When people consider the concept of the Brick Wall, questions arise as they attempt to identify which groups are inside the brick wall and which are on the outside looking in. The rubric I am using divides everyone into two groups – genuine Christian groups and those that have compromised the gospel. There are always a few groups that seem to defy easy placement, testing the limits of doctrinal compromise. Any metaphor, such as the one I am using here, has its limits. Many of these groups defy easy categorization.
Privacy Fence Doctrine?
I do not want to get too cute with the metaphor, but perhaps there are some in-between groups – not quite outside the Brick Wall but also not quite meriting a friendly Picket fence. Maybe we should call them “Privacy Fence” groups. They are not quite orthodox yet have not fully denied the gospel. All doctrinal compromise is not created equal.
It seems that the questions often revolve around several categories. Is this person inside or outside the Brick Wall? What about this church? What about people who hold to this doctrine? Obviously, no metaphor is perfect. I will attempt here to deal with some representative issues. We cannot examine every specific question, but perhaps the way we deal with these will help you as you consider specific situations you encounter as you do doctrinal triage.
Are People Who Approve of Homosexuality Real Christians?
I have received questions from people who are part of churches or denominations that approve of that which the Bible condemns. If my denomination approves of homosexuality, is it outside the Brick Wall? If my church waffles on abortion, is it really Christian?
Questions like these are becoming more common, as groups that once honored the moral standards of God’s Word have bowed to the world’s views and compromised on social issues. How do we handle this? The answer is subtle.
First, while the Bible makes it absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality is hardly fundamental to salvation. God does nto require that we get our moral and social views in order before he saves us. A person may have completely mistaken convictions about homosexuality or abortion and still find a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
However, I think it is safe to say that when you find compromise on such bedrock moral issues as homosexuality or abortion, you are likely to also find some compromise on fundamental gospel doctrine. God’s Word is pretty clear about homosexuality. If you simply open the Bible and ask the question, “What does the Bible say about same-sex relationships, you will get a pretty clear idea. Only those who come to the scriptures with the determination to find justification for homosexuality will miss that clear message. Those who honor the Bible as the basis for truth will affirm that God intended sex to be between a man and his wife, and never between people of the same sex.
So, is the approval of homosexuality put someone outside the Brick Wall? Perhaps not. But it is probably a symptom that someone has, in fact, embraced serious doctrinal compromise. You have not seen many denominations that have held fast on the Brick Wall doctrines that have approved of the homosexual lifestyle.
Compromise on homosexuality may not be a Brick Wall problem, but it is symptomatic of one.
Is Catholicism Christian?
This is one of the first questions that comes to mind when the Brick Wall concept is taught. Is Catholicism simply a variant of Christianity or is it a false religion. In the churches I grew up in, there was little question on this issue. The Catholic Church was the Great Harlot of Revelation which would try to destroy the true church. In recent years, dialogue between Catholics and Evangelicals has become much more common – raising great controversy. Some Christians have trumpeted that interfaith dialogue as a sign of progress toward unity. Others see it as the beginnings of an ecumenical movement that will ultimate cause the compromise of the gospel. To
Who is right? Well, all I can give is an opinion – again, one that is shaded. I have known Catholic people who gave every evidence of being genuinely saved. In fact, my dad sat in his seat on a major airline next to a nun. During the flight, she began to witness to him. He was shocked. She was sharing the unvarnished gospel of Christ with a long-time Baptist preacher, and they shared some wonderful fellowship together. Every one of us knows a Catholic person we believe has genuinely been saved.
But I believe that Catholic people are saved in spite of Catholicism, not because of it. I lay no claim to expertise in Catholic doctrine or practice, but I do have some familiarity. I understand that there is often a disconnect between official church doctrine and the beliefs and practices of individual Catholics.
When I lived in Cedar Rapids, I got interested in watching EWTN – the Catholic Cable channel. I’d never been to Catholic mass. I’d never attended catechism classes. But I began to watch them on TV. As I watched the masses, as I listened to the discussions, to the “Bible studies” that were presented, I came to a strong conclusion. Catholicism is not gospel Christianity. It is not the faith that was revealed to the Apostles. It is an aberration, a perversion of that faith.
I know, that is harsh and hurtful to some. It is my strong conviction. From my observances, the problem with Catholicism is not subtraction, but addition. Liberal groups deny the core doctrines of the faith. Catholics do not. They add to them. They believe in the authority of the Bible, but add the authoritative interpretations of Church tradition. They affirm the Trinity and the deity of Christ, but add the veneration of Mary in a way that is contrary to scripture. There is still a lot of discussion within Catholicism about the exact role of Mary as mediatrix or co-redemptrix. Either way, Mary is given an almost divine role – one directly contrary to biblical evidence. Catholics believe in faith, but poison that faith with works, with sacraments – rendering it ineffective and empty.
So, I accept that there are many within the Catholic Church who have, in spite of the serious false doctrine promoted by the Vatican, found a genuine saving faith in Christ. But the fact that a few people have found faith in Christ within Catholicism does not negate the fact that the teachings of the Catholic church are not biblical, orthodox Christianity.
What about Open Theism?
I have also received questions about “Open Theism.” Open Theists do not accept the classic formulation of the sovereignty of God. They do not believe that God has ordained a plan which He is working out in this world. They believe that He gives humans absolute free will, and adjusts His plan based on the choices we make. It is, I believe, a deeply flawed doctrine, clearly contrary to the biblical view of God’s sovereignty. And yet, the proponents of Open Theism generally accept the biblical doctrine of salvation. At this time, I am not sure where to place the proponents of this doctrine. The proponents seem to be orthodox believers in other respects, but this is no minor doctrinal deviation. They are a perfect example of the need for a privacy fence. I will accept that they are believers, but I will publicly identify their doctrine as false and dangerous. I will not partner with them in any significant way, other than the most basic of fellowship.
There are many doctrinal innovations in our modern Christian world that require a similar treatment. There are people who still affirm faith in Christ, but hold aberrant views of the atonement or the nature of God. Many of the Emergent churches have wander down doctrinal allies that make evangelicals nervous – and rightly so. NT Wright and William Paul Young, who would both claim to be saved by grace through faith (I think) advocate views that I find contrary to scriptures. These would be what I would call Privacy Fence doctrines. They may not be blatantly heretical, but neither are they genuinely Christian.
There will always be issues like this as we try to apply this concept. The Brick Walls and Picket Fences metaphor can be helpful, but no metaphor is perfect. But the principle, and the practice of theological triage arestill valid, even if we cannot dot every “i” or cross every “t” in the process.
Next time we will begin the discussion of “Picket Fence” Doctrine.
These are obviously some hot-button topics. I hope we might have a lively discussion. However, let’s focus on the topics, not the people.
I look forward to reading this post when it’s actually finished… 🙂
I’m not sure what you are talking about, Wes. This is actually a book I’ve written which I am publishing in installments. Its finished, I’m editing it and putting it up little by little.
Dave:
I think he’s referring to the end of the third and sixth paragraphs of “Are People Who Approve of Homosexuality Real Christians?” where the thoughts don’t seem conclude.
TRB
3rd & 5th, not 6th.
Yeah, I just noticed that. Weird. Copy/pasting or editing issues.
Now, no one will know what Wes is talking about (insert joke here) since I deleted the sentences.
Churches and individuals that affirm homosexuality are not Christians. Those that do not recognize the Bible’s unmistakably clearl teaching on the subject are also ones who reject the virgin birth, the blood atonement, the biblical record of miracles, and the historicity of Adam and Eve. Their acceptance of homosexuality is just a symtom of their lack of genuine saving faith.
Joe, (Adam & Eve) why did you have to go there?
Adam & Eve were the first in the linage of Christ. They were created on the 8th day (Gen 2:7 – Adam) which comes after the 7th day rest.
Who was created on the 6th day (Genesis 1:26)? All the races (red, yellow, black & white).
This is in the Bible, but not widely taught….. It was one of the 6th day creation where the people of Nod were created.
Genesis 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Well, rather than go into some sort of lengthy response that would be totally non-productive and off topic I’ll just say, in the words of Ace Venture, “Allllll-rightly then.”
Joe,
Your avatar doesn’t have Ace’s hair.
Jim G.
DLG,
The seventh day rest of God was a rest from all God had made (which would include Adam & Eve) according to the text.
In fact, there is this language of “finished” at the beginning of chapter 2 and I think John Reisinger is right concerning a connection between the finished work of creation and the finished (i.e. it is “finished”) work of salvation on the cross.
Genesis 2:7 is elaborating or talking about the same creation of man from a different angle.
Benji – you getting that from the KJV or the original Hebrew? Was written in Hebrew then translated….
Never mind, no wonder so many get the “End Times” wrong, they don’t even get the beginning correct…..
My point exactly, the “whole truth” is not being taught in many main line churches today, but it will all be sorted out on the day of judgment…….
ARE THEY ALL CHRISTIANS if they do not believe ALL of Gods word? Don’t fault the people, many have not been taught…
DLG,
I’m not sure where you are going.
God Bless,
Benji
Benji
Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and {there was not a man} to till the ground.
Here Father is saying He had not created a man to till the ground, so in Genesis 2:7 he created Adam (farmer) first in the linage of Christ…
So are they Christian if they do not believe Fathers word?
That is a fairly novel interpretation of Genesis, DLG.
Do the not teach in seminary the Hebrew translations (original language) that the bible was written in?
I’ve actually had 3 years of Hebrew. Are you a Hebrew scholar?
To be honest, you are claiming the Hebrew demands that which you promote. I do not think that the Hebrew text supports your viewpoint.
Where did you get your degree in Hebrew?
Can you give some references to explain? I think most conservative interpreters see Genesis 1 as the explanation of the creation of the whole world, then Genesis 2 as more specific to the creation of mankind (but describing events that occurred on the sixth day when God created male and female in his image.
Sure Dave since you asked.
Since most of this is not taught in main line churches today.. This is just a brief outline…. It is so simple when you understand it all…..
