Pope Francis and the Good Atheists

So, we've got Pope Francis surprising everyone with his ideas on who's going to Heaven. He uses Mark 9:38-41 to prove his interesting concept. Here's the passage from the NET:

"John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me. For whoever is not against us is for us. For I tell you the truth, whoever gives you a cup of water because you bear Christ’s name will never lose his reward."

According to the Huffington Post article, here's what the Pope said in regards to the passage:

“They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation . . . The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

I do agree with him, to an extent. It is an interesting take on Mark 9:38-41, and I can agree to it as far as saying non-believers and people in differing denominations can equally do good. Here's why I don't fully agree: he doesn't go quite far enough. He's still holding to the Catholic teaching of "Do good works/be good enough, and you'll be redeemed". (Or at least, that's what I understand of Catholicism; if this is incorrect, please feel free to correct me, as the last thing I want to do is misrepresent someone whose beliefs differ from mine, or whose beliefs I don't understand fully.) The principle must go a little deeper; rather than doing good to be redeemed (by being redeemed, I'm assuming he means being able to get to Heaven), one must have an open, loving heart, which we have with us since birth (innocence of a child?).

To counter what the Pope said, even the Pharisees would do good- tithe, pray, fast, worship, memorize Scripture. What was Jesus's problem with them? Not what they were doing per se, but their hearts were filled with evil, and it nullified any good they did. On the other hand, in Luke 19:1-10, take Zacchaeus (who I will refer to as Zach) for example. He was doing evil, namely cheating on taxes and getting himself more money than he should. Then Jesus comes by, and Zach wants to see Him. Why? His heart is open and searching, which was the kind of heart Jesus was attracted to. He goes to Zach's house, and he reveals that he has love in his heart after all, by making the vow to give half of his belongings to the poor and paying back everyone he had cheated four times as much.

One might argue that the Zacchaeus passage supports what the Pope says because it was after Zach decided to do good (namely, repay those he'd cheated and donate half his stuff to the poor) that Jesus said salvation has come to Zach and his household. But I would argue that it was not his decisions to do good that brought him salvation, but the renewed, loving heart he attained from being loved by Jesus. It is the good heart that brings forth the good deeds.

Can Atheists have this heart? Can people who have not even heard of Jesus have this heart? I say yes, and I am leaning towards the position that some- and if some then surely many- do. After all, we are born with such a heart, and usually keep it for some time before we are introduced to laws and judging, which comes from the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is why Jesus said we must be like the little children to get into the Kingdom of Heaven/God. For this reason, I would even go as far as saying that the Atheist with an open, loving heart has a better chance of getting to Heaven than the Christian believer with a closed, hateful heart.

“Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another.” -John 13:35 NET

-J-Lindo

Judge Not At All, or Judge Righteous Judgement?

I've been thinking on the subject of not judging lately. It was certainly one of Jesus's biggest themes, if not his biggest. In fact, not judging falls under the category of "love one another," especially since to judge one another is only to (metaphorically) eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (which is what messed us up in the first place). So, here's the question of the day: Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-2 (NET), “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive.” However, in John 7:24 (NET), He says instead, “Do not judge according to external appearance, but judge with proper judgment.” So, which is it? Judge not lest ye be judged, or judge righteous judgement?

There's a problem with how the question is presented, however- the question assumes that both are commands given by Jesus. Is this the case? Take a look at both. The first, the command not to judge at all, does not appear to be a quote that he's using to prove a point, it doesn't look rhetorical, and it is complimented by other quotes from Jesus (eg. John 8:15, John 12:47, Luke 6:37). However, when one looks at John 7:24, judge only correctly, one gets different results. I had a feeling when discussing this with some friends that Jesus may have been only quoting (or at least alluding to) the Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy) in such a way as to flip it back at someone accusing Him. With a bit of searching, I discovered I was right. In the original 1611 KJV, I found a marginal note that linked this verse with Deuteronomy 1:16 (NET), "...judge fairly, whether between one citizen and another or a citizen and a resident foreigner." Alright, so Jesus is probably quoting/alluding to the Law. How do we know He isn't just reinforcing a command, though? Who says He's only flipping the Law back at someone accusing Him to prove a point? Why, the context, of course! Take a look:

When the feast was half over, Jesus went up to the temple court and began to teach. Then the Jewish leaders were astonished and said, “How does this man know so much when he has never had formal instruction?” So Jesus replied, “My teaching is not from me, but from the one who sent me. If anyone wants to do God’s will, he will know about my teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority. The person who speaks on his own authority desires to receive honor for himself; the one who desires the honor of the one who sent him is a man of integrity, and there is no unrighteousness in him. Hasn’t Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law! Why do you want to kill me?” The crowd answered, “You’re possessed by a demon! Who is trying to kill you?” Jesus replied, “I performed one miracle and you are all amazed. However, because Moses gave you the practice of circumcision (not that it came from Moses, but from the forefathers), you circumcise a male child on the Sabbath. But if a male child is circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? Do not judge according to external appearance, but judge with proper judgment.”

Point well made, Jesus. He made the claim that "not one of you keeps the Law!", and they proved it when they judged Him to be crazy, possessed by a demon, as well as sinful for doing something on the Sabbath, despite the fact that He had just told them the truth about His teaching (blue). He made it clear (red) that they had disregarded their own law, to judge righteously (green); He wasn't making a command at all- only proving what He'd said (red bold).

Thankfully, when it comes to Jesus, the idea is no longer to keep the Law as best as possible, but to love God and each other, which by definition includes lack of judgement. Galatians 2:21 (NET) says, "I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing!", said by Paul when rebuking Peter for teaching the Gentiles that they had to obey the Jewish Law to attain salvation.

So, Jesus's point? Live by the Law, and you'll fail. Live by the Law (the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), and you will live by judgement, and you will be judged for it in the end. Live by Jesus and His love (the Tree of Life), and you will not live in judgement, and you will not be judged for it in the end.

J-Lindo

How Necessary is the Bible?

I still debate King James Version Onlyists (people who believe the King James Version of the Bible is the only version anyone should read) oftentimes, and their biggest premise is this: we need a perfect, God-inspired, and translated book in order for us to be saved and know anything about God and history (some would even argue for science as well), and they typically believe one cannot be saved without it- and, obviously, they claim this perfect book of God is the KJV. And if you can be saved by reading "modern versions" (such as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc.), one cannot grow spiritually with them- only with the KJV can this spiritual growth be achieved.

If the KJVO are right, then a perfect Bible has to exist somewhere, and only access to a perfect Bible can enable us to at least grow spiritually. If they're wrong, then we don't need a perfect Bible (and their KVO position falls apart).

Then there are the majority of Christians (at least, from what I know and can tell), who, while they do not believe in the need for an absolutely perfect Bible, do believe in the necessity of the Bible for salvation, growth, and knowledge of God and His ways and love. If they are wrong, then we do not need the Bible to know about God and be saved and spiritually grow.

Before I start, I wanna clarify: I'm not arguing that the Bible doesn't give any insight or help whatsoever to God and His ways and love, and I especially don't think we should throw it in the trash. It is a powerful tool and a fantastic gift from God to man and is one of Jesus's testifications of who He is. I'm only arguing against the beliefs that 1) without the Bible, all would be lost, and 2) the Bible must also be perfect.

A short passage I recently found (that has become my personal favorite) seems to debunk any notion claiming the Scriptures* are necessary for salvation, much less the idea of the Scriptures needing to be perfect: John 5:39-40 NET " You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life." Jesus Himself was against thinking the Scriptures were necessary for eternal life- only in Him is eternal life! However, He also makes mention that the Scriptures do testify of Him. Hasn't He said something similar before? Indeed, John 5:36-37 NET "But I have a testimony greater than that from John. For the deeds that the Father has assigned me to complete – the deeds I am now doing – testify about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified about me." And again in John 8:18 NET "I testify about myself and the Father who sent me testifies about me.” And once more in John 10:25 NET "...The deeds I do in my Father’s name testify about me."

So now we see that the Bible is certainly not the only thing that testifies about Jesus; Jesus has His Father, His deeds/works/miracles, and even Himself that testify of Him. In light of these many witnesses Jesus has, how can anyone say we need the Bible (much less a perfect one) to know about and understand God? Is not God Himself, the one who inspired the Bible in the first place, an even greater witness than that which He inspired?

This begs the question though: how does God testify of Himself and make Himself known to people if there's no Bible to do it with? First of all, He could do it the same way He did it with the other people in the Bible who didn't have the Bible. Secondly, there is yet another witness that testifies of Jesus I didn't mention before: John 15:26 NET "When the Advocate [or Helper, or Comforter] comes, whom I will send you from the Father – the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father – he will testify about me," (brackets mine). The Holy Spirit is Jesus's greatest testifier. He isn't words written in a book- He is God, living in us, and simply showing love to everyone around Him. What greater witness than God plainly showing His love to other people who don't know about Him through those who do know Him? The Bible can't do that, even if it's more perfect than humankind can comprehend. The Bible cannot love. It can only be sat there and read. You give someone a Bible, no matter what translation (and I know this from a friend's personal experience, and the translation chosen was the KJV), and they could read it all the way through, admiring the wisdom, beauty, and stories, yet still feel no need to believe any of it.

In fact, it is silly to give an atheist or agnostic or someone of any religion the Bible and argue that Christianity is true because of something the Bible says- they have not accepted the Christian Bible is Scripture, so if one somehow won over them by using the Bible, it will have required much manipulation of thoughts and emotions. If one is going to argue for Christianity using only Scriptures, they will fail, because they are arguing the point he must first prove. However, loving someone with the same love God has through the Holy Spirit, will get one much further. God's love is perfect and never ends, and will (whether sooner or later) cause the recipient to want to return the love. This is why Jesus died in the first place- an act of perfect love, in order to get perfect love in return.

We don't need to translate Scriptures into other languages; we don't need to find a culture without a written language, invent one for them, then translate the Scriptures into their newly written language; we certainly don't need to teach people English so they can read the KJV. The only absolute necessity for salvation, spiritual growth, and knowledge of God, His ways, and His love is His love, shown through us via His Spirit. After all, it wasn't as if the Apostles went out handing pocket-sized Bibles- they didn't use any Bible, yet thousands every day heard the message and believed. We use the Bible all the time, and one doesn't hear about such phenomenons nowadays. Has the Bible replaced the Holy Spirit?

-J-Lindo

*Note: I use "Scripture" and "Bible" interchangeably.