Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/8/2002 9:32 AM (GMT -6)

I'm going through a sort of "Letters From a Skeptic" dialogue with a friend of mine, and his latest response is one that I'd like to get some others' thoughts on. Please let me know how you feel about his following statement:

My friend said:"If you truly believe that "in the end, I believe it will be our hearts that will be judged---not our religion, church membership, etc." then your beliefs are closer to my own than I would have thought. I believe in works before faith. I believe a pious, righteous, moral Jew has more chance for salvation than a petty, narrow-minded, spiteful Christian who insists that only those who believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that he died on the cross for our sins will be saved."

Thoughts?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/8/2002 9:52 AM (GMT -6)

1. "Faith" and "works" are two oars of the same boat. To go straight you need both. Its even just good psychology. (I think he will agree.)

2. All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

Leaving aside the positive example of the Jew mentioned, the Pharisee or the Judaizing "Christian" in Galatians (He might be interested in that story too.) both put something other than "calling on the Lord" before calling on God. We are dying and we need saving. If we were eternal we would just keep getting worse. Star Trek's brand of Humanistic evolution is fantasy. Calling on the name of the Lord, of God-with-us-Savior is salvation.

The hypocrite Christian's trust in right-belief without right-living is also dead works, of another sort.

Do a word-search in the Bible for "call+on+name." Notice expecially those OT references, like the first time, and the many times when men called on the name of the Lord. What's it mean?

Have a discussion with him on what that means.

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/08/2002 2:54:47 PM

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 8/8/2002 4:37 PM (GMT -6)

Not my answer, but Rich Mullins'. If it were mine, I'd make a greater attempt to appear orthodox...

For what its worth, here's one statement from Rich:

Bear in mind, children, that they listen to you because you are kids -not because you are right. That's how our Father listens to us. One time one of those evangelical shows wanted to have me on as a guest - TV show, you know? They wanted to check me out first because they'd heard bad things.

So they called me up and they said, "Well, how'd you become a Christian?" Or no, they said, "How old were you when you became a Christian?" I said, "Boy, I [takes a deep breath and exhales shaking his head indicating he's unsure of an exact moment], I don't know." They said, "Well, give it a shot." And I said, "I don't know, probably two or three." They said, "So young! What happened?" And I said, "Well, I was in Sunday School and we prayed [Rich sings] 'Into my heart, into my heart, Come into my heart, Lord Jesus. Come in today. Come in to stay. Come into my heart, Lord Jesus.'" And the lady said, "Well, that's not what I meant." She said, "You couldn't have possibly been old enough to have understood what you were praying." And I said, "Lady, we never understand what we're praying (laughter), and God, in His mercy, does not answer our prayers according to our understanding, but according to His wisdom."

She said, "No, what I mean was, when did you knowingly accept Christ?" And I said, "Oh, that must have been about the third grade." She said, "So young! What happened?" (laughter) I said, "I said a bad word - a really bad one. I said the word you weren't allowed to say in front of my mom. So I knew I had sinned and that I would - had separated myself from God, so I was baptized." And she said, "Well, I don't care when you were baptized. I want to know when you became a Christian." I said, "Lady, when I was baptized my sins were taken away and I was given the Holy Spirit. That's an awful lot like becoming a Christian to me." (cheering)

Then she said, "What I really want to know is when you were born again." (laughter) I said, "Lady, which time?!" Used to be I'd only get born again about every year - once a year. That was when I was goin' to camp. You know, every year you'd go and you'd get 'born again' again. (laughter) You'd go up there and you pray and cry and feel like a fool. Yes, it's embarrassing to be born again, but imagine how embarrassing it must have been to be born the first time. (laughter and cheers)

At least this time you get to wear clothes! (more laughter and cheering)

But, those of you that are young enough to go to camp and re-dedicate your life every year you keep doin' it, 'cause about the time you get to college you're gonna learn that you have to re-dedicate your life about every six months. And then you'll graduate from college and it will become a quarterly thing. By the time you're in your 40's and 50's you'll do it about four times a day. (laughter, applause, cheering)

And you will never understand what you're doin'. But God will. I asked my dad one time, "How did you know you were ready to get married?" And he said, "Oh, I didn't." He said, "In fact, the only reason I got married was because I wasn't ready. If I had known what I was in for I would have run screaming from the room." (laughter) And I said, "So, are you sorry?" And he said, "No, I'm not sorry at all." He said, "I did not understand what I meant when I said 'I do', but I'm so glad I said it. I had no idea that my wife was going to live this long - or what a glorious life she would give me."

