 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/27/2004 7:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Tigress: I don't know if I have an answer for that, but I suppose it comes down to the question: what theology is saving and which is not? | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/27/2004 8:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | I would really like to read it. Is there anywhere I can get it? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 2/27/2004 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tigress,
I didn't know that Gibson was a universalist. Is that another religion or just a theological point of view? Is it like the Raeleans?
Secondly, I have never heard that Jesus saves you if you have the correct theology. The thought of that is very scary because there are thousands of theologies among Christians, arent there?
Resistance is futile You will be assimilated. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/27/2004 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/28/2004 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | | Thanks! I ask because I have a couple of pieces by Pinnock stored somewhere (I haven't gotten to them yet) and wanted to make sure I wasn't bothering him for something I already had. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/1/2004 5:03 AM (GMT -6) | | BBB, Feelin',
Any permission to share that paper yet? Perhaps its not so bad if you e-mail it to someone (yours truly ). BBB, I think you know my e-mail address. Whad'ya say? Do you have an electronic copy?
Peace! | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/2/2004 3:49 AM (GMT -6) | | OK. The man said, "Sure, use the essay how you like." 
Evangelical Theological Society
The 54th Annual Meeting
November 20-22, 2002
Theme: Christianity and Other Religions
Topic: Religious Pluralism: A Turn to the Holy Spirit
Clark H. Pinnock, McMaster Divinity College
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K7
E-mail: pinnock@mcmaster.ca
Introduction
Rightly or wrongly, more often than not, conservative evangelical theologians opt for a restrictivist approach to the salvation of non-Christians and are not inclined to think that God might be redemptively active in the religious life of humanity at large. This is not always true, of course because other and more voices exist and have existed. But the inclination is widespread not to acknowledge much by way of positive divine activity in this sphere. This inclination shows some signs of changing partly because the soteriological problem involved remains so severe. I refer to the unpleasant implications that, under the arrangements God has put in place according to restrictivism, most sinners will have no opportunity to be saved though no fault of their own. How could therefore (people ask) a just and merciful God consign to hell those whose very providential circumstances prevented them from hearing? Not only is this a painful dilemna intellectually but there exists some considerable hope among our people for a better resolution of this problem.
Two years ago I presented a paper on a wider hope at the Evangelical Theological Society, based on work I had published a decade earlier. The perspective was based on the assumption which I share with the Wesleyan/Arminians that God, who wants all to be saved, is likely to be actively wooing sinners on a global scale. It would seem odd if he were not. Did Paul not say, “where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more?” (Rom 5:20) Therefore, I have put forth considerations which Paul Knitter has called “a wider mercy solution.” The idea holds that God’s grace is at work in some ways among all people, possibly even in the sphere of the religious life. It even entertains the possibility that aspects of religion may play a positive role preparatory to the gospel of Christ, in whom alone the fulness of salvation is to be found. In effect, it places greater emphasis on the “universal” aspect of the universal/particular dialectic of Scripture and hopes that our acknowledgment of the cosmic breadth of the Spirit’s work can help us to conceptualise better the universality of grace.
It is the pneumatological dimension of the wider mercy position which I want to explore further in this paper. Is it possible that God works graciously outside the boundaries of Christianity through the universal presence and activity of the Holy Spirit? It is a question worth asking, I think. It is part of theology’s unending query as a demand as well as a achievement.
A Turn to the Spirit in Recent Roman Catholic Theology
I have always appreciated the Roman Catholic theology of Vatican Two when it comes to matters of religious pluralism and have felt that they offer some good leads. We have a lot in common with Catholics in wanting to defend the unique saving work of Jesus Christ for all humankind and still do justice to the universal salvific will of God. I suppose this makes me what Erickson calls a “post-conservative” evangelical, one characteristic of which is the willingness to learn from anyone who brings good ideas to the table, whatever the source. This is true and it makes sense too that Catholics would have something to offer on these subjects because they share the same basic agenda with us. Neither of us is inclined to compromise on the finality of Jesus Christ or suffer under the illusion that one religion as good as any other. We do not need to be convinced about the “otherness” of the world faiths. We accept that without hesitation.
