 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Correct Theology | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/3/2004 1:18 PM (GMT -6) |   |
What is "God's Wrath"?
Here's plagerizing someone else's posts:
quote:
I'm finding that some Reformed follow Anselm, and others are very un-comfortable with his view.
On one Reformed discussion board I learned that "Wrath of God" refers to,,,
quote:
...mistranslation. The word in Greek is thymos. It means...the courageous power of the warrior and...also means to boil up...breaks bonds and obstacles. In Homer, Plato and the Bible, thymos is the courage to overcome the fear of death. Thymos is means passion.
The "passion of the Lamb" is how the Greek reads. Tou theou (so-called "wrath of God") is the "passion of God".
In early Church doctrinal history, the controversy of whether or not the "Father suffered," its scriptural basis in Revelations was "tou theou" -- the "passion of God" (NOT "wrath of God") because everyone in the early Church read it as "passion of God" which is what the Greek means.
Its the western mistranslations that screws up the west here. The early Latin translations of thymos was ardentio (ardent striving) and/or passio (passion). Later, in the middle ages after Anselm, iracundia (wrath, irate) and furor (anger) came into usage to interpret the Latin Bible's ardentio and passio christi. Protestants naively picked it up even despite the fact that a few of their Greek scholars pointed out it was wrong (bad theology drove scriptural mistranslation).
quote:
QUESTION:
> What do you understand by the words of Jesus in John 3:36 "God's wrath
> remains on him." The Greek word here is not "thymos" but "orge"?
ANSWER:
Simple. The action of God provokes others to anger (ogre). Literally, it is the reactive upsurge (usually human) to God's butting in, interfering. In the OT, especially in the LXX, ogre is the human reaction/perception of God's thymos. If this was God's anger, the Greek words kotos, cholos, or menis would have been used. Orge is basically evil's incompatibility with God's goodness. Thus in the active form, orgizo means God's actions/interventions makes people angry as does the noun form parorgisma (provocation to anger). Thus, God's protection of Israel from other nations fills them with vexation (orge) as does God's commitment to justice fills an astray Israel with vexation (ogre). In Genesis, God allows fallen humanity to have its way (give them enough rope to hang themselves) which vexes humanity (ogre). The Holiness of God vexes (ogre) unjust sinners. Thus, the justice of God (dikaiokrisis) has the effect of ogre on humans. Ogre is the effect on sinners of God's dikaiokrisis and ekdikesis (Lk, 21:22 and Rom. 2:5). Again, thymos = passion; ogre, orgizo, parorgizo, and parorgisma (provoked to anger and vexation -- royally "pissed off" following the Hebrew word "to pee in another's well") is the effect God has on others. Thus the numerous genitive constructions orge tou thymou (the vexation/anger provoked by God's passion) or orge thymoutai (the angry effect of God's passion). Thus, the justice, love, and holiness of God's passion is "vexful" for Israel (Mt: 3:7; Lk 21:23) and all sinners (Eph. 2:3), the rich and powerful (Rev. 6:15), and His salvation, symbolized by the Cup, "stupefies" (Rev. 14:8); ogre is the "feedback" of attempting to block or oppose God or despising God's love/justice.
That's something to take notice of.
At my school, one aid who read this article of Fredricka's said that she views God as Love; but her Catholic father has a view of God as an angry punisher, who hits upside the head.
Interesting.
A summary of the older, pre-Anselmian view would be this, that: "No one got "paid" even though God the Father and Christ paid dearly."
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/3/2004 1:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting way of putting it. But the matter is still dangerously simple. "Hell is a prison locked from the inside.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
My pardons, Starkman. Your post though does bring up a question:are we saved because Jesus is the only way, or because Jesus can save us? Or other words, must we believe that Jesus is the only way to be saved?
If as in the post just above:
quote:
"God's wrath (The Greek word here is not "thymos" but "orge")
. . . The action of God provokes others to anger (ogre). Literally, it is the reactive upsurge (usually human) to God's butting in, interfering. In the OT, especially in the LXX, ogre is the human reaction/perception of God's thymos. If this was God's anger, the Greek words kotos, cholos, or menis would have been used. Orge is basically evil's incompatibility with God's goodness.
We judge ourselves to a great extent. Within the fact that the Incarnate Lamb is the Judge. Christ, the mediator beings God and man together. But that isn't what many want:
quote:
John 3:20 "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/3/2004 2:04 PM (GMT -6) | | First, note that what Clark Pinnock is talking about here is called "inclusivism" and not "universalism". The latter is the belief that ultimately everyone is saved, regardless of their heart in this life. Not that everyone "can be" saved regardless of their beliefs about Jesus, but that everyone will be saved regardless of anything. That is universalism and it is not Pinnock's position. (Although see Philip Gulley's and James Mulholland's recent book, If Grace Is True : Why God Will Save Every Person, if you want to see a recent popular argument for Christian universalism.) Nor does it appear to be Mel Gibson's view, from what I can tell of his interview (I haven't seen or read it, and can only judge by the retelling of it here in this thread).
Instead, Pinnock is an inclusivist, and (it would appear) Gibson is too. They're not alone: John Sanders is another evangelical theologian today endorsing inclusivism (see his excellent book on the subject, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized). C. S. Lewis was an inclusivist, and it would appear John Wesley was too.
I agree with Clark Pinnock and John Sanders on inclusivism. Of course Christianity's truth claims are normative over against utterly different claims from other religions. Of course Jesus is the only incarnate sacrifice by which we are reconciled to God, and were it not for which such reconciliation would be impossible. But the question here is, how must we necessarily appropriate that reconciliation - is knowledge of any kind necessarily a part of it? Inclusivists (including myself) don't find anything in the teachings of Jesus, Paul or the apostles which clearly and unanimously says so, and indeed they find clear teaching in the synoptic Gospels and James, and compatible teaching in John's gospel and the other epistles, as well as OT support, that no particular conscious knowledge is absolutely needed to be saved. Not even conscious knowledge about Jesus, his divinity, his death and resurrection, etc.
Personally, what I find in scripture to be the means by which we appropriate salvation, is a simple and trusting heart attitude of seeking after God and his will for good. "He has showed you, O man, 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." (Micah 6:8, NIV) This is faith that pleases God and, by means of his atoning self-sacrifice, allows him to credit it to us as righteousness. It is faith which is found most fully in consciously-comprehended Christianity, but which can possibly exist, more dimly yet still sufficiently, in the followers of other religions (or even no religion), as well as people too young or mentally infirm to understand the gospel.
I find ample biblical evidence for this, especially in the synoptic Gospels. What must I do to have eternal life, the expert in the law asks Jesus. Nowhere else does Jesus more directly or plainly address that question, and his answer is not "you must believe [any particular thing about Jesus, eg, his being God]". It is love of God and neighbor - "do this, and you will live", says Jesus. He then goes on with the parable of the good Samaritan to plainly illustrate that the imperfect and corrupt theology of even a Samaritan does not matter. See Luke 10:25-37.
And also in Matthew 7:15-23, Jesus differentiates between bad and good trees, stressing that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and it is bad trees that are thrown into the fire, not good trees. A good tree produces good fruit, and good fruit is indicative of a good tree. And what is good fruit? Doing the will of God: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." And what is that will? Refer back to Micah 6:8, or Hoseah 6:6 ("For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God, not burnt offerings"), in the OT; and from Jesus in the NT see Luke 10:25-28 or various aspects of the Sermon on the Mount.
So is this works theology, clearly condemned by Paul? No. Works are outward activities which are not necessarily inherently loving (eg sacrifice, prayer, fasting) and whose motivation can not be outwardly seen (charity can be self-aggrandizing, for example). And a works theology is one in which works entitle oneself to reconciliation with God. Paul only attacks the ideas that works - even those whose effects are good - can be separated from the inward motivation behind them, and can earn salvation. Paul stresses that salvation is unmerited and by grace alone, but this is not the same as saying that salvation never comes unless one knows and believes the right things about Jesus (that would rule out salvation for young children and the mentally infirm, for one thing). Even in Romans 10:9-18, where Paul comes closest to saying just that, he doesn't quite say it. And good thing - for otherwise I don't see how he could be in harmony with the words of Jesus himself.
So is this saying that any one way to salvation is as good as another? No, what Paul (and Jesus himself in the gospel of John) makes clear, at least, is that Jesus is normative. Jesus is "the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) And Peter proclaims "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) But what they do not say, again, is that everyone who lacks knowledge of Jesus is always condemned. Instead, they make clear that Jesus is the only savior, the reason why repentance works to reconcile us with God. They make clear that God desires us to know this, and know about Jesus, so that we may come to know more fully, but they do not say that those who lack such intellectual awareness are always lost. In fact, see the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 for a Gentile acceptable to God because he fears him and does what is right, Acts 10:35 (God "accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right"). (Yet of course God still desires Cornelius to come to fullness of knowledge and kingdom living, and thus Peter is sent to bring the message.)
Inclusivism, then, is simply about knowledge, or rather the over-emphasis on knowledge which exclusivism insists upon. I mean, really: are we gnostics or not? Gnosticism, too, emphasized right knowledge (of the gnostic kind) about Jesus and, more broadly, God, as the only means of appropriating salvation (whatever that meant in gnostic thought). At the end of the day, I simply can't believe from scripture, let alone my own intuition, that God would condemn those people whose heartward attitude was one that, humbly and haltingly (that being all of which we are capable), sought God and good during life, and yet who (by whatever barrier, whether developmental or cultural or whatever) failed to intellectually acknowledge the right mantra. Jesus again:
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"
(Matthew 25:34-40)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/3/2004 2:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Scott,
Sup. Quick question. Why are you personally not a universalist? I'm not being funny or anything. I would just like to hear your reasoning. I love your clarity and lucidity.
Hi "MephEternal" (interesting username :-)
I am not a universalist simply because I see too much final-judgement imagery, not to mention direct teaching, in scripture. In the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25, part of which I just quoted in my last reply), there is a final judgement and it is not just out of concern for hypotheticals - there are goats and they are condemned. Likewise with the good tree/good fruit passage starting with Matthew 7:15, which I also quoted in my last reply. In other words, even scripture's inclusivist-leaning passages (of which I highlighted a few) include condemnation for some at the end of all things. Some universalists say such condemnation is temporary and purgatorial, in effect, but again, to me, the imagery seems final.
Now, it is true there are universalist-leaning passages in scripture too. These are ones which plainly avail themselves of a universalist interpretation, even more so than a merely inclusivist interpretation. Generally, they are passages which picture God triumphant at the eschaton with everything made right. For example, Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." How can this be if some of those tongues' owners remain unsaved? A non-universalist reply is that even the demons today know and acknowledge that Jesus is Lord; in other words, acknowledgement does not equal repentance. But then why does scripture use the Greek for "confess" in that passage - a word which implies more than intellectual agreement but heartfelt adjustment too. This is curious to me. And intuitively, it is hard for me to see how it can be said that God has the ultimate victory when there is even one casualty remaining.
But I keep coming back to the majority of evidence. The concept of final judgment, including final condemnation for some, shows up throughout every NT book of any length, plus many OT books too (the post-exilic ones, if you follow mainstream scholars' dating - such as Daniel, the last chapters of Isaiah, etc). When you compare with the relatively-few universalist passages (I'm talking about the strictly-universalist passages here, not the ones open to inclusivism as well, which are much more numerous from what I know), a harmony which rules-out final condemnation for anyone seems unlikely to me.
Nonetheless (as I discussed in my earlier reply), I do not believe correct theology saves us, nor that incorrect theology necessarily condemns us, so long as our hearts are in the right place (though to the extent some extreme kinds of incorrect theology might erode our hearts, we must be careful - this is why God wants us to have basically-correct theology by which we can come to better know him). I personally consider universalists who otherwise confess Jesus and emphasize his lordship to be Christian, and universalists whose hearts are in the right place (something God only knows for sure) to be saved.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/3/2004 7:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Back to the subject.
I think Gibson has been charged with having "universalistic" tendencies... He's been interviewed and on seperate occasions he's shared that he stands by the papal decree that salvation is in the church... And he's said what could be "inclusivism," "accessiblism". At least he's not admitted to cannibalism...  gulp!
I would like to re-state that I think to assert that "correct theology" is the means for salvation then  resistance is futile."
Love, Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/4/2004 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | | Scott: thanks for pointing out the difference between the two. Its a very important point. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/4/2004 4:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is something that I posted on a thread way back in 2001. I was hoping for some response on the McDermott thingy, but nobody ever came through. Maybe you can respond to McDermott's take on inclusivism scott. Here it is...
quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
Ok people, I am reading Gerald R. McDermott's book, "Can Evangelicals Learn From World Religions: Jesus, Revelation & Tradition." This is kinda on topic with what was talked about before with regards to Pinnock's book, "A Wideness in God's Mercy." He relies heavily on Jonathan Edwards, so, seeing as Greg has done his Ph.D thesis (?) on Johnny, I thought maybe he could make a few points here. Here's a couple of thoughts that he points out (so far as where I am at in the book) that I have not thought/read before.
Inclusivism: (which I adhere to, I'm not an exclusivist) "is problematic in veiw of the plurality of goals in the religions, but closer inspection seems to indicate that all the religions are exclusive (restrictivist, in a sense) in their claims. That is, if we take the religions in their thickest historical and empirical descriptions, we find that they all teach that their religious goals can be met by following their religion alone (in the restrictivist sense, consciously appropriating their methods during this life). Hence each religion is a "one and only"--way to it's kind of salvation. So inclusivism does not work because it assumes there is only one salvation to be pursued by all the religions when in reality there are many. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Second, and I personally had a big problem with this, and maybe someone can help me out with it, but McDermott, relying on Edwards, points out both a "covenant of works" and a "covenant of grace." "Works" being the "shell" and "grace" being the "medulla or "nucleus." Now to quote McDermott:
"If the covenant of works was the outer shell containing an inner core of grace, it was also a means God used to secure the end of grace in biblical times. Edwards saw the same pattern working in his own day: just as a covenant of works was "proposed" to Israel in the wilderness, "the same is now proposed in the course of a sinner's convictions in these days." Sinners are first confronted with God's demands in the covenant of works, and only by trying to meet those demands do they discover their inability and need for grace. Hence, the history of covenants in the work of redemption is reproduced in the religious psychology of the person coming to faith."
McDermott goes on to say that this:
"pattern is by design, not by default. It is God's method to use veils to protect the innner pearls of the gospel from being trampled by reprobate swine. The cortex of the covenant of works is at once the means to lead the elect into the nucleus and God's manner of hiding the inner mystery from the carelessly carnal wh do not deserve to see it."
My question is how would Edwards know the, "religious psychology of the person coming to faith?" It seems to me that Edward's presupposes to much of the "mind of God in such matters" according to what McDermott is saying, especially in light of the second statement above. After all does not scripture say to let the wheat and tares grow together? Hence, we don't know the "inner psychology" of faith of either. We are to bring the pearls of the gospel and teaching all to be disciples (and not just converts) in Christian faith without concern of who is the real or genuine or not. Just some questions. Any answers? Gotta go.
Brandon
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/5/2004 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me first say that Gibson is not a "Universalist"; however, he very universalistic (broad and generalized in regard to how one is saved) in his theology, at least according to the interview with Diane Sawyer; he never, ever stated the gospel as it is understood in an orthodox, biblical position. He did, however, generalize and universalize the "gospel" without any specifics, other than "Read the gospels." What he may have meant, as someone here pointed out, may be one thing, but he gave little, if any, reason to believe so. His message was quite universalistic and generalized ("We just need to have faith, hope and love"). Well, an atheist can have these attributes, and it means nothing toward salvation.
I agree with you, Scott, that ultimately Scripture doesn't support Universalism; however in supporting your concept of how Scripture is the means by which we appropriate salvation, you quoted Micah 6:8. This verse, however, is a direct address to Israel to follow THE LORD; it assumes Israel knew who the Lord was. Micah neither gave a universalistic (or otherwise) aspect in his message, and it was Israel whom he requied walk humbly and mercifully before their God. I don't believe it's hermeneutically accurate to apply his message as broadly as you have done, though I see your point. it was a call to Israel in view of the God who had revealed Himself to them.
Your references in the New Testament in support of the same means are equally specific to both a group of people, but more specifically so in view of (the) God. There simply is not a generalized and universalistic "This applies to all men, regardless of their faith or religion" message in those verses, as if it really was just the heart Jesus was after in these discourses. His words were quite specific about Who is to be believed and in view of the One who is the context for being humble and merciful. As I say, anyone can be humble and merciful, but that won't mean diddly squat if the person has no desire to know God or doesn't even believe in a god.
I am in total agreement with your concept of inclusivism not excluding those who never hear or hold to a correct, biblical theology. I think we are on safe ground with what you also stated; that Scripture no where states one absolutely has to hear or hold to a correct theology. And I thoroughly agree with you, and anyone else, who is willing to say if God wants to save the most pagan of pagans, because that pagan really wanted to know God but never "heard" the gospel, then who am I to say, "Nope, sorry, God, you can't save that pagan; he didn't hear the gospel." I think that would really be outside of the perameters (is that spelled correctly?) of Sciptures use of Jesus; no other name under heaven. I really think our greatest argument for God's right to allow salvation to those who have never heard but sure would like to have is, oddly, from silence. As I can tell, only Romans 2 comes close to addressing those who have not heard, but the teaching there is that God is ultimately the One who decides it all.
Well, it's time to get to work!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/5/2004 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Brandon,
quote:
...
Inclusivism: (which I adhere to, I'm not an exclusivist) "is problematic in veiw of the plurality of goals in the religions, but closer inspection seems to indicate that all the religions are exclusive (restrictivist, in a sense) in their claims. That is, if we take the religions in their thickest historical and empirical descriptions, we find that they all teach that their religious goals can be met by following their religion alone (in the restrictivist sense, consciously appropriating their methods during this life). Hence each religion is a "one and only"--way to it's kind of salvation. So inclusivism does not work because it assumes there is only one salvation to be pursued by all the religions when in reality there are many. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
The observation that claims from different religions are often particularist or even exclusivist, but contradictory, is actually an argument against religious pluralism, of the sort espoused by John Hick (for example) in his chapter of Zondervan's Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. It is not an argument against inclusivism. Inclusivism is a thoroughly Christian position, which claims neither that the world religions make mutually-consistent claims, nor that their claims are more-or-less equally valid - ie, that they are different views of the same elephant (to use the "elephant in the dark" metaphor which you may have heard). The core of inclusivism, rather, is that God overlooks false knowledge innocently held, as such, to judge the heart's response to what little true light it squarely has. In the least-illuminated places of the world and times in history, that true light may be no more than a sense of the numinous and moral incumbency (see C.S. Lewis, and also Paul in Romans 2:6-16). But what pleases God is a heartfelt, even though halting, response in submission to that true light. Thus, that the world religions may envision different forms of and paths to salvation, enlightenment, nirvana, right living, etc, does not matter as such, for we are saved, not because of our correct theology, but in spite of our erroneous or incomplete theology believed through no moral fault of our own.
Now, I emphasized "as such" above, because I must also acknowledge that the head and the heart are not decoupled from one another, but - in particular - that an erroneous conscious theological understanding can feed-back to the heart and corrupt its response for God and good. If I read the dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, and conclude that duty as such is a greater virtue than mercy, and lack of attachment to this world is more important than compassion - for these do seem to be among the messages of the Gita - this risks moving my heart away from what pleases God. So I do not want to downplay having roughly-correct theology too much. But it is then my heart that condemns me, and not my head; if instead my heart desires to respond with love despite the message of the Gita, then I may be saved, for God overlooks the innocently-held errors of my head ("Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing", Luke 23:34, NIV). The centurion whose servant was near death (Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10) likely held all kinds of erroneous pagan beliefs, perhaps with a syncretistic mix of Jewish beliefs picked up from his station in Israel. There is no evidence he held to correct notions of God, let alone the person of Jesus. But his love for the people, compassion for his servant, and humility before men and God (despite his position in life) demonstrated a heart for God and good that justified him before Jesus - so much so that Jesus marvelled at his faith.
quote:
Second, and I personally had a big problem with this, and maybe someone can help me out with it, but McDermott, relying on Edwards, points out both a "covenant of works" and a "covenant of grace." "Works" being the "shell" and "grace" being the "medulla or "nucleus." Now to quote McDermott:
...
My question is how would Edwards know the, "religious psychology of the person coming to faith?" It seems to me that Edward's presupposes to much of the "mind of God in such matters" according to what McDermott is saying, especially in light of the second statement above. After all does not scripture say to let the wheat and tares grow together? Hence, we don't know the "inner psychology" of faith of either. We are to bring the pearls of the gospel and teaching all to be disciples (and not just converts) in Christian faith without concern of who is the real or genuine or not.