And folks, sometimes we think that we're saved because of how good we are, or because of how smart we are, or how clever we are, or how much we give. All those things are in a sense salvific. God does save us through our own work. If you don't believe me, then become a Lutheran and cut James out of your Bible. But, we're mostly saved, not because of what we do, but because of what Christ did.
Had Jesus not died, all the water in the world wouldn't wash away your sins. Had Jesus not taken away our sins, all the prayers in the world that we could pray would never reach heaven. Had Jesus not come down as God and become flesh, there is no way that you and I could become holy.

I had a prof one time - my favorite prof in the whole world - This is one of my favorite bible college stories. He said, "Class, you will forget almost everything I will teach you in here, so please remember this: that God spoke to Balaam through his ass, and He has been speaking through asses ever since. (laughter)

So, if God should choose to speak through you, you need not think too highly of yourself. (more laughter) And, if on meeting someone, right away you recognize what they are, listen to them anyway because God spoke to Balaam through his ass, and has been speaking through them ever since."

We are not saved because we're good. We're good because we're saved. Never forget what Jesus did for you. Never take lightly what it cost Him. And never assume that if it cost Him His very life, that it won't cost you yours. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. Why? Because God has a really big house, but He's gonna have a lot of guests and He doesn't want all that luggage to deal with.

If we could lay down our stuff and let God love us, I think we'd pretty nearly be in heaven. And I hope you're there. That's where God wants you to be. And maybe you didn't know that. I think a lot of us think that God is looking for ways to keep us out of His kingdom. Well, if that were the case, then Jesus would be absurd. But, if Jesus Christ is Who the Scriptures teach us that He is, then God wants us to be saved; we know that God wants us to be with Him.

[Source: The Lufkin, Texas concert review (aka, The Rich Live! Video). You can read it in its entirety at <http://www.kidbrothers.net/transcripts/lufkin.html>. ]

Terry: Finally, by way of response/extension to Al's post:

3. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? (Jas 2:14) The clear answer the author implies is "no."

Terry
"Be God's"

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 8/8/2002 6:57 PM (GMT -6)

hey brett,
i think a lot of this comes down to the exclusivism vs. inclusivism debate and it depends which side of the coin that you are on. from what i've read and heard from dr. boyd, i believe that he is more of an inclusivist than anything else (correct me if i am wrong). i as well am more of an inclusivist than anything else, and if you would like i could share some of my reason for this conviction. a good book to read on the topic is "No Other Name: An Investigation Into the Destiny of the Unevangelized" by John Sanders (an inclusivist). Clark Pinnock has also written on this subject, "A Wideness in God's Mercy". Dr. Boyd's and Paul Eddy's new book "across the spectrum" also gives some good imput on the different ways evangelicals approach this subject(exclusivism, inclusivism, post mortem evangelization, ect.).

your friend said: "If you truly believe that "in the end, I believe it will be our hearts that will be judged---not our religion, church membership, etc." then your beliefs are closer to my own than I would have thought"

since i lean inclusivist, i see nothing wrong with you and your friend being in agreeance on this issue. you may want to study this conviction yourself if you have not already. but i don't think to be in agreeance means that you are weaking or cheapening your faith, but you/we just have to be careful with such a sensitive and important issue and acknowledge the ambiguity involved. a lot of it comes down i believe to trusting God's character. well, i hope that helps. again, if you would like some arguements or imput on the inclusivist view just let me know. good luck with your dialogue.

have a good day!