On March 4, 1979, during the first year of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II issued his first encyclical, entitled “Redemptor Hominis,” in which he expressed the desire of the Catholic Church to engage in dialogue with members of other religions and sounded the note that would characterise his approach to the dialogue: namely, respect for the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit among non-Christians and even in their religious life, a presence and activity which is to be seen in their practices of virtue, in their spirituality, and in their prayers. He thinks of such fruit as being “an effect of the Spirit of truth, operating outside the visible confines of the mystical body of Christ.” He credits to the Spirit everything good that has been brought about in non-Christians.
Two years later, in a radio address given during a visit to Asia, John Paul said: “I have come to Asia to be a witness to the Spirit who is active in the history of peoples and nations” and he went on to attribute any praiseworthy elements to the Spirit. In 1986, he issued an encyclical letter on the Holy Spirit, entitled “Dominum et Vivificantem,” in which he develops this theme of the universal action of the Spirit further. He sees the Spirit always and everywhere active in God’s world embracing plan of redemption. Since Christ died for all, he says, “we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit, in a manner known only to God, offers to every man the possibility of being associated with the paschal mystery.” In the same year (1986), in a Christmas address, reflecting on why he had called for a Day of Prayer for Peace in Assissi, he spoke of all authentic prayer as being under the influence of the Spirit and says: “We maintain that every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person.” In 1990, in an encyclical on missions, “Redemptoris Missio,” having insisted on the unique role of Jesus Christ in salvation as he always does, he writes: “It is the Spirit who sows ‘seeds of the word’ which are present in various customs and cultures, preparing them for their full maturity in Christ.” The pope is committed to dialogue because he respects the gifts of God in people and looks for signs of Christ’s presence and the working of the Holy Spirit. In reaching out to people of other faiths, he even asks for forgiveness with regard to church sponsored abuses of the past.
Though it is true that Vatican II had said this sort of thing (eg Gaudium et Spes par 22 and Lumen Gentium par 16), the difference is that such references by the council to the universal activity of the Spirit, offering grace to every person, was occasional and not sustained as it is with John Paul. With this pope, it has become a principal theme in practically every context in which he has spoken of the non-Christian world. And, whereas the conciliar text spoke only of the working of the Spirit in individuals, this pope is prepared to speak of the activity of the Spirit in non-Christian religions and by so doing he has left a mark on the development of these ideas. Please note that he does not say that the non-Christian religions constitute an ordinary means of salvation and (as far as I know) he has never recognised them even as extra-ordinary means of salvation. He has never suggested that we understand non-Christian religions as mediations of salvation. His whole attitude is balanced, as when he spoke to the Secretariat for Non-Christians in 1987: “There remain many questions which we have to develop and articulate more clearly. How does God work in the lives of people of different religions? How does his saving activity in Jesus Christ effectively extend to those who have not professed faith in him? In the coming years, these questions and others like them will become more and more important for the church in a pluralistic world and pastors with the collaboration of experienced theologians must direct their studious attention to them.”
For John Paul, the reason why there are spiritual treasures in the religions of the world, why there is a sense of kinship, and why dialogue is promising, is the reality of the Holy Spirit, who is alive and active in world history, both before and after Christ, and who inspire the searchings of humankind. He believes that, while there are many religions in the world, there is one Spirit seeking to bear fruit in them all. As for the question as to whether it would be theologically sound to to attribute to non Christian religions a role of mediation in salvation, I believe that the pontiff would regard it as one of those matter that needs further study before taking a position on it.
