Thus Swedenborg calls his works, “useful books for the church” (AE 815:2). This in itself places Mr. Martin in a curious position. How could Swedenborg detest the epistles of Paul and yet call them “useful books for the church” and quote them as confirming passages in the Writings?”
Your posting of this refutation merely shows the specious nature of it, and will end up exposing more of Borgs deception. The premise behind his polemic here is that by calling Pauline epistles “useful” then they do not challenge Borg’s, but which is as logical as holding that since devil found the writings of Moses “useful” (Mt. 4) then they do not contradict him!
The truth is that the devil knows what power is, and like a thief who finds a policeman’s badge useful, both he and Borg appropriate it for their own unScriptural ends.
And in so doing the devil and Borg also know how to wrest things out of texts to serve their end, and to disallow authority of things that are too difficult, as well as give authority to their own words. Thus Borg engages in highly allegorical and esoteric readings of Scripture, while denying the full inspiration of much of Scripture while making his own writings to be the Word of God.
Nor can you equate the 66 book canon of Protestants with the 36 book canon of the Borg, as the former (which as the last thread substantiated, had its OT basis in Jewish acceptance from of old, and the NT with the majority esteem of the early church, nor do Prots hold to Luther’s canon of Scripture proper) was essentially a result of progressive supernatural establishment in community, while the latter was the decision of one 18th century man, and who rejected books which the NT Christian church affirmed.
Not surprisingly, Proverbs is one, which James and Peter both qute from, stating, “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (Prv. 3:34; Ja. 5:6; 1Pt. 5:5)
And Borgs basis for exclusion was based on a type of highly allegorical and esoteric sense which more resembles Roy Masters more than of the Master and His apostles, denying the vicarious atonement being just one example.
However, while the Lord in the gospels excluded marriage as being in Heaven for the redeemed, Borg he concurs with Muslims and Mormons in that he sees the “That the Mahometan heaven [versus the Christian one] is distinguished into two, the inferior and the superior, I have heard from themselves: and that in the inferior heaven they live with several wives and concubines as in the world; but that those who renounce concubines and live with one wife, are elevated into the superior heaven.”
In contrast,
“Since those Christians who marry several wives, commit not only natural but also at the same time spiritual adultery, it follows that the condemnation of Christian polygamists after death is more grievous than that of those who commit only natural adultery,” which appeared to him “in hell as lying in warm water in the recess of a bath.” (Conjugial Love 343, 339
But Christian can divorce, not only because of of fornication, (which includes gross immodesty) and actual abandonment, but under the separation clause they can engage in concubinage (not in the same bed) because the spouse has a contagion which may prove to be fatal, such as leprosy, as well as things which make for no sociability such as noxious vapors or breath. Or conditions of “total faintness of body, and defect of strength,” that of paralysis of motion.. Or vitiated states of mind, which are just causes of separation from the bed and the house, are madness, frenzy, furious wildness, actual foolishness and idiocy, loss of memory, and the like.” (ibid 470)
Have to run, be back in a few God willing.
His personal attacks of Swedenborg are laughable - like he knew the man and was there!
So now that I'm well aware of the source of your material - the red, fiery dragon in Revelation - the serpent of old - I now have a good grasp of what precisely I'm dealing with.
Here Mr. Martin quotes one of the stronger statements in the Writings about the erroneous doctrine of the vicarious atonement found in the former Christian Church. Here the Writings ask, "Who does not know that God is essential compassion and mercy . . . and who does not hereby see that it is a contradiction to assert that mercy itself or goodness itself can heal man from anger, become his enemy, turn Himself away from him and determine on his damnation, and still continue to be the same Divine Being or God? . . . The notion that God can impute the righteousness and merits of His Son to an unjust man who supplicates it from faith alone is also a mere human invention." (This is from Brief Exposition 61, which is quoted in full, along with Brief Exposition 62, 65 and several other brief quotes from the Writings.)
Martin replies to this by saying. "Swedenborg's denial of the vicarious nature of the Atonement needs no serious refutation in the light of such passages as Isaiah 53, Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45 and I Peter 2:24."12 If we look at the passages referred to by Mr. Martin we can see what he is talking about, namely, where he would confirm the traditional Christian doctrine of the atonement. The Isaiah passage serves as an illustration. Some of it reads. "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
But He was wounded for our transgressions . . . and by His stripes we are healed . . . and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:4-6). It even says here, "it pleased the Lord to bruise Him" (Isaiah 53:10), and also "He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:12).
With most of this passage I fail to see where the New Church doctrines are in disagreement with the sense of the letter of the Word. Surely, we believe the Lord bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, that He bore our iniquities, and because of what He accomplished on earth, we were redeemed, even brought back, as it were, from the slavery of hell. The Writings teach that the Lord carried all the hereditary evil of mankind, that He fought against all of the hells and suffered through the worst of temptations. He saved us in a very real way. Thus, the Writings and Isaiah 53 (and for that matter, the other passages cited by Mr. Martin) are in harmony.
Again, we say to Mr. Martin, instead of being opposed to the Word of God, the New Church doctrines are opposed to traditional Christian interpretation of the Word of God. Man was indeed redeemed from the slavery of the hells but not from God's wrath. Man was indeed saved from certain destruction, but man today isn't saved by simply acknowledging and believing in an historical event which took place almost two thousand years ago.
There is the question, however, of why Jehovah appears to be angry in the Old Testament, and sometimes asks for recompense. We know very well that this is the case. We also know that this is an appearance. And if one would use his common sense he could see that this is simply an appearance, and that there must be a deeper meaning or explanation. If confronted with this question we should appeal to common sense. Again, those who are confirmed in their beliefs will not listen to common sense (see AR 564), but there are always those on the sidelines who will listen.
The real question to be asked is, Can God be angry? Even as the Writings ask, Can love itself hate or desire that another suffer? One of the new members of the Chicago Group (who came from a fundamentalist background) put it like this, "A God who would take pleasure in the sacrifice of His own Son is no God of mine. If that is God I think I'd rather be in hell." In our world today people are sincerely looking for rational, common sense teachings about religion. People are tired of being told that God is angry and God condemns. Thus, using and confirming passages from the Word is an effective means of not only defending the Heavenly Doctrines but also teaching them to inquirers.
Grant can be contacted directly on his Facebook page at: Grant Schnarr - author Refer to the NCL 1986 article on the Cult Question
Swedenborg's whole foundation is that marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage and family are the cornerstone to New Church communities... I can't think of the last time I've heard of divorce - we have a thriving marriage ministry. Kids stay with the Church. Marriage is founded on mutual compatible partnership.
I look at the fundie teaching that marriage only exists on earth and see why the majority of kids today are born out of wedlock - what's the point? Just a legal hassle on divorce, which happens more often than not. My fundie sister-in-law's kids are a mess - my own grandnephew is illegitimate... sex, drugs and rock and roll. Youngest nephew dropped out of school. Unmitigated disaster. They know where to find me when they want to.
Conjugial Love is my all time favorite of all the Writings. It has helped us fix our own marriage and keep it on the Lord's path. A copy should be in every home - America would certainly be a better place.