David

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 8/8/2002 6:57 PM (GMT -6)

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 8/8/2002 6:57 PM (GMT -6)

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 8/8/2002 7:31 PM (GMT -6)

hey one more thing, with the inclusivist view it might be asked then why should you and your friend even be having this dialogue? i believe that it is still very important and vital. for one it's important because the better an individual understand and knows something, the more intimately the individual can interact with this object of understanding. secondly, as christian we believe there are advatages that knowing God more fully can bring, such as the gifts of the spirit as well as the fruit of the spirit displayed in our lives. it's always better to be saved and know your savior than to be saved and be without knowledge of who your savior is. inclusivism is not pluralism, finality is in Jesus as savior. thirdly, when you come to a knowledge of your salvation, you have the assurace of salvation (more could be said about this with more time). fourthly, Christ commands us to share our faith. it's not all about how many people we "save," i believe it's about sharing the joy and knowledge of our own salvation and desiring others to come to a more full understanding of salvation so they may experience our faith in the way we do. and finally, inclusivist believe that we are judged by how we respond to the light we have been given. this means: are we following truth we've recieved, which may be such things in God's character as love and goodness, etc? or are we self seeking and follow things outside of God's character such as hate and greed, etc? how do we respond to the amount of God's truth he has revealed to us? If God is truth, then our response to truth is therefore a response in a sense to God. So the point being that there maybe those who with the light they have received, have not responded in a right manner to the truth. however, if given more "light" they might respond differently. it may be a strecth, mabye not, but i believe it's possible and therefore worthy of our efforts to share such truth that we have found. well enough for now.

peace,

David

p.s. sorry my computer went whack and posted my last response 3 times.

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 8/9/2002 3:11 AM (GMT -6)

I am not sure why Christians should have to wear a blanket condemnation of being petty, narrow-minded and spiteful. It is not Christians that claim Jesus as the only way, it is Jesus Himself. Christians only state what their belief tells them is the truth. They see it that Christianity is available for everyone, it is not a closed club. Everyone has the right to join or not as they choose. If they choose otherwise, then that is fine, they believe what they wish to believe in, that is their right.

If non-Christians are so convinced of their own faith why should they be concerned about what Christians believe, anyway? Maybe, somewhere deep inside, there is an eeny weeny seed of doubt that they just might be wrong and end up on the losing side. Christianity-bashing suggests to me just this kind of fear and a desire to cover all options - just in case. But Christianity refuses to be so obliging. If it allows any other route to offer the same guarantee of salvation without Christ, then Christ's sacrifice was pointless and meaningless - and is no longer Christianity. Then we are left only with our own chances of earning our salvation on our own merits - personally, in that situation, I would give up immediately!!!

Putting Christianity on one side for a paragraph, I am not sure I would enter into any discussion of salvation by works or faith because it is only God who decides, and that judgement still lies ahead - I for one, would not speculate on who is or isn't gonna make it.

However, we can have a belief, or hope, regarding our salvation, which depends entirely on our particular faith. Personally, I go along with the Christian's Bible that no one earns their own salvation. We are all sinners regardless of faith, and the sentence is death for those sins. There is only God's grace and mercy left to lean on.

As far as the Bible goes, I believe it tells us that all we CAN offer is faith in Jesus Christ - we have nothing else to offer. But it also tells us that if our faith is real, then good works must inevitably follow from it, since faith is love and love is active. If we have faith in Jesus, we have love for Him. If we have love for Him we have love for everything that He loves.I do not think it is our hearts that are judged, but the faith that we have allowed to reside in our hearts.

If one has read of Christ and has come to believe in Him and what He has done on behalf of all humankind, then others should not expect one to dilute His message just to keep others content. It is their own choice which route they choose for themselves, but I would hope that they would consider Christians very unloving if we were NOT to explain to them what Christ claims - that is not being petty or spiteful - but loving and caring and concerned for the ultimate welfare of all people.

Ultimately, it all comes down to whether, at the end of the day, Christ IS the sole truth or not. If He is, then true Christ followers are saved and others still may be, or not. If He is not the sole truth, then true Christ followers will probably still be saved as their faith is based purely on love and godly worship and good citizenship! - Or are we to understand that the other religions' gods are going to reject Christians in principle in the same way as we are being accused of rejecting their followers for ignoring Christ???

Seems to me, that the odds are in favour of Christ whichever way one looks at it

Markus

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/9/2002 4:39 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks to all who have responded thus far. I've been dialoguing with this guy for some time now, and I feel that real progress has been made. David, we have indeed had an extensive discussion about inclusivism, and I believe it has positively changed his perspective on Christianity. The next step is to explain what is necessary about Christ.