One sees the turn to the Spirit in the work of two other prominent Catholic theologians: Gavin D’Costa and Jacques Dupuis. Both follow the lead of Pope John Paul II and make the Holy Spirit the key factor. They see it as a way to be faithful to the gospel and (at the same time) be more open to others. Born of Indian parents, raised in Kenya, and educated in England, Gavin D’Costa combines his orthodox Catholic faith with strong multicultural sensitivities. On the one hand, he is opposed to the pluralist agenda which would posit an equality of religions; on the other hand, he wants to draw on the dialogical potential of the Christian faith. The pluralists, he contends, end up mistreating both Christianity and other faiths in their efforts to affirm all religions so that they miss real and important differences. For his part, D’Costa focusses on the trinity and especially on the Spirit. God is Father, God is Son, and God is also Spirit. That is, God is the source of all, God is the Saviour of all, and God is life giving breath, spreading God’s love and pervading the whole world with life-giving energy. On this basis, D’Costa affirms the universal presence of God in all human culture. Though we cannot know in advance what exactly which fruits of the Spirit we may find growing on the trees of other cultures, because of our belief in the Spirit, we can be predisposed to find such fruit This spirit of hopefulness gives us an incentive to listen and to learn and to find growth, not only on their side, but perhaps on our side too. All too often, we forget about the Spirit and are not predisposed to find truth among non Christians and not to engage them in hopeful dialogue. Of course, the Spirit’s freedom is not unlimited. D’Costa recognises that the Spirit is linked to the incarnate word, so that what he is found to be teaching in other religions will line up with the gospel. He writes: “The riches of the mystery of God disclosed by the Spirit are measured and discerned by their conformity to and illumination of Christ, who is the normative criterion.” So that, while the Spirit reaches beyond Jesus in extent, it does not go beyond Jesus in content. There is no independent revelation through the Spirit, but only applications of the revelation of Jesus.
The approach of Jacques Dupuis is similar. A Belgian Jesuit, who has spent most of his life in India, he also has a special concern. He does not want to insist that that what ever good is found in other religions has to be shown to be fulfilled in Christianity. This would place too much of a limitation on the Spirit, as to what he may be doing and inspiring. We need to allow more of a level playing field.. In effectr, Dupuis is moving beyond the fulfilment model which sees other religions only as stepping stones to Christianity and wants to allow for actually learning from dialogue. Why can’t dialogue offer mutual enrichment and transformation on all sides? Why is there benefit only in one direction? If the Spirit is active in history, what the Spirit is doing could be different from God’s word in Jesus - not contradictory to it but different from it. That is, God may have more to say than he has said in the Bible and may say it through Balaam’s ass or whatever. In other words, Dupuis believes that there is more truth in the history of God’s dealings with humanity than are available simply in the Christian traditions. We do not have a monopoly on all the truth. At the same time, he believes that the fulness of revelation does come in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, in terms of quantity, it does not exhaust the divine mystery. The fullness of what God wants to make known comes in Jesus but we still have to relate this to what the Spirit is doing in the whole world. And this cannot be done unless we talk to other people. Even though in the end, Christ and not the Spirit is at the very center of the way to God. I think that Dupuis may represent how far one can go and remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.
Evangelical Appropriation of the turn to the Spirit
Is this turn to the Spirit in the context of religious pluralism a move which evangelicals might consider taking? There seems to be at least some plausibility in it. If (on the one hand) we affirm the universal salvific will of God and if (on the other hand) we acknowledge a universal scope to the Spirit’s ministry, grounds exist of a wider hope for the salvation of our fallen race. It might help us deal with the soteriological problem of evil more effectively. It could serve a similar role to the one played by the concept of the logos spermatikos in the early church fathers who held that people who lived before Christ could be saved if they responded by faith to the various modes of revelation of the pre-incarnate logos.) Before Jesus came, the nation of Israel had to “make do”with an “Old Testament.” Sometimes it seems like the nations also had to made do with one.”
The main issue theologically would seem to be whether we can recognise a universal presence and activity of the Spirit with redemptive promise. Based on the truth the Spirit blows where it wills, it seems both biblical and logical to conclude that God’s Spirit is not limited to the Christian sphere. That it would not be a mere “ornament of piety” but the Lord and giver of life, the very principle to whom all creatures owe their very existence and activity. This is the insight one finds in the universal pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg and in the holistic pneumatology of Jurgen Moltmann who writes: “In both Protestant and Catholic theology, there is a tendency to view the Holy Spirit solely as the Spirit of redemption. Its place is in the church and it gives men and women the assurance of eternal blessedness. Thus the redemptive Spirit is cut off both from bodily life and the life of nature. It makes people turn away from this world and hope for a better world beyond. They then seek and experience in the Spirit a power that is different from the divine energy of life which according to the Old Testament interpenetrates all the living.”
The ever-present Spirit can surely foster transforming friendships with God anywhere and everywhere. Spirit meets people surely, not only in religious spheres but everywhere - in the natural world, in the give and take of relationships, in the systems that structure human life. No nook or cranny is untouched by the finger of God. This is a presence and activity which may even make use of other religions in its drawing action. All because of Jesus Christ, who is both the criterion for whatever truth there is in the other religions and the only and final end where this truth can be fulfilled.
Does not the person of the Holy Spirit speak eloquently of universality and particularity? It points to God’s activity in the elect community and God’s activity beyond it - with all of humanity since the beginning of history and in the definitive events of salvation history. The Holy Spirit, the power of God, was active in creation, hovering over the primeval waters (Gen 1:2) and renews the face of the land (Ps 104:30). Present in all human beings as life giving and present in the creation, the Spirit will be poured out on all flesh and will bring about the new creation. The Spirit is at work among his people and at the same time fills the whole world ((Ps 139:7). Free of constraint, the Spirit blows where it wills and is present everywhere in God’s creation to effect his will.
An analogous way of arriving at the same scenario is the Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace, according to which God offers every human being the possibility of being associated with the mystery of salvation, even if the “how” of this is known only to God. Wesley, recognising that the souls of men are dead in sin by nature, also held that no one exists in the state of mere nature. Everyone has a greater or lesser measure of preventing grace which does not depend on humanity’s doing. There is a light that enlightens everyone and a prevenience that restores human freedom. The grace of God creates a new possibility for human life to whom God is antecedently and enablingly present. God seeks people out and tracks them down no matter how rebellious they have been. The active love of God, stretched out to humanity, is the presupposition of man’s own repentance and redemption. Through prevenient grace, God makes possible a human response.
Preventing grace like the Spirit is universal in extent and is the source of all that is good in man. Everyone has a measure of light and God’s grace extends to the whole of human existence, which may have implications for the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions. Unlike theories that posit only discontinuity, this enables us to recognise truth and goodness in other religions as a result of prevenient grace. This was the direction of John Wesley’s own thought. The later Wesley, more than has been recognised, believed that some who have not heard of Christ may enter into a saving relationship with God. This is remiscent of what Alister McGrath says: “God is not inhibited from bringing people to faith in him even if that act of hope and trust may lack the fully orbed character of an informed Christian faith.”
On another doctrinal path, according to Celtic Christianity, to say that we are made in the image of God, is to say that what deepest in us is of God. At the heart of who we are is the love of God who is not only present beside but in the human. Redemption in this model is about recovering the treasure that lies deep in our lives. It is not really strange (is it?) that the famous Celt named Pelagius found fierce critics in Rome when he visited it, at the very time when the Roman tradition was hardening and the world was being viewed as an essentially dark place and when the Celtic mission was emphasising the light that enlightens us all. Believing leads to seeing. Might it be that, only if Christians expect to encounter the grace of the Spirit will, they notice the doors which the Spirit has opened and be able see the fruits growing in the gardens of other faiths? Anselm Min wonders if it might not be possible to suppose that the Holy Spirit may be actualising different aspects of the Word in other religions. He remarks: “Even though we do not know how the different religions may be mutually compatible, if at all, the fellowship of Word and Spirit gives us reason to hope that they may be complementary and that, in and through them, the reconciling Spirit may be working to bring the different religions together in its own mysterious way.” Amos Yong puts it these terms: the intuition that religious others are caught up in some way in the truth of Jesus has a pneumatological grounding. Jesus’ reference to his other sheep speaks of the Sprit bearing witness, not only to those in non-Christian faiths, but perhaps also through them.