Correct Dave, Genesis 1:1 was the creation of the whole world (the first earth age). This was the “time” when “all” was created, all souls (your’s and mine), and when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. This was when Satan and one-third of the fallen Angels rebelled and were cast out. Was the time of the “Elect” were chosen. They were chosen because they fought against Satan and his followers, so in effect, they earned the right of the “Elect” not that God was choosing any as better than any other, just thet fought for Him in the first earth age…
Hence now passes millions and missions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
God did not want to destroy all His creation so hence we go to
“Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
God destroyed (first earth age-time period) as “without form, and void” (check your Hebrew here) does not say did not exist before, says became void and without form as God was remaking Earth-age (second Earth age) the one we live in now…..
That is why God said, I knew you before you were in your mother’s womb – meaning He knew you in the first earth age. Because of Satan, all had to be born of woman, to have free-will to choose to love God… hence we go through Genesis as God remaking earth (second earth age- the time now-today). See God’s word does not argue with science. Science supports the Bible, only most folks don’t see the time span between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2….being of millions of years. They want to put 6000 years down.. The 6000 comes from Genesis 1:2, not 1:1.
I am sure you agree with where you are now.. and you will agree on the next one “Eternity” or heaven. So in essence, the Earth is divided into three time periods.
Genesis 1:1 The first earth age.
Genesis 1:2 The second earth age. (NOW)
And the third earth age (Heaven on Earth) beginning at the return of Christ at the Second coming… Notice I said “second” as Christ has come once, and will come “only” one more time, meaning NO RAPTURE.
I know, a little more than you expected and more than C.B. would give a “Theological Dwarf” credit for, but “It is written” all folks have to do is read it (knowing the Hebrew/Greek translations…. of course..
The Bible is simple when you know God’s whole plan.. Now if you want to be more confused, try to figure out WHY Cain is not mentioned in the linage of Adam? From Adam to Christ, Cain is never mentioned ask yourself why? Enjoy
These theories have been pretty well repudiated and exposed by scholars of the Hebrew Language.
Dave, sorry but God’s Word is NO Theory… those scholars of the Hebrew Language will have their day in court at the day of judgment.
Hi DLG,
By your logic, then, only Adam’s race is fallen. The other races had nothing in it. It is Adam and Eve who ate the fruit.
By the way, is Cain the biological son of Adam and Eve? (this question is for DLG)
Jim G.
Jim G.
Wrong – do you not believe your own Bible. “All have sinned and come short……”
is Cain the biological son of Adam and Eve? Eve yes, Adam NO!
Strap your seat belt before reading this..
But just as Christ was born of Mary and Joseph WAS NOT Christ biological father, so it was with Cain.
Eve was the mother and “Satan” was the father of Cain. Read your bible it is there. Many places in the bible….
Cain and Able were twins, but had different fathers, Able from Adam, and Cain from Satan….
Genesis 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Go check out the word “beguiled” in the Hebrew translation – meaning HOLY SEDUCED, Eve was impregnated by Satan and bore Cain that is how sin came into the garden, I thought every one was taught this… It is right there in your bible…. Study, enjoy God’s word…
Christine asks this later in the post progression, but I will SAY it here…This is “Serpent” seed theology. DLG, let me guess you listen to and support Arnold Murray? Did you know this theory, apart of the Christian Identity movement, has its origins in racists and white-supremacists. This is a filthy view NOT supported by scripture, and I would encourage the moderators keep a close eye on this conversation.
BTW…Nasha…The hebrew word for “deceived” in Gen 3:13, has no sexual connotation to it. At least according to the two most respected Hebrew lexicons (BDB and Holladay) both dont have any reference to this. Nasha simply means to be deceived.
Smuschany,
I suspected as much. That’s why I asked the question. It’s Shepherd’s Chapel spew. I thought I recognized it, but I asked the biological question to confirm.
Jim G.
I’m tempted to delete DLG’s comments here, because they do in fact mimic the Christian Identity-Two seed teachings. I have seen no evidence that DLG is a racist, though his theology has similar roots.
I’m leaving it up so that people can see what happens when we follow the teachings of a man (Murray) instead of simply reading, studying and expositing the Word.
DLG, I pray that your mind might be freed from the bondage to false teachings which have clouded it.
I’d agree with Dave that a person/denomination that does not view homosexuality as a sin is still possibly Christian.
After all, in 1845 a group of folks determined it was possible to own slaves, support the laws that prohibited teaching slaves the Gospel, and still be Christians. So it’s entirely possible to be wrong on the specifics of what constitutes a sin.
That’s not to say that, in time, the Holy Spirit and searching the Scriptures should not show people their errors. And that true believers will have the Holy Spirit and a desire to search the Scriptures is, I think, a must. (within reason: my 9-year-old isn’t searching Scripture for what is says about a great many things, but I still think she’s saved.)
The entry point is the Gospel—which requires knowing that there is sin, and that you’ve got it. The rest is part of the growing in Christ that comes after being born again.
Doug
Perhaps I should qualify what I said to be more specific, because you and Dave do make good points.
I think a Christian who believes the gospel and believes that homosexuality is not a sin (not has never thought about it and isn’t sure, is looking into the subject to see what the Bible says and is still investigating it) is like the Easter Bunny or Peter Pan: It’s an imaginary creature who disappears when you wake up.
In all seriousness, I’ve never met that person. Every professing Christian that claims homosexuality is not a sin that I’ve ever met, read, or heard about was also very leftwing in their theology.
I’m not sure I’ve met, at least in real life, anyone that would fit that description either.
However, I do think we should recognize that there are at least two steps, and maybe more, to consider, rather than a strict “You don’t think homosexual behavior is a sin” therefore “you are not saved.”
Rather: “You don’t think (and there’s a host of sins that could fit this blank) homosexual behavior, gluttony, racism is a sin”
Therefore: “You don’t seem to take Scripture seriously” which leads to asking:
“How do you know you are saved if you don’t trust God’s Word?”
Which should lead to discussion.
It is the role of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin. He brings some conviction at the moment of salvation, but the full conviction/renewal process takes place over time.
So, a person is saved, fully converted, born again, destined for heaven! But he still has a lot of wrong ideas and false beliefs that come from his past.
We don’t tell him, “Unless you change your view of homosexuality, you can’t be saved.” We get him in Bible study and fellowship and the Spirit works slowly on him to conform him to Christ.
In the process, a Christian can have all sorts of bad ideas, false beliefs, etc.
On the other hand, denominations have different arcs. Their views are more informed/intentional. I never said believing in homosexuality was okay. My point is that the homosexuality affirmation is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
My point is that the homosexuality affirmation is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
Yeah, I can agree with that pretty much.
Correlation is not causation.
Here, I would argue that the correlation is in fact a cause-effect thing.
It is the compromise of a high view of scripture, and of other essential biblical doctrine that would cause someone to begin to say that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.
I do see causation in this correlation.
True, it does not. But it sure seems that an abnormally high percentange of folks who say homosexuality is not a sin are also the same people who:
*deny the virgin birth.
*deny the bodily resurrection and blood atonement.
*deny the other miracles of Christ.
Not “question”. Not “are still looking into”. Not “am examining both sides of the evidence to come to an informed conclusion based on exegesis of the Bible”. Deny=did not, would not, could not have happened. The also seem to fall in pretty high percentage in groups like mainline denominations and CBF type Baptists. In other words, people who don….err I mean, I’m going to try to be nice and just leave my comment at that. 🙂
Dave,Joe, it matters NOT what the folks personally believe about sin and homosexually (just another type of sin) but “only” what the Bible teaches. God’s “word” is the standard and not what anyone else says, including myself!
Everything should be compared with “all of God’s word” in the context in which it was written, as scripture proves scripture, it does not contradict.
Joe – why did you have to mention Easter and bunnies?
Are they Christians if the do not believe in Easter? or Are they Christian if the do believe in Easter?
What is meant here in the bible?
Acts 12:4……intending after {Easter} to bring him forth to the people.
Here {Easter} is mistranslated into the KJV as the original Hebrew word arrives from {paschal} meaning Passover……
the paschal feast, the feast of the Passover, extending from the 14th to the 20th day of the month Nisan.
Here the bible is referring to after {PASSOVER} not referring to Easter some pagan god or festival….
Another false teaching in today’s church. As a Christian do folks celebrate Passover as stated in the Bible or some pagan festival Easter…. The folks may want to ask themselves, and answer some questions…
What are YOU teaching in your church? Judgment begins at the pulpit!
Wait, the Easter Bunny isn’t a Christian? Or isn’t a Baptist?
Right! So when the folks celebrate the resurrection of Christ at the time of Passover, WHY do they call it EASTER which is a pagan god festival…
Do any of YOU really think your Father in Heaven is happy with the way “modern day professional preachers” are leading the flock astray, celebrating the most holy day “resurrection of Christ” by easter eggs and bunnies celebrating the pagan festival…… I do not care how much you say it…….. it is a false teaching and you will have your chance to explain it on judgment day, everyone will have your day in court……
“It is written” but you just don’t see it, do you?
Deuteronomy 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Matthew 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. ARE YOU BLESSED?
Mark 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?
The Easter Bunny is Catholic, everyone knows that. Wait a minute, I’m sorry, I meant ‘the Easter Beagle’, wait a minute . . . I’m confused.
DLG, you seem to be almost as dogmatic as you are confusing.
No more dogmatic than Christ when he went to the temple and chased off the money changers….
Dave, at least you do not say what is in the Bible is false.
It is the mission of the elect during these end times to “speak forth the truth of the word of God”, to be on Watch, is it now so?
I’m amazed at how many people have the hubris to compare themselves to Jesus Christ in driving out the moneychangers.
The differences are pretty obvious. First, Jesus knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. He WAS truth. You are a man (or woman) who has some opinions which certainly do not have the authority of scripture.
Jesus was perfect. You are not.
Jesus knew everything. You do not.
Jesus had perfect judgment. You do not.
Two lessons I might suggest to you to learn.
1) Jesus is alive.
2) You are not him.
DLG,
I’m not currently serving as a pastor.. Thanks for asking.
By the way, “Easter Bunny” was a joke. Laugh–even a evil plan laugh will do. Bwahahahahahahahaha
Sorry Joe, but I usually do not joke on these types of sites..
Joe is a specialist (as are all Crimson Tide fans) at the evil laugh.