Thanks again for the feedback, and if you get a chance today, pray for both of us.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/9/2002 4:53 AM (GMT -6)

BJS

The next step is to explain what is necessary about Christ.

Iconoclast

I tend to think of it less as what is necessary about Christ and more what is beneficial. Sure, no one comes to the father except through Christ. But this "necessary" could easily entail someone who was really worshipping Christ without knowing Him by that name. Remember the woman at the well - Jesus said that she worshipped what she did not know and the Jews worshipped what they did know. Both worshipping God - one just had more clarity and therefore, if one chose, more understanding, more conviction, and more benefit.

It is beneficial to know that the Jesus in the Bible is really who we are worshipping when we worship God. It allows us to have a more definite picture and understanding and therefore belief about the amazing love that God has for us. We now know much more clearly what His love for us looks like - it looks like the cross. This clearer picture allows us to have a more powerful experience in our worship and in our relationship. Benefit, benefit, benefit.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/9/2002 5:45 AM (GMT -6)

Right on, Iconoclast. The term "necessary" implies something beyond what I intended. "Beneficial" is a better way to say it.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/9/2002 6:23 AM (GMT -6)

Brett, we both can imagine how "beneifitial" could take on an individualist/hedonist life-of-its-own; that you don't intend. Let me suggest that if you put BOTH words, "necessary" and "beneficial" that they can 'keep each other in line' (so to speak).

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/9/2002 6:35 AM (GMT -6)

Person. Your friend is a person. That means, in the Christian view: that he is not merely a spirit attached to a body; and, that he is not just an animal who does just what is infront of him (like my gerbils).

There is (1) something wholistic about humanity, and (2) something beyond-wholistic that makes us each unique persons who's personal identity can-not-be-reduced-to the common human nature. Else you and I would be the same person, and your friend also. Deprived of that person-al aspect we feel that we are dying inside; don't we. (I'm reading Vladimir Lossky's "In the Image and Likeness of God.")

Calvin (whom I am reading) offers this appologetic that what witnesses to God's existence (not offered as a "proof") is that we are alive. God is alive. We get that ALIVE-ness, Calvin says, from God.

A+B=C
=====

Your friend is an alive person.

Christ recapitulated the life that all of us dead in our sins needs, in His flesh. (We will NEVER be 'given' eternal life--as something that is a stand-alone ourstide of Christ--but will receive of HIS life, by the Spirit, "IN CHRIST.")

Your friend needs that life. Your friend is dying. That life is both "necessary" and "benificial."

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/09/2002 11:40:58 AM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/9/2002 8:18 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks, Al!

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/9/2002 9:04 AM (GMT -6)

Ok. I'm gonna take a wild stab here.

When BJS says, "what's necessary about Christ", I'm thinking that he means this:

It's one thing to say that God exists and that inclusivism (or even universalism) is true. But it's another thing to say that it was specifically NECESSARY that the Christ-work (and nothing else) could be the ONLY thing to provide the salvation that ALL who are saved enjoy. Couldn't God just forgive arbitrarily? Wasn't there ANOTHER way God could have shown saving love for humanity OTHER THAN Christ? WHY was Jesus necessary in this regard?

If I'm right about that, then I think you MUST deal with the largest metaphysical and cosmological issues of the open view (especially Doc's view). Why? Because ULTIMATELY SPEAKING, these things contribute to what makes Jesus NECESSARY (ala open view theistic Christian belief)

--God's desire for free-willed beings and the corresponding world that results
--the intractable problem of sin
--The INCARNATIONAL nature of Christ
--The notion of Satan (whether one wants to take Satan as a literal being OR NOT)
--How the Christ-work deals with the sin like NO OTHER theological concept can (Right, Modes?)

Depending on how your friend thinks, this may take some time to do. But once this is done, your friend would be able to see how Jesus is not just a POSSIBLE MODE of availing salvation, but the ONLY SUITABLE MODE of doing so.

What do you think, BJS?

Chucks3371
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 28

Posted 11/20/2002 6:06 PM (GMT -6)

I'm quite unfamiliar with the evangelical world; "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" seem extreme to me. Since the topic is the salvation of the unevangelized, how would anyone answer these questions.

(1) When Jesus claims to be the way, is He referring to the man Jesus, or the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, through whom all things were made? If the latter, then the Logos is the way for everyone, whether they know it or not. If the former, then it seems we are back to the capricious God of calvinism. And the latter makes more sense if we truly believed that Jesus died for "all".

(2) Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus separates the sheep and goats. It seems that both groups are somewhat surprised at what is going on. There is nothing about faith, just works. It ends with "the righteous will go away to eternal life." Or did Matthew forget to add "the IMPUTED righteous"?

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/21/2002 1:02 AM (GMT -6)

A few personal responses and then a some general comments at the end:

Rich Mullins: …we never understand what we're praying.

Tom: What right does Mullins have to say anything about anybody’s prayer life other than his own? Pulleeeeese. Mullins is so obviously not correct here.

David: fourthly, Christ commands us to share our faith. it's not all about how many people we "save," i believe it's about sharing the joy and knowledge of our own salvation and desiring others to come to a more full understanding of salvation so they may experience our faith in the way we do.

Tom: “Repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in [my] name.” Jesus. I’m not an inclusivist. I haven’t actually come down on any one side of this issue. As a missionary I suppose that should be embarrassing to me. But, David, if you mean that preaching the gospel is by definition unrelated to “getting people saved” and is rather related to “improving the quality of life” of those already saved, then inclusivism as an option is out for me.

David: finally, inclusivist believe that we are judged by how we respond to the light we have been given.

Tom: Two things. First, I don’t see that this requires inclusivism. I can agree in principle that all have sufficient light (Rom. 1) and that this light is adequate for salvation (which appears to be entailed in claiming it’s adequate to condemn). But this doesn’t mean anybody ever DOES in fact respond to the light they’re given. This appears to be Paul’s point. Light is there, but nobody (zip, zero, nada) has responded to it. What else does Paul mean when he quotes, “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understand, no one who seeks God…”?

I don’t see that inclusivism provides any more comfort than exclusivism regarding the fate of the unevangelized. Let’s say I agree that the unevangelized possess in general revelation and conscience enough to lead them to trust God apart from explicit knowledge of Jesus. This says nothing about whether or not any has or will ever do so. And again, Paul’s argument in Rom. 1-3 doesn’t appear to me to suggest that Paul took comfort in the belief that any has or will ever do so.

If Paul was an inclusivist I should think he would have argued VERY differently in Rom. 1-3. What right would he as an inclusivist have for claiming as he does that “not one understands or even seeks God”? On the contrary, if inclusivism provides the sort of “hope” for the unevagelized that Sanders and others claim (Pinnock is confident that will see Socrates in heaven), Paul would doubtless have expressed such hope in Rom. 1-3. But he appears to have been unaware of it. I am not settled into a convinction on this all. Just trying to put my finger on some of the issues that need to be answered in my own mind.

Inclusivists often argue that the universal will of God that all be saved is incompatible with the belief that God would also make that salvation dependent on some bit of knowledge that requires that people spread it (=evangelization). But why believe that? Are there any examples of God’s will for the fate of people being dependent upon the involvement of God’s people? Sure. We always talk about Ezek. 22 as proving an open future. Doesn’t this essentially show that God’s will (not just his will for the temporal concerns of people, but his ultimate will to rescue people from judgment and death) may sometimes be dependent on US? God wanted to spare people. God wanted to save them. But God couldn’t save them because people didn’t play their part? How loving is THAT?

Does Ezk. 22 have implications for the inclusivist/exclusivist debate? Does it parallel the exclusivist’s understanding of God’s will to save people being dependent upon people? This is the fundamental problem. Would a God of love make the eternal fate of people dependent upon the willingness of people to play their part? Inclusivists say no, that’s unfair and unloving. What do they do with Ezek. 22?

I don’t have all the answers either. I am uncomfortable with some of the claims of exclusivists. But I don’t see that inclusivism helps me much if what I’m looking for is comfort that the unevangelized will make heaven.

Tom

"No one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 11/22/2002 1:25 AM (GMT -6)

I heard someone say, "We are all bound for hell, until we decide elsewise."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/27/2002 1:55 PM (GMT -6)

Quote: Would a God of love make the eternal fate of people dependent upon the willingness of people to play their part?

I guess that would not be enough. You would also have to die. And you would have to make your abode in them, by your Spirit. And you would have to....

What else?

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:13 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual