of law and gospel is essential for the understanding of justification. In its theological use, the law is demand and accusation. Throughout their lives, all persons, Christians also, in that they are sinners, stand under this accusation which uncovers their sin so that, in faith in the gospel, they will turn unreservedly to the mercy of God in Christ, which alone justifies them.

33.Because the law as a way to salvation has been fulfilled and overcome through the gospel, Catholics can say that Christ is not a lawgiver in the manner of Moses. When Catholics emphasize that the righteous are bound to observe God's commandments, they do not thereby deny that through Jesus Christ God has mercifully promised to his children the grace of eternal life.[18][See Sources for section 4.5].

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Accessed 2018 September 20

4.7 The Good Works of the Justified

37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.

38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the "meritorious" character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.

39.The concept of a preservation of grace and a growth in grace and faith is also held by Lutherans. They do emphasize that righteousness as acceptance by God and sharing in the righteousness of Christ is always complete. At the same time, they state that there can be growth in its effects in Christian living. When they view the good works of Christians as the fruits and signs of justification and not as one's own "merits", they nevertheless also understand eternal life in accord with the New Testament as unmerited "reward" in the sense of the fulfillment of God's promise to the believer. [See Sources for section 4.7].

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Accessed 2018 September 20

https://web.archive.org/web/20181031044918/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

The moral influence or example theory of the atonement holds that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection. It is one of the oldest views of the atonement in Christian theology and a prevalent view for most of Christian history. However, the fact that the concept of God's redemptive love in Jesus was prevalent even among writers in the early church resulted in some scholars' claiming that the moral influence theory was universally taught in the second and third centuries.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] See, for example: the Epistle to Diognetus,^[6] The Shepherd of Hermas,^[7] and works by Clement of Rome,^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] Ignatius of Antioch,^[12]^[13] Polycarp,^[14] Clement of Alexandria^[15] Hippolytus of Rome,^[16] Origen,^[17]^[18] Irenaeus,^[19] and Arnobius.^[20] Some writers also taught other atonement models in conjunction with it, but Wallace and Rusk claim that the majority of Christian writers in the second and third centuries AD expressed only the moral influence view.^[21]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

Accessed 2018 September 20

Conflict with penal substitutionEdit

The moral influence view has historically come into conflict with a penal substitutionary view of atonement, as the two systems propose radically different criteria of salvation and judgment. The moral influence paradigm focuses on the moral change of people, leading to a positive final judgment for which the criteria focuses on inner moral character. By contrast, a penal substitutionary paradigm denies the saving value of human moral change. It focuses on faith in Christ and on his death on our behalf, leading to a positive final judgment based on what Christ has done for us and our trust in that - not on any positive moral qualities that we ourselves possess.

As a result of these conflicts, a strong division has remained since the Reformation between liberal Protestants (who typically adopt a moral influence view) and conservative Protestants (who typically adopt a penal substitutionary view). Debate between these positions has a tendency to focus on the following main issues:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

Accessed 2018 September 20

Criticisms of penal substitutionEdit

Moral influence advocates typically point to a number of logical and biblical problems with penal substitution, which are seen as weakening the case for penal substitution and correspondingly strengthening the case for the moral influence view.

One notable criticism of penal substitution raised by the moral influence perspective concerns God's forgiveness. The moral influence framework depicts God as concerned about only the present and future states of people's moral character, and not their past states. God desires people to become more loving. When people truly change, God is no longer concerned with their previous character and thus is willing to freely forgive their previous actions. The moral influence framework thus teaches that God's forgiveness is free and conditional only on repentance (i.e. moral change). This link between repentance and forgiveness is well-attested to in the New Testament.^[42] By contrast, moral influence advocates argue that the penal substitutionary theory portrays God as unable or unwilling to forgive wrong actions and requiring that there be full and complete punishment for all past wrongs, regardless of repentance. They often critique this idea on biblical grounds, pointing to numerous biblical instances of forgiveness and verses that appear to teach that forgiveness depends on repentance. Many also argue that penal substitution's depiction of God as demanding full punishment for every crime regardless of repentance is morally reprehensible and does not reflect a loving, forgiving God.

Harmonization with penal substitutionEdit

The recent Evangelical theologian John Stott argued that penal substitution and the moral influence view can be harmonized to an extent.^[43] Historically the two theories were considered to be in strong opposition (e.g. Anselm vs. Abelard, the Reformers vs Socinianism), so Stott's attempt at harmonization represents a novel approach. Stott's influential work has led many recent Evangelicals to view the moral influence view as an aspect of penal substitution and harmonizable with it. Stott taught that the penal substitutionary view was primarily the correct explanation of the atonement. He regarded the moral influence theory taken alone to be 'untenable'.^[44] Yet while rejecting the moral influence view as a whole, Stott believed that some aspects of it (and of the Ransom theory of atonement) could be endorsed by those holding penal substitution.^[45] The aspects of the moral influence view he identified as most suitable for harmonisation are its focus on sanctification, and its idea of Christ as a teacher who inspires us.^[46] Stott rejected as unharmonizable the teachings of the moral influence theory regarding sin, the cross, and free forgiveness without atonement.^[47]

Common misconceptions about the moral influence viewEdit

It is often wrongly claimed that the moral influence view originated with Peter Abelard. In fact, Abelard restated Augustine's view on the subject, who in turn was articulating the Christian doctrine current in his time.^[48]

The moral influence view is often misconstrued as teaching merely that Jesus willingly died on the cross to demonstrate his love and thus inspire people to follow him.^[49] The scope of the full moral influence view is much larger, however. The moral influence view does not focus primarily on the death of Jesus in the same way that penal substitution does. Instead, it focuses on the wider story of Christ's teachings, example, and the church movement he founded. His death is seen as inspirational within that context, but his death was not the whole goal in the way that penal substitution depicts it.^{[weasel words]} The moral influence view depicts Jesus' death as a martyrdom, in which he was killed because of his teaching and leadership of a controversial movement. Jesus' death is thus understood as a consequence of his activity, and it gains its significance as part of the larger story of his life, death, and resurrection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

Accessed 2018 September 20

https://web.archive.org/web/20181031044721/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement