What Is Christianity All About?

[Arial]

In his opening lines of his book Far As the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption, Michael D. Williams asks that question. He wrote an entire book exploring the the biblical story of covenantal redemption, following that question.

Here, I am simply asking forum members to answer the question in their own words: What is Christianity about?

 

[Josheb]

In his opening lines of his book Far As the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption, Michael D. Williams asks that question. He wrote an entire book exploring the the biblical story of covenantal redemption, following that question.

Here, I am simply asking forum members to answer the question in their own words: What is Christianity about?

I found that book quite remarkable. I didn't find it very informative until about three-quarters of the way through when he tied everything together and then the book proved awesome.

As to the question asked...

Christianity is about Christians being little Christs within the limitations of also being created creatures. Williams' book focuses on the redemptive quality of Christianity and how God has acted to redeem creation throughout Biblical history and, near the end, the Christian's role as agents of redemption. I don't normally limit Christianity to redemption, partly because there is a purpose to redemption that may not be addressed when redemption is the focus. In addition to the redemptive aspect of Christianity, I will suggest Christianity is also about finishing God's work first begun at Genesis 1:1 - God finishing in Christians. That would be the creation of creatures who house Him. God then dwells among His creatures in a unique way, a way not found anywhere else among His creatures and one that is not dependent in upon the existence of sin or the redemption thereof. God was going to make Christianity whether sin ever occurred.

Presumably, that too has further purpose.

 

[Arial]

I found that book quite remarkable. I didn't find it very informative until about three-quarters of the way through when he tied everything together and then the book proved awesome.

Well, I could say the same thing about it not being informative (to me and to you) because we already had that information, until farther into the book. However that does not mean it was not informative. I will clarify what I mean by that.

Even though it was not new information to me (it would be for many who had not yet connected all the dots he connects), I think the foundation laid was so well done as to be a good book to give to the unsaved, or those, like many in my family, who shy away from Christianity because all their experience with Christians has been negative. So much so that even hearing the name of Jesus causes a negative reaction related to that experience. You start to preach the gospel or say anything about God or Jesus, and they shut down.

And this is the negative experience I am talking about: the extreme legalism found in much of what we see and hear. My daughter-in-law for example was raised Mennonite, and people were judged solely on their behavior, dress, what they did, with the "rules" established by the group and not the Bible. Then there are the self righteous displays of being a Christian, an aura of being better, superior, people than everyone else. And the displays period. Those of making every situation an opportunity to make a public display of being a Christian. What this does is completely lose sight of who Jesus is and why he did what he did, its necessity, and only way. It doesn't show the mess we are in, how we got in that mess, and how God himself comes to us in the flesh to undo that mess. The displays and hypocrisies and judgmental attitudes, do nothing to reveal Jesus and make Christianity abhorrent to many. They are afraid they will become just like that or will never be able to measure up. So they don't even like to hear the name of Jesus. Not to mention all the false displays that are shown and seen such as with the Charistmatics, and the money grabbing, and the ludicrous, kooky, teaching of the "rapture".

So, the groundwork absolutely teaches who Christ is etc. and can change all the preconceptions and misconceptions that have been presented in real life by Christians. It draws one to this Jesus the book presents, instead of repelling them.

Christianity is about Christians being little Christs within the limitations of also being created creatures. Williams' book focuses on the redemptive quality of Christianity and how God has acted to redeem creation throughout Biblical history and, near the end, the Christian's role as agents of redemption.

This is just my opinion, not something to debate; I think the expression "little Christ's" should not be used. Even with your limitations added to it. And even though I know what you are saying.

I don't normally limit Christianity to redemption, partly because there is a purpose to redemption that may not be addressed when redemption is the focus.

I don't think the author was limiting it to redemption. It is just what he was writing about, in connection to who Jesus is, and he did extend it beyond the redemption of people to the ultimate purpose of redeeming people. Or at least I have. It has been awhile since I read the book though I am starting through it again. It is the serpent, and therefore all sin and death, that is ultimately being defeated and destroyed by Jesus, and a new creation taking its place. That is something I came to understand before I read the book, and I learned it from the Bible. So some things are a matter of learning and growing.

I want to address the rest of your post but I need to think long and hard about it, need coffee, have to run an errand, so will get back to it later.

 

[Arial]

In addition to the redemptive aspect of Christianity, I will suggest Christianity is also about finishing God's work first begun at Genesis 1:1 - God finishing in Christians.

Could be. I tend more to think it is continuing the work Christ began in his earthly work. And as servants and soldiers assigned to that task. We become the gatherers teaching of Christ. And even then, it is he who works in us via the Holy Spirits work and also that work of being conformed to the image of Christ which we were predestined to do (sanctification). And that began, I believe, in Gen 3:15. That is when the Covenant of Redemption entered in to our history. The entire Bible from that point forward is one story. The historical unfolding of redemption.

The ultimate purpose and goal is stated within the scriptures as, its surety resting upon on all that went before it, (God fulfills and keeps all his promises), is the utter destruction of the serpent and all the wicked who follow him, so that: God dwells again with us, we are his people, and he is our God. His people, in Christ and his resurrection, being made immortal and incorruptible. There is nothing to corrupt them, so they will not sin or die.

This can't be done, at least from our perspective, unless the source of evil is destroyed. Beyond the veil of what we are given in the Bible, I cannot go, and no one can. Except in a speculative way, and that isn't good enough for me.

That would be the creation of creatures who house Him.

I am not sure what you mean by that.

God then dwells among His creatures in a unique way, a way not found anywhere else among His creatures and one that is not dependent in upon the existence of sin or the redemption thereof.

I suppose this can only be explained by what it is you mean by "house him". But the whole idea, as I see it, is that sin doesn't exist anymore as its source has been destroyed. We were never dependent upon sin. We did sin and therefore our only hope was to be redeemed from that condition by God himself.

God was going to make Christianity whether sin ever occurred.

There is no need of Christianity if sin never occurred. Christianity at is base level is Christ and him crucified. But how is sin going to never occur as long as the serpent, the father of lies and deceiver, lives?

 

[CrowCross]

In his opening lines of his book Far As the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption, Michael D. Williams asks that question. He wrote an entire book exploring the the biblical story of covenantal redemption, following that question.

Here, I am simply asking forum members to answer the question in their own words: What is Christianity about?

Christianity is about a lot of things...one of the most important can be found in Eph 2: 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.

 

[Arial]

Christianity is about a lot of things...one of the most important can be found in Eph 2: 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.

While that is true if Christianity---a doctrinal statements made in the NT---what is it about? What is its purpose in existing by the decree of God?

 

[Josheb]

Well, I could say the same thing about it not being informative (to me and to you) because we already had that information, until farther into the book. However that does not mean it was not informative. I will clarify what I mean by that.

Even though it was not new information to me (it would be for many who had not yet connected all the dots he connects), I think the foundation laid was so well done as to be a good book to give to the unsaved, or those, like many in my family, who shy away from Christianity because all their experience with Christians has been negative. So much so that even hearing the name of Jesus causes a negative reaction related to that experience. You start to preach the gospel or say anything about God or Jesus, and they shut down.

I completely agree. My wife often comments that books I find of little interest may be very valuable to others who aren't as educated, experienced, or well-read. I literally have shelves of books on marriage and marriage counseling, but I'd estimate only 20+/- are worth the ink with which they're written. I have a host of books describing Reformed Theology (and Dispensationalism) so after awhile a new book on the subject isn't so new or informative.

And this is the negative experience I am talking about: the extreme legalism found in much of what we see and hear.

I think Williams did a wonderful job avoiding that problem. It seems like a typical review of biblical history as he proceeds through the various events of scripture but by the time he ties it all together (I'm intentionally vague so as not post any spoilers for those who might venture a reading). I highly recommend the book, btw. I'd venture to say it's one of the best book I've read in the last five years.

My daughter-in-law for example was raised Mennonite, and people were judged solely on their behavior, dress, what they did, with the "rules" established by the group and not the Bible. Then there are the self righteous displays of being a Christian, an aura of being better, superior, people than everyone else. And the displays period. Those of making every situation an opportunity to make a public display of being a Christian. What this does is completely lose sight of who Jesus is and why he did what he did, its necessity, and only way. It doesn't show the mess we are in, how we got in that mess, and how God himself comes to us in the flesh to undo that mess. The displays and hypocrisies and judgmental attitudes, do nothing to reveal Jesus and make Christianity abhorrent to many. They are afraid they will become just like that or will never be able to measure up. So they don't even like to hear the name of Jesus. Not to mention all the false displays that are shown and seen such as with the Charistmatics, and the money grabbing, and the ludicrous, kooky, teaching of the "rapture".

So, the groundwork absolutely teaches who Christ is etc. and can change all the preconceptions and misconceptions that have been presented in real life by Christians. It draws one to this Jesus the book presents, instead of repelling them.

This is just my opinion, not something to debate; I think the expression "little Christ's" should not be used. Even with your limitations added to it. And even though I know what you are saying.

Well, I'd readily debate anyone's opinion but in this case I agree. My pastor (who was a student of Williams') recommended to book upon learning of my subscribing to Progressive Covenantalism and my hybrid "apostmillennial" eschatology . I recommend reading Wellum's "Kingdom Through Covenant,"* as a companion to Williams' book. Looking backwards, Williams' flow avoids the all-to-common problems of legalism, laissez faire, and internal inconsistency. It's really quite brilliant, imo.

I don't think the author was limiting it to redemption. It is just what he was writing about, in connection to who Jesus is, and he did extend it beyond the redemption of people to the ultimate purpose of redeeming people.

Okay. But if I recall correctly the book is as much about the Father's work through Christ throughout the Bible's history. I can imagine Williams would answer, "What is Christianity all about?" with "The history of God's redemption of creation." one of the things I liked best was his holistic treatment of scripture. There's no artificial separating of the OT from the NT. The whole of scripture is treated as a unified story, and he does it in a manner that isn't specifically or explicitly about the debate between continuity v discontinuity that currently debated in academia but were he direct his efforts that way I am confident he'd soundly trounce the discontinuity pov.

Or at least I have. It has been awhile since I read the book though I am starting through it again. It is the serpent, and therefore all sin and death, that is ultimately being defeated and destroyed by Jesus, and a new creation taking its place. That is something I came to understand before I read the book, and I learned it from the Bible. So some things are a matter of learning and growing.

I want to address the rest of your post but I need to think long and hard about it, need coffee, have to run an errand, so will get back to it later.

I'd give the book a re-read myself but I'm traveling, and I don't think it's available as an e-read (and I brought a pile of books to read any way). At any rate, I wasn't sure about the book as I worked through the chapters but in the end, he brought the history of scripture together in a revelatory way. Readily recommended for every Christian regardless of theological orientation.




I might answer the question asked in other ways but, since Williams was the source of the inquiry, I tried to stay couched in redemptive history. My first impulse was to expound upon the potential meaning of "little Christ," or that of "The Way," of the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth and that's why I mentioned the limitations of the creature (we're not literally Jesuses).











* Oddly enough, the Wellum book was recommended to me by a Dispensationalist ThD who claimed he'd never hear of classic Reformed thinkers like Spurgeon, Vos, Berkhof, Hendrikson, Kik, Machen, Hoekema, etc. It was with immense curiosity that I read the Wellum book because he listed every single one of these men. How could a ThD discussing end times and Dispensationalism NOT have familiarity with those theologians, and how could he possibly have read the book he recommended and not know those names? The point of dispute, btw, was the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. He rejected the suzerain qualification and considered it merely promissory, believing it carried no requirements on Abe's part (nor his covenant descendants) and not seeing the inherent Christological aspects. Had I known about Williams' book at the time I might have told him about it.
.

 

[Josheb]

Could be. I tend more to think it is continuing the work Christ began in his earthly work.

And as servants and soldiers assigned to that task. We become the gatherers teaching of Christ. And even then, it is he who works in us via the Holy Spirits work and also that work of being conformed to the image of Christ which we were predestined to do (sanctification). And that began, I believe, in Gen 3:15. That is when the Covenant of Redemption entered in to our history. The entire Bible from that point forward is one story. The historical unfolding of redemption.

 

[Josheb]

I am not sure what you mean by that.

Jesus is God's only begotten Son (begotten not made). We're adopted sons. We're created creatures, not uncreated beings. This is relevant because the word "Christian" means "little Christs" and I was making sure to preclude and all notion we are literally Christs because there are a few cults who espouse that God-forsaken position. The Spirit of God and Christ, the Separate Spirit of Sacred purpose dwells within us and we have all the power and authority of the Son available to us, but we're not perfected on this side of the grave. There is only one Jesus, one Christ. Many Christians. Only one Christ.

A secondary purpose was to preclude any notion we can and/or should presume some of the roles of Jesus because we're little Christs. We judge some things, but we're not THE Judge and thinking we can act like Jesus in all circumstances is misguided. We are agents of redemption but there's only one Redeemer and any and all redemptive faculties we possess is due solely to the Father's use of His Redeemer.

Does that clarify it sufficiently?

 

[Josheb]

I suppose this can only be explained by what it is you mean by "house him".

I simply meant God dwells in us. We are the house built by God in which He dwells..

But the whole idea, as I see it, is that sin doesn't exist anymore as its source has been destroyed. We were never dependent upon sin.

Ooooo.... (josh salivates) I'd like to read the case for that pov. Is that something Williams asserts (I do not recall that)?

We did sin and therefore our only hope was to be redeemed from that condition by God himself.

There is no need of Christianity if sin never occurred.

I disagree. Jesus was coming whether Adam ever disobeyed God or not. There is no life after death without death and there is no life after death without resurrection, either. Jesus IS the resurrection. That is an ontological condition, not merely a teleological or existential one. There is not event called the resurrection apart from the Being who is the resurrection. None of that requires sin. We might speculate that Adam and Eve and all the other humans might have lived as long as they continued partaking from the tree of life (Jesus) but that'll fly into conflict with Hebrews 9:27. Humans were made mortal, and they were always going to die once and then face judgment. The Judge is the Resurrection.

Don't mean to take us far afield of the op. I understand there may be a difference of viewpoint.

Christianity at is base level is Christ and him crucified.

Exactly.

But how is sin going to never occur as long as the serpent, the father of lies and deceiver, lives?

It's not sin's existence that germane to the op because Satan and his ilk might have sinned and humans never succumbed to disobeying the command to multiply, subdue, and rule. That it did happen does not define Christ. Christ defines that event, not the other way around. Satan and his ilk are never redeemed. They all get tossed in the fiery lake. It was Adam, not Satan, that brought sin into the world. Williams' book is couched in the fact sin did occur, not the hypothetical prospect sin might never have occurred (and Jesus would still be relevant and necessary).

 

[Arial]

Jesus is God's only begotten Son (begotten not made). We're adopted sons. We're created creatures, not uncreated beings. This is relevant because the word "Christian" means "little Christs" and I was making sure to preclude and all notion we are literally Christs because there are a few cults who espouse that God-forsaken position. The Spirit of God and Christ, the Separate Spirit of Sacred purpose dwells within us and we have all the power and authority of the Son available to us, but we're not perfected on this side of the grave. There is only one Jesus, one Christ. Many Christians. Only one Christ.

A secondary purpose was to preclude any notion we can and/or should presume some of the roles of Jesus because we're little Christs. We judge some things, but we're not THE Judge and thinking we can act like Jesus in all circumstances is misguided. We are agents of redemption but there's only one Redeemer and any and all redemptive faculties we possess is due solely to the Father's use of His Redeemer.

Does that clarify it sufficiently?

God then dwells among His creatures in a unique way, a way not found anywhere else among His creatures and one that is not dependent in upon the existence of sin or the redemption thereof. God was going to make Christianity whether sin ever occurred.

Some. But I am not sure, still, why you say we "house" Him. When you then add the above, it almost sounds like what we see in Rev 21 of God dwelling with us, it is an "in" us dwelling and not a visible presence. I readily admit that that may not be what you are saying, but that is where my mind goes.

 

[Josheb]

Some. But I am not sure, still, why you say we "house" Him. When you then add the above, it almost sounds like what we see in Rev 21 of God dwelling with us, it is an "in" us dwelling and not a visible presence. I readily admit that that may not be what you are saying, but that is where my mind goes.

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

 

[Arial]

I recommend reading Wellum's "Kingdom Through Covenant,"* as a companion to Williams' book. Looking backwards, Williams' flow avoids the all-to-common problems of legalism, laissez faire, and internal inconsistency. It's really quite brilliant, imo.

I had one of the referenced authors in William's book marked to buy, then forgot about it so haven't yet---but will. The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation From Creation to New Jerusalem, by Willem Van Gemeren. Know anything about it?

 

[makesends]

Here, I am simply asking forum members to answer the question in their own words: What is Christianity about?

Christ

 

[makesends]

Some. But I am not sure, still, why you say we "house" Him. When you then add the above, it almost sounds like what we see in Rev 21 of God dwelling with us, it is an "in" us dwelling and not a visible presence. I readily admit that that may not be what you are saying, but that is where my mind goes.

Already, but not yet.

 

[CrowCross]

While that is true if Christianity---a doctrinal statements made in the NT---what is it about? What is its purpose in existing by the decree of God?

Worship?
Replace the fallen angels?

 

[QVQ]

The Resurrection

 

[Josheb]

I had one of the referenced authors in William's book marked to buy, then forgot about it so haven't yet---but will. The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation From Creation to New Jerusalem, by Willem Van Gemeren. Know anything about it?

I know nothing of the book but a little about the author. I have just discovered the book is sitting on a shelf in my library unread! He also did the Psalms commentary in the Expositor's Bible Commentary series (which is also sitting in my library unread). I have so many books to read I will never die. Jesus gonna have to find another way to finish his work in me . Maybe an Enoch sorta thing . Van Gemeren also did the non-theonomic reformed viewpoint in "Five Views on Law and Gospel," and that was pretty good. I lean theonomic but am not a Reconstructionist (like Bahnsen, who did the theonomic chapter in that book).

 

[Arial]

I lean theonomic but am not a Reconstructionist

I agree with this comment. As it is God's world, civil law should be in agreement with God's law---but in principle, not the exact command and punishment prescribed in the Sinai Covenant law. For example the property laws, and those dealing with the treatment of animals, should be in observed. Some of the laws in the old covenant are presenting the principles of wisdom, such as the seven year rest for the land, or not planting field to field and it is wise to heed them. Even in this day and age, and especially after the dust bowl, farmers are heeding the wisdom of that, rotating crops and leaving portions of the land fallow for a year.

This is going way off topic, but I have to mention something I noticed a number of years ago when I traveled through the southeast portion of South Dakota, exploring the back roads---and even from I-29, you can see it. The farms were not field to field, but spaces were left to pastureland and waterways. Even the farm yards were naturally landscaped with flower beds and neat and clean. The land there is slightly rolling and sloping, just enough to give it "geography" but still have expansive open views. One of the most beautiful (to my taste) I have ever seen. (I liked the desert too, for its long and wide views, and the quality of its air).

But as to laws of the land, this country began that way, adhering to the rights of humans as prescribed in the Bible. And much of our laws have their roots in the Bible---just not the same penal code. We are moving away from that of course. But I do not believe the church is called to a "takeover" of all institutions in order to heavy handedly govern and control all humans, bending them to their will. It was the plan of the RCC and it failed and it was bloody. It is why one of our amendments is the separation of church and state (no state religion or church). It is why many Christians fled England and came here and why they fought for independence from England.

 

[Josheb]

I agree with this comment. As it is God's world, civil law should be in agreement with God's law---but in principle, not the exact command and punishment prescribed in the Sinai Covenant law.

Exactly.

The challenge is correctly understanding the principle ensconced within the letter. Recons understand this and say they're willing to explore the correct understanding, but I think the Reconstructionism interferes. I read a lot of Reconstructionism, but I don't buy it. North, Bahnsen, Gentry, Demar and a few of the others are often good exegetes but some Recons are not. Whether good or bad, at some point they make an unjustified leap into the Christian state and the belief that's an eschatological requirement.

Nope