I really want to believe that the church is one. I really want to believe that we are on the side of Jesus.
We’re one, but we’re not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One
But we don’t carry each other; I don’t think we do. Bono merely echoes the words of the apostle:
1I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. (Ephesians 4:1-7 ESV)
I preface my comments by noting that we are one.
A friend of mine gave me a copy of the newest episode of Tabletalk which is the mouthpiece devotional guide published monthly by Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul. The first half of this latest issue is devoted to slinging mud at N.T. Wright. The editor, Burk Parsons, assures readers, in a quote from John Piper’s pastoral assistant David Mathis, that “Wright is not under the curse of Galatians 1″ but that “his portrayal of the Gospel–and of justification in particular–is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as biblically faithful.” He further states, continuing the quote from Mathis, that “what he has written will lead to a kind of preaching that will not announce clearly what makes the lordship of Christ good news for guilty sinners, or show those who are overwhelmed with sin how they may stand righteous in the presence of God.”
Huh? Frankly, I’m not certain either of these gentlemen have taken the time to actually read a single dot on an ‘i’ of Wright to make, and agree, with this assessment. I think they are angry because Wright has the credentials and, pardon me, sack to take on Piper and their continued misguided and mis-characterization of his work.
Still, can you imagine having the nerve to say that about someone like Wright who is a bishop, pastor, scholar, and brother in Christ?
“In quoting N.T. Wright directly and providing concise responses from some of the world’s most trusted churchmen, it is our sincere prayer that this issue will serve to equip the church the know and defend that precious doctrine upon which each individual stands or falls before the face of God, by faith alone and for His glory alone.” (from Parsons’ editorial, 2)
Yet N.T. Wright concludes his book Justification with these words:
“The Risen Son is the fixed point in whose orbit we now move, the one who holds his people by his power and sustains them by his love, the one to whom, with Father and Spirit, be all love all glory in this age and in the age to come.” (252)
We are one in the Spirit, we are One in the Lord. Indeed.
Sproul wrote the first expose of the heretical work of that crazy English Anglican. In his short expose ‘Tilting at Scarecrows‘ Sproul makes every effort to show that the only way Wright’s argument works is if, in fact, Wright has set up a strawman. I’m not buying what Sproul is selling though. You should read the entire article, but here’s the relevant passage at the very end that concerns me the most:
Closely related to this is the hotly disputed issue of the grounds of our justification before God. Here is where the biblical concept of imputation is so important. Those who deny imputation as the grounds of our justification declare it to be a legal fiction, a miscarriage of justice, or even a manifestation of cosmic child abuse. Yet at the same time, it is the biblical explanation for the ground of our redemption. No biblical text more clearly teaches this concept of transfer or imputation than that of Isaiah 53, which the New Testament church singled out as a crucial prophetic explanation of the drama of redemption. The New Testament declares Christ to be our righteousness, and it is precisely our confidence in the righteousness of Christ as the grounds for our justification that is the focus of the doctrine of justification by faith. We understand that believing the doctrine of sola fide will save no one. Faith in a doctrine is not enough to save. However, though we cannot be saved by believing in the doctrine of justification, the denial of that same doctrine can indeed be fatal because to deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the apostle Paul indicated in Galatians is to reject the gospel and substitute something else for it, which would result in what Paul declares to be anathema. The gospel is too important to be dismissed by tilting at scarecrows.
Now I have a couple of questions and/or observations that will hopefully stimulate the conversation. Here I should note that I am interested mostly in deciphering Sproul’s rambling because I really do not understand it or, rather, I do understand it and wish to be corrected if I have missed something.
First, having read a great deal of Wright’s work, I don’t recall he has anywhere said that imputation is ‘legal fiction,’ a ‘miscarriage of justice,’ or ‘cosmic child abuse.’ Granted, some have. But N.T. Wright, unless I missed it, is not one of them. Who is constructing scarecrows?
Second, he writes, ‘no biblical text more clearly teaches this concept of transfer or imputation than that of Isaiah 53…’ I re-read Isaiah 53 and I don’t see this concept anywhere in that text. I’m asking for help here. The text of Isaiah 53 does clearly teach that the Suffering Servant will indeed carry our sins, our sorrows, and our iniquities; he will be crushed because of us. He will be cut off because of us. But I do not see anywhere in the text of Isaiah 53 where it says that his righteousness will be transferred to us the way our sins were transferred to him; whatever that means.
The closest I can come is “…by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11). Someone more familiar with Hebrew can perhaps give us the details, but on the surface it appears Sproul has constructed a second scarecrow. Have I missed it? Is that what Isaiah 53 teaches? But my point is that if Christ has carried our burdens (sins, etc.) is there any reason for us to carry his righteousness in the sense that it has been imputed to us? If God declares us not-guilty then what else is necessary?
Third, Sproul writes, “The New Testament declares Christ to be our righteousness, and it is precisely our confidence in the righteousness of Christ as the grounds for our justification that is the focus of the doctrine of justification by faith.” The irony here is that this is exactly what Wright teaches! “Even a short reflection, therefore, suggests that the best argument for the ‘righteousness’ in Romans 1:17 being God’s own, and referring to his (albeit strange and unexpected) faithfulness to the covenant, is the argument of Romans itself” (Wright, 180).
And he makes similar arguments all throughout the book: the Righteousness is not ours, it is God’s. I don’t see the disagreement. Scarecrow three, unless I have misread.
Fourth, where in the Bible does it say we are saved by faith alone? “We understand that believing the doctrine of sole fide will save no one…However, though we cannot be saved by believing in the doctrine of justification, the denial of that same doctrine can indeed be fatal because to deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the apostle Paul indicated in Galatians is to reject the gospel and substitute something else for it, which would result in what Paul declares to be anathema” (Sproul, 5). Note how carefully Sproul changes the argument from simply ‘doctrine of justification’ to a ‘denial of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.’ That’s sneaky, but not unexpected; the Bible doesn’t even teach sole fide.
So a couple of final thoughts. First, where does the Bible say we are saved ‘sole fide‘? Seriously. I read in the Bible that if we confess we will be saved (Romans 10), that if we are baptized we will be saved (1 Peter 3:20), that we are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8), through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Spirit (Titus 3:5)…and so on and so forth. But seriously, where do the words sole fide appear in the Holy Scripture? (Do a quick search of the word ’saved’ and see how many different things are attached to it. Try to have faith and not be renewed; try to have faith and not call on the Lord. Etc.)
So much for rejecting the curse of Galatians in the editorial! Here Sproul says what they really believe about Wright.
Second, where does Wright say he rejects the doctrine of justification? Not one place. This is yet another scarecrow because there is not one place where Wright rejects justification. And in not one place does the Bible say we are anathema if we reject ‘justification by faith alone’ because in not one place does the Bible say we are justified by faith alone. Romans 3:24 says we are justified by grace. Romans 5:9 says we are justified by his blood. And then there’s James 2:24. Seriously.What Wright rejects, partially, not entirely, is a particular interpretation of justification that excludes God’s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant, particular imputed righteousness, and the notion that those in the Reformed camp have a monopoly on what Gospel means and how it is lived out each day in light of the Resurrection of Christ Jesus.
There are several places where the Scripture says we are justified by faith apart from the law, but that is not the same as saying we are justified sole fide since it is clear that many other elements are involved in this justification.
I think there is more to say about this, but I want to say that it is extremely frustrating to read someone like Sproul, who claims to be so wonderfully in tune with the Spirit of Christ, make such disparaging statements about a brother in Christ and erect so many scarecrows in the process. I will let Bishop Wright close this essay himself:
There are many things which are pastorally helpful in the short or medium term which are not in fact grounded on the deepest possible reading of Scripture. That is simply a testimony to the grace of God: we don’t have to get everything right before anything can work! But if the church is to be built up and nurtured in Scripture it must be semper reformanda, submitting all its traditions to the Word of God. And when we bring the doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’ to Paul, we find that he achieves what that doctrine wants to achieve, but by a radically different route. In fact, he achieves more. To know that one has died and been raised is far, far more pastorally significant than to know that one has, vicariously, fulfilled the Torah. (233, my emphasis)
Share this Post
414 Comments(+Add)
Well, it’s been a while since I read Justification, but Wright does basically say that there isn’t Biblical support for the notion of imputation. The “legal fiction” aspect as imputation is something that isn’t meant as an insult, but rather it is simply a term meant to describe what imputation does. It means you may functionally be a sinner and not perfect, but God sees you as a saint. In Wright’s opinion, there’s no way to really make this assertion based on Scripture. In other words, there isn’t this disconnect between who a person is and what he does.
Also regarding Steve Chalke’s phrase “cosmic child abuse”, Wright did endorse his book, and he stands by that endorsement here. The funny thing in all of this is that Chalke never said the cross was cosmic child abuse – he said that certain descriptions of it make it sound that way. The infamous paragraph is this;
I’m with you, Jerry, I simply don’t understand why some people feel they have to stoop to the level of mischaracterizing people they have philosophical or theological disagreements with. I know personally, reading Wright has probably led me to be a bit more conservative theologically than I would be otherwise. In that sense, I truly don’t understand the people who demonize him.
Phil, do you think endorsing a book is the same as making the statement yourself?
Otherwise, thanks for the clarification.
Well, no. I’d say that the reason people get their panties all in a bunch about book endorsements, though, is that they see it as a person taking sides in some of these debates.
The thing about this particular thing is that according to that article I linked to, when Wright first read the book he didn’t find much that controversial about it. It wasn’t until people started raising a stink about it that he went back to see if maybe he missed something. He actually talked to the author and asked a few questions rather than simply jump to conclusions (shocking, I know…).
I guess that’s the thing I don’t get. Why is that the starting point for people seems to be, “prove to me that you aren’t a heretic”? Why is there such a defensiveness in some quarters of Christianity?
Yeah, funny that.
Hence my opening salvo about the oneness of the body.
Does anyone else find it fascinating that the prayer is to place our faith and hope in a doctrine?
is it fair to sum up the argument as being between those who say righteousness is imputed and wright who says it is credited?
the former holds to an actual change, ontologically, that we become righteous; while the latter holds that it is credited to us but that we do not actually become righteous?
See also Douglas Wilson’s article on this issue. While he sides with neither man, he notes that RC’s error is just as big as the one he accuses NT of.
i followed the link and read the discussion at dtw in south africa. one of the regulars there (and here i freely dmit that whe is a commenter so i do not know her contribution status) spoke of nt allowing us here at ppp to establish a colony at dtw.
what? it’s all so territorial, as if by allowing us to discuss our differences we are somehow polluting their pure blog.
i just don’t get the tude.
In a sense, that’s a good way to put it. Although, I think Wright would say that the Holy Spirit gives Christians the ability to act in a righteous manner. Therefore, righteousness is less about an inherent quality or state, and more related to what we do. That is not to say that righteous works save us or add anything to our salvation, but rather it is the natural progression from entering into covenant relationship with God.
So God never sees us as anything but what we truly are. His covenant family, doing the work of His Kingdom.
How about James 2:24? (oh wait, maybe not)
How about 1 Corinthians 13:13 ?(nevermind, scratch that one too)
re 8
ultimatley i’m still trying to understand what the fight is about… as it were. you’re cooment about it being less about an inherent quality or state makes sense.
it’s kinda funny since the definition of “to justify” has not come into play as far as i can tell.
iow, both “camps” define it as “declaring just” not making “just” – so why the issue with declaring right vs. making right?
Other arguments aside, please. The context of Romans 3:34 is justification by faith:
Romans 5 starts off by saying “ 1- Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God. . . 9 – Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath..
Paul has just said in Romans 3:25 that God saves through faith in His blood. The whole context of these passages is “faith”.
James 2:24 – “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” is stating the simple fact that saving faith produces works and that faith without works is not really faith. This is man’s witness to man of his genuineness of his faith. Else, James is at hopeless odds against Paul, which is not the case.
There may well be “other elements” involved in justification but ALL are appropriated through Faith.
I think you are way off here Jerry in your logic.
I am very anti-Calvanism, and not a big fan of Sproul for several reasons, but it appears that the article has entered into a legitimate theological debate. Did they throw in a lot of ad hominems? Is someone’s theology unassailable because they are a pastor? I thought they were to be held to greater account?
I franky, don’t get the angst. It’s a theological debate. Gee. that never happens around these parts.
And “Tabletalk” is the mouthpiece of Ligonier Ministries. Ok. And that is wrong because . . .? You don’t have an opinion. Your articles here are not your personal “mouthpiece” of your theology so to speak. That swipe was just sort of weird to me.
Obviously the issue is near and dear to this Calvinist’s organization’s heart. I haven’t read the article. Were they petty? OK. again, two theological world views collide. They report, you decide.
I’m not getting it.
john,
i believe jerry laid out his issues with sproul’s critique pointing out several straw men of his own making.
i do not see any angst in jerry over theological debate, is see him take issue with the method and the message.
sproul says “In his response to John Piper’s critique of his work, Wright drips patronizing disdain for Piper and for those who embrace the traditional Protestant view of justification.”
from what i have read of wright’s response he has been more than fair, upright, and direct. comments like this are patronizing.
To the point of the Sproul article, I do find that article the height of irony. Sproul accuses Wright of constructing a strawman, but then he constructs a magnificent one himself about Wright. I honestly wonder if Sproul actually read Wright’s book, or if he’s just reacting to it based on some review of it somewhere.
Surely not! Nobody does this.
John,
the issue is not fide but sole. Can you show me the word sole in connection with fide?
And, to be sure, this isn’t angst–that’s why I spend a lot of time asking questions and saying, to the point, that I willing to be corrected if i am wrong. Phil did a great job of this in the first couple of comments.