I think I’m pretty well in agreement. Homosexuality is not a salvific doctrine, but probably reveals other issues that will delve into salvific doctrines. Then again, I don’t think inerrancy is a salvific doctrine myself, so maybe I’m not really a Christian either. 😉
I have grown out of the rabid anti-Catholicism of my early SBC life, but like Dave, I think the Gospel is hidden in the myriad layers of additional RCC doctrine so that it is difficult to find.
I wouldn’t put NT Wright and WP Young in the same category, but I probably wouldn’t put either outside the bounds of Christianity. I know Wright has a lot of people up in arms, but I think he is doing a service to people by forcing them to think deeply about the doctrines he is discussing. I think the hoopla over Young is mostly people with too much time on their hands. I’ve read The Shack. While there are elements in it that don’t line up with orthodox Christianity (Narnia? LOTR?) I didn’t immediately go out and burn it or call for a boycott. I very much doubt people are reading The Shack, or any other work of fiction to gain a deep doctrinal understanding of Christianity. If they are, they need help.
What I’m waiting for, is for the SBC to decide that old-earthers, IDers, and theistic evolutionists are heretics.
“What I’m waiting for, is for the SBC to decide that old-earthers, IDers, and theistic evolutionists are heretics.”
I already decided, Bill!
More seriously, I think you described the unique standing of Catholicism. The gospel is “hidden” underneath layers of superstition, ritualism, and heretical ideas. That same gospel is not found in groups like Mormonism or JW.
We had a lengthy discussion about Catholicism in our last Sunday School class. The point was raised that it’s easy for us to look at Catholic “doctrine” and then apply that across-the-board to “Catholics”.
Well, from a couple of years of teaching on the Baptist Faith & Message, I can tell you that most Baptists don’t know “what we teach”, and I think we’re in error to think every Catholic church member knows all the stuff they have in print, either.
Christians are saved one-at-a-time, with a personal relationship with the Savior, and that’s about the only way this denomination or that can be analyzed, as to which side of which wall they’re on.
One must compare their “doctrine” with the Bible and then apply that across-the-board to the individual and leave the denomination out of it….Denomination means “divide”.
Folks accept Christ everyday joining “churches” not knowing anything other than “the true gospel” and Know nothing of the doctrine of the church.. This is when “some” are led astray by “false teaching” in the church, when the church begins to teach “traditions of man” instead of word of God, or at least some “twist” the word of God to make it mean something entirely different…
It is interesting in how some “lines in the sand” are considered tests of faith, but others are overlooked. Is it not taught that if you are guilty of one sin, you are guilty of all? I am not defending the practice and acceptance of homosexual behavior, nor abortion; but what about stealing, cheating, killing, and so forth?
Here are some other “lines in the sand” that the Baptist and other churches have to grapple with: early church theory of beliefs in war, to only be further refined by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas to what is known as “Just War”; self-security arguments in the Bush Doctrine; marriage infidelity; divorce; how we treat our neighbors, especially those unfortunate ones; stealing; so forth and so on.
For those bagging on heterosexuals “accepting” homosexuality, then the argument can be easily changed for those who are and have been civilians giving proverbial cover-fire for the use of force by the state – whether it is justified war as used by Augustine/Thomas or the next step in the Bush Doctrine. The early church would find all of these grounds for church members to be excommunicated from the fellowship with other believers and getting no church blessings going into the next life — evangelicals may choke on this, but due to our modern society of jumping with church memberships from Baptist to Methodists to ECLA Lutherans and so on, but that was the power of the early, one catholic and universal church.
We all fall short from the glory of God. My sin, if projected on to a map, does not encompass the country of homosexual behavior; but it does cover does anger (murder), covet (stealing), and not treating my brothers and sisters in Christ with the reverence and giving as I should. I will be found guilty of sin, but my sin is paid by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. Do I try to hem the church into letting only certain types of sinners? Or worse for the majority of modern worshippers, do we go back to a more fundamental and early church in which a lot of church freedoms are curtailed? What exactly is the solution?
In regards to Catholics and the saving grace found through the church, we Americans have had similar issues these last 250 years. There seems to be layers of the understanding and needs from our community church, whether it is: the early church in 250 AD, the Half-Way Covenent in New England (Reformed Congregationalists) by Stoddard and Edwards, the rise of Fundamentalism in late 19th century and early 20th century (evangelicals), or what we in modern society do with church memberships (including in the Baptist churches too). There is a tendency to use the church as the vehicle for personal salvation and not Christ himself.
We need to have some understanding and patience to have all parts of the body working in a common goal; each church member will not all be the same, but will have advantages and weaknesses in respect to other portions of the body. All must work together (oversimplified example that there will be exceptions).
Translation “You take care of every other sin before you even THINK of calling homosexuality a sin.”
Sorry, you’ll forgive me if I find that laughable. I don’t notice any churches saying that stealing is ok. I’ve never once heard a church declare that Paul’s prohobition against marital infidelity was due to his prejudice and that we’ve evolved since the first century. However, both of those tired, lame, illogical, unbiblcal arguments are regularly spouted by mainline denominations and moderate baptists (i.e. people who don’t matter) in their attempt to say “Homosexuality is not a sin”.
So, what sort of response are you expecting from Christians when people are being decieved by being told that something that is a sin and must be repented of is not a sin?? “Well, before we say ‘Yes, that is a sin’ we need to clean up all other sins first. Why, until there are no married people cheating on their spouses and no one is stealing we just CAN’T single out homosexuality. That would be prejudiced.” Yeah, that’s a perfectly logical response (/sarcasm).
Oh, and as far as the wars in the Middle east, it’s pretty easy for anyone with sense to tell who was wearing the white hat in that one. We were the good guys.
I have given it a little more thought, but I would be interested in respect to hear/see what you have to say about the teaching of “thou shall not kill”. How does the church message go through these various periods of time: the early church about 100 AD; Augustine’s time with his advocation of justifiable war; to that of the Anabaptists in the 16th century; and then finally to modern pre-emptive strike theory. Has the church in its passing through time changed the message of “thou shall not kill”?
Daren –
“thou shall not kill” where as kill you take it back to the original manuscripts and language and you will see kill means “murder” meaning thou shall not murder… shall not lie in wait in premeditated murder which is much different that killing as in “war”
Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to {war}, and my fingers to {fight:}
Daren, I don’t know of any denominations that are saying that theft and murder are okay. But people are saying that homosexuality is not sinful.
That evidences a lack of willingness to operate under God’s Word and its authority – thus the problem.
I agree with you that there are churches and denominations saying that homosexuality is acceptable and it is just another form of Christ’s love. They are wrong. My understanding the article was not about the acceptance of these churches to corrupt the Gospel but is it really a wall to limit people from accepting the Good News from Christ. But re-reading the article, I was mistaken. My apologies and I need some more reading comprehension skills.
The Bible teaches that homosexuality is sin, period. Does not matter what man, or church’s teach, they are wrong according to Fathers word.
Judgments about these questions are often a trap for evangelicals, in my opinion.
The question, at its root, is “How theologically correct does one have to be to be accepted by God?” or “How wrong does one have to be about theology to not be in the Kingdom of God?”
While we can make some human judgments about that based on the counsel of God that we have before us, I have never thought it was appropriate for me to declare someone into the Kingdom or out of it.
First, that is not our job.
Second, it is impossible to do, really, because we are not God.
I think that what we should do is to concentrate on a faithful presentation of the Gospel and what Christianity should be in biblical terms.
We can certainly judge what people might say about what they think the Gospel is and faithful Christianity should look like, and we can clearly knock down their ideas based on specific teachings from Chirst and the Apostles.
But applying that judgment to the hearts and spiritual status of other people is unnecessary, and, again, is not our job.
For example, if someone in a church that believes good works are necessary for salvation, I would point them to various teachings in the Bible that make it abundantly clear that works are not a way to earn salvation, but are a mark of being saved. I would also point to the verses that warn against trusting in one’s good works for salvation.
But as to whether that person is saved or not, that is a question that only God can answer, and I would not try to answer it.
Even when speaking to a person who denies the Gospel outright, I would be very careful.
I would say to a person of another faith who does not believe that Gospel that they should and must believe the Gospel because that is God’s way of salvation for mankind.
But I would never look at that person and say, “You are not getting into heaven…” I would let the Gospel words from the Bible say that, and they do say that.
It’s lot like the function I perform as a lawyer. I can tell my client what the law is, and I can tell them that the judge is going to apply the law, but I can never make the pronoucement.
I can never see into the heart, and I am not called to be the judge over a person’s soul.
But I am called to be faithful in presenting the Gospel.
That covers about every situation that I can think of where this person or that person may believe something that is not correct.
Agree – Not our job to judge, but to discern the Word of God and point others to what the “Judge” says in His word. On judgment day, each will stand alone and be judged on God’s word, not what some preacher told you.
Dave,
Approving of homosexuality is taking a contrary stand against the written word of God. But so would be approving of lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, fornication. I believe God hates sin and commands us to turn from it. But it seems to me we all have difficulty with that from time to time. We have homosexuals at my church, but we do not allow them to hold any church office. They may come and worship as part of the congregation. Our statement faith is clear that sin is unacceptable and that we are to be diligent in self-evaluation to conquer sin. If you removed the word “approve’, I’d say yes, they are still Christians. I don’t even think this takes a huge leap of logic. If the Bible says don’t do it, and a church says we don’t care what the Bible says, then no, they aren’t Christians.
Catholics. I am not a fan of ECT. But my church does share a food pantry with a close Catholic church. I personally think some Catholics are indeed Christians. If they confess their sins, accept Jesus as the Lord of their lives and believe that it is grace that saves them I’m okay with that. I understand that they want to add works as a necessary part of salvation. I don’t hold to that obviously. But I would say that a person who loves the the Lord with all their heart, would live a life that does demonstrate the fruit of the spirit and surely goodness, kindness,patience, etc are all the natural good works of a life lived for Christ. I don’t hold to any of the other beliefs regarding the Pope (let alone his infallibility), the sinlessness of Mary, transubstantiation, purgatory, or praying to the Saints. So I would say, some of them are Christians, I leave the Lord to help them with those non-essentials. I kmow some Baptists who think we ought to follow the admonition to drink poison and handle snakes. Dave, I’m greatly afeared and skeered of snakes, so the Catholics have a point on that one.