I think this more than an intellectual issue - it is a practical matter too. By opening ourselves to the Spirit’s work among people, we are enabled to approach them more lovingly and hopefully and with a better conscience theologically. It can help us be more respectful and genuinely dialogical. I don’t think we should be ashamed of showing compassion when there are grounds for it. I understand that we cannot assume that God to be more generous than he has revealed himself to be. But the gospel in my reading of it is clear that God loves sinners and that Christ died for them. Therefore, our posture toward our neighbours of other faiths has to be the kind of love which bears all things, believes all things, and hopes all things. It is unlikely before the parousia that the differences that seem so irreconcilable now among us will be sorted out. It is likely that the nations will worship God in different ways until the end of history. It is not likely that we will persuade every one to abandon their religious commitments and adopt ours. Therefore, let us our witness to Jesus, respect the convictions of others as far as we can, and leave it to God to sort things out. Let us be evangelical, not only in the historical but in the etymological, meaning of the term.
----------------------------------------------------
Questions, comments or frustrations? 
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 | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/2/2004 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
OK. The man said, "Sure, use the essay how you like."
Evangelical Theological Society
The 54th Annual Meeting
November 20-22, 2002
Theme: Christianity and Other Religions
Topic: Religious Pluralism: A Turn to the Holy Spirit
Clark H. Pinnock, McMaster Divinity College
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K7
E-mail: pinnock@mcmaster.ca
Thanks Brandon, great stuff. It helps explain the Gandhi’s of the world.
Peace, Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/3/2004 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | Terrence Tiessen is has a book that called "Who Can Be Saved?," which looks like it covers the same area as Pinnock. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/3/2004 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | BEAUTIFUL.
Thank you for posting this paper, Brandon!
Peace & blessings,
<><
BBC Canada wrote:
quote:
The paper is CALLED...drum roll pleeeease!
"Holy Spirit and Religious Pluralism." The theme of the 54th Annual Meeting held November 20-22, 2002 in Toronto, was "Evangelical Christianity and Other Religions"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/3/2004 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
I think your questions that initiated this thread are critically important.
Today's religious climate, particularly in regard to Christianity, is ever diluting the Biblical message of salvation and relationship with God. It is common sense that mankind shares common demominators, like the core that makes communication among one another possible; an instictiveness to do good and to love rather than to do bad and to hate (yes, there are those who've lost track of these perspectives); and the desire to worship something or someone.
In His word, God has been very clear that He alone is God, that His word alone is truth, that worship must be directed to Him alone, that there is salvation in no other name and in no other means but through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Now, that all mankind does not have this truth is evident, but the truth is still the truth and is not to be watered down with the common denominators of God is "with" everyone, or God is among everyone. Of course He is. So? Truth is still truth, regardless.
The word of God is clear about false worship, false idols and false ideas about spirituality, which is often exploited in Scripture for what it is: foolishness. In most cases, people ought to know better. So, if God is among the cultures and peoples of the world, what's new? God has always had a heart for the world, not just the Jews or believing Gentiles. God has always been at work in people's hearts to draw them to Him. But it has still been, is, and always will be that only the work of God through the Christ is effective to bring men into a salvific relationship with God. If we can't hold to this simple, clear, Biblical message, we have lost site of everything God has both said and done to address man's dilemma. (For those folk who want to know the real God--the one who's got to be "bigger" than the gods they've been worshiping, idols fashioned after their own hands--but die without coming to know Him or without having heard the gospel, I leave them in God's hands to decide their fate; I do not condenm them all to hell because they have never heard the gospel. That's God business and best left there.)