Well, between the cerebral cortex and the medulla oblongata, I think I lost myself somewhere in the cerebellum :-) trying to follow the point. I do suspect the main purpose God had for the law among the people of Israel was to prepare the world, in various ways, to recognize the overwhelming need for love and grace. I also agree, though, that any particular psychological generalization regarding how one is led to repentance is fraught with doubt - if only because human minds and hearts are so wonderfully complex that, in my opinion, no one psychological generalization covers more than a minority of cases.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/5/2004 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | I feel it's safe to say that in view of the biblical message of salvation--that no one gets in by works, whether they've heard of the gospel or not--whomever God decides to save (this person never having heard the gospel), He will do so not based on their humility, kindness, etc., but in view of that person's faith. And now the question is asked "Well, how can someone have faith in the one, true God if that person has never heard of such a being?" First, that's not to be a disarmament of what we know about God's work through the Christ: it is only by faith, never works, both for the Jew and the Gentile; for those who have heard and have not heard the gospel.
What's left, then, for this person who has never heard the gospel, is for God, who alone can discern the heart, to do so in light of this truth: was this person a seeker after truth rather than self? Did this person have a heart that would have submitted to the truth of the gosple when presented? Would this person have been the type to have respected his/her own inability before the one, true, God? Was this person's heart humble or kind because of the recognition that one should be this way, in light of something or someone having created us this way? I mean, these are horribly inept ways to phrase these kinds of questions, I know, but I'm simply trying to communicate the point that whatever discerning God does of a person's heart, it will only be that element of the heart that is aligned with the concept of faith that God will recognize. Only faith can qualify an individual into salvation. It is simply not going to be the case that someone in heaven is ever going to be able to say "Well, I never heard of the gospel before, but God saw that I was a kind and humble person." If it were the case that a kind, humble heart could get this person into heaven, anybody who meets those criteria would qualify.
Wish I the sophisticated and elegant ability to communicate this more clearly, but I hope I've made the point.
Oh, and Scott ... dude, you rock. Why don't you dump about a tenth of your writing skills on my lap, eh! (Toss some of your smarts my way, too!)
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/5/2004 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Keith ("Starkman"),
You are very right to point that, exegetically, such biblical passages as Micah 6:8, Hoseah 6:6, Matthew 7:15-23, etc, all pertain to a historical and cultural context that is steeped in true knowledge about God. All those passages were written by authors familiar with the Jewish revelation, and written by them for audiences who were also familiar with it. When they refer to God, they literally mean God: the God of Israel and subsequent Jewish and Christian thought. Indeed - being as it is a document written almost exclusively within the ancient Jewish context, for people within that context, about things of concern to that context - this is only natural. As someone who hopes always to arrive at a literal meaning from a critical reading taking into account the historical and cultural context (as you know :-), I appreciate your pointing that out.
So it is an extrapolation to apply those same messages globally, even to people who don't conceptualize God in the same way as is assumed throughout the Bible. But I also observe that if we only ever limited ourselves to the literal, critical reading, we would have a Bible of no relevance to anyone outside the original community. Everything we do in interpreting the Bible so as to draw forth theology and application relevant to us today - relevant to all people at all time, in fact - is similar extrapolation. When Jesus says to make disciples of the world, which in context literally meant only the Mediterranean and near-Eastern regions, we extrapolate to a more global interpretation. When worship of and sacrifice before idols is decried, which in context literally referred to ancient near Eastern ritual before physical statues representing ancient near Eastern gods, we extrapolate to refer to any God-displacing thing.
And this is all quite reasonable. This is why, in the past, I've distinguished between first arriving at the literal meaning (what the human writer was saying to his community regarding a concern relevant to them), and then drawing forth from that the teaching point (what God is saying to all people at all times regarding universal truths). In using the above passages, inclusivists extrapolate a teaching point which seems to me no more of a stretch than many other teaching points Christians extrapolate from scripture.
Thanks for your other thoughts.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/5/2004 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
I feel it's safe to say that in view of the biblical message of salvation--that no one gets in by works, whether they've heard of the gospel or not--whomever God decides to save (this person never having heard the gospel), He will do so not based on their humility, kindness, etc., but in view of that person's faith.
...
What's left, then, for this person who has never heard the gospel, is for God, who alone can discern the heart, to do so in light of this truth: was this person a seeker after truth rather than self? Did this person have a heart that would have submitted to the truth of the gosple when presented? Would this person have been the type to have respected his/her own inability before the one, true, God? Was this person's heart humble or kind because of the recognition that one should be this way, in light of something or someone having created us this way?
