Theological Musings

n a rather intriguing conversation over at Dan Edelen’s blog, Dan posted some questions. He asked:

1. At what point have we surrendered enough of the foundational doctrines behind the Gospel that it warps into “another gospel?”
2. JWs say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?
3. Mormons say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?
4. How much unorthodoxy do we tolerate in our orthodoxy before we call it “unorthodox”?
5. At what point does a person’s belief system fail to meet God’s standard for believing faith unto salvation?

These questions resulted from a protracted debate over whether or not Dan was saying that a certain leader was not saved, and whether or not any of us has that right to make that judgment.

Last fall, as I recently referenced, we talked here about what is essential for identifying someone as a brother or sister in Christ. My “short list” concerned people because it didn’t sufficiently exclude some groups of people. Dan’s questions come at it from the opposite angle in some senses, and I want to offer my thoughts on this.

Let me begin by answering Dan’s questions:

1. At what point have we surrendered enough of the foundational doctrines behind the Gospel that it warps into “another gospel”?

This question is full of all kinds of other questions. What are the “foundational doctrines behind the Gospel”? And what is “another gospel”? What does it mean to “surrender” doctrines?

In Dan’s post, it was very clear that he saw the doctrine of the Trinity as a “foundational doctrine behind the Gospel”. But that, in itself, is a presupposition. I have yet to find an example of the presentation of the Gospel in the New Testament where the doctrine of the Trinity comes into play at all.

According to the apostle Paul, the Gospel is encapsulated in “Jesus died for our sins according to the Scripture, was buried, and was raised according to the Scriptures.” When faced with the question, “What must I do to be saved?”, Paul responded, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Over and over, the call in the New Testament is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

The foundational doctrine of the Gospel is not the Trinity, according to the apostles. I have blogged before about the fact that Paul doesn’t even emphasize the Trinity much at all in his writings. He often greets his readers in the name of the “God our Father and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (or some similar statement), but doesn’t invoke the name of the Spirit in his greetings and benedictions (with one or two exceptions).

The “doctrine of the Trinity” was emphasized in later church councils, but not in the teaching of the apostles. As such, I don’t believe it can be emphasized as a “foundational doctrine” of the Gospel.

So, getting back to Dan’s question, the foundational elements of the Gospel revolve around what Jesus did with regard to our sins. It is our faith in that which brings salvation. As Paul wrote in Romans 10:9, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.”

“Another gospel” is one which proclaims salvation through something other than Jesus.

2. JWs say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?

This question gets to the heart of the controversy in my last post. If someone who is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has placed their trust solely in the work of Jesus on the cross on behalf of their sins, I have no problem believing they are saved. They are not saved by being a JW, nor are they (in my opinion) damned solely on the basis of being a JW.

Does that mean that it doesn’t matter if they are a JW? It means that, if God wants to lead them out of being a JW, and they are in Christ, they will have the ability to hear His voice and follow the leading of His Spirit in that regard.

It’s similar to how I wrote before about a friend of mine wanting to witness to a homosexual. He asked, “How do I tell them, ‘Come and meet my God, who by the way, hates your lifestyle’?” My answer was, “You don’t. You introduce him to Christ and let the Holy Spirit do His job.” It’s not our job to convict of sin, nor is it our job to make disciples of ourselves. You can share your concerns, and you can help direct their thinking toward certain Scripture passages, or whatever. But ultimately, it is the work of the Spirit. Jesus said that when the Spirit came, He would convict of sin.

I see the same application to dealing with JWs or Mormons or whatever camp you think is so horrifically misguided that someone can’t possibly be saved within their ranks. Show Christ to them. Love them. Disciple them. And if they are a child of God, they will be led by the Spirit of God. We cannot usurp the role of the Holy Spirit in this regard.

3. Mormons say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?

See number 2 above. As I have expressed here already this week, this kind of question is the wrong one to ask. The question should not be “Are Mormons Christians?” but rather, “Is someone who places their trust solely in Jesus for their salvation a Christian, regardless of their current affiliation?”

See, in the comments on my last post, Rod expressed the horrifying possibility that I could have eternally altered the direction of someone’s heart for the worse by embracing them as a brother when they couldn’t possibly (in Rod’s mind) be a brother. Frankly, I think this is nonsense. If someone professes Christ and shows in their life Christlike behavior, is there any reason for me to hold them at arms’ length? Is that anywhere found in Scripture?? I don’t think so.

4. How much unorthodoxy do we tolerate in our orthodoxy before we call it “unorthodox”?

“Orthodoxy” is a very interesting subject. There is an assumption that all of the decisions of church councils in the past were completely accurate and necessary as litmus tests for fellowship. I would contend that this presents two problems:

1. This puts church council declarations on par with Scripture. The problem with this is not so much that we do it, but that we are not even honest enough to admit that we do it. This has begun to trouble me more and more in recent months. When anyone tries to make Nicea a litmus test for salvation, asking people to agree to a statement that is extra-biblical, they have gone farther than the apostles ever did in their preaching and evangelizing.
2. This conveniently overlooks the things that were declared in those same church councils that we do not readily embrace. In this pick-and-choose mentality to “orthodoxy”, we end up being dishonest about our sources and impose extra-biblical requirements on others.

“Orthodoxy” is not the goal. Faith in Christ is. I am not opposed to maintaining some record of “orthodoxy”, but I am opposed to replacing the true Gospel message with lists of orthodox doctrines.

5. At what point does a person’s belief system fail to meet God’s standard for believing faith unto salvation?

Quite simply, there are two answers that come to my mind. One is “That’s not our call to make”, but the other is more focused on the biblical record: “When the object of that faith ceases to be Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for our sins.”

In our rush to defend orthodoxy and correct doctrine, etc., I actually fear that it is we who are preaching “another gospel”. We have taken the basic message of salvation — the good news of the Gospel — and turned it into propositions about other doctrines that we then insist others must adhere to.

If the Gospel is, as Paul says it is, about Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, then I see no other conclusion, but that everything else must be secondary to that in our “litmus test”. We can instruct, we can teach, we can defend and plead our viewpoints. But we cannot stand in judgment of others on the basis of our doctrine, save that of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. And even then, I believe we should exercise immense restraint before passing judgment on someone’s eternal destiny.

In Matthew 13:24-30, Jesus told a parable about wheat and tares. When asked if the tares should be pulled out, the owner of the field said, “No…. Allow both to grow together until the harvest.” Why? Because, as he explained, pulling the tares up might uproot the wheat as well. Let us tread very carefully in our zeal to uproot tares among us.

Until next time,

steve