Mel Gibson holds to a universalistic message about salvation. I repeat what he himself said when interviewed by Diane Sawyer on nation-wide TV when she asked, "Can people from other faiths [interpreted as other religions in the context of this portion of the interview] get into heaven?" Mel quickly responded and stated something to the effect, "Oh yes, it's just easier for A Christian to get there." Now tell me, what in the world is that supposed to mean? "Easier for a Christian to get there." Well, from Mel's perspective--the real goal of a person is to come to have love, faith and hope--it makes sense. This is not, however, the truth, and it is a universalistic message. Mel, to the best of my knowledge, has never stated the simple, orthodox beliefs of the Bible's salvific message: The Deity of Christ; the need for Christ's sacrifice--the shedding of His blood as a propitiation for sins; only those who not only accept God's gift, but in return worship Him alone with all their heart, mind, soul and spirit; that all aspects of false and man-made idols being worshiped be put away; that God and His Word alone are truth ("Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth" John 17:17; "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father apart from Me" John 14:6). If we can't be honest enough and bold enough to accept the clear, concise message of God's message about salvation, then we have lost sight of spiritual reality and spiritual truth.
Mel Gibson obviously has a very sincere heart, but he's sincerely wrong, as are millions of others. So, the heart of the issue is this: is Mel saved--and can others be saved--when he does not hold to the truth of the Biblical message of salvation? I doubt it. He falls into that category of "Lord, Lord, didn't we do ... for you," those about whom Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the willof My Father in heaven." What is the will of the father? To believe on Him (Jesus) whom He sent. To do the word of Him whom He sent (You are my disciples, indeed, if you do as I have commanded you).
The Biblical message of salvation is not hard to understand, and it's not complicated. But for those who just can't deal with the fact that the Bible is clear-cut about this matter, they reply with statements like, "Well, the Bible doesn't talk so narrowly; God loves everyone." (In the matter of salvation, the Bible seems to always be talking about someone else or something else other than what it clearly states.) Let's face it: there's a lot of "Christians," much less non-Christians, who think that God would never allow what Jesus clearly said will happen: not everyone who says to Him "Lord, Lord" is going to heaven. Or how about, "Broad is the gate that leads to destruction and many go by its way, but narrow is the gate that leads to life, and few there be that find it." (My paraphrases here). Oh, the Bible means exactly what it says, and there's no room for confusing its message or watering down to a universalism.
So, there's no need to be confused about any of these issues, Tigress. What must be granted, however, is that in most cases, it is ultimately up to God to decide the heart of every individual. Heavens, there's a ton of "Christians" who no more love God than the cow on the farm next door. As a matter of fact, the cow may actually love God more! We meet these people every day. They claim they know God, love God, etc., and don't exhibit one iota of evidence that they really are a disciple of the Lord. Quite the contrary. (Oh, but we can't be as Paul was in his letters, calling the facts as they are.) The Bible addresses this all the time, both in the OT and NT, and for those who hold to screwed up (Christian) theologies--I'm talking about the essential doctrines that most all main-stream Christian denominations have held to for years--it's ultimately in God's hand to decide the person's heart. BUT ... when the truth is told to these people, but they would rather hold on to their man-made doctrines and not get right with God's word, then they are asking for trouble. Again, it's in God's hands. Not a good place to me, though, if you ask me.
For holding to Biblically solid truth,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/3/2004 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | Starkman, I agree 100 percent with your statement; however, I would also stop short of judging what is in Mel Gibson's heart. Having a little experience discussing such things with "celebrities" it has been my experience that they are woefully inept at articulating such things. Nor does one know where Gibson is in his walk with God. Regardless, from my view, whatever he believes, nor that came out in the movie. As I stated before, I think he made a movie that faithfully depicted the gospels. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/3/2004 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey feelin,
Remember, I didn't judge Mel's heart; I judged his words. Now, if he's not accurately articulating what he believes, I can't help that; hek, I wouldn't even know if that's true or not. I am left, therefore, to judge his message, and that I do without hesitation.
Further, I noted that I cannot judge the heart of men (well, Hitler's, for example, was pretty clear-cut, wouldn't you say!). So, I take heart with what you're saying about not being able to know Mel's walk with God ... as God sees and knows Mel's heart. But we are able to judge his (and every person's) message and life-style (which I know nothing about Mel's).
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/3/2004 9:00 AM (GMT -6) | | I want to quickly add something here.
To judge something is not bad; we judge all the time, just like we discriminate all the time. Heavens, we had better judge and discriminate, or we might not live long enough to determine if we should have judged and descrinimated against eating that food that was left out to spoil. So, please understand that when I use the word judge in regard to Mel Gibson's theology, I am simply rendering a decision; I am not attacking or dividing. I am simply taking the information he himself has given us and am using normal, everyday principles to determine (to judge) if it is sound or not). That's all.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/3/2004 9:08 AM (GMT -6) | | "Jaques Dupuis...A Belgian Jesuit(Catholic to the layman)...may represent how far one(Mel Gibson) can go and remain within the bounds of orthodoxy."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/3/2004 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | 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?
I want to add totally (and with GREAT emphasis), that I wholely agree with you: judging something is not a bad thing. It is, most of the time, a great thing. Its just got a bad reputation. 
I want to further add that I am not defending Gibson's comments (I didn't hear them, but, if true, I totally believe they are wrong). My only concern is that he might still be learning what he believes and may still be trying to figure it out. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/3/2004 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | | Wahoo: any place to find infor on this guy? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/3/2004 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | I whole-heartedly agree with you, Feelin!
You said, "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? " I believe that God's reaction to Nineveh's repentance (God had mercy on them when they repented AFTER having heard Jonah's message) sits well as an example of God's mercy to those who hear and respond. They're theology of God may not have been too accurate, but whatever was going on during the time Jonah preached to them, they repented as best and in heart as they could, with what understanding they had of this God about whom Jonah preached.
The obverse side is that God will not be merciful if one hears and does not repent, (e.g., those churches of the seven mentioned in Revelation that do not repent); they will be judged, correct or not correct in their theology, and these, mind, you are supposed to have been His children. If judgement ain't so nice in the house of God (perhaps not an issue of heaven or hell, but of chastisement), it sure ain't gonna be nice for the unrepentant child of wrath (definitely a heaven or hell issue). So yes, one must believe that Jesus is the only way in order to be saved. He said so Himself.
For those who never hear about the Gospel (as I noted before), I leave that whole thing in God's hand. Myself, I can't see God saying, "Well, it's just too bad, Bob ... you really wanted to know who I am and find peace with me, but you died before someone told you about my Son's death; off to hell with you now. Go on, they're waiting down there. Real hot. Very hot down there, it is." Humor aside, I just don't see Scripture so cut and dry about where the soul goes who has never heard the gospel, but I think it's very cut and dry that God will judge all men squarely (Romans 2).
I firmly believe that we Christians had better have enough guts to call the shots about sinners as it is in Scripture. Yes, we are to love them--heavens, that's what's going to get their attention--but Scripture is clear about those who hear and reject: eternal damnation, whether you want to call it punishment, fire, banishment, anihiliation (I can't spell that word!) ... it's eternal seperation from God, period!
Must go!!!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 3/3/2004 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
Your last post got me thinking...You said that God judges those who hear and don't repent. But, what about people like gays and lesbians who accept Jesus into their hearts, but honestly don't believe in their hearts that homosexuality is wrong. DLW, (he hasn't been posting on here much, as of late) believes that in some circumstances it's okay for gays and lesbians to marry each other whether they're Christian or not. Does that mean DLW isn't saved even though he accepted Jesus? Would those believing gay people go to hell, even though they accepted Jesus?
I've had friends who took what you're saying to the extreme and believed that if you don't repent of all your sins right before you die or right before/when Christ returns, you'll go to hell. But, what if you're unconcious before death and you don't get a chance to repent? What if you're about to crash into another car and the first thing that pops into your head is not repenting but trying to swerve your car out of harms way, but you crash and die anyway? All this sounds far-fetched, but if what you're saying is true, then a lot of Christians are going to go to hell for not repenting at the last minute.
All Christians sin in mind and body every day, whether they're aware of it or not, so I don't see how any of us could go to heaven according to what you're saying.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:59 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 |
|
|