Keith, I believe we are saying the same thing, but in different words. First, I must disagree that a person who exhibits good fruit, but lacks conscious knowledge and adequate understanding of the truth so that they therefore cannot have conscious faith in that truth, will be lost. Jesus' words in the synoptic Gospels simply dispel that (as in Matthew 25:34-40 in the parable of the sheep and the goats). But I don't think this is what you are saying. I agree we are saved by grace through faith, but saving faith need not be something consciously and intellectually grasped, nor must it absolutely be in any particular (ie non-intuitive, non-universal) propositional content. Integrating across the stories of scripture, from Melchizedek to Cornelius, and the teachings of scripture, from the OT prophets through Jesus, Paul and James, I think this is the most reasonable way of understanding them. For otherwise, those who have never heard and fairly understood, be they little children or unevangelized or evangelized but innocently confused, are necessarily lost without question. Yet you clearly do not think so either.
I think our positions are actually consistent, when you recognize that the heart's desire for God and love, which I have been talking about, is faith of the sort you have been talking about (albeit in the absence of fuller knowledge and thus immature). Faith is what motivates the outworking of that desire into action - even relatively-infant faith in the ultimate reality and worth of God, love, or good. For I believe no-one has ever done any genuine good who did not first have faith that, in some deep sense, doing good was incumbent upon them - that it mattered - otherwise why do it? (Of course, I am talking about genuine good here, not self-aggrandizing or otherwise poorly-motivated but superficially-good acts.) Thus we are saved by faith in all cases, both those who have been evangelized and have come to fully-informed faith as Christians, and those who have not but whose lives bear witness (good fruit, Matthew 7:16-20) to the infant faith within them.
In each case, of course, it is only God who can discern the heart, as you said. Yet if God answers affirmatively to the hypothetical questions you listed regarding a person without well-formed Christian faith, I think you - and certainly I - agree that the judge of all the world, who will always do what is right, will credit Jesus' sacrifice to that person as righteousness. Yet such a person is who I have been talking about.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/12/2004 12:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
Hey, I'm going up to see Pinnock tmw. Anyone have any questions (pertaining to this subject or OT in general) that they would like me to ask him?
Sure (if its not too late), but not on this subject of inclusivism. Ask him why he doesn't disavow the term "inerrancy", given what he's written in The Scripture Principle vis-a-vis the operative definition of the term today (namely, that of Geisler-Archer-Lindsell). Please let him know the question is friendly and comes from someone who himself has laid aside "inerrancy" as extra-biblical :-)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/12/2004 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | BBC: while I would support any dialogue between Mormons and evangelicals, it surprises me to no end that a scholar such as Pinnock would believe Mormons hold to a concept of the Trinity as is traditionally define. They do not hold to any traditional concept of the trinity but redefine it completely.
I do advocate dialogue, but not at the expense of reality.
BTW, my father's parents were Mormon, and he was raised in Salt Lake City. His family is wonderful and very loving. But from personal experience growing up with Mormons and having many discussions with them, I know from personal experience that they are not trinitarians. Anyone can use a word...its not the mouthing of a word, but how one defines it. If Pinnock wishes open theism to be accepted within evangelism he would do well to convert those within before trying to hitch up with non-christians. Perhaps if he had done his homework on what Mormons actually believe. Very disappointing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/12/2004 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Well I'm with you Brandon, I think it's exciting! Unity verses disunity-however it works. Mormons are people too  Think of it this way feelinahole, if God welcomed us in without our theology being right, why not do the same for the individuals of the LDS church?
If the open view is the door to relationship (where there is currently lack of relationship) in this context, then why not go through that door?
Once we are in, then we can talk about the Trinity. On the other hand, if we STAY OUT, no one is talking about anything. Know what i mean?
2 cents...
love love,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/12/2004 9:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sleha: I think your totally wrong, but its not something I want to occupy my time with... | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/13/2004 3:57 PM (GMT -6) | | ACtually, B, I applaud what happened with the WWC of God. But they publically renounced their heritical beliefs and sought out help from apologetic organizations to come to an orthodox understanding of who God is. The Mormon church is doing no such thing, nor have they any desire to do so. They now want to be viewed as just another Christian denomination, even though they have made no attempts to come clean about their numerous false prophecies and hereritcal beliefs. It should also be recognized that Joseph Smith denounced all Christians denominations as wrong.
