'Not a religion vs a relationship vs a historical faith'

[EarlyActs]

What do you mean it wouldn't be about the historical Christ at all and how does that relate to what I said? Seriously. I am unable to connect your responses to what it is responding to.

And I have no idea why you are asking for my definition of existentialist?

The people who place so much weight on the direct relationship, not you, are the ones whose view of Christ wouldn't be about the historical Christ.

As a vivid illustration, a Bible college friend I had, an artist and musician, was at the college all year and in the spring he surprisingly asked, "I have no idea why Jesus did what he did; God can just save us from heaven without anything Christ did." He believed he was saved and had the 'relationship' with God (an ongoing experiential thing) that the Bible college wanted for its students. What a curious outcome!

 

[EarlyActs]

What do you mean it wouldn't be about the historical Christ at all and how does that relate to what I said? Seriously. I am unable to connect your responses to what it is responding to.

And I have no idea why you are asking for my definition of existentialist?

An accurate definition of existentialism will answer why the direct, subjective, experiential believer (not you, the ones who place so much emphasis on that) has adopted a 'sanctified' form of existentialism.

In the universe of existentialism, there really is not much there except the necessity of the moment, the current crisis. In its secular form, there are no explanations or doctrines about the origin of the universe, of life, of humanity. Meaning is not drawn from these springs, only from a position taken about a current pressing situation, and it doesn't matter to them which side you take, as long as you take one, preferably with passion. They despise the lifeless, detached, disinterested person.

But you dare not bother them with rational questions about meaning and cosmology. I hope you can see from this why the 'believer' who is consumed with the immediate needs, and God doing this or that now, but not the historic Christ (even if the current, direct acting God is called Christ) is actually existentialist, the same way they are.

I have no idea how you thought I was speaking of you about any of this.

 

[EarlyActs]

I am having difficulty making the connections you are. Your statements and comments seem somewhat random. I have said nothing about a person "deciding" to have a relationship with God.

All I am saying is that Christianity is a religion. It is rooted in and therefore verified by history. But it is a relationship. God's relationship with us through covenant. His covenant and those he chooses to covenant with.

I agree that the ascension was Christ's enthronement, and that in this age---from that point forward until he returns to consummate our redemption (Rev 21)--- faith in him and his work is the only way of reconciliation with God. But there has never been a time when the command to love him with all our heart and soul and mind (and the rest that follows), the command to obey him and be righteous as he is righteous, was not valid or in effect. That did not begin with Christ's enthronement. That began when God breathed life into Adam.

The current evangelical mode of communication is that you decide to have a relationship with God; this parallels 'you accepted Christ.' Both are misleading statements, really.

 

[EarlyActs]

I am having difficulty making the connections you are. Your statements and comments seem somewhat random. I have said nothing about a person "deciding" to have a relationship with God.

All I am saying is that Christianity is a religion. It is rooted in and therefore verified by history. But it is a relationship. God's relationship with us through covenant. His covenant and those he chooses to covenant with.

I agree that the ascension was Christ's enthronement, and that in this age---from that point forward until he returns to consummate our redemption (Rev 21)--- faith in him and his work is the only way of reconciliation with God. But there has never been a time when the command to love him with all our heart and soul and mind (and the rest that follows), the command to obey him and be righteous as he is righteous, was not valid or in effect. That did not begin with Christ's enthronement. That began when God breathed life into Adam.

You are right that the command to love and obey him was there all along. So were declarations that God was King of the universe, Ps 145. But something happened, and a fresh warning was given, in the enthronement. The Psalms 2 and 110 and 118 were awaiting this moment, which would make an era that expressed those claims with more force for all mankind. The resurrection was proof that he, Christ, was that person, the Son, Rom 1's intro.
If I may demonstrate how different this view of his reign is, contrast the pop Christian song:

"Lord reign in me, reign in your power,
in my greatest need, in my darkest hour,
you are the Lord over all I am,
Oh, come and reign in me again."

