Your answer was a good one! Of course it matters what we believe, and we find that all through the Bible, and throughout the post-Apostolic age. The only thing I would mention is that one can make a good biblical case for fighting oppression, etc.
Apparently it is not ok to say somebody is ridiculous for believing certain things, but it is ok to say they are going to hell and their soul destroyed for believing those thing. Very well, since it is the only thing allowed here… you people are going to hell for believing things like that. Justification and proof? Jesus said, “as you judge others, so also shall you be judged.”
Richard, thanks for sharing that piece by Jacoby. I’ve never been one to choose a position because it is less offensive to my anthropocentric sensibilities (after all, I’m reformed 
), but the arguments he presents from scripture have challenged me to take a closer look at some of those passages in Berean fashion.
1 Like
It’s pretty well accepted in Christian theology that some form of hell exists, and that many in the afterlife will end up either annihilated or under divine punishment of some kind. You may disagree, and that’s fine, but as this is a Christian forum it seems a little silly to expect Christians here to not believe basic Christian doctrine, though we may disagree and engage in discourse over the details.
3 Likes
Richard, thank you for these observations - which are a good challenge for me as I have been processing questions around all this in recent months. Since I have been openly critical here of “guardians of doctrine”, the reminder from Paul that you post above is a good counter-point for me to ponder. Indeed, I agree with some of the things you write, but think that there is much that needs push-back too. I think you are right that belief in God could/would have been more-or-less presumed (at least among Israelites) in that day.
Here I must disagree. If it is the word “social” that scares you, then find some other word. But you don’t have leave (as a Bible believing Christian) to drop the payload delivered by that word, because you can hardly read a Bible passage anywhere without tripping over a call to live rightly and justly, and/or (more often) the excoriating rebukes when God’s people fail to do this. From Micah who tells us our business (far from being the offering of thousands of sacrifices) is really to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. Or from the new testament, the words from our very own Lord about the sheep and the goats would alone lay to rest the notion that our salvation is an easy and done deal the moment recite a few right words and believe a few right things. The unfortunate recipients of the Lord’s admonition “away from me you evil doers, … I don’t know you” was addressed to religious folks who had all their doctrinal 'i’s dotted and 't’s crossed. If all this doesn’t lay to rest the mistaken notion that the gospel has no social expectations, then I can’t help you.
Christ made himself to be about the business of proclaiming good news to the poor, healing for the sick, freedom for the captives … and if you insist on trying to spiritualize all that away, then various passages (including in James) are waiting to thwart you in that move as well. “Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by what I do.” and “Faith without works is dead.”
So yes, while it is true that we cannot save ourselves, it is also not true that our salvation is just a “one-off” singular event after which we can relax because we are now “in”. God is constantly saving us so that we can do those good works he has prepared for us to do. What Christ already did for us is a done deal. That much is true. But now Christ calls us to be perfect like our Father in heaven - and that does not happen over night, and indeed we can rest assured that that is not something that anybody can observe “now I’ve finally done it - I’m perfect like God”. So I propose it is much more biblical to see our salvation being worked out in us.
Gotta go for now - busy weekend! But in any case thanks for these challenges.
5 Likes
@Richard_Wright1 and @mitchellmckain I appreciate your posts above, with @Mervin_Bitikofer and @Laura, @beaglelady. I wonder if we’re dealing with a different definition here. I’d appreciate @ManiacalVesalius’ opinion.
I would agree that accepting the right things helps us in our relationship to God. However, I rebel inwardly to think that the actual knowledge of something is what saves us. It doesn’t seem fair. After all, I don’t think that God judges my 5 year old daughter based on her incomplete knowledge of salvation; though she does sin, I don’t think that God will throw her into hell for either the sin or the lack of knowledge. I also don’t think that God will judge those based on acceptance of something they have never heard of (those who have not heard), or can 't understand (mentally challenged)–but on their repentance. Mr McKain wrote of a God who judges based on truthfulness–maybe he’s had some PTSD with regard to preaching an unkind God (I think, based on my response to some sermons, I’ve had the same).
Matthew Bates wrote a book called “Salvation by Allegiance Alone,” approved by Scot McKnight and Michael Bird, two of my favorite writers with great credentials, which argues that “faith” is the word “pistis,” more at accepting God’s/ Christ’s lordship rather than believing in a creed.
Apparently, that’s the main term used for faith and belief in the NT (the book is much more in depth, and I’ve unfortunately only skimmed it after I bought it; but there are reviews Matthew Bates - Salvation By Allegiance Alone (Baker Academic, 2017) | OnScript
In this view, faith is not
- The opposite of evidence assessment
- A leap in the dark
- The opposite of works
- An “It’s all good” attitude
- Reducible to intellectual assent (pp15-25)
He argues:
- The true climax of the gospel–Jesus’ enthronement–has generally been deemphasized or omitted from the gospel
- Consequently, “pistis” been misaimed and inappropriately nuanced with respect to the gospel. It is regarded as “trust” in Jesus’ righteousness alone or “faith” that Jesus’ death covers my sins rather than “allegiance” to Jesus as king.
- Final salvation is not about attainment of heaven but about embodied participation in the new creation. when the true goal of salvation is recognized, terms such as “faith,” “works,” “righteousness,” and “the gospel” can be more accurately reframed.
- Once it is agreed that salvation is by allegiance alone, matters that have traditionally divided Catholics and Protestants–the essence of the gospel, faith alone versus works, declared righteousness versus infused righteousness–are reconfigured in ways that may prove helpful for reconciliation. (p9)
James writes in 1:27 “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Psalm 51:16, 1716 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 My sacrifice, O God, is[b] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.
But I certainly want to teach my daughter more, as she grows, about the God who sent his Son to die for us and identify with us. And our relationship to God grows as we learn more about him day to day, and repent and with His help, as with Eustace, accept HIs purification. George Macdonald observed in one of his books that with time and learning more of God, we realize there are things that we are ashamed of in ourselves, even though a few days ago we weren’t aware of them.
I’m not being dogmatic or unrestricted about this. I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks.
4 Likes
I don’t think anybody is saying that. I know that I’m not. But what you believe is important.
For Christians with a creed, it’s not about “believing in a creed.” The creeds state what we believe: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ…”
2 Likes
@Mervin_Bitikofer @beaglelady @Randy
The curious thing here is that the words “social gospel” are entirely his. I was just quoting the Bible myself. What I said comes mostly from Isaiha chapter 1. But then I can see how this wouldn’t be so popular among the Gnostics (i.e. the “my beliefs save me and your beliefs are sending you to hell” crowd). Though this is hardly just in the Old Testament, there is also Matthew 25 and epistle of James, but then perhaps like Luther and Marcion, he just picks the parts of the Bible he likes and describes everything which disagrees with such as “straw.”
But if you want to talk facts here rather than just empty rhetoric, I don’t support the real historical “social gospel” movement which sought to reduce the Bible to the mandate of social reform alone. Anybody who has been paying the slightest attention and sought to find out what I believe would know this. And I am really not interested in engaging someone who does not make such efforts before throwing around accusations. I really have had enough of such people.
Supporting a creed as a definition of a religion is one thing. I do that too. But replacing God with the creed as the source of your salvation is something else. I will certainly continue to repudiate that.
No PTSD, remember that I wasn’t raised Christian. I came to Christianity from science, liberalism, psychology, and existentialism by looking at the Bible with an open mind and seeing if I could see anything of value in it. What I found remarkable is that so many of the liberal criticisms (with which I was raised) of the Christian establishment, were right there in the Bible itself. That is a large part of what made me a believer, and this is the explanation for why I so strongly oppose the the distortions preaching an unkind God, treating the threat/promise tactics evangelism as the mafia-like racketeering which is all amounts to. As I have said before, my hope is that all these things which make Christianity so useful for power and manipulation will eventually be purged from the religion, for then the claim that this comes from God will be more believable.
3 Likes
Salvation is achieved by acting out the life of Christ. That’s what it means to “take up your cross” and to “put on Christ”. People will be judged based on the decisions they made concerning the knowledge available to them. Little children aren’t at risk of hellfire since they’re still innocent and don’t have the knowledge of good and evil.
Matthew 19:14: Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
2 Likes
My way of thinking solves this without making exceptions or by pretending that children are completely innocent. Though perhaps the passage telling us to become as children is an important hint. I think it is really about how children are still absorbed by the learning task of life – learning from everyone and everything. In this world being so wide open makes them vulnerable frankly, but in the next, that vulnerability becomes their greatest strength, connecting them with those who are ready to help.
1 Like
Depends on what age category you mean by “children”. Can a 2 year old be evil? Matthew 19:14 seems to be indicative to me.
1 Like
That is a great question. I am not sure what accountability really is. Throwing a tantrum is sometimes our way of figuring out the world in the safe place of our homes. I don’t know even how much adults control things by extension…and maybe understanding how God looks at children helps us understand adults as we learn, too.
Agree. Thanks. This is beautiful.
1 Like
No I don’t think so. I frequently point out that selfishness in an infant is perfectly righteous. Their own well-being is the extent of their responsibility and all they can handle.
But then there is the assertion of the Bible that nobody can say they are without sin. I take this to mean that with human language we also acquire a memetic inheritance of bad habits (i.e. sin). But I then I think this is all about the competition of diametrically opposed forces within us (creative forces of learning versus the destructive forces of bad habits) rather than somebody passing judgement about whether we are worthy.
So this is why my response was focused on an evaluation of the forces involved when it comes to children. In their case I see reason to think that the positive/creative forces are stronger… before the bad habits have taken too much of a hold and become really destructive.
1 Like
I did not have time to give adequate response to this earlier - and perhaps still do not now. It does remain the best objection (to me anyway) for contemplation. Let me just add these to this morning’s words in any case:
I don’t disagree with you that belief is important - of paramount importance even! What I further insist on, though, is that belief is inseparable from life and obedience. That is - whatever a person may profess with their mouth, their true beliefs - the true state of their heart is revealed in how they live toward their neighbor (whom they can see) and therefore toward God (whom they cannot see). So yes - we are called to believe all the right things. That is identical to being called to live the right things. In that, I suggest is the “reconciliation” of the two disparate tugs that we westerners tore asunder in our pretense that truth can be some abstraction we entertain apart from our obedience, allegiance, and our very life itself.
In all this I suspect that I may not differ as much from you, Richard, as my earlier post above might make it seem.
2 Likes
Everyone does sin – but of course, 2 years old don’t sin. What’s the resolution? Instead of taking on a form of hyper-literalism, it looks like it’s clearly the case that everyone who has had the option to sin, has in fact, sinned. 2 year olds and similar children have not had such an option (their crackpottery is a result of stupidity, not sin).
1 Like
I also believe not only that hell exists, but that an eternity in hell is a possible outcome. That wasn’t my problem with what he said. It was making ones beliefs the criterion for who goes to hell with his comment on “unbelievers” which I was objecting to. That is why I went to Matthew 19 to see what criterion Jesus employed to answer the question of how one obtains eternal life. You can also object that this idea of his is also a common Christian way of thinking, but this is one which I think has to change.
We are dealing with a broad spectrum of belief here. From those who think sin is inherited genetically to the universalists who don’t believe anyone is ending up eternally in hell. I am in the middle of that spectrum. I do take the Bible seriously when it speaks of eternity in hell, but I don’t believe in a genetic inheritance of sin. Unlike you, I will not say that 2-year-olds do not sin. We sinners get in our practice pretty early in life. But I was finding a way of agreeing with your conclusions even if I wasn’t buying into quite the same reasons for it any more than I find the “age of accountability” idea/argument very believable. I do agree that eternal hellfire for infants and 2-year-olds is absurd. I would even agree with the universalists that the idea anything we do in a finite lifetime deserves eternal torment is unbelievable. So I find a different solution to this theological conundrum than others do. You can say that I see an innocence in toddlers that is more than just the question of whether they have committed any sins. Toddlers are quite capable of doing things they know are wrong and then lying about it. You would have to be blind to deny this. And it would be wrong to tell them that their actions are not sinful. So it seems very logical to me that a different approach is needed to do this correctly.
1 Like
Hello Randy,
@mitchellmckain
Let me clear up a misunderstanding. The poster Mitchell came at me, misunderstanding my use of the word, “unbeliever”, and thinking that I held that, “believing” somehow equated salvation. That is not what I believe. To me, anyone who is not a faithful follower, or disciple, of Jesus Christ is an unbeliever, regardless of what they call themselves. Authentic Christianity is a lifestyle, to which we are called give 100% of ourselves - it’s the only way it can be done. The rest of my post showed the wrongheadedness of the thought that there is no intellectual understanding involved in having the life and faith that Jesus desires in his followers.
Secondly, the salvation of unbelievers is a different discussion. God sent his son to be tortured and murdered as a sacrifice for sins, so I trust that he will fairly judge those who have not heard of Jesus and the gospel. But I don’t agree with you that your daughter has sinned at 5 years old. I put the age of accountability at about 12, a common view though of course it depends on the person. Young children are not accountable for their lives and if they die will end up with God, so young kids dying, happily, is not part of the, “destination of unbelievers” discussion.
I agree with the above.
We are the new creation (2 Cor 5:17):
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”
Real faith starts with believing that our sins had a hand in killing Jesus Christ and, from that, making changes on the inside, that will eventually lead to being-again and leading a new life, becoming, as Paul said, a new creation. I don’t know what, “embodied participation in the new creation” is referring to. But I will repeat, from my last post, that authentic Christianity is not going out into the world, “to do good” but becoming a new creation and leading a life that will, because of our changes of hearts and outlooks, will naturally entail doing good works.
I don’t agree with that at all. I grew up [moderator edit: in a different faith tradition] and don’t now consider it authentic Christianity (or any group that doesn’t teach and live out the true gospel). I then was taught numerous things about Jesus, salvation and the church that are not just non-biblical, they are anti-biblical. Doctrine isn’t a dirty word, not to Paul anyway. There can be no, “church reconciliation” with groups that don’t agree on the basics of the faith, and mostly, in any case, don’t hold that we have to be born-again followers of Christ to be saved. I believe, as Jesus laid out in Matthew 28, in making disciples of those who aren’t, as those did who met me on the street on one fateful day and introduced me to the word of God.
Yes, I agree that being humble and contrite is critical to having a saving faith. But we still have to be born-again followers of Christ to be admitted into his kingdom. Being humble in contrite is essential to being a true Christian.
No issues with that!
And here they are! Hope they help!
1 Like
Thanks for the compliment of my post, Beaglelady.
I’m against, oppression, of course, but what would God expect a Christian to do to fight it? The only thing I can think of is to make disciples so that hearts will change and consequently there will be less oppression.
2 Likes