I would suggest BBC that you take a look at what happened with the WWC of God before you compare the two. There is a great difference bewteen the two.
Regardless I think Pinnock doing this will further damage any credibility he has left within evangelism. Just more fuel for the fire of his critics and more of an uphill battle for those of us who wish to gain a sympathetic ear for open theism in our churches.
Wise as wolves and innocent as lambs. Christians always get the second part and miss the first part. Christians are so gullible. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 3/15/2004 3:20 AM (GMT -6) | | feelinaholequote:
Regardless I think Pinnock doing this will further damage any credibility he has left within evangelism. Just more fuel for the fire of his critics and more of an uphill battle for those of us who wish to gain a sympathetic ear for open theism in our churches.
I don't believe going where the Spirit leads a person can be wrong. How can it be wrong for Pinnock to go minister to this group if God is calling him in that direction? Information leads to transformation and this information is best conveyed through OPEN communication with ANYONE who is open. I also don't understand why the open view is not received within the evangelistic circles? It is one more way to interpret scriptures and understand God's involvement in the world -- who is to say who is correct by casting the first stone? Seems to me that by judging the open view, and the theologians who hold to it, the evangelists who do so are causing more disunity within the body. This must break God's heart.
quote:
Wise as wolves and innocent as lambs. Christians always get the second part and miss the first part. Christians are so gullible.
Feelinahole, I don't know you (so please don't take this personally) but I am wondering if you are being a little judgmental in that statement? Your statement is definitely generalizing a whole group. Perhaps you could say some Christians are gullible but then in saying this you would have to define gullible. Perhaps what looks gullible to you is actually an act of love, perhaps it's an area they need to grow in, perhaps this is what God is calling them to do... Peace to you. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/15/2004 6:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Ques: judgment happens all the time whenever we think over and respond to a person's statement. I have no problem with being guilty as charged. And it could be I am wrong, given that I have limited access to information. However, whenever anything is posted, I feel I have the right to respond and evaluate what is being said. AS such, I stand by what I have said.
Moved by the Spirit? I trust that phrase little, if at all. Heard it raised whenever anyone wants to do anything and wants God to justify it. I cannot determine whether or not a person is "moved" by the Spirit simply because they say so (given that people say it all the time and for many things that are obviously against the word of God). I would SOOO gullible myself. And, besides, you are putting words in others mouth. No one made the statement that anyone was being lead by the Spirit. Rather I believe God would have us evaluate each other with reason to see if such a claim is true.
Frankly, I believe it breaks God's heart when we willingly accept anything (and anyone) who comes down the pipe saying anything about God or love or the Spirit.
Generalizing...if you are talking about Mormons, no, I have enough experience with them to know what they believe, so no I am pretty confident that I am right on.
I have no problem with people thinking I am judgmental. I am honest enough with myself to know what I am doing. The sad thing is that you are making a judgment about me and (probably) are not realizing that that is being judgmental...ahh, but thats okay as well... | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 3/15/2004 10:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Feelinahole:
I am sorry if you feel that I am making a judgment about you but I am open to evaluating this. Please forgive me if you feel judged. I am seeing that I don't think along the same wavelength as you in this. I believe that we cannot judge another person's intentions nor their heart. I do not see this as being gullible but rather as allowing other's freedom to move as they feel led. I was referring to generalizing when you made the statement that Christians get the first part but miss the second.
As far as breaking God's heart when we accept anything or anyone who comes down the pipe.... If I had been living during Jesus' ministry on earth perhaps I would have questioned some of his actions, just as the Jews did, but I hope that I would not have judged whether he was being led by God. Of course I know that we are not like Jesus was but those who have accepted Christ into their hearts do have the Holy Spirit within us. In my opinion I believe Jesus would be openly communicating with Mormon leaders. Jesus did not socialize and spend his time with the "righteous" rather he spent his time with the lost.
Perhaps I am putting words in the mouths of others by presuming that people who want to open up communication with Mormons are doing so because they believe the Spirit to be moving them to do so. Again I submit to you that transformation is achieved through revelation and information. I believe this information is best achieved through open dialogue/communication.
Peace and blessings to you!
| | Back to Top | | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|