It's unfortunate for this person to have dark times, but even more to live unaware that the 'reign' of God is not about an expected panacea, nor "in me." It is simply the divine statement that all honor and glory are due the Son for what he accomplished, and this applies to all mankind. As we absorb that, things are more hopeful and settled in us, as well. The experiential, circumstantial-driven believers miss so much of the historic truth.

btw, I have a hard time placing Christianity into the category of the other religions bc the principle teachings are the OT quotes found in early Acts. these teachings don't even have anything to say about the underlying Judaism. They aren't like the pantheism of the East, and as a missionary once said 'Islam is like Judaism but one step back in the primitive direction.'

 

[Arial]

You are right that the command to love and obey him was there all along. So were declarations that God was King of the universe, Ps 145. But something happened, and a fresh warning was given, in the enthronement. The Psalms 2 and 110 and 118 were awaiting this moment, which would make an era that expressed those claims with more force for all mankind. The resurrection was proof that he, Christ, was that person, the Son, Rom 1's intro.
If I may demonstrate how different this view of his reign is, contrast the pop Christian song:

"Lord reign in me, reign in your power,
in my greatest need, in my darkest hour,
you are the Lord over all I am,
Oh, come and reign in me again."

It's unfortunate for this person to have dark times, but even more to live unaware that the 'reign' of God is not about an expected panacea, nor "in me." It is simply the divine statement that all honor and glory are due the Son for what he accomplished, and this applies to all mankind. As we absorb that, things are more hopeful and settled in us, as well. The experiential, circumstantial-driven believers miss so much of the historic truth.

OK. If this is the thrust of the OP, then I can go there. My impression from reading the OP was that Christianity was historic and not relational. I take full responsibility for the misunderstanding being with me.

I agree completely that in much of the modern church, and the "movements of God" in it, that the popularity of a personal relationship with Jesus being what Christianity is, rather than a religion, is utterly misconstrued. It can be seen dramatically in something my ex-mother-in-law would say. "Jesus rides in the passenger seat of my car when I am driving, and we have wonderful conversations." (Once he was in the back seat and she invited him to sit up front). Or, when a person might advise a friend in trouble, "Just call Jesus." Or even the WWJD bracelets that were so popular.

I agree too, that this concept of a personal relationship has no grounding in anything historical and fails to recognize the kingship of Christ or his enthronement, or our servitude to the King. He is considered much more as a personal pet than a King.

 

[Arial]

The current evangelical mode of communication is that you decide to have a relationship with God; this parallels 'you accepted Christ.' Both are misleading statements, really.

Not only are they misleading, but flat out wrong. And dangerous. It stunts all actual spiritual growth. In the example of my ex mother-in-law---that entire family accepted Jesus into their life!, including my ex. Yet there was zero evidence in their lives that they were united to him in a covenant relationship. My ex would claim to be a born again Christian (having no idea what that meant) and at the same time did not want me to be "saved" (he told my brother to quit talking to me about it) because he was afraid it would ruin all his fun.

 

[Arial]

The people who place so much weight on the direct relationship, not you, are the ones whose view of Christ wouldn't be about the historical Christ.

As a vivid illustration, a Bible college friend I had, an artist and musician, was at the college all year and in the spring he surprisingly asked, "I have no idea why Jesus did what he did; God can just save us from heaven without anything Christ did." He believed he was saved and had the 'relationship' with God (an ongoing experiential thing) that the Bible college wanted for its students. What a curious outcome!

Here is another thing that I find astonishing, about the historic connection of Christianity to all of the Bible. The Bible from cover to cover is the eternal Covenant of Redemption with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, playing out historically, in history. And it isn't over yet.

Therefore all humanity are "actors on the stage" of this redemption historically, just as surely and as much as were Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, and everyone else in history. Some are Christ's and some are not. For the Christian, were they to realize that every step they take, every trouble or joy they walk through, every action, decision, etc. are in the midst of redemptive history, a very part of it, we might start thinking and doing differently. This age (time between the two advents) is the redemptive gathering, sealing, sanctifying stage of history.

 

[EarlyActs]

Not only are they misleading, but flat out wrong. And dangerous. It stunts all actual spiritual growth. In the example of my ex mother-in-law---that entire family accepted Jesus into their life!, including my ex. Yet there was zero evidence in their lives that they were united to him in a covenant relationship. My ex would claim to be a born again Christian (having no idea what that meant) and at the same time did not want me to be "saved" (he told my brother to quit talking to me about it) because he was afraid it would ruin all his fun.

Indeed.