Please, John, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath…
jerry
And, furthermore, if you are anti-calvinism then, according to Sproul’s logic, you are anti-justification by faith alone and, thus, ‘under the curse of Galatians.’ This is what I take issue with in his article…he is dead wrong to make such pronouncements.
This is also why I began the post by noting that we are one in Christ. I took a tone of deference, would you fault me for that?
You should be careful what you argue for and against or you might find yourself on the wrong side of salvation.
John,
I’m not trying to pull a Bill Clinton on you, just trying to follow that logic. Does alone mean “other elements involved”, or does alone mean “alone”?
Brett,
Salvation (i.e., justification) has many components, but all are appropriated by faith.
MostMany Calvinist theologians/apologists are arrogant jerks who believe they alone possess THE TRUTH. By definition they hold to a very small population of the redeemed out all the rest of us self-deceived rabble. What do you expect?Seriously.
salvation is not “i.e. justification”… as if the sentence could read “salvation, in other words, justification.” they are two different things – the latter being a component of the former.
Sorry,
That was very not-generous of me. Perhaps Mike Ratliff will pray for me.
Opps did it again.
gosh. My bad.
#22. Agreed. But that is part of my point. Other than reconcilation (now that I think about it) do you see any other elements of salvation not appropriated by faith?
#23 – That didn’t come across as sincere did it?
Let me know when I’m out of moderation.
interesting question – first i would have to list the elements. i think the best summation is that we are saved by grace through faith.
although i am not real clear what jerry’s issue with sola fide is… sola as opposed to what?
in 3…. 2….. 1….. – OK. times up.
One of the more interesting debates in the last few decades has been the “pistis cristou” debate. Without boring anyone with the details (it’s heavy if you don’t know Greek and you can google it to learn more), the main point is that some of the key texts that are translated to read faith in Christ should really read faith OF Christ.
Thus, it’s not OUR faith that saves us but the faithfulness of Jesus Christ that is our salvation.
#28
Which forms a large, large part of Wright’s argument…with which I happen to agree very, very much.
I’ve been trying to study this Calvinism business for a few years; but for the life of me I can’t make any sense of it. It confuses me because otherwise intelligent people (some way more intelligent than me) speak in circles without saying anything. It’s like they take all sense of mystery and the supernatural out of the Christian faith; but simple words like “alone” have no meaning. How can there be 5 “solas”, shouldn’t there be only 1 “sola”?
I do have much respect for Luther and Lutheranism. Luther was never trying to come up with something new; he made a brave effort at returning to certain truths that were being obscured by some dirty rotten sinners. If the other guys would have stopped at 1 “sola” they may have been on to something. “Sola Christus” I can understand.
I agree with Jerry in the OP:
And I’m also sticking with the pope on this one unless somebody’s got something I’m missing:
Even the Catholics recognize NT Wright is closer to their view of infused righteousness rather than the Biblical teaching of imputed righteousness.
I’m banking my salvation on Christ’s imputed reghteousness, because if it’s dependent on His infused righteousness I am in serious trouble.
What do you do with Philippians 1:6?
1st, “faith” and “faithfulness” have related, but different meanings. This begs the question “Christ’s faithfulness to what?”
However, on the other hand, faith is inextricably tied to belief. There is a difference but in some passages they are used interchangably. (e.g., Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved). So that tends to really kill that theory for me.
Also, other than Himself, what could God have faith in? The incarnate Son intrusted himself to the Father, but now that He is risen and exalted He has all re-assumed all His divine perogatives. So I guess He has faith in Himself, but that seems a silly concept to me.
#32
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Do you doubt God’s power to do both?
#31 – NOO! The Catholics believe it???Well it must be wrong, then.
The confusion seems to be with the fact that salvation is multi-faceted and the John’s don’t seem to appreciate that.
Luther stressed imputation to an extreme. Prior to him and since him, however, cooler heads have prevailed and more appreciation for impartation of Christ’s righteousness has been noted. Afterall, Paul did say we are being “conformed” to the image of Christ. You can’t read the NT without coming away with a strong sense of impartation – we are to become like Christ – this is a power worked in and through us by the Spirit.
All of this is part of our salvation – our being freed from bondage to sin and death. If you stress imputation to the neglect of impartation you come away with ideas like OSAS and/or a Christian walk that is powerless. Why bother living holy lives if all that matters is Christ’s righteousness?
Of course, even Luther’s thought is more nuanced than what I allowed above. Some Finnish theologians have uncovered a good deal of theosis in Luther’s writing that before was not so clear. Most of the misapplication of Luther’s theology is the fault of his interpreters more than Luther himself.
I see that as a reference to the complete spectrum of our salvation and contrary to what Chad may think I believe I do understand “salvation” to encompass more than a “ticket to heaven”.
Chad, I most certainly do understand that salvation is mulit-faceted.
#34 If you believe St. Paul in Rom. 5, Christ is the second Adam who was faithful whereas the first was not. The point is that Christ was faithful to the divine plan of salvation. OUR faith ought to be in the one who IS faithful. It is an objective reality (for us Christians) that Christ lived, died and rose again. We have faith in that.
And faith is not inextricably tied to belief. Leaning again on Luther, faith is trust. It is trusting in the one who is faithful, the one who loved us while we were yet sinners. Faith is also action, for faith without works is not faith at all – it’s dead.
What you think matters far less than what you do, or how you live.
Conversely, how do I know when I am holy enough? When I have done enough?
Again, if my salvation depends on any part of me (other than faith in Christ’s completed works) I’m toast.
We bother because the Holy Spirit is in us and our spiritual bent is to the holy now when before it was not.
We bother because we love Christ by definition and to love is to obey.
Lastly (and least of all) we bother because we are promised our good works produce rewards.
I feel a joke coming on. Those Finnish theologians — gotta luv ‘em.
Chad, you need to get out more.
RE: 38
If salvation is truly multi-faceted, and God really does complete the work he started, then why would you be scared if it turned out that imputation of righteousness is a 16th century modern concept and not a biblical one?
In other words, comments 32 and 38 seem to me to be in tension.
Who said anything about salvation depending on any part of you? The only people I hear talking like that are those who depend on their faith for salvation as opposed to Christ’s. What if you doubt? What if in the end your ignorance leads to heresy or something hetero-orthodox? Then in your worldview, you’re toast.
I need to get out more? Why? Because I know something you didn’t? If that was a joke, don’t quit your day job.
Yes it is. You cannot have faith without belief, but you can have belief without faith.
I can believe (intellectual assent) a high-wire walker could tote me across a crevase, but it is not until I get on his shoulder and let him that I demonstrate my faith (i.e, trust in and reliance on).
Agreed, Chad, but you only go to reiterate our Faith is IN Christ, not the faith OF Christ. You are just reinforcing the traditionalist view (of which I agree).
I would also add that one cannot read the NT without recognizing that for Paul, the biggest thing about a life of faith is participation in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul would have a fit if all we talked about was imputation – that would be ridiculous to him.
Not only to him, though, also to Jesus, who said we must be “born again.” This is more than mere imputation as classically understood. This is about theosis – becoming like God.
It was a joke and in this economy I will keep my day job as long as I can believe me.
Come on, Chad. Finnish theologians? You have to admit that is VERY obscure. But just the other day I was reading some Andorran theologians and boy was that heavy reading! Lighten up friend.
It’s one’s faith IN Christ, Chad, not one’s faith. Faith (i.e., trust in and reliance on) has to have an object. Again, what is the mechanics of how Christ’s faith saves someone?
If salvaltion is contingent upon .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.
No one is saved.
I am not necessarily arguing with you here. But inputation of Christ’s righteouness is a sound and fundamental Biblical principal though it certainly in no wise exhausts the biblical concept of progressive righteousness
“0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001″
That is what I meant.
#49. Hear, hear.
No, I doubt it.
We have very different ideas about salvation. It is the faith OF Christ that has saved the world (and will save all). It is faith IN Christ (or our putting our trust in Christ) that delivers us in this present life.
My complete comment is obscured.
Rick,
Sorry, buddy, but I don’t get it.
jerry
Faith is all that is contingent for salvation. And ONLY God can evaluate that. Statements like this are unhelpful and self righteous.
“Men like N.T. Wright and those who clamor for what they write in order to justify their trashing of the Gospel, are not Christians. They may claim to be such or they may claim to be something innocuous like a “Christ Follower,” but it changes nothing.” (Mike Ratliff)
Who can evaluate the heart but God?
Someone wrote, ‘what about Philippians 1:6?’
This is a problem that Wright tackles quite a bit. That is, there is not such thing as ‘Philippians 1:6′. On the other hand, there is an entire letter written to the church at Philippi. A significant part of the problem with our modern interpretation of Scripture, which Wright points out more than once, is our propensity to take one verse and make it stand for an entire doctrine.
But what did Paul write in entirety to the church at Philippi? What was his entire argument?
I’m not blaming whoever wrote that, just pointing it out; I did the same thing several times in the OP.
I’m just sayin…
I stand corrected. We DO have very different ideas about salvation. However, I’m secure in either view. You are not necessarily.
Chad, faith is the mechanism, the effector of salvation not its sustainer. Once true faith in Christ is consumated one is reborn by the washing and regeneration by the Holy Spirit and is a New Creature in Christ and adopted into the family of God. This change is irreversable and not dependant on man. Thus doubt (or any other created thing) post salvation does not negate the rebirth/regeneration. This rebirth and subsequent sonship cannot be undone by man’s actions or inaction.
To be sure, this post is about the scarecrows erected by Sproul in making his ‘case’ against Wright.
I haven’t seen too much objection to that so I guess I must have been at least close.
Re: 60
Yeah, blog posts purporting to take down N.T. Wright are a joke.
What a self-indulgent, self-important way of thinking…. yeah, the Bishop of Durham writes a few books, but all I got to do is zip out a few hundred words and I’ve taken the good Bishop down.
If you want another example of that, read Mike R.’s stuff on N.T. Wright. Ughhh. It’s like reading a high schooler trying to take down Kant…
#60 – Yes Sproul did through in the kitchen sink there in attributing all those comments to Wright. I’ll give you that!
throughthrow. Egads!Uhh. I think Rick’s post with all the zero’s is playing havoc with the HTML. Perhaps best to delete it.
Nothing personal Rick
Well I’m going go read some Latvian theologians I’ve been meaning to get around to then off to bed. See you guys in the morning.
Why would I not be?
You seem to be secure in your beliefs. I’m not.
2 things:
first, for Sproul and Piper theology works like this…”If it ain’t a reformed articulation, it ain’t right”.
second, the panty twisted tantrum over Chalke pisses me off because he explicitly DENIED that the cross is cosmic child abuse. He didn’t claimit was…but by the time Piper, et. al got done lying, YES LYING, about what Chalke was asserting they made it sound like he himself believed that the Cross was cosmic child abuse and some crazy person trying to downplay the power of the cross.
ugh.
liars.
so glad Piper, et al have “cleared” Wright from being cursed.
I’ll take Wright, even cursed, any day over liars who lie in the name of God.
too bad and so sad liars don’t inherit the Kingdom of God…i seem to remember that somewhere in the Bible…
sheeeesh….yeeeeesh….oy.
so. mad.
Oh, yeah…
The finns are actually doing some really good work on Luther too.
The world of theology is bigger than american academia…
it takes time to get to pew, but there’s some really exciting work being done.
no need to pit the sphere of the educators against the parish.
it’s immature.
perhaps people just imagine Wright’s comments being delivered with an English accent.
i mean, that accent can sound very “drippy” and “disdain-y”.
nathan,
you need to get out more, man
Nathan,
I know this doctor….
jerry
You miss understand. I’m saying I’m “OK” by definition if Christian Universalism is true (i.e, all are eventually saved by Christ). I’m also OK if Traditionalism is true (i.e., only those who believe on Christ in this life are saved). However, if Traditionalism is only true and Christian Universalism is not then there is a population group in jepordy. I’m saved either way. That is what I meant.
Also why would you say you are not secure in your belief? Is your theology in flux at the moment?
Actually, John, if traditionalism is true than you had better hope there isn’t any heretical belief floating around in your head and that you have all your T’s crossed and I’s dotted or else you are toast. You had better believe rightly or else.
When I say I am not “secure” in my beliefs I am saying that I am not pinning my future salvation on whether or not my interpretation of Scripture is right. I don’t assume people are hell-bound just because they don’t believe like I believe. I could be the one who has it all messed up, not them (think of John Chisham’s anxiety over Catholics, for instance). I am secure in the simple yet cosmic advent of Christ and what Christ has done on behalf of the entire world. Everything else is commentary.
I agree with Chad’s assertion that the term “faith in Christ” would probably be better translated “faith of Christ” or perhaps even better “the faithfulness of Christ”. So Galatians 2:15-17 would become:
So when you read it that way, it becomes very clear that our justification doesn’t depend on anything we do, but rather justification was done in it’s entirety through Christ’s faithfulness to the Covenant including His death and resurrection. So Christ was humanity’s substitute, as it were, but it was in a much grander way than what is put forth in typical substitutionary atonement explanations.
That is not to say that we don’t need faith in Christ ourselves, but rather the verses that are usually used as prooftexts shouldn’t be. We still must have faith, to be sure, and this is something that Wright makes very clear as well. Our faith, however, isn’t what determines our justification.
well put
I wonder what Peter meant when he wrote this:
Can errant interpretation and false doctrine (ie: universalism) destroy one’s future? Jesus did warn vehemently against following blind guides.
What did Jesus mean when He said, “This is the work of God: to believe in Him whom God has sent”?
Where I differ with some is that I believe that unless a life change follows faith, that person’s faith is in vain (without reward).
Paul C, you are welcome to wonder what Peter meant all you wish.
Of course errant interpretations can “destroy” one’s future, at least in this lifetime. People believe all sorts of lies that do not bring life.
Fortunately, though, our faith is in one who brings life even out of death and chaos.
Of course, the converse of your assertions is that one is saved by their correct and inerrant interpretations of Scripture. It is, in the end, just another form of salvation by works.
You better hope you got it right or you are damned, Paul. Talk about an anxiety producing faith!
i can live with the phrase “faithfulness of christ” – not so comfortable with the “faith of christ.” just exactly what does christ have “faith” in… particularly if faith is the hope of things not seen.
if we are justified by the faithfulness of christ how does that get applied? assuming the rejection of christian universalism of course.
Who would disagree with this?
lol. of course.
nor am i. i pin my future (and present) salvation on the finished work of christ and his promise that by believing i have passed from life to death .
i know of no one who, except maybe the occasions tin-hat wearing ODM who does.
Nice brush off. But these are the words of an apostle and his warning should carry some weight.
Chad, can you give me an example of an “errant interpretation that can destroy one’s future”?
What do you mean by “destroy” in quotes?
This is not necessarily the opposite of “my assertion” (which is really Peter’s not mine). There are doctrines and teachings that are false that do lead to destruction. Look at what Paul had to say of Hymaneus and Philetus who had “overthrown” the faith of some.
Your “generous theology” (no one can be right, therefore preach whatever you like – we’re all OK) is a dangerous path – one that I believe Christ and the apostles warned incessantly about.
Faith then means nothing except enhancing this life. And if “interpretation” is useless, then the Scriptures are subject to private interpretations which make them personal stories.
And if all will be saved, then evangelism is a exercise in information spreading while using obscene amounts of money that could feed people. A person believes that a certain bridge will hold him, however half way across the bridge collapses and he plunges to his death.
His faith was wrong and it cost him his life.
that was not meant as a dig… you know you are pretty much alone on that subject when it comes to this blog… i only meant that it is obvious how the “faith of christ” fits into christian universalism. i was thinking more in how it is used by n. t. wright and phil miller… how it is used by those who hold to the historic belief in a hell that will be populated.
Well of course doctrine that goes against a main tenant of the faith, can be damaging to those who are propagating it and those who believe it. As far as universalism, I’d say there are different strains of it. Chad seems to be taking a line that follows closely to the thoughts of Origen, and, to me, that is not necessarily a dangerous type of universalism. Origen, for example, definitely did not say, “I’m OK, your OK”.
As far as the quote from John 6, I’d say it’s a bit disingenuous to simply yank a small sentence out of the Gospels like that and formulate a whole theology on it. Jesus is answering the question: “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
So Jesus, gives a rather straightforward answer – “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
But is Jesus saying that belief is a “work” that we do? No, He’s not. He actually getting to the point that even the faith that we need is a gift from God. It’s not something we muster up on our own, but it’s something we have to submit ourselves to.
i think this an unfair caricature of chad’s position. as much as i diagree with him, i think it only fair to address what he actually claims to believe.
#79: I believe Rick would (correct me if I’m wrong Rick).
I agree with Neil here. It is not a matter of getting every jot and tittle right. But there are false, errant teachings that the apostles and Christ Himself warned about in their day. Paul also says,
Should we brush off these warnings lightly?
Faith in Christ – Faith of Christ – and all the little nuances of all kinds of “theology”. The bottom line is this:
Is there one or two places in eternity, and if there are two does what you believe about Jesus impact where you go for eternity?
i believe faith is only in vain if the object of that faith is false. kinda like rick’s bridge analogy.
Phil – I wasn’t trying, in the least, to say that believe/faith is a work at all. Though I can see how you came up with this based on the scripture I referenced and the topic of discussion.
Basically, I was questioning your statement that we are not justified by faith. I do agree with your commentary on this scripture though.
Having strains of universalism is like a woman saying she’s only a little pregnant. By its name, universalism implies an all-or-none concept. He believes, in the end, ALL will be saved because of what Christ did.
A man only partially believes a certain bridge will hold him. He crosses with much anguish and uncertainty, but the bridge holds him.
His faith was small but the bridge was strong.
#88 Yes, what you believe about Jesus ultimately will land you in one of two destinations for eternity. If you trust him alone for your salvation, heaven. If you trust yourself (works), hell.
91 – again… it’s the object of the faith that matters.
the question we were discussing was not about destinations – how or how many… but the differences between translating a greek phrase.
we’ve been done the former road many times. can we stick to the other lane this time if possible?
To the point of the OP, it is always amazing how much we attach to the “us” and “them” mentality.
How often people go off the reservation to defend doctrines. We’re not defending God, we’re defending doctrines.
I never said we weren’t justified by faith. Rather, I’m trying to get into the definition of the term “justification”. It’s a bit tedious to get into all the details here, but this article from Wright is pretty good summary. This paragraph particularly:
Also this:
So it’s not that we are justified by faith. We are justified simply because of what Christ has done. We become members of God’s covenant family through faith in Christ. It’s hard to see the controversy in this.
he wears purple shirt and a collar…
Ok, good. So, what are they? Specifically, what are the false teachings that we are warned to steer clear from?
A follow up question: Who determines what those beliefs are?
Justification is a judicial rendering. It is made possible by Christ’s death/sinbearing on Calvary, vindicated by His resurrection and appripriated by individually by faith.
Though the payment (which is infinite in scope) has been made and justification is universally available, it must be appropriated (by faith in the one who effected it). It is not automatically dispensed on all.
Phil, I am not tracking with you bro. and the quote you provided from Wright doesn’t seem to be either.
#98: they were numerous and varied depending on the location. And more importantly, they were ever-evolving.
This is why Paul gives his famous warning to the elders of Ephesus (Acts 20) – after his departure, some will arise (even within their own number) teaching perverse things.
So, a good guideline is to rely on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone.
If your teachings are muddied or require linguistic gymnastics to convey them; if you have to select certain verses (outside of their context) to make an argument; if your teachings actually fly in the face of the mass of scripture, then there’s a good chance you are a purveyor of false teachings.
As Jesus said, “If the blind lead the blind…”
Seriously? Holy crap!
Where can we get a list of which beliefs will send you to hell and which won’t?
For instance, do I have to believe in the Trinity to be saved? Can I believe in soul-sleep as opposed to eternal torment? Can I believe that the Mass is the actually body and blood of Jesus or do I have to confess it is just symbolic? Can I believe that icons enhance my walk with God or must I denounce them? Can I believe that all will be saved because of Jesus Christ or must I confess that hell will be populated? How populated?
If our beliefs are what punch our ticket to either heaven or hell than I think it would behoove us all to nail down exactly what or what not to believe, don’t you think? This “ever-evolving” theory of yours sound very post-modern of you but how do I ever know I am in the right club?
You obviously haven’t been reading Ken Silva, or John Chisham.
#102: Chad, do you believe there is such a thing as false doctrine?
If so, can you give me a sample of a false doctrine – one that you consider dangerous and leads to destruction?
Discussing false doctrine with a universalist who believes all – even those who reject Christ outright – is kind of wierd. There can really be no consensus can there?
chad, i defended you against the accusation that you thought all teaching was ok – was i wrong to do so?
All those passages back up the point I’m making. We’re justified by the faithfulness of Christ, not by our own faith. Yes, we still must have faith in Christ, but the act of justification is the legal declaration that already happened and is guaranteed to happen in the future. Remember, justification, isn’t really the whole of salvation. One way to think about it is in comparison to circumcision. The Jews were circumcised because God had declared them His people. We are justified because God has made His declaration over us. We partake in the promise through faith. If you want to take the analogy further, you could say that baptism is the physical sign of our becoming a member of the covenant family, of being in Christ.
This becomes clear when realize what Paul is arguing against in Galatians is the idea being pushed by the Judaizers that Gentile converts needed to be circumcised to actually be considered part of the family of God. What Paul says, basically, is that because of God’s declaration, circumcision is unnecessary. We are in because of what Christ did.
We’re not talking about Scarecrows any longer are we?
has there ever been a thread that was still talking about the specifics of the op at the 100 comment mark?
so we can speak of pistuo christou as the faithfulness of christ that allows the declaration to be made. but it becomes efficacious when we place our faith in christ.
i think everyone pretty much agreed with the op, so we moved on to other tangential topics.
So isn’t the ‘faithfulness of Christ’ moot to this argument?
I mean, it likes quoting John 3:16 – God so loved the world… But only those who place their trust in the Son will receive everlasting life.
Neil, no, you were right to defend me on that point.
Paul C – Can you not answer the question without asking another?
not if it’s the basis of our justification
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
[emphasis mine]
the former is what allows the latter
Exactly. As Wright spells out in that article I linked to earlier, he considers justification to be a “second-order” doctrine. The “how” of the question has already been answered. So the answer to the question of how are we justified is simply through the faithfulness of Christ. We are saved through faith in Christ.
FTR, yes, I believe there is such a thing as false doctrine. The question I’m really asking is: Does false doctrine damn you to hell?
Of course there are all sorts of things we can believe that are destructive.
I don’t believe in hell as you know. But we just went around in circles…
What did Peter say in the scripture I provided at the outset?
It seems you have a problem with the word ‘destruction’. Peter wasn’t talking about a temporary slip. He was speaking of eternal destruction.
As a parallel, the epistle of Jude might be helpful.
Or you can look at 2 Corinthians 11.
Or Hymaneus and Philetus and Alexander.
OK. Perhaps ‘moot’ was the wrong word. What I meant was that I thought this point (what Christ has done) was taken for granted.
i forget what you believe regarding the eternal state of the lost – if there is such a thing.
certainly we cannot just say “yes” – since i do think anyone has ever gotten everything right. having no doctrinal errors whatsoever is kinda like having no sin. the one who makes the claim is a liar.
but i certainly do not want to say “no” – because i believe faith in christ is how his sacrifice gets applied and faith implies belief and belief implies content and content is a doctrine… therefore there is a doctrine that must be believed to be saved.
in the spirit of pastorboy – no, your sin damns you to hell.
#119: I believe the Bible teaches life and death vs. heaven and hell.
#120: I think that you are correct in that no one can claim they have 100% pure doctrine and even if they did, they might lack the fruit of the Spirit (1 Cor 13).
The point is that there are false doctrines that obviously do damn people eternally (hence Paul, Peter and Jude’s urgent warnings – not to mention Christ’s).
ok, i remember… thanks. one follow-up; what is the nature or the eternal death?
Eternal death is just that. The complete absence of life.
For example, Paul speaks of death being swallowed up of life (1 Cor 15). Death literally will die – leaving only life.
This is what it means when death & hell are cast into the lake of fire – the 2nd death. It’s an unrecoverable state.
Paul says, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.”
All the way through you see these 2 final destinations of mankind pitted against each other (not heaven and hell).
The physical Kingdom of God will be established upon this earth (not heaven) at the return of Christ.
“The eternal state of the lost” – I believe that’s what’s on New Jersey’s license plates…
paul c.,
sorry to belabor the point… i can understand applying the complete absence of life to the body, but what of the soul/spirit? if death is swallowed leaving only life does that mean all will eventually be resurrected… or does it mean that those outside christ will cease to exist or will be lifeless for eternity.
i still do not understand how you are using the terms you use.
Sorry Neil.
Basically, there is a resurrection. This occurs at the time of Christ’s return. Right now, when a believer dies, he is dead. Likewise the unbeliever.
For example, when Stephen was stoned, Luke says he fell “asleep” (see also 1 Thes 4). The reason for this is because for a believer, this death is only a temporary state.
But there will be a resurrection.
Those who were in Christ receive eternal life. Those outside of Christ will be judged by Him.
The eternal state of those not granted entrance into the physical Kingdom of God is outlined here:
This is the unrecoverable state I mentioned earlier. It is final. People are not conscious. They are not suffering. They will see that indeed Christ was the Saviour/Messiah of the world, they will see a re-created earth, and it will dawn on them the terror of their rejection before they are put out of existence.
paul,
i believe what you outlined is basic annihilationism – the belief that there is judgment and eternal consequences (as opposed to universalism) but that the judgment results in annihilation, or “out of existence” as you say (as opposed to conscience eternal punishment).
thank you for the clarification!
Ok. What are they?
So how wrong can one be before they get moved from the “going to heaven” slate to the “going to hell” slate? Can you be wrong, say, on 80% of beliefs? 70%? Do you have to be 100% right in some but not in others?
Who decides which beliefs you can be in error over and which ones you can’t?
Faith in Christ is what is required for salvation. It is by grace through faith, a work of regeneration by God through Christ from start to finish.
From there you are a new creature in Christ, Chad. By the illumination of the Holy Spirit in reading the Word of God and submitting yourself to the clear teaching of scripture, being built up and equipped by the local church, you will grow in holiness and an understanding of right doctrine.
The scripture is sufficient for this, with the start being in regeneration by Christ.
Back to the OP, way too many of you folks hold NT Wright in such esteem you will not even acknowledge when he is wrong, like in justification. That does not mean he is not a Christian, unless he believes that any of his works adds to his salvation, which is what the Catholics teach and seem to acknowledge that NT Wright teaches in the article I referenced above. Does his view of justification push him out of salvation? no, unless he does not rely on Christ alone for salvation. The Bible clearly teaches this.
Saving faith is an immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, resting upon Him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of God’s grace. –Charles Spurgeon
and
Oh the irony!
Phil,
#125 – ROTFL.
so if someone believes in baptismal regeneration, for example, they cannot be saved?
False Doctrine #2,198 – If you wear a Brown Scapular at the time of your death you will not suffer eternal fire.
pastorboy,
the article you quoted was not by wright it was about wright – which is a common tactic.
we have repeatedly quoted wright himself about salvation by faith w/o works. your insistence to the contrary is not only annoying, it is now despicable.
pastorboy,
we have acknowledged disagreements with wright. and i’m not sure to what you refer when you say he is wrong about justification.
Umm… that’s because he’s not wrong. You repeatedly saying he is doesn’t make it so.
Neil,
Has there ever been a thread where we did so past comment #50?
Of course you know I was just messing around.
jerry
understood jerry…
Yes it is about him, but the quote his work in asking their questions….
. Bishop Wright, in your new book Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (page 141) you write concerning 2 Cor 5:21:
I need not go on; the Catholics here recognize that NT Wright is closer to synergism than monergism. You all, wanting Wright to be right interpret it through your lens. Justification is an act of God through and through. It is NOT of works lest any man should boast. It is not cooperating with God. God does it, we walk in His way because He has done it.
Sigh…
Wright makes it abundantly clear that justification is a complete work of God. As far as monergism, that’s about as unbiblical a concept as anything. That concept would be completely foreign to the Apostle Paul’s thoughts.
Also, regarding imputation, there is no where the word is actually used in Scripture, and the actual concept has little scriptural support. It’s sort of funny all the solo Scripturians to get themselves all in a tizzy when all Wright is doing is pointing out these concepts they hold near and dear have little, if any, Scriptural support.
I believe the misunderstanding comes when the word “justification” is used for the future judgment of a believer’s works as well as the act bestowed upon a sinner when he is born again. Unless Wright actually means a saint can be “unjustified” in the future by a lack of works, he might have used a different word there.
There will be a rewards/loss judgment but that has nothing to do with justification which can only come through faith in Christ.
Well, Wright wouldn’t really disagree with this. He makes it abundantly clear throughout the book that our justification isn’t based on our works, but really, our works are based on our justification. We are assured that the final verdict will agree with the present verdict because of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
So what Wright is doing, really, is placing justification and sanctification in proper perspective. They aren’t necessarily separate things. Justification is the declaration that we are part of God’s family, and because of that we are empowered to do the work of God – works that will be proven to be of lasting worth on the last day. As to whether someone could be justified in the present and somehow be found not at the last day, Wright would say no. But again, I do not think he closes the door on apostasy being a possibility. After all, as I’ve said again and again, justification and salvation are not synonymous.
Phil, I might have missed this explanation before. Can you elaborate for me?
Can you give me an example of what apostasy looks like and how you define it here?
To clarify what I said about apostasy, Wright would not say a person would become “unjustified” by a lack of works. He would say that person is not living in the new reality of who they really are.
As far as apostasy (and I don’t really want to put words in his mouth here), but based on this book and others I’ve by Wright, I’d say that he would view apostasy more as outright idolatry – a person willfully deciding to follow after a Lord other than Christ.
Justification is complete while sanctification is progressive. I still contend a better word difference would allieviate any confusion.
(Also – It is quite a mystery concerning the Bema seat judgment and how that will all play out concerning sins, commission, ommission, and what will constitute reward and what will constitute loss. Anyone who calims direct and complete knowledge of the event is misguided.)
I believe the Scriptures teach the possibility of personal apostasy. It is not by works or sin but by the direct denounciation of Christ and His atonement by someone who believed at one time.
Only God can know with any authority who that might be
Well, that may be true, but I suppose that we are stuck using the terminology that the Apostle Paul gave us in this instance. I don’t mean that in a smart alec sort of way, either. The fact that the greek word “diakonos” doesn’t have a good English equivalent is part of the problem, and there is also the issue that since the Reformation, we have pretty much been conditioned to think of justification and righteousness in a very narrow way that misses much of the context of Paul’s thought.
So what would he (or you) say about John 15 (the vine) or the words of Christ to each of the 7 churches, “I know your works…”?
How would he (or you) interpret plainly John 8:31-32?
What is Christ himself trying to convey do you think?
I find this statement very limp-wristed (not trying to be offensive, but it seems almost evasive and New Age):
Rick, re #149, what would you say about these verses from Peter?
They had “escaped” based on what Peter says.
Phil: You are the definer of what Paul and NT Wright are thinking when they wrote what they wrote?
That is a little arrogant; it is as though you were the editor for the NT Wright books and you were sitting there asking him ‘what did you mean by this’. Thats my point; you are interpreting through your lens what you want NT Wright to say, and the Catholics and others are interpreting it their way. I say there is too much unclear wiggle room. I go back to the teaching of the Anglicans, of which NT Wright is a part: Justification+works= salvation
As far as interpreting Paul, we need to do it in the same way: What he wrote, when he wrote it, his background, and context in the whole of scripture. For Paul to say that works add one iota to justification, and that it is infused not imputed (I know words that don’t appear in the Bible) would be in opposition to everything taught in the Bible and what Paul himself understood as the Gospel.
I don’t claim to know Wright’s thought patterns beyond what he had made abundantly clear in the books he has written. It’s one thing to say something someone wrote is unclear, but when it’s abundantly clear that he says something opposite of you’re claiming he’s saying, than I’ll go with what Wright wrote. Actually, you’re the one who is being arrogant and even dishonest by accusing Wright of saying one thing, when he clearly says the opposite.
As far as Anglicans saying justification + works = salvation, I have posted evidence here before that says this a lie. I believe there are Anglican commenters here who will back this up as well.
This is exactly what Wright does.
Wright never claims that works add anything to salvation. Quit lying about the man, PB.
Well, I don’t know why this sound limp-wristed. If a child of God is living like a defeated beggar, he isn’t living in the reality of who he is. I don’t believe that every Christian who sins does so out of willful disobedience. I believe Christians can become entangled in sin, and some may even enjoy being there to an extent, but I believe if they submit to the Holy Spirit, they can be rescued from this.
I would say apostasy is something more in line with what Rick said. It’s a willful turning away. It’s not really our place to say exactly how it works.
As far as John 15, and the vine and the branches, I would say Jesus is getting to the idea of what fruit actually is. A tree doesn’t willfully decide to grow apples – they grow out of what the tree is. So if we are in the vine, fruit will come naturally. So like I said before, the work we do don’t add or subtract from our justification (the declaration that we are in the family of God), but rather they are a result of us being in the family of God.
So if a Christian sees no fruit at all, perhaps there is room for concern, but also, we have to be willing to accept that not all trees bear fruit at the same rate. Some are slow to bloom, as it were. Also, God is the one who is charged with caring for and pruning the tree, not us.
and you, pastorboy, so want to fiund something to disagree with him on that you are willing to take the interpretation of catholics as correct.
instead of reading wright and discussion what HE says, you appeal to what someone else says about him.
show me where wright denies this or shut up on the matter!
do not quote someone else’s interpretation of wright.
show me in wright’s own words!
Paul C –
Perhaps you missed it earlier, but I am still interested to know exactly what those false doctrines are that damn a person for eternity.
thanks.
In a roundabout way, we are actually talking about the point original post again. In attacking Wright, PB has certainly constructed some big scarecrows!
Chad, as I mentioned earlier, if you’re a universalist and there is no eternal punishment/destruction, then is there a point in discussing destructive doctrines?
Perhaps we should nail down whether a soul can be eternally damned first, no?
and
Now shall we proceed to proving the earth is indeed not flat?
Chad,
even though your question was addressed to Paul C., I chose to ignore it because you mocked the question when you asked:
You know full well this is not what anyone believes. You know it’s not an issue of getting enough right answers as if there were a test.
I believe you also know what we (we being generally) believe about what saved a person and what does not.
Therefore, addressing the question yet again is not only overly tangential, it a waste of one ones and zeroes.
Paul,
You made the claim that there are “obviously” false doctrines that damn a person to hell.
If you can’t back up that claim, just say so.
Refusing to answer a question, refusing to be baited, refusing to go down a tangential trail – are not tantamount to not being able to back up a claim.
My personal parameters of who I think might be saved continue to expand with age. For instance, even though the works oriented salvation of the RCC is dead wrong, I believe the Spirit draws many Roman Catholic people to salvation through Jesus Christ who remain in that denomination – Brett being a sterling example of that.
I remain certain of one thing – personal faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life. There are such things as “another Jesus” and “another gospel”. I do not claim to have the unabridged listings of those, however I take the warnings seriously and some teachings are obviously heretical.
Neil,
I wasn’t mocking. It was a sincere question based on what you and Paul C are saying.
The question still stands. I’ll say the same thing to you as I just said to Paul C – if you don’t want to face questions that cause you to think seriously about what you are saying, just say so.
The earth is flat in some places.
#163 – of course you are right, Neil.
How is asking someone to prove what they say “baiting”? Good grief. You have done the same to John Chisham but when the shoe is on the other foot you weasel out.
Chad,
I took it as mocking since you gave example you know full well know one believes – as if God graded on a percentage of correct doctrine.
And again, if you think I do not answer because I cannot, or will not face things that make me think seriously – you are flat out wrong.
It’s fine we disagree on doctrines and the like – but do not presume to judge why I answer and why I do not.
#155
I refer you to #142 which has quotes and page numbers from his book.
As they say, Neil, the proof is in the pudding.
When you say
But then also admit that we cannot be perfect in our doctrine, it is perfectly logical to want to know how that scale works and who makes it.
Again (for the 3rd time), I ask you what is the point of discussing teachings that can indeed lead to destruction when, in your view, there is no such thing as eternal destruction in the first place?
How about we nail down whether or not someone can be eternally destroyed first. Then we can talk about the smaller picture: are there teachings that can indeed lead to destruction?
That’s cool Paul. I didn’t think you had an answer to what you claim is so “obvious.” More smoke from you.
PB,
It sounds like your complaint is with the Apostle Paul more than Wright. I mean, in Romans 2:6, Paul clearly says:
Wright has given a very good explanation of what this passage means. You seem to be wanting to just pretend like it isn’t there. Sorry, but I’ll go with Wright on this one.
It’s kind of funny for me to see an annihilationist debating a universalist. To some evangelicals, both things are detrimental to evangelism. I just saw a clip of John Piper preaching where he said he considered annihilationism a huge threat to evangelism, and especially missions work.
and herein lies the problem of lifting quotes from someone else instead of reading the context yourself.
pastorboy, if you were to read the actual context (found on page 189 of american publications) you would see salvation is not the question he is discussing. he even quotes philippians 2:13 – a passage that is clearly about working out your salvation, not working for it.
further more, wright makes these clarifying statement:
further down he repeats himself as if he knew some would try and twist his words…
it appears, pastorboy, in your haste to copy and paste an indictment against wright – you have chosen to hitch you argument to someone who has misread him.
#174: I just saw that yesterday as well. Funny, since I was a missionary. I like Piper, but if you listen to that same video, isn’t it odd that he only quotes from Jonathan Edwards as it pertains to the doctrine of Hell? That’s because he can’t find a single reference to even one of the apostles.
For anyone interested, OutofUr is doing a weekly conversation on Hell.
Phil, I honestly thought you believed in annihilation as well. My mistake.
except i offered no pudding for you to prove or disprove. think what you will about my motives. if you can read my heart/mind tell me my mother’s maiden name… i will concentrate on it for ten minutes to help you…
…in that five minute clip, that is.
True enough. But as I posted in the comments section, I made the point that Hell never makes an entrance – not even a single time or in passing – in the entire book of Acts.
Why? There were tons of times it would have been appropriate. Day of Pentecost, Ephesus, in front of Felix and so on. But it doesn’t. Why?
Why doesn’t it appear in just one of Paul’s epistles? Just once?
What of the entire Gospel of John? Odd, no?
OK, may in John’s epistles? James? Jude? Peter?
It becomes clear that the teaching of Hell as we know it today had no footing in the early church.
That’s why he’s forced to use people like Jonathan Edwards.
If someone can credibly explain why Hell (which is invisible in the OT completely) never makes it into John, Acts, the epistles I would like to hear it.
Also worth considering, many of Jesus’ references to Hell were really pointing to ‘gehenna’, the burning, putrid, worm-infested dump outside Jerusalem. It was used parabolically.
I believe Chad is asking a valid question (wow, can’t believe I got through all those comments!).
How important is WHAT you believe compared to your relationship with Christ / Father / Holy Spirit?
If I believe something wrong about God but still trust in God, then am I on the road to hell because I believe something wrong about God? Why?
To come to the point about justification, I say that we are justified by CHRIST. We are justified by our trust (a relational dynamic) in Him and His trustworthiness (a character trait, not just a particular action). Or, we could say by faith in Him and His faithfulness. Faith IN Christ and the faithfulness OF Christ.
What seems to be happening here is we’re separating faith from a person too much. Faith (trust) is not mental assent (I’m sure most of you would agree) it’s a relational dynamic. Therefore, what saves us is Christ Himself – not just by what He did (died on the cross, rose again, lived a sinless life) but by WHO He IS.
This is an important point (if I’m making sense) that many forget in this debate.
Again, what is more important? My relationship or what I believe? Let’s not put the cart before the horse.
“Again, what is more important? My relationship or what I believe?”
You make a valid point that is contingent upon what actually do you believe. If you believe Mohammed is on a level with Jesus then it matters.
Chad’s point is that it doesn’t ever matter what you believe as it pertains to your eternal destination. That is a serious distinction.
Ryan, the issue is that Chad is a universalist which means (as you probably know) that all people, regardless of belief, will eventually be saved because of what Jesus has done – whether they believe in Him or not.
So right off the bat, it makes a discussion about whether or not beliefs can lead to destruction, irrelevant.
But there are numerous warnings within the scriptures and from the mouth of Christ Himself, that clearly speak of the dangers of false teachings.
In fact, in Matthew 24, when the disciples ask Jesus about the sign of His coming, the first thing he says is:
“Take heed that no man deceive you…”
He then follows this up with 2 more warnings in the same chapter.
Paul warns the various churches of the dangers of false doctrine. We also have his discussion with the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20. Likewise, Peter and Jude give various warnings.
What Chad would like is a fixed list of false doctrines that “lead to destruction” (though he doesn’t believe in destruction).
I told him that while there were false teachings outlined in the NT, in reality false doctrines are ever-evolving (ie: the Adversary is not stagnant) which I think is extremely valid. As an example, Docetism might not be the threat it once was. That doesn’t mean that other threats haven’t arisen.
Does this mean that unless we have 100% pure doctrine, we’re lost? No. But there are certain teachings that are eternally destructive.
This is why the Devil has transformed himself into an angel of light (preaching a pseudo-gospel).
I actually don’t believe this is how Chad would describe his universalism. I believe he would say that every person will eventually come to believe Christ. Those who don’t in this life will be given a chance in the future. As far as I can tell, he believes in something akin to a purgatorial state. I’m sure he will correct me if I’m wrong.
As far as false beliefs leading to destruction, my obvious question would be this – are we told that the destruction referred to in those verses is a permanent destruction? Are people utterly destroyed beyond all rescue?
The way I see it is that God gives people the freedom to destroy themselves as it were. I think there are some people who will use this freedom to it’s utter end – they will refuse to worship God until the end, and God will let them alone in the world of their own creation. They will be left alone with their idol (their idol for all intents and purposes being themselves). They may exist in a way, but it will be as if they never did. Humans were created to worship and have a relationship with their creator. Whenever they don’t do this, they are something less than human. So I believe some people will remain in this state for eternity.
So my view of hell is kind of leans toward annihilationism in a way, but I also think that there is something of that person that will remain for eternity, even it is only a minuscule remnant of what they could have been. As Frederich Buechner put it, “all the death that ever was, set next to life, would scarcely fill a cup”.
Ryan,
If you can assist the spirit in convincing Pastorboy of that, I think we can all end this discussion and throw a little party.
Stranger things have happened: the saints are in the Super Bowl this year
“… not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, …
Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Let those of us who are mature think this way” – St. Paul, Phillipians 3
i don’t think anyone here would say that.
in your next comment you spoke of things you believe when you said
I believe Phil’s description of Chad’s universalism is more accurate than Paul C.’s.
So when it comes from Chad, given the history, we see it as a leading question… as well as his assuming our weakness is why we do not accommodate him.
Ryan – well said. And thanks.
Phil – I wouldn’t change anything in your description.
Neil and Paul C – the question still stands. It’s frurstrating that neither or you are willing to answer.
Paul C- what does it matter what I believe about the eternal state? The point is YOU believe there are false doctrines that damn someone if believed. I’m only asking you to state what those false doctrines would be. Your just dodging the question because you know there isn’t an answer, yet you used the word “obvious” when making the claim.
That’s great, Neil – but what are you trying to say?
Even devils quote Scripture (and no, don’t go assuming I called you a devil – I’m merely pointing out that quoting Scripture without comment doesn’t further a conversation along).
This is really quite simple and I don’t get the push back by some of you.
Let’s try again…
Paul C said there are obviously certain doctrines that if believed will damn a person eternally.
Neil, you seem to agree with him (or at least you didn’t disagree).
My question is: What are the damnable doctrines? Is there a list you can point me to?
I know… I sight this as Jesus saying what must be believed. If you do not believe it, you cannot be saved.
Technically it is a doctrine, and if you don’t believe him, you cannot be saved.
Now, it is not a damnable doctrine – as it is sin that damns not wrong doctrine.
There is no “list”, but if there was these two would be on it.
1. Denying the deity of Jesus.
2. Believing you can earn eternal life.
Neil,
I thought it was pretty clear that we were talking about people who supposedly believe in Jesus. Non-Christians could care less about our doctrines, don’t you agree?
Paul has said that there are certain false doctrines that would damn people for eternity. So, I take that to mean we are talking about people who fall under the broad umbrella of Christiandom.
So I am curious what these “false” doctrines are that can land people in hell (or annihilation).
See #102 – I think I made it clear there. If not, I’m sorry.
Rick,
So there is no list but you are making one?
Seriously.
If there is a list who gets to determine what is on it (like you just did)? What if someone disagrees with an item on your list? What if someone doubts one or two items on your list and isn’t quite sure?
Or,
What if they never heard of the things on your list?
I form my own list as I understand the Scriptures.
What if they have never heard of the “things” in Scripture? They are lost. That is why Jesus gave us the great commission.
What happens to a two year old who wasn’t told she was headed for the edge of a cliff? She falls to her death.
Chad,
uhhhh…. nevermind.
The doctrine that will most deeply damn you is if you believe there is no damning doctrines.
Rick,
You form your own list and then hold the rest of humanity accountable to it – based on your understanding of Scriptures.
brilliant.
Good thing you aren’t the Judge.
Neil,
Whatever. This is just what you do.
A damnable heresy is any doctrine that posits there is a way to God and eternal life in Him by faith in any thing other than Jesus Christ.
Salvation by faith in works.
Salvation by faith in Allah.
Salvation by faith in space aliens.
Salvation by faith in a church.
etc., etc.
care to rethink your response please.
Hey Paul,
If Chad believes in Universal Reconciliation (or is it Restoration?) then he still believes in a time of punishment, just that the punishment won’t last forever and that it will be for the purposes of correction – bringing people to belief.
In that sense, I don’t think his question is irrelevant. Damnation is still a possibility in his mind, if he believes that, it’s just that damnation isn’t forever; and then there should still be certain doctrines to avoid if certain doctrines can land you in this punishment. (Also, there is the issue of inheritance.)
ALL – for me, I still have a sense we’re all being too technical about the word ‘faith’. We’re making faith the bigger deal than the object, which is Christ. Faith is obviously a verb, and a verb in the same sense that love is a verb. It is both a commitment, a decision, and involves action. It is trust.
Let me ask a question to stir the pot. If I didn’t believe Jesus was the Son of God (I do, though), but still believed in Jesus for salvation — am I going to hell? (I’m sure it would be near impossible to consistently believe like that, but it just serves as an example.)
All I’m saying is that there are people out there who’ve gotten saved by reading a tract and spent years of their Christianity without ever reading the Bible. There are also people who can’t read or don’t have the Bible in their language. There are many things they don’t know, but yet if they believe in Jesus they are saved, surely?
Obviously, ‘believe’ is indicating a relational dynamic. No one can step into a relationship unless they step into the relationship – but it’s the relationship that’s the point, not the stepping in. My wedding day was important, but the marriage is more important.
To drive it further, I’m saying we must be careful we don’t make salvation by KNOWLEDGE (believing all the right things) rather than by FAITH (believing IN the right PERSON). Many times in these discussions, at a careful look, it becomes all about knowledge, despite how much we’re talking about faith.
Ryan… So ‘n bek moet jam kry
– Well said.
Ryan – You identify some issues that only God can know. I have known missionaries that shared the gospel with natives in some profoundly unconventional ways. I tend to extend extreme grace in those situations.
But the question remains – what about those who reject Christ or those who have never heard and embraces a false idol? The easy way is to say they will be OK. But the Scriptures do not seem to make it that easy.
You can be saved and be a universalist, an annihilationist, a Calvinist, theologically liberal, and you can even be a false teacher (Rollins). But you cannot be saved and reject Christ.
Ryan, again, well said (I’m glad someone gets it).
Neil, I have no idea what you are talking about. You are just avoiding the questions, it seems.
Of course not. But at the end of the day (or time) who wins? Your rejection or God’s desire for you?
Rick, thank you. This is what my question was driving at (which Paul C and Neil are dancing around).
This is what I mean by “false doctrines.” Granted, none of us are objective to say that any of those are truly “false” but Paul C seems to believe (along with Neil) that there are false doctrines that will damn a person. I take it that apart from a flat out rejection of Christ you disagree with that?
“I take it that apart from a flat out rejection of Christ you disagree with that?”
Almost. The Mormon doctrine of Christ is damnable as well as some others. Rejection of Christ can also be defined as significantly changing Him as per Islam, Judaism, and various other cults.
I do struggle with the works thing. If a Roman Catholic person is painfully sincere in their love for Jesus, but is deceived into believing their good works help in some way, will Jesus reject them because they attempted to do good works in His name?
I tend to believe grace covers that. How can I say an evangelical who commits adultery is forgiven but a faithful Catholic is damned?
Let us be clear – There are many – if not most – evangelicals who would say Paul C. is not saved since he rejects the deity of the Holy Spirit. I hold the deity of Christ as paramount but I aslo realize no one can understand the mystery of the incarnation. Paul called the incarnation a great mystery.
I don’t want to misrepresent Paul C’s position. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say he believes the Holy Spirit is not a separate person/entity and is in fact the Spirit of Jesus?
I do not consider the Trinity a deal breaker and all those who hold that as a damnable doctrine when rejected don’t understand it and cannot expalin it themselves.
There’s a conundrum – a damnable doctrine that cannot be understood or explained. Brilliant!
Almost. The Mormon doctrine of Christ is damnable as well as some others.
Ok. So there is a list, then? This is what I have been asking for 3 days now.
So Mormons are going to hell?
Then they are a lot closer to NT Christianity than most of us.
I would take 12 people who sincerely love Jesus and think their works matter over 12 people who sincerely love Jesus and think that is enough any day of the week.
Everyone has their own mercurial “list”. Mormonism falls well within that list. Your “works matter” construct misses the point. Everyone should believe works matter; no one should believe works help you get to heaven.
The Mormon thing brings up an interesting aspect to all of this.
IMO, it is extremely arrogant for any of us to claim that unless you believe in Jesus the way I believe in Jesus you are going to hell. Again, this sort of mentality puts our faith in our beliefs rather than in the Person and finished work (an objective reality!) of Jesus.
I think heresy has far more to do with how we live and act in the world than it does with our mental assents/beliefs. Does a Mormon strive to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and love their neighbor as themselves? In many ways, they do this far better than we who supposedly have our beliefs “right.”
Then what does Paul mean when he says those who preach “another” Jesus are divinely accursed? Who are these “other” Jesus’s?
Your commet #210 reveals a salvation by works construct which is severely dealt with by Paul and also Jesus.
Why not? If someone sincerely loves Jesus but thinks their works matter to God and will be judged (as Scripture claims they will be), what does it matter that they are mindful of how they live in the world and that how they live has eternal implications?
This really boils down to a doctrine of God that we hold. If I had to draw a picture of the God many of you paint through your comments I would draw one that is wringing his hands, hoping people get their thinking straight so that he can let them do what he really wants to let them do (go into heaven). He’s the sort of God that says to the Catholic, “Geez, I’d really love to let you in here but you misinterpreted Scripture! Yes, yes, I know you were sincere in your misinterpretation and were not being ignorant in order to defy me, but dumb is dumb. Your ignorance has earned you an eternity in hell. Sorry.”
#211 – an “other” Jesus is one that did not come in the flesh, did not die and was not resurrected in the flesh.
#212 – how so?
I understand your point and I have made it as well. But you have confused the issue. I do not doubt the expanse of God’s grace and His righteous judgment. But no one should teach works help in redemption since it suggests the work of Christ was not all sufficient.
I know wiccans who help people and show a level of love toward humanity.
Paul warns of “angels of light” and the uselessness of denying the flesh in order to gain divine favor. He also exposes the Jews who go about by works to establish their own righteousness but are ignorant to the righteousness of God that is only found in Christ. And this is one of the great dangers of universalism, they contend Mormons and JWs and everyone is saved so that eliminates evangelism and conversion.
A bit of a strawman here, actually. I can’t say that I’ve ever met someone who sincerely loves Jesus and think that they can do whatever the hell they want or treat people like crap. If they profess they do love Christ, but their actions towards others say otherwise, than they’re lying. They are, as John said, deceiving themselves.
Well, I guess I see somewhat where you’re coming from, but I’d still say that there at some level our beliefs about who Jesus is do matter quite a bit. I agree with Ryan that the thing that determines whether a person is a member of God’s family or not is a relationship with Christ.
So if we look at that, and compare it to an earthly relationship, we can draw some things out. Being married to my wife implies that I know certain facts about her, and these facts will influence my behavior towards her. If, for instance, I wrongly believe that wife is controlling and manipulative, it will eventually create a strain in our relationship. So even though she still loves me, the wrong information I have about her, for whatever reason, can prevent me from loving her. In essence, I can create a false picture in my mind of how she is.
As that relates to our heavenly Father, I’d say that many people have been given a wrong picture, and it many times is really no fault of their own. I do believe God can break through this, and I actually think that one of our biggest responsibilities as Christians is counteract these false portrayals of the Father (even though it seems that many professed Christians do a good job at perpetuating them). As far as the fate of people who die with false notions of the Father, I guess I’m willing to say that God is the only just judge, and He will properly care for all His children. I actually think that one could make a good Biblical argument that Christians who are responsible for perpetuating false notions about the Father bear much more responsibility as it pertains to judgment than those who die unaware.
Chad,
what exactly is your objective when you visit here and comment? do you want someone to validate your doctrines? are you trying to catch people in hypocrisy? are you playing devil’s advocate? are you writing term papers? why do you seem to think that you are the only one writing here who has a clue what the bible says? why do you seem to think you are the only one not guilty of being of being a hypocrite?
thanks in advance.
jerry
I mean, seriously, the way you write and talk, the Bible may as well not exist (since we don’t necessarily need to believe it) and Jesus may as well not have died or lived or lived again (since explicit acknowledgment of his exclusive work does not seem to matter either).
What is the point of being a Christian, Chad, if the things you write here in response to comments and threads, are true? Seriously?
Thanks in advance for understanding this is not a personal attack, but a sincere question.
why do you preach in a church?
jerry
Phil,
You said more than I said, thus creating your own strawman.
I never said anything about treating people like crap, did I?
Let me explain it in a way that I think all of us can relate (and if you can’t relate to this I’d be very skeptical).
I can sit on my couch or on a pew Sunday morning, loving Jesus, and believe with all my heart that it would be a great thing to go visit the sick in the nursing home. I can believe that would probably be something Jesus would do. I can believe that it would even be like visiting Jesus himself (what you’ve done to the least of these…)
Yet I can never leave my couch or pew.
Even so, I can believe I am saved, whether I go to the nursing home or not. Why? Because I believe Jesus died for my sins.
Now, while such a person may in fact be “saved” in some eternal sense, are they really being saved? I have learned that if I actually get up off the couch or pew and GO to the nursing home that in some odd, mystical sense, in that moment I AM BEING SAVED. I would wager that anyone who does good works experiences this. Not only do I sense my own salvation but I get to see salvation happening around me.
So yeah, I would take 12 people who love Jesus and think their works matter over 12 people who love Jesus and think that’s enough.
While this might be true to a point, you actually have to believe that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected, and that his death will cover your sin.
In the case of Mormonism, the Jesus they’ve created is “a” prophet for this particular world – on par with Joseph Smith – and the purpose of following him is to gain godhood for a world which you and your wife will populate with your own spiritual children in the next life. It reads like bad science fiction, and is completely different from anything ever resembling historic Christianity or the Gospel. If it is not a “false Gospel” (as noted by Paul), then I can’t imagine anything that fits the bill…
A false dichotomy when propped up against Mormonism…
Jerry,
wow.
you are welcome in advance. Seriously.
We know, Chad, but you are still wrong with this straw man.
If you sincerely love Jesus and believe He is enough you will, through Him, do good works. You will bear fruit in keeping with repentance. But your works will not proclaim you righteous, they will give glory to God.
Mormons who cling to Mormon theology are going to Hell.
Catholics who cling to Catholic theology and orthodoxy are going to Hell.
Salvation is through faith in Christ alone by grace alone. It is a gift of God. It is for those He draws to Himself, whose names have been written in the Lamb’s Book of Life from eternity past.
Well, in a way you did. Anyone who truly loves Jesus will realize that the works they do in His name do matter. If they don’t, than according to Paul, John, and especially James they truly don’t know Christ.
It doesn’t matter if someone convinces themselves that they truly believe Christ. If that professed belief doesn’t express itself in some tangible way, than I think I’d question said belief. Not out of a motivation of judging them, but simply because again and again, we are shown that when people encounter Christ, it simply changes them.
Anyone who claims that false teachings can not lead to eternal destruction honestly has no business teaching other people.
There’s a reason Jesus said, “And if the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into the ditch.”
He warns His disciples to beware of “the leaven (teachings) of the Pharisees.”
He speaks of false teachers saying He (not they themselves) is the Christ – and will lead many astray.
Most telling, Paul speaks of Hymaneus and Philetus who had “overthrown the faith of some” by their teaching that the resurrection had happened.
He also mentions something amazing: referring to the way in which Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses. How did they do this? By virtually replicated almost every miracle he performed so that onlookers could not discern the difference. Staggering. And this fits in with his position in 2 Cor 11 where the devil is an “angel of light” (in other words, preaching a pseudo-gospel).
As we near the end of the age, it will be characterized by deception – religious deception.
But again – if a man is blind, he will not see.
“Ever learning but never coming to the truth…”
Chad, my temptation is respond with sarcasm or condescension or silence. Since you say things like “This is just what you do” or I dance around – as if not answering your question is tantamount to not having an answer… or not wanting to think seriously about something… maybe I just don’t want to play your game.
BUT – you said the assumption was we were talking about believers holding a doctrine that subsequently damns them… I missed this point. we were talking about two different scenarios. Therefore, my participation became moot so I said – “Uhhhh – nevermind”
It was a reference to Roseanne Roseannadanna. She would argue against a point that no one was making. When this was brought to her attention she would meekly say – “Never mind”
That was my intent.
Obviously it was waaay too oblique – sorry.
“Mormons who cling to Mormon theology are going to Hell.”
“Catholics who cling to Catholic theology and orthodoxy are going to Hell.”
I would suggest a significant difference between those two. And it is possible that a person gets saved and remains deceived about aspects of theology.
#229 – Agreed, Rick
#224–and you have the nerve to accuse other people of ‘dodging’ questions? All I’m asking you do to is answer a couple of questions.
Seriously. I’m not really sure why you think Jesus is necessary at all if half of what you say is even remotely biblical beyond your own interpretation.
But I guess, as you accuse others, you cannot answer. or won’t. and that’s fine too. you don’t have to justify it to me. it’s just a simply question that i would ask anyone whose preaching i want to listen to or writing i want to read.
you don’t have to be all huffy about it.
jerry
Sorry:
In #227, I said:
should be
Which I believe and would stake my life on. It is because of this belief that I have hope for those who are mixed up in alternative narratives.
The problem with those who argue your works don’t matter for your salvation is they have (perhaps unwittingly) reduced salvation to nothing more than a ticket to heaven rather than hell. It doesn’t do justice to the wholistic scope of salvation – the fact that salvation is every bit as much about this life as the next.
Phil, I never said anything about treating people like crap. People can simply omit good works and still treat people nicely.
I agree in the Bible, what one believes is really only what one lives. This is not the case today, however. Today, belief and action are bifurcated.
Phil, if a person claims they believe in Jesus Christ yet does not do any good works are they going to hell?
Chad,
I basically agree with #222. Because Jesus (as well as the rest) made is clear that faith/belief is what allows someone to cross from death to life, from condemnation or relation. This is the punctiliar and positional aspect of salvation. And without it you will be eternally damned (to what is another argument).
This is distinct from being saved in the sens of working out, or responding to, salvation.
This is what I believe the Bible clearly teaches.
Jerry,
Signing off by saying “this is not a personal attack” doesn’t negate everything you wrote before that.
That is why I am ignoring you – for both our sakes.
You’ve known me for awhile. Why do YOU think I preach? What is there in anything I have said here made you question that?
I’m not here to defend myself to you.
Neil – I didn’t get your obliqueness. That’s cool.
sounds like a mental ascent not a saving faith.
Paul C.,
Re 227 and 232 – I went back and added it for you… since someone may read the comments and not see your correction.
I could not think of a way to get the voice inlfection to come through the type… if I had you would not have missed it… cool as well.
Hold on a minute there Pastorboy:
and just when I was beginning to trust you as an honest man who spoke the truth, and stood by his word. I made a public profession of faith in my lord and savior Jesus Christ a few weeks back, and you declared me saved. I cling to the cross of Jesus Christ and trust in his passion, death, and resurrection for my eternal salvation. I have repented and trust him to save me and cleanse from all my sins.
I can’t say that I cling to Catholic theology, but I do believe it and love it. Sometimes reading my catechism does bore the hell out of me, and I would much rather be watching a college b-ball game or a new episode of Lost; but I do “cling” to it because I’m responsible for catechizing a small group of 13-year olds every week. I do my best to preach the Gospel, read the scriptures, tell them about Jesus, and send them back out to love and serve the Lord (knowing all the while that the spirit is in charge).
So which is it Pastorboy? Can I be counted as one of the elect; or are you some New Age spiritual guru that changes his mind often and chases every wind of doctrine?
In some respect i agree. I think this is waa very evident in much of the Gospel preaching of the 2oth century. And it created a church that is largely irrelevant to the culture because any promotion of social justice or addressing poverty is lambasted as the social Gospel.
Or
People are comfortable in their pew sitting because they walked an isle.
Obviously I would disagree with you on other issues. And I think you solution swings the proverbial pendulum too far in the other direction.
This isn’t really my decision to make, is it? I believe they are deceived, and that has it own set of consequences.
Where we are “going” isn’t really a question that the Bible answers. The narrative is that of the Kingdom coming, so the question is whether we will partake of that or not – whether we will be part of the solution or part of the problem as it were. So as to what is the fate of those who are outside of the Kingdom, I’d say I’ll leave it up to God. One thing that is abundantly clear is that it’s better to be in the Kingdom than to be out of it.
Rick (or Chris L), you make this comment regarding the difference between Mormons and Catholics:
Stripping away the personal aspect of it (ie: people we know, such as Brett which obviously believes in Christ), how do you see the differences from a doctrinal standpoint?
For example, why is what Joseph Smith claims any different than what the RCC claims in terms of severity (ie: idol worship, Mariology, indulgences, purgatory, etc.)?
Neither the LDS or JW acknowledge the deity of Christ. If you strip this away, he becomes just another prophet who was killed because of his message.
Well, for one thing, Mormonism teaches that Christ is a created being. That is a primary order distinction. The things you list about RCC, all of which have varying degrees of importance, do not really add or subtract from who Christ is. Catholics would affirm that Christ is the second person of the Trinity.
Pastorboy,
I do not believe in baptismal regeneration. But I cannot parse beliefs so narrowly as to say someone who does is hell-bound because faith must be in Christ alone.
#242 – The significant issue centers around Jesus. Roman Catholics believe in the true Jesus and Mormons teach a lie.
For the record – I have a greater problem with “baptism saves” than I do with “I believe in Jesus but am doing good deeds toward people to help me get to Jesus” theology.
Much easier to dehumanize people and talk about them as labels, isn’t it?
That is not correct. You need to grasp the actual level of idolatry that occurs among millions and millions of sincere Catholics.
Mary worship is plain idolatry.
Here’s something to consider. In Haiti, Catholics see no conflict between believing in God and practicing Voodoo – none at all. The two peacefully co-exist in the church and out.
How does this take away from Christ (since they acknowledge Him) and yet Mary worship, or praying/worshiping saints doesn’t?
And if you see human beings as potential mediators, is that any different?
Brett – It is exactly that which changed some of my thinking. I have met many humble, loving, and sincere followers of Jesus who were Roman Catholic. And I have met mean, self righteous, and hedonistic followers of Jesus who are evangelical.
Do the math.
Well if a person is actually worshiping Mary, that is one thing. I believe that if you asked most Catholics, they would tell they simply aren’t worshiping, but rather honoring her and requesting her to intercede for them. I guess since I do not possess the ability to judge another person’s heart or motives, I have to take them at their word.
As far as the Haiti thing goes, yes there is a lot of syncretism in that country. I don’t know that the RCC officially supports that, though. My guess would be it doesn’t.
Again, they would use the word “intercessor”, not mediator. It’s similar in the Orthodox Church as well. When I’ve asked people about this, they see as no different than asking another Christian to pray for them. Now there may be reason to doubt the correctness of this, but I’m not prepared to out and out call it idolatry simply because I don’t know their hearts.
Rick,
I don’t know that it’s a matter of math. I have me many mean, self righteous, and hedonistic Roman Catholics in my life. Some of them I even see at mass occasionally.
In Rick Freuh, I even know a man that can read 1 Peter 3:21 and decipher a sectret encoded message there that I am encapable of.
Phil – the RCC is the biggest proponent of syncretism on the planet. It has grown (like many multinationals do today on the business side) by swallowing up and integrating pagan religions. Acquisition. Not transformation.
I would suggest actually researching just how Catholicism is practiced in many, many countries. Mary worship (not just veneration or intercession) is common, as is worship of saints.
I am simply trying to rationalize why the RCC is given grace and yet the Mormons aren’t.
If the party line of the LDS is to deny Christ’s deity to some degree and the party line of the RCC is to elevate humans to divinity to some degree, I am struggling to see the significant difference. Both are wrong and dangerously off course.
Personally, I think it is because of what Rick said: we know many Catholics and it is so pervasive that it can’t possibly be all that bad.
Well that just great! Nothing like kicking a fellow Christian when he’s down right.
Especially when he’s starving, suffering, and buried underneath a pile of rubble.
Those are real people with real familes, and real lives, and real pain. Your arrogant little theology debates are really the last thing they need at the moment.
I would ask you to join me in praying for them, but screw that right!
Let them go straight to Jesus by themselves.
at some point the conversation synergizes a discussion of peoples’ faith with a discussion of faith systems…
Phil – here’s something else to consider.
Mother-child worship is a pagan practice that goes back to Nimrod. The RCC has simply imbibed and continued this practice. So it’s not just an innocent oversight. It is the blatant continuation of pagan religion.
Yet, we justify this. Interesting.
A friend of mine works in China. He says that no matter what comment you make about China – it is true somewhere in that vast country.
Comments about Catholics are much the same.
Tattoos are uses by pagans – therefore, anyone with a tattoo is…
Of course that what I’m doing – justifying paganism…
All I’m saying is that you can’t paint a whole movement with a broad stroke because of the actions of some of its members.
I gather that your church is Pentecostal from your website and your comments. Well, are all Pentecostals responsible for the actions of people like Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar? That’s basically the argument you’re making.
#257: Neil I really hope this comment was not in response to #255. That would very sad.
#253:
Please give me a break…
Brett, how many times have you gone to Haiti? How many people have you spoken with from there, directly affected, since the earthquake? Before the quake how familiar were you with the physical and spiritual battles that people who live there actually face?
That’s a silly comment. The RCC are not just a bunch of independent little churches. If my church somehow reported up to Benny Hinn or Dollar, there would be some concern to say the least. We’re just a small church that believes in Christ and tries to live the word of God – feeble as we are.
If you do the research on the RCC, you won’t be so quick to just brush things off as the acts of a few loose spokes.
When it comes to Mary and the saints, you don’t need even need to venture outside the Vatican.
Read your previous comment again. You’re basically watering down what actually happens – among millions each week. You have a habit of speaking for people (ie: NT Wright, Chad and now the RCC in this thread alone) without knowing what actually happens in reality.
I am not even making the statement that the Catholics are damned. I asked the question about the rationale between them being a-OK and the LDS being off course. So far, there’s not much rationale put forward except for anecdotal comments.
at some point the conversation synergizes a discussion of peoples’ faith with a discussion of faith systems…
I don’t think Phil is watering down – he’s trying to keep the distinction between a system and people. We were talking about people and their faith. You are talking about a system.
Um, actually, Paul if anyone claims to know what others believe, it’s you. You are accusing millions of people of idolatry. I have never claimed to know what anyone thinks other than what is readily available from their own words whether here or in books. I’ve made that disclaimer several times.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. The LDS pretty much outright denies the deity of Christ. They say Christ is a created being. I don’t what’s anecdotal about that.
re 216: I’ll take Phil’s “talking for some people” over some other examples of it (in this very thread) any day…
#239 Read: Cling to Catholic theology instead of Christ alone…
Catholic Theology includes Mary as co-mediatrix, worship and prayers to the saints, purgatory (thus justification by faith is not enough)
So, if you are saved through Christ alone, are you really clinging to Catholic doctrine?
I think not.
You could just as easily add here:
Protestants who cling to Protestant theology and orthodoxy are going to hell.
Theology does not save anyone – Jesus does (and has).
This is what I mean when I say that most people in churches today have faith in their faith, rather than the Person of Christ.
Is that the reason you are ignoring me Chad? Or do you just dislike when you are challenged to defend your pov? I said you don’t have to justify yourself to me. I just wonder why anyone wants to listen to gospel that’s all.
I will take your unwillingness to answer as inability.
Thanks again!
I think I can understand why someone holding Chad’s view would preach the Gospel and the Bible. He does hold that the Gospel brings life – and the sooner it brings it the better.
In some repsects it’s the best of all worlds… the postion allows for the preaching of an unique Christ, it assumes the need for a Savior, it preaches the benefits of salvation and redemption, yet is also avoids all the nastiness and embarrassment of hell and damnation.
If it were not for the fact that I find it totally at odds with the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles – I’d be all over it as well.
(Chad – this is not to imply or say you chose this because it’s easier, I believe you believe it is the best interpretation of the Scriptures)
Jerry, I stated my reason for not answering you. When you cool down I might reconsider.
Neil,
FTR, I don’t shy away from preaching what you characterize as “nastiness.” There is enough “hell” around that I don’t need to act like it’s not there. I just happen to have a different view of what judgment is and what purpose it serves than you do – a view that I don’t think is at odds with the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles at all.
To be sure, salvation is not all fun and games (what you call “benefits”) Jesus was quite clear that those who follow him will have a cross to bear. To those whom much is given much will be expected. Being a disciple of Christ (not a convert) requires sacrifice.
The EASY way out is to do what my human nature so easily wants to do – divide and conquer. My human nature so easily wishes to place people in categories as either “in” or “out” (of course, always being sure to place myself IN – how convenient for me!) My human nature wants to insist that those who do me harm or those “sinners” will pay for eternity for their sins. The hardest thing I have had to learn to do is love even my enemies – why? Because God loves them. And because God died to save them, too. And because I’ll be spending eternity with them.
What you say is based on my human nature and my willingness to give in to it, I say is my interpretation of Scripture.
I think it would much much easier if I could tencourage people that ultimately it does not matter if someone they care for rejects Chirst.
Interesting. So you tell them the person they care about is going to hell? If not, why not?
I tell them I put my faith in the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ who on Easter morning rejected our most hostile rejection. I tell them I trust in a God who cries from the cross, “forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”
What do you tell them?
We have been around this course before. I have never told anyone that their loved one is in Hell… that is not my position. But I have also never given anyone false hope either.
it’s kinda funny, the last time this came up to said the exact same things – first that believing in Hell is giving in to y human desire for revenge and second asking if I tell people their loved ones are in Hell…
Bottom line is, this is how I interpret the Scriptures, it’s how the historic faith has been expressed for millennia.
How I apply it is another matter…
I think it’s sad that when the rubber meets the road, your interpretations of scripture mean very little in real life.
At least I can say my theology is not just something in my head or something I argue in the abstract on a blog, but something I can live out faithfully, without hiding behind “that’s not for me to say” (unless it’s a blog, of course).
What was said earlier about a person who holds a belief but doesn’t act on it?
Don’t you find it the least bit problematic, Neil, that you’ll sit here and say people who reject Christ or don’t know Christ are going to hell but you won’t tell a person grieving their loved one the same thing?
I think that’s kinda hypocritical. If God supposedly set it up this way, and said so so very clearly in Scripture, and God is love, than why shouldn’t you pass on to them what God has already made abundantly clear?
Unless you doubt your interpretation on the matter….
re 277 – seriously, are you just copy/pasting the last time we did this?
It is amazing how everything always means I doubt my interpretations… if I do not answer it’s b/c I have doubts, if I answer, it shows I have doubts…
So what I said is untrue?
Why not address the substance of my comment for once?
What do you call it when someone believes one thing but acts another way?
re 276 – I am trying to imagine the arrogance it must take to tell someone else that their faith is worthless and just in there head.
If I were to play your game, I’d say you are just taking the easy way out, the way that allows you to just tell everyone exactly what they want to hear, a way that is easy because there are no difficult answers… but I do not know you well enough to assign such motives.
I have not said one thing and done another… when I say I would not act as you think I must you call me a hypocrite – just like before. And just like before I will tell you I am not beholden to apply my faith in the exact manner you think it must be applied. I was not then, I am not now.
How dare you ask why I do not address the substance – I have.
I wish, I wish I could take the easy way out as you have – for whatever reason you have chosen to do so… but my fidelity to the Scriptures will not allow that.
Whenever we talk about this, that is, whenever I mention that I think your way is easy and I wish I could embrace it – you get all nasty – following the same offensive argument. I find that interesting.
Gentlemen,
There is an elephant in the room which is being completely ignored. Grace, faith, belief are all conduits to salvation. They are not salvation.
You must be born again.
Salvation is defined as the rebirth and regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
Faith is the means.
The only “theology” ones needs to be saved is the an understanding of the simple gospel i.e., Christ born our sins and was resurrected and promises eternal life for those who believe on Him (amoung other things).
But the regeration and rebirth is totally of God. The indwelling life of Christ does not depend on the knowledge of any doctrine other than “whosoever calls upon the Lord will be saved”.
No one knows who is in hell for sure so telling someone their loved one is in hell would be presumptuous. Additionally if they are in hell telling someone would change nothing.
Chad – Supporting your theology with the suggestion that you live it out better in some ways is what PB does as well.
Neil,
Offended? You gave your opinion about my theology being an “easy way” out and I shared how that is not the case in 271. I didn’t get offensive but explained a different perspective that perhaps you are not seeing. Go read 271 again – where am I defensive or sound offended? I assure you I am not.
You, on the other hand, when challenged about how your beliefs line up with your actions in real life scenarios (as opposed to just chatting on a blog) start painting me as unfair, offended, defensive, unkind, arrogant, condescending or any number of other things. It appears you do this so as to avoid actually addressing the substance of what is said. This is not the first time you’ve done this, Neil.
So yeah, until you prove otherwise or take the time to explain to me why I am mistaken, I will continue to conclude that your convictions you share here on a blog are not convictions you live out in every day, real life.
LOL! Have you even read this thread, Rick?
YOU ALL know who is in hell for sure! Aren’t those who teach false doctrines in hell? Aren’t Mormons in hell? Aren’t Catholics who cling to their works in hell? Aren’t people who reject Christ in hell? Aren’t people who deny the deity of Christ in hell?
The only way you can say that without making me laugh hysterically is if you and several others here completely change your tone whenever the subject of hell and judgment comes up. But you have yet to do that.
The first funeral I ever had to preach, as luck would have it, was for a man who died an alcoholic, estranged from his family, who stole from even his parents to maintain his addiction and was just an all around bad guy (the sort of guy John Chisham would make a poster to mock, or enjoy telling he was going to hell).
I had no idea what word to bring in this sermon and this was before I was really aware of God’s universal plan of salvation. I did not tell people he was in hell. Nor did I tell anyone he was in heaven. Instead, I preached Jesus Christ. I preached in the all-sufficiency of Christ and how God loved us even while we were sinners, dying for us, proving God’s love for us. I preached about this is a God who forgives even those who nail holes in his hands and feet. I preached about a God who doesn’t stop looking until the lost sheep or the lost coin is found. I preached about a God who intends to make everything right one day, and that all of us should join this God in the ministry of reconciliation (as Paul calls us to do) since God is reconciling all things to God’s self.
People left that service knowing that God loves even them. They left not worrying so much about the eternal state of their loved one but reveling in peace of God – they had hope in this God to make things right. Those who didn’t know Jesus in that service left, I was told, wanting to know Jesus. They thought this was a God they’d like to know.
So, Jerry, why do I preach? That is one of the reasons.
Neil, what would you have said if you had to preach that funeral?
With all due respect, Chad, you are a moron. With all due respect.
And why is that, Rick?
Rick, are you denying that you have NEVER presumed someone or some class of people to be in hell or to be headed there?
Humor, my friend. I guess the core reason is your intellectual deficiency, but as a Christian I do not judge you because of it.
My opinion as to which sinners go to hell is in Biblical theory and does not come with specific names and SS#s.
amen to that.
What do they call theories that can’t be applied to real life scenarios?
My intellectual deficiency won’t allow me to grasp that word….
One more time, Rick (I’m a moron, remember, so it helps if you just answer simple questions) –
Have you EVER presumed that someone or a class of someone’s is going to hell based on their beliefs or lifestyle?
Chad,
That’s great. I just wish that all that compassion you are so willing to demonstrate to unbelievers translated into compassion when dealing with your own brothers and sisters. But it doesn’t. You treat with contempt those who disagree with you.
So, the question still stands. Why do you visit here? What is your objective at this place? I’m seriously asking this and i am not angry or hot or hostile. I’m genuinely curious.
jerry
“What do they call theories that can’t be applied to real life scenarios?”
Universalism.
Those that go to hell for sure are all Notre Dame haters.
Um, Rick, I am applying my theology to real life. I’m curious why you aren’t.
You might assume that commited universalists would be placid and eager peacemakers.
You might assume…
“Um, Rick, I am applying my theology to real life. I’m curious why you aren’t.”
Your rewards await you, Sire.
Jerry, I like Jesus and Paul, I might be prone to use more strident language amongst those who are in the house of faith.
But honestly, I don’t see where I have dealt unfairly with you or anyone here. It would be nice if people can discuss the issues rather than whine whenever they get asked a question they don’t like.
Why do I come here? Several reasons, I suppose. One of those is to have my theology scrutinized by conservatives who I consider smart and sometimes even conversant (except when you and others lapse into whiner mode). It serves a few purposes though – it allows me to see which buttons many Christians will probably not like having pushed or questions they will not like to have to answer while also affirming that I am on the right path.
So when I ask a question and get called a moron or I’m ignored or given the run around I know that I am onto something.
Like when I make the claim that many of you have faith in your faith, and then hear several people scream this is not true at all but then watch the discussion prove otherwise, well….let’s just say it’s interesting.
I would not have called you a moron unless I had empirical evidence and unless I did it in love.
Well, you know what they say about people who ASSume….
So Rick, are you not going to deny that you have presumed someone or a class of someones to be in hell based on belief and/or lifestyle?
“So Rick, are you not going to deny that you have presumed someone or a class of someones to be in hell based on belief and/or lifestyle?”
Of course I have my opinions about certain people, but I cannot say with complete certainty since they may have cried out to Jesus before they died. But being consistent with my theology does not include rubbing hell in the faces of people whose loved one has died.
That is the behavior of a…well…moron.
Well don’t you see how that could come off as somewhat arrogant to the people reading your comments? You aren’t Jesus or the Apostle Paul, and you aren’t in a position of authority over anyone here. I have noticed that you seem to believe that the way you see things is the only way they can be seen, especially when it comes to the whole topic of universalism, etc. I suppose we all come off more strident in text than we would in conversation, but I also think that it’s much easier to belittle someone when you’re not actually seeing their face.
I mean this is an example. Don’t you realize that this is the same logic people like PB use? If enough liberals scream and whine about their beliefs, than that assures them they are on the right path. I don’t see the value in intentionally trying to piss people off.
What’s so funny is that I get painted as the guy who doesn’t like to talk about hell or things that are “messy” but when I ask you all to apply your “theory” to real life I get, “Well, ah, um, we don’t presume anything about anyone” and “that’s not for me to say,” or, “I’d rather not talk about that,” or, “You are a moron, Chad.”
lol.
See, Jerry, who would want to miss out on irony like that?
“You are a moron, Chad.”
I am certain about that statement; much more than who is in hell.
Indeed! Finally, we agree.
Interesting, Phil. I wonder why, when Chris L consistently talked about holding me accountable you never told him he has no authority over anyone here?
Do you really think I am the only one who comes off sounding arrogant? You paint me with a broad brush, the same kind you tell John Chisham not to use, without giving any examples. Disagreeing and asking rigorous, pointed questions is not the same as being arrogant. Nor is using strident language, if and when it is used.
And who said anything about intentionally pissing people off? I didn’t. How is having my theology scrutinized akin to pissing people off? I ask questions. I take the only thing given me (your words) and seek to apply them to real life. If that pisses you off the problem is yours, not mine.
If one’s theology is something they only have on a blog it is useless. It’s ivory tower musings that might as well be discarded.
If any of you are pissed off about that then maybe you should explore the reason you are pissed off rather than accuse me of being arrogant.
OK Chad thanks. I appreciate your candor and willingness to share with us your thoughts.
I am also glad that you are willing to come down every now and again to visit with us folks in the village. And I’m glad that you have demonstrated to us all, in writing, what was only suspected.
You wrote: “It serves a few purposes though – it allows me to see which buttons many Christians will probably not like having pushed or questions they will not like to have to answer while also affirming that I am on the right path.”
And if John C wrote that, you’d be on him like stink on a monkey accusing him of arrogance and a whole host of bullshit. “Which buttons many Christians…”?!? You are one of those Christians Chad.
Thanks for answering my questions. I appreciate it very much. Back to your spit-ball fight with Rick you can go.
jerry
Ahh. The “cry to Jesus” loop-hole.
A person’s entire eternity rises or falls on their last second thought before death. Brilliant! Too bad for them if they cried out, “Oh shit!”
Forgive, me Rick, but I find that lame. At least you finally answered, though (only took me asking 4 times).
Well, I don’t let myself get pissed off, but the phrase “pushing buttons” usually means, more or less, intentionally trying to piss someone off.
How am I to read that paragraph. It certainly sounds like one of your main goals in interacting here is to which buttons you can push to get people irritated.
Sorry, Jerry, but you are assuming something that just isn’t true.
If the lot of us got defensive and offended by the things John Chisham said and refused to answer his questions than yeah, I might feel that way if he said it (because it might be true!)
How is that any more of a loophole than saying with assururance that the person will have a chance after his death to believe Christ? I don’t see the reason for the disdain.
I do thank God that Chad and others are used in a positive way in my life. They reinforce my opinion concerning the elevated view I have of my own intellectual prowess. I say this with all humility and sincerity.
Well, I’m glad you only disagreed with one thing that I said. Wheh!
jerry
Phil,
It’s not a goal to get people irritated but to encourage all of us to think through things we may not think through very well. So when someone makes the claim that believing false doctrines will send a person to hell, I push a button and ask, “Which doctrines?” Did you notice the person who said that never answered? I’m not really sure why, but I have my suspicions. If that irritates someone, well, sorry. When someone says that X, Y, and Z people are going to hell if they believe this, and I ask what they say to people who lose loved one’s who are in X, Y, Z category, I push a button. If that person doesn’t answer, I wonder why.
Rick believes Mormons are in hell and will be for eternity (and I presume many of you do). The chances of a Mormon having a death bed confession is as likely to happen as Rick confessing to Allah just before he dies. We all know that. So I find it curious that I am the one accused of taking the “easy way” out and avoiding talk of hell when you guys are the one’s who roll up your tents when I wonder why you don’t tell the Mormon mom who lost her son that her son is in hell with the same confidence you say it here.
But when asked, Rick says, “I don’t presume anything.”
push button
Huge difference! One is faith in a person’s mental faculty just before death and the other is faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ that transcends death.
Probably because this is a blog and if we were in that position we would be pastorally sensitive because when someone loses a son it is beside the point where they are. But once again, only Chad understands how to be sensitive in real life. Once again, only Rev Holtz knows how to deal with people.
See Chad, we know and like Jesus and Paul too. When Jesus saw the widow of Nain he didn’t run up and tell her her son was in hell. He comforted her. Or when the Widow of Zarapheth lost her son, Elijah didn’t accuse, but gave comfort. And there’s other stories like this in the bible. And, ironically, we too have read those stories Chad and know how to react and respond in real life.
Remember Chad, this is a blog…
I get it, Jerry. There is one way of thinking and being on a blog and another way in real life.
If you are happy with that distinction, good for you.
Why would a Mormon mother ever ask a Christian pastor where her son is? I assume that she would believe he is in heaven (or on his own little planet, according to LDS theology).
I guess I think that trying to form a theology based on every possible hypothetical situation isn’t very realistic. Everyone’s theology is in a large part shaped by their life experiences, and I do know several pastors who have had people ask them about where there loved one are, and I’ve even known pastor who have said things like, “well I can’t know for certain, God is merciful, etc.”, but the thing is usually the family member doesn’t even believe them at that point.
I find it odd, too, that you seem to be stuck on this point, when you yourself assert again and again that we shouldn’t boil following Christ down to this binary end result. Following Christ, is well, about following Christ. It’s about being a disciple and asking others to join us along the way. I don’t see that we are really told to worry about the last things all that much. We know they’re in God’s hands.
I do know that God has given everyone responsibility according to what they know, and He holds them accountable. I know you affirm that as well. What I will not claim is that every human given the chance will freely submit their will to Christ, even if they were given an eternity to do it.
I guess, Chad, since we’re asking questions, my questions to you would be, do you believe that there are consequences for not following Christ (I know you do, already, actually), and what reason do you have to believe that everyone will eventually choose to follow Christ?
Have you ever read Brennan Manning? In one book (I think it’s The Relentless Tenderness of Jesus), he tells a parable of the last judgment where all the blind, bedraggled, and outcasts are in line at the judgment. One by one, they are let into the Kingdom. Well, the religious people are standing by watching this, saying, “well, if they’re being let in, I certainly don’t want in!” They refuse to humble themselves to follow Christ. They would rather rule over their own little kingdom than take their place in the Kingdom.
Perhaps a bad example. But the point is not to have an answer to every hypothetical but to allow those scenarios to make us think about our theology – in this case, a doctrine of last things. Perhaps a better example could be to say you are a missionary in a land that never heard of Jesus, several get saved, and then they ask you about the fate of those they lost prior to your arrival. This would make me wonder whether or not the eternal destiny of people rests on my timely arrival or perhaps it rests on something (or someONE!) else….
Obviously. But I am in conversation here with a number of people that do.
I have more faith in God’s desire for all of Creation than I do in humankind’s rebelliousness.
I believe there are a ton of reasons for unbelief in this lifetime. There are any number of obstacles to grace (and we Christians do a good job of erecting a number of them!). One day all of those obstacles will be gone (death and sin will be no more). Like C.S. Lewis said, only a mad man would turn his back on Jesus at that time.
Will there be madmen? I guess that is a fair question. But the more interesting question is whether or not God’s love and desire for them will cease or continue and whether or not a person can resist a relentless, searching God forever.
My hope for all the world lies not in man’s goodness or wise choices but on God’s faithfulness and choice for us. In Jesus, God said “yes” to the world.
I love Manning but have not read that book. It sounds a bit like Lewis’ Great Divorce, yes?
Well, I suppose that little part of it is, but most of the book is more devotional in nature. It’s along the same theme as The Ragamuffin Gospel, really.
I didn’t mean to skip this question but went to the next since you had already said you know I do.
Are there consequences to not following Christ? Sure there are. All of us are in a story. Some story lines are more destructive than others (depending on who or what your god is) and some carry greater consequences than others. It’s not like one can say the righteous don’t suffer while the wicked do. The question is not whether it rains (or snows) on us but what do we do and where is our hope when it does?
My dad just had a heart attack yesterday and nearly died. Total shock to all of us. My family is in PA and if it weren’t for the huge snow storm going on from my house in NC up to Pittsburgh we’d be on our way already. But you know what? Through it all I had a profound sense of peace and hope – no matter what happened to my dad. Why? In large part because I believe in resurrection and because I know God loves him very, very much – more than I do. When the storms hit, I have hope whereas many in this life do not (I know you have the same, Phil, as you shared with your wife).
My heart breaks for those who know nothing but storms their entire life and have no knowledge of the hope you and I have found in Christ. I think of the millions and millions on God’s earth who suffer genocide, rape, torture and all sorts of abuse and have never heard the name Jesus or the hope that comes from knowing him and what he did. I wish they could have the same peace that I experience when storms rock my world. But they so often die alone, hopeless.
But not all hope is lost. While my heart breaks for them that they only knew hell in this life, I am moved to a deeper awe of who God is and what God has done in Jesus when I consider their hell will not get the last word. I look forward with great anticipation the day I get to meet many of them and worship the Lamb beside them, now that we all know fully just as we had been known.
A faith in God’s universal love and plan to reconcile ALL the world is faith in what I believe is truly GOOD NEWS – not just news that could be good if only you do x.
So to put it another way, rather than talk about the consequences of not following Christ I’d rather highlight the joys of knowing Christ.
Jesus never said “follow me” or else you will face these consequences. He said, “follow me” and you will have life, and not just life – life abundantly.
At this point it is obvious you do not care to understand our position, or express it accurately.
False dichotomoy – we both can do this and you know it. Why should we bother interaction with you when you continually misrepresent our position?
Chad,
What you are doing is creating a very vague, very subjective hypothetical situation. When in fact, such a scenario in real life would have many more circumstances and nuances than can be listed in a hypothetical. Of course, the more vague you keep it the better the trap.
Having creating this unrealistic trap, you predetermine which answers are acceptable.
And when we will not bite – seeing it is for the trap it is and an impossible question to answer (much like – so, have you stopped beating your wife?) – you get all high and mighty about OUR theology not being practical… because we will not answer you simplistic and vague hypothetical situation… about us being weak because we do not follow YOUR logic…
In my world the ramifications of unbelief as they are expressed in the Bible are still very real. I wish I could whisk them away but I cannot.
When all is said an argued – I for one, will be praying for your dad’s recovery.
Neil, correct me if I am wrong, but don’t you agree there is a “list” of what must be believed in order to go to heaven? Don’t you claim that those who do not are in hell?
Seriously, Neil, you need to get a grip. I was responding to an honest question asked by Phil and merely saying where I place my emphasis. I was not in any way shape or form insinuating that YOU only talk about consequences. I was answering a freaking question (something you only do when you like the question).
Talk about being defensive – sheesh.
Neil – what is “vague” about my hypothetical questions? Of course I recognize there is nuance and messiness to life. Did you miss my point? The point is not to think of every scenario but to allow these circumstances (which are plausible) to highlight where our theology (or as Rick calls it, “theories”) pan out.
You haven’t yet answered my question: In the very REAL funeral service I described, what would YOU have said?
thank you
Phil,
Given my response in 324, when you read 325 did you think I was insinuating that you only care about focusing on consequences?
And as I have said, this is too vague, to hypothetical, too simplistic.
If you think this proves my theology is weak… if you think this proves my theology is irrelevant… if you think this proves I am a hypocrite – so be it.
You may think these things, but if you do, you would be wrong.
I stand corrected.
Then simply ask for some clarification. Isn’t that what normal people do in a conversation when they think someone is being too vague?
What is too “vague” about describing a funeral for a man who died an alcoholic, stealing from his parents, running out on his wife and kids, and being an all-around bad seed and disappointment to anyone who knew him? He died from an overdose, in his sleep.
How is any of this “vague”? Do you think pastors aren’t asked to preach funerals for such people?
What would you have said?
There is not a list that must be believed; there is a Person who must be believed.
When I do a funeral of an unbeliever I usually burn sulfur incense to drive home the point.
Rick in #191 said:
Comment #336:
Which Rick should I believe?
Let’s not forget Paul C made it clear that there are “obviously” false doctrines that must be denied or else you are damned.
So to recap:
To go to heaven there is a certain list of things that must be believed (or maybe not – Rick seems to be unsure) and a list of doctrines to be avoided lest you be damned (a list yet to be provided).
Keeping in mind that all of this is solely focused on our eternal home after death.
The one common thread I find is this: Salvation is about going to heaven and is only about mental assent. You earn or punch your ticket to heaven by mentally capitulating to certain things and denying other things.
Um, I guess not, but I also don’t know that I’d say Jesus never addressed the consequences. Certainly His whole ministry was predicated that Israel itself was going to face judgment for its unbelief and misrepresentation of the Father.
I guess it doesn’t seem like such a stretch to at least have somewhat of an answer to the question “or else what?” if we’re inviting people to follow Christ with us.
How do you answer the “or else what?” question?
(p.s. – the consequences Jesus spoke of were directed to the religious – people not much different from us).
and also, does “face judgment” necessarily mean eternity in hell?
I’d say no.
“Which Rick should I believe?”
Neither. Believe Jesus.
Rick,
Your last many comments are not constructive at all and add nothing to move a discussion along.
Just because your thoughts would fit on a tweet doesn’t mean they are worth sharing.
#344 – You make me laugh. “Constructive”. That’s hilarious comming from you. A blog thread – get real.
I have redesigned my comment policy so as to avoid getting my feelings hurt. I take everything with a grain of sodium chloride.
I’m glad I make you laugh, Rick.
The point still remains that comments 191 and 336 say two different things.
If you don’t care to explain that, that’s cool. If you are happy being contradictory, that’s cool, too.
Let’s see. Everyone was presenting their views and you openly suggest that you are the only one who actually lives your theology.
Oh yea, that’s real constructive. I am exceedingly happy being contradictory to some.
Well, I would say that deciding to not follow Christ means that you are living in a way that is contrary to what you were created to live. I would say that eventually the things we chase after will eventually become the things that master us. If you do decide turn and follow Christ later down the road, He will still be there, but it also will become harder and harder to turn back the further down the road to idolatry you go.
We all serve something or someone. Serving something or someone other than that which we were created to serve will cause us to live in a prison of our own making.
Rick, nice revision.
I never said I was the only one.
What I said was this:
Which, given the ducking and dodging you are doing when as