Open Theism. No, no and no.
That was easy.
Thanks Dave. I knew you meant this in all seriousness, but sometimes I think we get so bogged down in side issues that the gospel gets lost. You always find the gospel and I always enjoy what you write.
In His Grace……….
Thanks!
I have a problem with the Christian Identity Movement. I think it is racist. The ‘two-seed theory’ that Cain is the son of Eve and Satan is a part of that Movement. I am wondering, at this point, is this comment from DLG is meant to associate the ‘two-seed theory’ with a racist point of view:
“Who was created on the 6th day (Genesis 1:26)? All the races (red, yellow, black & white). ”
I see this as a ‘red-light’ comment. Am I the only one to see this?
I’m not sure if DLG meant it in the way that I am seeing it, but the tie-in with ‘two-seed theory’ is another red-light to me.
??????????
I was not really familiar with this Christian Identity Movement teaching (don’t know that its real popular here in Iowa – at least not in my circles).
I sensed immediately when DLG started posting that he had some really strange views. Not being familiar with this stuff, I didn’t identify it.
I went back and looked. I don’t think it was a racist comment. He included the white race in with the others.
DLG – who exactly are you saying was created on the 8th day?
Fundamentally, the viewpoint is badly flawed. God created one man and one woman and all races derive from the same human pair. To say other is to contradict Romans 5. What makes us different is our faith, not our race.
Christiane,
What is a a ‘red-light’ comment? What is your ‘two-seed theory’? What do you mean by a racist point of view? I only sit home and study my Bible, I do not study theories and books written by “man”. Excuse my ignorance, but as C.B. said, I am a “Theological Dwarf” and my Father tells me in studies, all you need to know is written in the Bible, so do not concern yourself with what man writes or thinks.
I said this just now earlier in the post-progression, but I will say it here now in light of your response. I have debated followers of Arnold Murray before. And you know its funny, they say the EXACT things that you do. That you are “simply sitting at home and studying your bible”. Murray has done a good job in the past decade or so to hide the racist origins of the Serpent-Seed theology that he professes. But it is still there. I would ask that you leave and stop trying to promote your views. Because I would gladly take a ban from the Moderators if it means keeping you from expressing your racist views here.
But for what it is worth, not that you will listen, because from my experiences with you and your views, you WONT listen. But in Genesis 4:1, the hebrew is CLEAR that it was ADAM who “yada” or “to know, to have relationship with” with Eve conceiving Cain. Anyone who has even had a YEAR of Hebrew study could tell you this. But seeing as I know your arguments and your “type”, I know you have not.
Tying it all in, I would say that “Serpent Seed Theology” is a BRICK WALL doctrine on the level of the trinity itself. More than pedo vs credo baptism, more than RCC vs Protestant.
I knew there was something weird about all this nonsense that DLG has been advocating. Not too sure who Arnold Murray is, but he sounds off base.
Okay – I just went and googled him. I used to listen to that yahoo about 20 years ago. Didn’t make much sense.
DLG, we are not interested in hearing the Arnold Murray party line.
Dave, I have never discuss any names here other than a blogger, or Father, and Christ…..
Please tell me what in the Bible that I am not permitted to say on this site. I and many others would like to know, what offensive part of the Bible are we to not discuss here?
Come Dave, speak up. I want to know what is in the Bible that you “just a man” will try to ban. I want you to put to print what in God’s bible that is not permitted to be discussed….on this site?
You and Smuschany mention a name, a name I never heard spoke in the Bible, so please explain this to me.
We are still discussing Are “They” Real Christians, so I wait, and listen.
Two questions:
1) Are you a follower of Arnold Murray?
(Let me head off any dodge here. By “follower” I mean someone who studies the materials of and adopts the principles he has learned from Arnold Murray/Shepherd’s Chapel)
2) Are the followers of Arnold Murray a cult?
Answer my questions and I will answer yours.
DLG – please answer my questions. I think you are being dishonest – and Smuschany has called you on this. Answer my questions.
Please understand, DLG, that until you answer my questions, you will not be posting any more obfuscations.
1) Are you a follower of Arnold Murray?
I follow Christ, I follow the Word of God, the Bible.
I study under, Charles Stanley, Michael Youseff, Arnold Murray and others.
2) Are the followers of Arnold Murray a cult?
Anyone who follows any “man” Budda, Mohammad, and not the word of God our Heavenly Father, and Lord Jesus Christ I would consider a cult.
Dave, you are a pastor, do people follow you or Christ? If they follow you, does that make you a cult?
First you say you have never heard of Christian Identity or Serpent Seed Theology. Then you said you never heard of Arnold Murray. Now you say you do know him and “study under him”.
Apparently I do know what I am talking about.
That’s a dodge, DLG. You are the one who said you only followed the scriptures and criticized us for following human doctrines – that which you do yourself.
You have claimed that all of your views “come from the Bible” when they actually come from Arnold Murray. Do you think that is honest?
It seems to me that almost every comment you have made is deceptive.
e
Sorry, I was thinking of a comment and posted inadvertantly. 🙂
Dave, You never answered the questions.
Dave, Smuschany, not to worry, as it will all work out in the end. The Bible teaches not are are meant to understand.
Bess, I disagre “e”.
“The bible teaches not all are meant to understand”…Yea…thats not a BIT creepy and cultic.
DLG’s Questions:
You are allowed to discuss the Bible. However, you are not allowed to act as if Arnold Murray’s twisted views are authoritative. Here, we discuss God’s Word, not Arnold’s.
I won’t ban the Bible – that is just ridiculous. I will block your comments if you continue to act as if Arnold Murray is the final authority on Bible interpretation.
Deceit. You do, in fact, know who Arnold Murray is and you got your twisted ideas from his. So, you made that comment with an intent to deceive. right?
Enough is enough. This is not the Arnold Murray blog. If you want to continue to study him, that his your choice. But you cannot keep trolling this comment stream with his nonsense.
Okay?
OK Dave, I will just use words that you may understand. Scripture speaks for itself, it needs not man. Since you have allowed scripture, it will speak it’s own message, and you just sit and let the Holy Spirit interpret it for you…
Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day
Ezekiel 12:2
Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.
Matthew 13:15
For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
John 8:44
Ye are of {your father the devil}, and the lusts of your father ye will do. {He was a murderer from the beginning}, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
DLG,
Okay, you can cut and paste scriptures. But I’m not sure what your point is.
You pasted the following scriptures.
Amen. Israel was hardened in their hearts and often refused in disobedience to see God’s work or to obey him.
Israel was, in fact, a rebellious house that spent far more time in rebellion than in obedience.
Because of their disobedience, they did not understand what God was doing and did not hear what God was saying.
I have warned of false prophets often – people who will twist the word of God. We all need to realize this. Arnold Murray seems to be one of those men whose teachings we need to be wary of, don’t you think?
Satan lies. God’s Word is truth. Thank God he gave us his word and the Spirit to help us understand it.
Did you have any other point to make with these scriptures?
Smuschany
I follow Christ my Lord and Savior and my Father in Heaven and study the Bible, the living word of God. What ever that makes me, that is what I am.
Anyone who is following some “man” and not the word of God is following a cult.
You say “I would ask that you leave and stop trying to promote your views.” I say to YOU, anyone promoting “their OWN views” and not the views of Christ should leave. However I do not see it as “my view” but “wisdom of the revealed word” that I share.
It is all about Good vs Evil, Light vs Dark. In Christ or not. There is no middle ground, no safe haven. One is on one side or the other. Christ did not save me for me to sit in the dark. We are to let our light shine.
Isaiah 60:1
Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Smuschany, I have never seen your name before, have you been hiding in the shadows? If not point me somewhere, where I can read some of your post.
Thank you, Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Would you say, then, that the followers of Andrew Murray and the Christian Identity Movement are cults?
I know of no such movement Dave, never heard it before today, here on this site….. hope that answers your question…
Again, I tell you that I have debated “followers” of Aaron Murray before. I tell you this because you continue to use the exact same terminology, language and arguments that they did. So unless it is the astronomically improbable occurrence that you are the same person I have debated before, let me tell you again…I know the arguments you are or would use. I know your modus operandi. I know your claims to “follow no man”. If we continue debating this and hijacking the thread, I know how you would deny being a racist, while insisting that there are people alive today descended from Satan through Cain, just like the Pharisees were in the time of Jesus.
Notice how in your “follow no man” arguments you never mention the name Arnold Murray. You dont deny you know him, or have heard of him. Gee…where have I seen that before?
I suppose you have never heard of St Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, John and Charles Westley, William Carey, ect before either? After their names are not found in scripture. See how silly your obfuscation is.
I am very thankful you were here today to call DLG’s bluff. Frankly, I just didn’t have much familiarity with either Christian Identity or with Murray.
Dave, Please explain your remarks “Bluff”. What about the Bible is bluff?
And Dave, like you I just don’t have ANY familiarity with Christian Identity, no clue of what this means….
I just did some research. Christian Identity follows the same schema that you are advancing, with different applications.
Who was created on the sixth day and who was created on the 8th day in your/Murray’s scheme of creation?
To bluff is to pretend that something is not true when it is, or that it is true when it is not. You have been attempting to spread Murray’s false teachings on this site while claiming you got them all from the Bible.
Be honest. Tell us the actual truth.
The teaching about the “eighth day” creation. did you get that by reading the Bible or by reading or listening to Arnold Murray?
I know the answer. You would not get that teaching from just reading scripture. There is no mention of the eighth day in Genesis 2.
You “bluffed” that you were advocating simple Bible teachings when in fact you were parroting the teachings of Arnold Murray.
Dave
When you are in church, preaching or teaching the bible, the one which our heavenly Father gave us, the scriptures and simple Bible teachings and your flock goes out and shares the word, are they parroting you or Christ? Are they following you or Christ?
They certainly wouldn’t go on a blog, parrot my ideas and thoughts and pretend they came up with them on their own through simple Bible reading
And when asked, they wouldn’t hide the fact that they knew me.
I don’t like accusing people of lying. I am a finite sinful human being who makes mistakes and I could be wrong on these things. I dont think I am wrong about this…Too many similarities, and I doubt this type of theology is so prevalent that multiple people who “simply study the bible” believe and say the exact thing.
Also, I must give credit to where credit is due. As I mostly browse these comments, I would not have seen what DLG was saying unless Christine had not mentioned “Christian Identity” first.
Yes. Thank you Christiane.
Is the Christian Identity Movement the people who believe in the Lost Tribes of Israel? That Europeans are somehow descendents of the Patriarchs and so somehow only white people can be saved something or other? Is it that the descendents of Cain via Satan are all non white people?
Sorry this is OT Dave, but the thread was thread jacked when I found it 🙂
No, unfortunately Bess, this became the topic. I just did some research, because of DLG’s “Arnold Murray” excursion.
Christian Identity is a racist view of scriptures. On the sixth day, all the “other” races were created – the seed of the serpent. Then, in Genesis 2, the white race is created (Adam and Eve).
So, basically, it is a theological buttress for white supremacy.
And heinous.
I’m not sure how Murray fits into all this. He has been accused of advocating the CIM teaching on the “two seeds.” He denies it.
You can see from the things that DLG has put up here that there are a lot of similarities between the CIM view of Genesis 1 and 2 and the Murray view.
I think that there are some differences, though. Murray is not a blatant white supremacist or racist – he denies it pretty vociferously.
A interesting side note on serpent seed theology. Another major proponent for this theology is William Branham. Branham is considered the “father” of the modern “healing” aka “Word of Faith” movement. Most of the extreme WOF people will point to Branham as an example. Interesting how some of the more extreme occultic and near heretical doctrines all are connected by the same people.
OK, now Branham is one of the Quiverful Cults? He has some harsh views on women if I’m remembering correctly.
Yes, Branham was a proponent of “Quiverfull” theology…Again, interesting how all the abhorrent theologies all seem to be connected.
DAVID, Murray is ‘connected’.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/summer/secret-identity
Several groups keep an eye on his organization and related ones. My own interest stems from my work as an advocate for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. When the white-supremist von Brunn shot their guard, Mr. Johns, I began to watch more closely the media reports on racist and anti-semitic groups and militias in our country.
I’m thinking this is a brick wall we can all agree on? Gold star for bringing us back to topic.
OK, it sounds a lot like the Aryan nation stuff – I never knew much about the white supremicist movement, but it sounds like it’s all similar – evil men looking for a way to defend racism. Somebody has some theory about the Lost Tribes of Israel being Europeans and only white people are God’s elect.
Simplistically Bess, yes you got it right. Though most who adhere to CI would not come out and say those things. There are of course variations on this theology. You have the “curse of Ham/Cannan” theology that says that the “mark” on Cannan was dark skin, thus blacks are under that curse. There are others…equally revolting.
My husband and I were just talking about the “curse of Ham” (had ham for dinner tonight after our talk) The other theory I’ve heard is that at Babel some of the people were “cursed” with darker skin. Lot’s of anti-christs around.
Thank you, Arnold Murray and followers, for allowing us to walk down “Supremacist Theology” avenue.
It’s important to get those names out there – so we can be better at discerning truth form lies. I’d never heard the name Arnold Murry before this.
Smuschany,
I picked up on the Murray connections with the multiple earth ages and the different day creation of the races. There is more on Murray that puts him a long way away from our brick wall.
Murray’s “serpent seed” theory is extended through the children of Cain, which Murray calls the “Kenites.” They are the source of all evil, according to AM, down through the ages. They usurped Judaism from the real Jews and were the ones who orchestrated the crucifixion of Jesus.
He loves to quote Hebrew and Greek words from his Strong’s Concordance. I’d lay my last twenty bucks that he knows nothing of Hebrew and Greek beyond his Strong’s and a few erroneous interpretations. But his pseudo-intellectualism seems to impress some people.
He has no real working knowledge (or at least if he does, he refuses to use it) of historical theology or historical biblical interpretation. He refuses to think systematically and will not consider the consequences of his theological assertions. He believes things that are mutually contradictory, but does not seem to care.
There is an online expose that says he advocates modalism, but I have not been able to personally verify this. It would not surprise me, however.
If it ducks like a quack, then it is a quack.
My advice to DLG is to get as far away from Murray as possible. He is a false teacher, deceiving and being deceived.
Jim G.
Do you guys have a lot of folks who go for Murray and his stuff? Or the CIM? I just don’t come across it here in Sioux City. It might be here, I just don’t encounter it. I don’t think Murray is on the local stations, so that may explain it.
Honestly, I thought the guy was long dead. I watched a few of his programs 15 years ago. Never could figure him out. Weird stuff.
Last I knew, didn’t he get famous for dating some famous country music star or something?
Hi Dave,
Just a couple of comments to get us back on track and away from the distraction above.
I don’t think I would come down as hard on N. T. Wright. He did a great job of clarifying himself (at least from my perspective) at ETS back in November. I think he has been caricatured and misunderstood by Evangelicals on this side of the pond. I think he offers some needed correctives to us on justification and a host of other topics. It is purely my opinion, but I think future historical theology will identify him as the greatest Christian thinker of our time, along with T. F. Torrance.
As for open theism, I cannot embrace it, but I have a little bit of sympathy toward it on one front–it is a genuine attempt to address the problem of evil. The traditional view of God’s sovereignty, as you put it, struggles big time with the philosophical problem of evil (That is, how can an all-good, all-powerful God allow evil, and such rampant, consistent evil, in his world?). Open theism is largely based on biblical exegesis, rather than theological presuppositions. In the end, I think open theism is found wanting in explaining how God is sovereign enough to know the future of created agents with free will. But, then again, classical Calvinism is found wanting in its explanation of the philosophical problem of evil. I’m honestly not sure that one problem is larger than the other. But it’s getting late and my brain is getting foggy.
Hope to chat more on this.
Jim G.
You made some good points here today. Take the rest of the night off, young man.
“………. found wanting in explaining how God is sovereign enough to know the future of created agents with free will.’
Can you explain this please?
Hi Bess,
I meant (and I obviously wasn’t very clear) that open theism cannot give very good answers to why predictive prophecy is accurate. Case in point (to borrow from Roger Olson), how could Jesus, from an open theist perspective, know Peter would deny him three times since Peter is a “free moral agent?” Open theism struggles with any sort of predictive prophecy involving the free choices of humans. That is what I meant to say.
Jim G.
Hi Jim,
Not sure I’m understanding. Are you saying God has limits? He can only be Sovereign if he controls all actions of man? Would it be impossible for God to create “free moral agents” and still be Sovereign?
Thanks for responding 🙂
Hi Bess,
I am only trying to show what I believe to be a fatal flaw in the system of open theism, that’s all. Predictive prophecy is, in my view, it’s “Achilles heel.”
But since you asked… :0)
Yes, God does have limits, but they are the limits imposed by logic (God cannot make a rock so big that he can’t move it) and by his nature (God cannot lie, for example).
In my view, God can still be sovereign without “micro-managing” every human endeavor. I even think he is more sovereign by allowing us some measure of freedom, but that is my opinion. So I don’t think it would be impossible for God to create “free moral agents” and still be sovereign. He created Adam.
I hope this clarifies.
Jim G.
Thanks Jim,
Still think I’m not getting you. Limits according to human logic? It sounds like you’re trying to impose human limitations on God. To me it seems like where we get into trouble is trying to believe that God functions as humans – God can only know the future because He controls the future – making God bound by space and time because as humans we cannot comprehend that God created time and space. I am definately not Open Theist – God has a plan and it will come to pass – but to me I think you limit God’s Sovereignty when you say He would be limited if man were a “free moral agent” I mean what is Sovereignty and how can Sovereignty be limited by anything and still be Sovereignty? I’m rambling here LOL Hope I’m making sense.
Hi Bess,
I think you think I am saying more than I am. :0) Now there’s a mouthful!
I’m not putting human limitations upon God. But the only reason humans have any sense of logic is because God put it there. :0) The only one who has put human limitations on God is God himself – God the Son became and remains human!
I never said that God would be limited if humans were free moral agents. What I did mean is that I think the view that sovereignty can co-exist with truly free will (and here I speak of pre-fall free will) is a more satisfying view of sovereignty than the “micro-management” model. That is my opinion, though.
Jim G.
Sorry Jim, I reread what you wrote and realized I was responding to what I thought you were saying instead of what you were actually saying. I think we agree sorta maybe 🙂 Thanks for the dialogue.
Hi JIM G.
The term ‘open theism’ is new to me, as DAVID has described it.
In particular, this part “They believe that He gives humans absolute free will, and adjusts His plan based on the choices we make. ”
I have no problem with God permitting choice. It is Judaic, it is biblical, it is of my own faith, to believe this.
But that part about ‘adjusting His plan’ is a strange concept. It doesn’t sound as though the ‘He’ being talked about is ‘God’: eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, unchanging, in short, sovereign.
Before the time of Calvin, the idea of a God who was totally ‘in-charge’ and at the same time ‘permitted choice’ was discussed and debated by many. There were efforts to ‘reconcile’ God’s sovereignty and our freedom of choice, within this debate.
Are you familiar with any of these in Judaism, among the Greek philosphers, and in Church history?
I am wondering if you have any thoughts, in particular, about the ‘sciencia media’ concept Molina proprosed ?
correction of spelling: SCIENTIA MEDIA
“God’s sovereignty and our freedom of choice”
1. God is sovereign.
2. God gave us freedom of choice.
3. Why? God wants us to love Him.
4. Love “without choice and free-will” is not real love.
5. Forced love is an oxymoron, not real love…
Will you have the freedom to reject God’s love when you are glorified in heaven?
If not, is it still love?
Jeff, I’m not sure if you intended this to be a rhetorical question, but it has a simple answer: yes.
So, what’s your point?
Frank & Larry –
“Yes” to the freedom to reject God’s love or “yes” to it still being love?
I believe that it will not be possible for us to not love God when we are glorified (that would be sin, and in our glorified state, we will not be able to sin.) I also believe that we will still love God in a very real way.
In a similar way, I also believe (as do many “free-willers”) that it is impossible for one who is a truly born again Christian to forsake his salvation and choose to reject God finally and suffer eternally in hell for it.
I was trying (maybe not so well) to show one case where an inability to do one thing in no way negates the contrary thing.
As a Christian, I do not have the freedom to revoke my salvation. Does that make my salvation not real?
I read someone write once (I believe it was John Piper) that man has no trouble being God centered as long as God is man centered. I sort of read that sentiment in DLGs comment.
That was my point. Maybe I should have written this first. 🙂
Hi Christiane,
I am familiar with the history of the sovereignty vs. free will debate. It goes back to Augustine vs. Pelagius and heated up in the realism vs. nominalism debates of the late Medieval period. The real Protestant introduction of it comes not from Calvin, but the exchange between Luther and Erasmus. Zwingli was also a committed believer in meticulous providence. Then Calvin came along a generation later.
I am familiar more with the contemporary adaptations of Molina, especially in a modified-Reformed doctrine of “molinism,” the belief that God is privy to counterfactual knowledge. I’m not convinced it is a way forward, though.
Some good reading material on this includes Terrance Tiessen’s “Providence and Prayer,” as well as Ken Keathley’s (dean of faculty at my alma mater, SEBTS) new book on Molinism and Sovereignty. The title escapes me at the moment, but I think it is “Salvation and Sovereignty.”
Jim G.
Thank you, JIM G.
I did read something about Keithley’s work on Molinism over at Peter Lumpkins’ blog a while back. Some mention was made of ‘the middle knowledge’ (scientia media). So Keithley seems a good lead. Thanks.
The Thomists and the Molinists fought it out in my Church for years. They finally were ordered not to call one another ‘heretics’.
Hi Christiane,
For a complete overview of all the approaches, nothing comes close to the Tiessen book. It is readable and he provides helpful charts to explain everything as well.
In the RCC, the nominalist-realist battle is still “real” too, I believe. That one goes back to Scotus’ challenge of Aquinas.
Jim G.
Yes, there is a still a wide range of ‘ideas’ on the issue among the faithful. .
The debate continues . . . with civility.
Hi Christiane,
That tweak gets you out of semi-pelagianism. Universal enabling grace (and there are many variations on that, both Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant) is, though contested, within the bounds of historical orthodoxy (little O), but human free will as the first actor is not. Good tweak!
Jim G.
Thanks to you, JIM G.
Another thought: that, through Adam, all mankind shares in being made in the ‘image of God’. Can it be that our ‘freedom of will’ is a part of the package of our being formed in ‘the image of God’ ?
Hi Christiane,
I would say so, but I would caution that our will is not as free as Adam’s was pre-fall. Our will is now adversely affected by the fall, so that we are not always free to choose the good. We can make some “good” choices, but consistently and continually choosing the good is no longer available to us.
Jim G.
Hi JIM G.
That is an interesting thought. I have never believed in the whole ‘total depravity’ thing, but I do believe in what is called ‘our wounded human nature’. I definitely believe in it, yes.
Maybe that is why St. Paul said this:
” What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.” (Romans 7:15)
Sometimes St. Paul’s honesty is endearing, as he says what some of us know to be true about ourselves.
Hi Christiane,
The “total depravity” debate is one that is pretty famous within Roman Catholicism and early Protestantism.
In one corner is the legacy of Irenaeus (who was followed by Aquinas) that original righteousness (the “likeness of God”) was lost at the fall, but the mental and intellectual powers (the “image of God”) was unaffected.
In the other corner is the legacy of Augustine (who was followed by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin) that says both original righteousness was lost and the human intellectual and volitional powers were adversely affected. Luther, a Hebrew expert, rightly saw the language of Gen 1:26 as a Hebrew parallelism (image and likeness) rather than two separate aspects of creation, as did Irenaeus and Aquinas.
I think, exegetically, Augustine, Luther, and co. are in the right on this one.
Jim G.
And yet St. Paul calls us to the ‘obedience of faith’:
if God speaks a truth, we believe it in our mind;
if He make a promise, we are confident in it;
if He tells us to do something, we must do it.
Weakened in the Fall of Adam, our free will still is able to choose or reject God’s grace.
I don’t think that freedom (or responsibility, if you will) was destroyed.
Augustine can be quoted on both sides of the issue, and has been down through the centuries.
This remains always new;
this ancient call of God to ‘choose life’:
“19 I call heaven and earth today to witness against you:
I have set before you life and death,
the blessing and the curse.
Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live …”
(Deuteronomy 30)
Hi Christiane,
Your statement “Weakened in the Fall of Adam, our free will still is able to choose or reject God’s grace.” may need nuanced a bit, even to stay in the good graces of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Your statement is very close to, if not as it is stated, semi-pelagianism, which was condemned at the 6th century Synod of Orange. The context of your Deuteronomy quote is one in which the grace of God had already been provided within the safe context of the covenant with Israel.
The context of grace in the New Covenant might help you restate.
Jim G.
Hello JIM G.
Thank you for responding. I think I understand what you are pointing at. And I can see myself, where the tweaking is needed:
It is a given that God’s Grace ALWAYS precedes our acts in relation to salvation, be it believing or obeying God’s commandments.
Our freewill plays a role when we decide whether to cooperate or not with God’s given grace.
I hope that helps clarify.
I am so enjoying our discussion, and I thank you for your helpfulness.
I am trying to get involved over here again and it looks like I picked a good day to do so. I finally made it through all of the comments and learned a little something today. I hadn’t heard of Murray before that I can ever recall.
He must not have much presence here in the Upper Midwest.
This is where assurance comes in. When we are convicted by the Holy Spirit of a sin and do not repent and mortify that sin, we lose assurance. But conviction of sin may happen incrementally. There are sins that seem acceptable to us, like a nice mild case of pride. But once we come to a place in our walk when we realize that we are sinning, then it is a heart that yearns for God that will put such a sin away. Something pretty obvious, like homosexuality and other forms of adultery, require a fairly warped hermeneutic to try to justify; and it generally doesn’t get that badly warped by being a true follower of Christ. So, there is an inverse relationship between the magnitude of self-justification and assurance of salvation in the life of a believer.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Why build a wall, brick or otherwise, if not to affect a separation? Why so much energy on the Christian being other than what he or she perceives is deficient in the other? If we have to go to such lengths to assert our difference, perhaps the audience is not really the other, but rather the self, instead? If, as a Christian, I, having a need to convince another that I am a Christian, due to a particular set of beliefs, then, perhaps I have little foundation on which to build an argument to which the other would be receptive? And especially why would we create even more division in the church by casting doubt on the efficacy of another’s faith when a deficiency of faith is operative in our own experience? Might one work out one’s salvation with fear and trembling without trying to work out the salvation of another, too?
We put up brick walls to separate real Christians from people like you. If you’re going to hold to unbiblical positions that are flatly contradicted by scripture, you have that right. What you don’t have the right to do is peddle your unbiblical filth in the church and possibly lead a true Christian astray with your false teaching
Joe: We put up brick walls to separate real Christians from people like you.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Jesus walked among sinners. He loved them, too.
But He did not tolerate or show the least bit of paitience with false teachers.
Norm, true love does not mean we allow those we love to harm themselves or others (especially eternal harm), without some degree of intervention.
Sometimes, that intervention might even seem harsh or callous. In fact, Paul used the phrase, “give him over to Satan,” in order to bring someone to the point of true repentance.
So, I don’t think you can say your approach is loving and one like Joe’s or mine is “unloving.” The issue is not love versus hate but truth versus error.
Something to think about:
Can, or should, or must the following scripture be considered, when applying any of St. Paul’s specific teachings on ‘discipline’ ???
5
” If anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure (not to exaggerate) to all of you.
6
This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person,
7
so that on the contrary you should forgive and encourage him instead, or else the person may be overwhelmed by excessive pain.
8
Therefore, I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.
9
For this is why I wrote, to know your proven character, whether you were obedient in everything.
10
Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ,
11
so that we might not be taken advantage of by Satan, for we are not unaware of his purposes.”
2 Cor. 2:5-11
Nope. Doesn’t apply to false to false teachers. Not one tiny bit. They are a cancer and like any cancer you cut them out.
Frank and Larry: Norm, true love does not mean we allow those we love to harm themselves or others (especially eternal harm), without some degree of intervention. Sometimes, that intervention might even seem harsh or callous. In fact, Paul used the phrase, “give him over to Satan,” in order to bring someone to the point of true repentance. So, I don’t think you can say your approach is loving and one like Joe’s or mine is “unloving.” The issue is not love versus hate but truth versus error.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): [1] And true love does not misrepresent another or judge another prior to an adequate understanding of one’s beliefs. [2] And true love acknowledges the need for and manifests humility. [3] And true loves spends far, far, far less time on deciding who is in and who is out and concentrates, instead, on keeping lines of communication open, and praying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” [4] See [2].
Could you back any of those accusations up exegetically?
Dave: Could you back any of those accusations up exegetically?
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Does one, then, wish to assert the following?
[1] True love misrepresents another or judges another prior to an adequate understanding of one’s beliefs.
[2] True love does not acknowledge the need for and manifestation of humility.
[3] True loves spends far, far, far more time on deciding who is in and who is out and does not concentrate, instead, on keeping lines of communication open, and praying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.”
[4] See [2].
You gave a definition of “true love” (implying, perhaps, that those you were answering were not exhibiting it?)
Your definitions involves the fact that one does not misrepresent others. Fine.
Then, you defined true love as humility. Certainly, humility is a good thing, but your implication is that saying that the Word is absolute truth and that Christ is the ONLY way would be a lack of humility and therefore contrary to love.
Then, you come to your coup de grace – that true love is inclusive (non-exclusionary).
You are essentially defining love as being liberal, inclusive and not a fundamentalist.
I’m asking you to show that this is the biblical definition of love. I think you have twisted a biblical concept and read your own ideas into the revelation of God’s perfect Word.
I’m simply asking you to defend your ideas from God’s Word.
Sorry I just saw this and am immdiately reminded of
Wuv True wuv 😉
In order for Nawm to defend his points from the Bible, he would have to believe the Bible is more than a book of fairy tales. Furhter, since, in his view, the Bible is not the source of absolute truth he’s certainly not going to attempt to back up his drivel with scripture.
I can’t quote the ‘litany of humility’ here, but this is appropriate for this blog, I think:
“You have been told, O man, what is good,
and what the LORD requires of you:
Only to do the right and to love goodness,
and to walk humbly with your God” (Mi 6:8).
In this world, there is a great distance between prideful people and people of humility.
In eternity, there will be even a greater distance.
Trevin Wax has the ‘litany of humility’ quoted on
his blog, Kingdom People, here:
http://trevinwax.com/2010/09/12/litany-of-humility-3/
We’re back on this merry-go-round again?
Norm asserts a definition of “true love” that asserts an unbiblical definition of humility, and you start painting it as if we are opposed to humility.
Just because I don’t buy into Norm’s unbiblical definition of humility doesn’t mean I am opposed to humility.
It means I do not accept that humility demands that I denigrate the uniqueness of the Cross.
True wuv is necessary for marwiage that bwessed ewent.
Everything’s so funny tonight. I have to stay up late because our youth are coming home late tonight since the weather is predicted to be bad tomorrow.
Dave: Norm asserts a definition of “true love” ….
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): As you recall, Dave, it was Frank and Larry that raised the issue of ‘true love’. Yet, you decided it was I, exclusively, that needed to anchor my words in scripture with an exegetical exercise. Then we have the musings of Joe on my fairy tale beliefs. Moreover, we get from you that my attributes apparently mean that ‘true love’ must be liberals but must exclude fundamentalists given a need for open lines of communication and prayers of repentance. Do fundamentalists not believe in open communication lines and prayers of repentance, but instead think judging the worthiness of another is a more primary task? Perhaps that is the case for some fundamentalists, yeah even some liberals, too; but it is not the orientation of either of those that I hold in esteem.
The Sermon on the Mount gives us a clear picture of how to live and how such promotes and sustains a regard for the other, which when coupled with humility promotes justice and peace. I am also reminded of the Carmen Christi and our own need to embrace the power of humility so that God’s power may be known and manifest in the world. Last, the word becoming flesh was the opening of a line of communication that to all those that gave reflection could only praise God for God’s love and grace. God, through Christ, was and is reconciling the world to God’s self, and such is perhaps a bit easier when we cease being a hindrance. That we would all humble ourselves before God to be God’s instrument to love and serve that which he loved and continues to love enough to give us the Son and the Spirit.
Joe: But He did not tolerate or show the least bit of paitience with false teachers.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Did he place a wall between himself and them? And, if one does not have the insight of Jesus, is it wise for one to be closed to the other by demonstrating no tolerance or patience? NT Wright, a world-wide respected Christian scholar and minister (i.e., priest, bishop) but actually a suspect Christian? If a wall is to be built around Wright, what would compel the non-Christian to want a relationship with the one building such?
Did he place a wall between himself and them?
Did He fellowship with them? Did He spend time teaching them? He pretty much called them a brood of vipers and told the people to recognize that they were false teachers. Remember, your assertion was that He loved them and walked among them. Scripture (which I know you believe is a book of fairy tales) has a different testimony.
And, if one does not have the insight of Jesus, is it wise for one to be closed to the other by demonstrating no tolerance or patience?
I’m completely comfortable with showing no tolerance or paitience towards those, like you, who preach a false gospel and deny the true gospel.
NT Wright, a world-wide respected Christian scholar and minister (i.e., priest, bishop) but actually a suspect Christian?
I have to admit not reading any of his stuff and having only a passing knowledge of him and his unchrisitian theology but the last time I checked, and admittedly it has been a while, we don’t determine whether someone is a false teacher by their status.
If a wall is to be built around Wright, what would compel the non-Christian to want a relationship with the one building such?
Great question. Here’s one for you? Why would I care if they don’t want a relationship because they see Christians shunning false teachers? So, aberant, unbiblical theology is to be tolerated because we might offend a non-Christian? Wow. Just, wow.
Joe: Did He fellowship with them? Did He spend time teaching them? He pretty much called them a brood of vipers and told the people to recognize that they were false teachers.
Norm: Again, did he place a wall between himself and them?
Joe: Remember, your assertion was that He loved them and walked among them. Scripture (which I know you believe is a book of fairy tales) has a different testimony.
Norm: Jesus did not love the false teachers? Jesus did not love sinners?
Joe: I’m completely comfortable with showing no tolerance or paitience towards those, like you, who preach a false gospel and deny the true gospel.
Norm: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. God so loved the world. I am the way, the truth ….
Joe: I have to admit not reading any of his stuff and having only a passing knowledge of him and his unchrisitian theology but the last time I checked, and admittedly it has been a while, we don’t determine whether someone is a false teacher by their status.
Norm: Not reading any of his stuff but having a passing knowledge of … his unchristian theology? Thus walls, justified for what we know, are also justified for what we don’t know, too?
Joe: Great question. Here’s one for you? Why would I care if they don’t want a relationship because they see Christians shunning false teachers? So, aberant, unbiblical theology is to be tolerated because we might offend a non-Christian? Wow. Just, wow.
Norm: I don’t think anyone is going to fault you for not accepting what you perceive to be an “aberrant perspective”, but being a Christian that shuns false teachers, sinners, any combination thereof, is how you wish to be known? If grace cannot be extended to one, why would the other think it could be extended to himself? Is the height, depth, and width of a wall the means for asserting, “we care?” “God cares?” “Jesus makes a difference?”
There is only ONE Teacher . . . never forget that, JOE
“68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and are convinced that You are the Holy One of God.”
Again, did he place a wall between himself and them?
Yeah, I’d call telling them they were a brood of vipers perverting God’s word and doing the work of thei father, Satan, doing pretty much that. He did not fellowship with them.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. God so loved the world. I am the way, the truth ….
Yeah, you know, you say that and try to sound all sincere and bible believing. And folks who had not read what you’ve written on this blog and else where might not recognize you for the lost person you are. However, and you’re not nearly man enough to admit this, you believe, among other things, that people from other religions can be saved without ever hearing of or knowing Christ. Therefore, you do not preach the gospel but a perversion of it.
Not reading any of his stuff but having a passing knowledge of … his unchristian theology? Thus walls, justified for what we know, are also justified for what we don’t know, too?
Funny, I didn’t realize that, in addition to their status, we have to have an encyclopediac knowledge of someone’s teachings to judge them as a false teacher. You learn something knew every day.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Again, did he place a wall between himself and them?
Joe: Yeah, I’d call telling them they were a brood of vipers perverting God’s word and doing the work of thei father, Satan, doing pretty much that. He did not fellowship with them.
Norm: Joe, that there were differences in perspective, heated exchanges, and pointed speech is not and has not been disputed (and recall Jesus reacted very strongly to Peter when he challenged Jesus on a point concerning mission), what seems to be in question is whether Jesus built a wall between himself and sinners, notwithstanding one’s false teacher status.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. God so loved the world. I am the way, the truth ….
Joe: Yeah, you know, you say that and try to sound all sincere and bible believing. And folks who had not read what you’ve written on this blog and else where might not recognize you for the lost person you are. However, and you’re not nearly man enough to admit this, you believe, among other things, that people from other religions can be saved without ever hearing of or knowing Christ. Therefore, you do not preach the gospel but a perversion of it.
Norm: As you perceive me, I acknowledge your evaluation, but you apparently say such about a good amount of people on this forum that you disagree with.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Not reading any of his stuff but having a passing knowledge of … his unchristian theology? Thus walls, justified for what we know, are also justified for what we don’t know, too?
Joe: Funny, I didn’t realize that, in addition to their status, we have to have an encyclopediac knowledge of someone’s teachings to judge them as a false teacher. You learn something knew every day.
Norm: Joe, recall your words, “I have to admit not reading any of his stuff ….” Given ‘any’ in the assertion, why even suggest that one, apparently, needs “encyclopedic knowledge”? Further, given your statement and inclusion of ‘any’, what, then, would be the basis for casting needless doubt on one that many fine Christian people consider an important Christian writer. Perhaps after reading him or having personal conversations with him, your view will not change, but a basis for your assertion would then be understandable, but as it now stands, you have seemingly spoken judgment on one’s beliefs that you are not, admittedly, (and likely by the standards of many/most in this forum) sufficiently aware, at least by his formal writings. Are we to assume you have had personal conversations with the former bishop? When ‘false teachers’ afford more civility than a ‘child of God’, what perceived credibility will the latter have among those that they seek to influence for Christ? What influence would then the child of God even have among his own?
Hi Joe,
What of Wright’s theology is “unchristian?” I don’t agree with Wright on every point, but I don’t think I would call it “unchristian.” His work on the historicity of the resurrection is among the best ever done, for example.
Jim G.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): [1] And true love does not misrepresent another or judge another prior to an adequate understanding of one’s beliefs. [2] And true love acknowledges the need for and manifests humility. [3] And true loves spends far, far, far less time on deciding who is in and who is out and concentrates, instead, on keeping lines of communication open, and praying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” [4] See [2].””
Norm, I don’t disagree with your statement and never made any statement contrary to what you wrote above. I simply challenge your statements–implicit and explicit–that you have a corner on love because you “grade on a sliding scale” so to speak, instead of clearly telling someone what is true or what is false when their eternal soul is in jeopardy. I just don’t agree that that fits a true definition of “agape” love. (Yes, I understand that is redundant).
Frank L: … instead of clearly telling someone what is true or what is false when their eternal soul is in jeopardy ….
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): The assumption here seems to be that I don’t share the truth (or at least give that such is important), as I understand it. If such is being asserted, however, let me assure you that it is not the case. That one might disagree with me is not that same as stating that I am not operating within the bounds of what I consider to be with integrity. That (i.e., acting with integrity) is all we can expect from anyone, and allowing that such is the case for the other is a foundation on which meaningful relationships may be built.
You believe that those of other faiths can and do go to heaven apart from faith in Christ. You, therefore, don’t believe the truth. Since you don’t believe the truth, you don’t share the truth.
Truth can be presented in ways both good and bad. In fact, truth can sometimes be presented so badly that it will turn the recipient away from the truth. We must take care with that.
But untruth is always presented badly. It is never helpful nor loving to tell someone untruth or to allow them to remain in ignorance of the truth if they do not know it.
It is only loving to declare that people outside of faith in Christ can be saved IF YOU GET TO DECIDE. You don’t. I understand the allure of universalism, or religious pluralism. But Christians, based upon the revelation that we have, have absolutely no reason to believe either are true.
If faith in Christ is the only way of salvation, then the only truly loving and generous thing to tell people is that very thing. Yes, tell it well, instead of badly, but tell the truth. Someone may wish with all their heart that there were more than one cure for the disease with which they suffer. But if there is only one cure, then the only thing to do is offer them that cure.
Bill Mac: … is never helpful nor loving to tell someone untruth ….
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): This is the issue? That people are sharing with another what they (i.e., the sender) perceive to be untrue?
Norm: Christians are greatly perceived to be unloving or rigid if they proclaim salvation through Christ alone by faith alone. But that is what scripture says and that is all we have to go on. That is the heart of the great commission, given by Christ Himself. A person may truly believe in religious pluralism or moral relativism, but they cannot get those beliefs from scripture. There is much in scripture that is unclear and difficult to interpret. Salvation by faith alone in Christ alone is not one of them.
I fully understand the desire people have to assure those outside the Christian faith that they too have the truth and are “saved.” I just have no idea where that idea comes from. I have no clue why any Christian could believe it was true. I understand why they want it to be true. I just don’t know how they justify the idea.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Probably some think Christians may be a bit bigoted due to their beliefs, but I would think most non-Christians are OK with Christians believing as they wish, for the other would wish the same for him- or herself from those different from him- or herself. With many it is not the belief system of Christians that they find distasteful, even if they disagree with it, rather it is the attitude in which the system is presented. That you have “no idea” is not disputed, nor is the integrity in why you would assert such, and for me, the integrity of another that would assert the plausibility of plurality based on scripture is not questioned, either. That the one you assert wishes for his beliefs to be true is an accurate statement, as is the statement that you are no less given to such, as well. Both you and he may justify their beliefs on scripture, but given competing hermeneutical principles and presuppositions, it is understandable that different perspectives may arise from the same data. My work with data over the years have taught me that data may support competing hypotheses and my experience as an individual, that has tried to be open to the leading of God’s Spirit, has taught me that reality is a bit more complex than my richest conceptualizations. In the pursuit of truth, it helps to be a bit humble in one’s pronouncements. I applaud your questioning of my perspective, for I question it myself at times, for unless I am willing to be open to its disconfirmation, I have no basis for its confirmation. I invite you to hold to your faith in a similar manner.
This is, essentially, a denial of the claims of Christ in scripture, Norm.
We cannot just say, “Jesus is my way.” You are right that the world would accept us if we said that.
But Jesus did not claim to be “a” way to God. He claimed to be THE way. THE truth. The life. He said that no one comes to the Father except through him.
So, we can buy into your politically-correct, world-pleasing tolerance of everyone’s ideas, or we can be faithful to Christ and to his gospel.
Interesting that when Jesus condemned the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira it was because they tolerated false doctrine and sinful practice.
I am fully aware that being faithful to the Bible will offend liberals, it will offend the world. But shouldn’t we be more concerned with offending the Savior? Didn’t Jesus promise us the night before he was crucified that since the world hated him, it would hate us if we followed him?
We can make ourselves popular and acceptable in the world, if we deny the exclusivity and power of the Cross. But that we must never do.
Dave: This is, essentially, a denial of the claims of Christ in scripture, Norm.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Given the ambiguity of what ‘this’ is referring to, I can’t speak to your point.
Dave: We cannot just say, “Jesus is my way.” You are right that the world would accept us if we said that.
Norm: Dave, these are your words which carry a particular meaning that is not clear to me, thus I can’t speak to it.
Dave: But Jesus did not claim to be “a” way to God. He claimed to be THE way. THE truth. The life. He said that no one comes to the Father except through him.
Norm: Yes, that is what he said, and I believe just that.
Dave: So, we can buy into your politically-correct, world-pleasing tolerance of everyone’s ideas, or we can be faithful to Christ and to his gospel.
Norm: Tolerance is one thing, Dave, acceptance is another. And I repeat, yet again, I am not a theological relativist or one given to theological syncretism.
Dave: Interesting that when Jesus condemned the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira it was because they tolerated false doctrine and sinful practice.
Norm: In this country, Dave, everone has a right to their own set of beliefs, wherether they include or exclude God, but again, tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. I don’t agree that scripture forbids women in ministry, although many Christians do. I tolerate their beliefs, but I don’t accept them.
Dave: I am fully aware that being faithful to the Bible will offend liberals, it will offend the world. But shouldn’t we be more concerned with offending the Savior? Didn’t Jesus promise us the night before he was crucified that since the world hated him, it would hate us if we followed him?
Norm: I am a liberal and you don’t offend me for your beliefs or even what you say about me. Enough of this “persecution talk”, that is, “we are suffering the disdain of the world given our proclaimed message.” Very few Christians in this country suffer for speaking, but some do, however. But many more suffer for acting in God’s name to alieviate suffering and injustice, both the fundamentalist and the liberal. But those are not the one’s crying out, “oh look at us, we are not liked.” Given the attitude of some Christians and their manner of presentation, many in the world are not offended, they just don’t care what is said; that is, after some Christians beating the drum with the same attitude decade after decade, they (i.e., non-Christian) quit listening. Yes, they are aware that Christians are active, but they just don’t care anymore.
Dave: We can make ourselves popular and acceptable in the world, if we deny the exclusivity and power of the Cross. But that we must never do.
Norm: How about we make ourselves useful and loving to all and not let the estimation of our work be determined by whether or not we are liked by some, but thoughtfully consider, however, what we are doing to attenuate our influence? We’ll love them, nonetheless, freely and without expectation. Some Christians are so locked up in knowing that they forget to live and learn how that just might help them to know.
I agree with you Norm. We do not know what true persecution is. We whine like we do, but we have not been persecuted in this country. I also agree that the world does not hate us in the manner being constantly referred to here. Thankfully. I especially agree with your last line on your last comment. If we are unloved, it’s not because of the message of the Cross. Most times the reaction gotten from the world is well deserved.
It seems that Norm is labeled and not to be listened to by many in this group.That is wrong in my opinion. I have followed and agreed with what he has said on this particular point. It is straight from scripture and to ignore it would be to the sad detriment of the SB. Dave you tell others not to get personal but that is exactly what you are doing here. I think you should really read what Norm is actually saying, check it out with scripture. The result of that may just surprise you.
Hi BILL MAC,
I take you at your word that you really are wanting to know how ‘they’ justify the ‘idea’.
Well, the ‘idea’ goes way back, and the ‘idea’ is a part of Christian history. Here are some origins, from Scripture (St. Paul), from Justin Martyr, and from Gregory of Nazianzus:
Around the year A.D. 150, the great Christian apologist, philosopher, and layman St. Justin Martyr offered this assessment of how one “belongs” to the Church of Christ, and specifically mentions the pagan philosopher Socrates:
Christ is the Logos [Divine Word] of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, and Heraclitus”.
This statement seems to be a very clear example of what St. Paul must have meant when writing to the Romans a century earlier:
For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus (Romans 2:14-16).
Thus, according to the thought of St. Paul, if a person obeys the law of God written on his heart, he is obeying Christ the Logos and is essentially accepting the Spirit of Christ, even if he is not fully aware of this.
Following Romans 8:9 (“you are in the spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. Who ever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”), it seems reasonable to conclude that a “just pagan” like Socrates belongs to Christ and in some way shares in the membership of His Body, the Church, even without a formal awareness or an outward, visible manifestation of this fact.
One more example of this broad understanding of membership in the partially invisible and mysterious Body of Christ comes from the moving funeral oration of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, which he offered on the occasion of his father’s death in A.D. 374:
“He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life.”
“Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body”
These words of Gregory of Nazianzus are explained fully in the Gospel of Lord Christ, when those who did not live ‘in Christ’ and who call upon Him by Name at the Judgment are told, ‘depart from Me’.
‘Just because a mouse is in the cookie jar, doesn’t make him a cookie.’ (Caspar ten Boom)
“so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess.”
These words of Gregory of Nanzianzus speak to how today many Christian people understand that there are those whose Christ-like lives ‘anticipate their faith’, and who may lack only the Holy Name of Him whom they already follow in their hearts.
These words of Gregory of Nanzianzus speak to how today many Christian people understand that there are those whose Christ-like lives ‘anticipate their faith’, and who may lack only the Holy Name of Him whom they already follow in their hearts.
That’s really sweet and all but the Bible is very clear – there is only ONE NAME given under heaven by which men must be SAVED. Not “oh as long as your sweet and don’t ever talk about hell and stuff – just be a really good person and you’re in.” It’s CHRISTianity not WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIVE AND your in anity.
I’m not willing to risk the eternal salvation of people based upon the speculative theology of a couple of 2nd and 4th century people. Not when John 3:18 (among others) makes it pretty clear. I also doubt very much that Paul would be happy that his epistles would be used to promote the idea that the Gentiles could be saved outside of faith in Christ.
Hi BILL MAC,
You wanted to know how it could be that people saw that ‘idea’. In a ‘dialogue’, the purpose is to understand, not necessarily to agree.
I know of one Baptist lady that couldn’t even get past St. Ignatius’ writings, and he was first century and was a colleague of St. Polycarp who studied with St. John.
The writings of the Early Fathers are not a part of your faith.
HOWEVER, if you want to know something about how the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and about Christology developed in the early Church, the writings of the Fathers can be helpful.
Their writings also chronicle much of the battle of the early Church against heresies, some of which are beginning to reappearing now in several fundamentalist denominations.
Their writings also speak of how the early Christians lived and worshiped together. So, as ‘historical’ documents, they are interesting to read. Don’t be surprised if you can’t find much to agree with among those writings. You won’t.
What nonsense!!! Paul’s statement in Romans most certainly did NOT mean that there are people who have not heard of the gospel or Christ and follow other gods who are still saved by God through Christ even though they don’t know it.
Quite obviously, to anyone with a lick of sense, Paul’s point is that ALL people stand before God guilty–Jews guilty of the law of God they knew, Gentiles guilty of the law of God put in man’s conscience.