n a rather intriguing conversation over at Dan Edelen’s blog, Dan posted some questions. He asked:
- At what point have we surrendered enough of the foundational doctrines behind the Gospel that it warps into “another gospel?”
- JWs say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?
- Mormons say they are Christians. Are they? Why or why not?
- How much unorthodoxy do we tolerate in our orthodoxy before we call it “unorthodox”?
- 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:
- 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.
- 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 
Michael, Jesus did say that if anyone loves Him, they will keep His commandments. So, in that respect, I do believe that works will definitely follow faith and love.
In fact, even in the classic proof-text for salvation by grace and not through works (Eph 2:8-9) Paul immediately follows with Eph 2:10 where he says, “But we were created for good works”.
Likewise, Jesus said that we should let our light shine before men so that they might see our “good works”.
And James says that faith without works is dead.
I guess the question, though, is one of cause and effect. Does faith produce those works, thereby making those works fruit of saving faith? Or, do the works themselves save us?
I think the truth is in the first of those two options.
Apologies Steve. I read that thinking what was being implied was, ‘you can raise your concerns if you so wish, but ultimately it is of little consequence because the Spirit alone can lead a person away from falsehood’.
I read into your statement in a way you obviously never intended. My fault.
God bless!
Armen, no apologies needed. I can see how you misread that, but I’m glad my comment cleared that up for you.
Blessings on you. Thanks for stopping by.
What interesting questions and I have to admit I agree mostly with your answers.
I have often said in discussions that “the Gospel is simple it is Jesus Death, Burial and Resurrection. All according to the Scriptures.” his death is important due to His life and its saving power, and all according to the scriptures is important prophetically from every part of scripture.
Sorry if this has been asked but I don’t have the time now (I will read them later) to go through all 100+ comments.
What about the people who are described in Matthew 7:21-23? Simply professing Jesus as Lord cannot be enough, no matter how sincere the profession is.
How do you understand this verse in regards to this post and especially 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.�
I agree totally with your definition of “Another gospelâ€. That it is one which proclaims salvation through any means other than Jesus.
MDM
MDM,
Good to see you again, my friend! Thanks for your question. It’s not completely unlike other comments above, but yours seems to ask it a bit more directly and with a slightly different perspective, in my opinion.
I am not sure I have a great answer for it, but will offer my thoughts, since that’s what you asked for!
I would submit that there is probably something to be said for the fact that the people in Matthew 7:21-23 call Jesus “Lord”, but are not necessarily confessing him as Lord.
Maybe that’s semantics, and maybe it’s just splitting hairs, but there obviously must be some difference. The people in Matthew 7 do not (by Jesus’ words, we can infer this) have a relationship with Him. In other words, He was apparently not actually Lord to them.
Jesus said that the Father is seeking those who would worship Him in spirit and in truth. The “in truth” part seems to imply that we cannot just say that we worship Him, but that we actually must be worshiping Him. Does that make sense?
There is ample evidence throughout scripture that the heart of a man is what God judges him by. And Jesus said that we speak out of what is in our heart. So, when Romans talks about confessing with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, I believe that it is referring to a verbal testimony of what is already true in the heart and the spirit.
Not the most elegant answer, and probably sounds a bit like double-speak to some, but that’s my input on the matter.
Anyone else care to take a crack at MDM’s question?
I don’t think that one could have a sincere profession of the lordship of Christ over one’s life without evidence of that confession showing in their actions. What I find interesting is the two types of confession: Verbal, to the people around us, and heartfelt belief, visible only to God. It is an echo of the nature of the 10 commandments: those dealing with man’s relationship with God, and the rest dealing with man’s relationship with one another.
I once had a discussion with a roommate about the concept of salvation through grace alone, and he brought up the example of a confessed murderer who professed a belief in Christ while on the way to the electric chair. My friend would not believe that a simple confession of sin and desire for redemption was enough to save a murderer from hell.
My position was that if it was sincere, and only God would know, then it was enough. Therein lies grace. Only God knows what goes on in the heart. So a verbal confession is a part of salvation (if you confess me before man…), but there needs to be belief in our hearts, where only God can see.
The whole argument about works vs. faith is tied up in this though. In the verses sited, Matthew 7:21-23, we have a group of people who are showing all the outward signs of salvation (i.e. Works), in a big way, but they are not saved. How can this be? Could this be works without faith? In fact, Christ says they practice lawlessness! But in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), Jesus divides up the flock, as Keith Green would say, “By what they did and didn’t do.”
So how are we to know? Can we live our life doing what we, and everyone around us, consider ‘good works’ and still not be saved? Or are good works evidence of the Spirit at work in our lives?
I think though, that one can make something of an informed decision by the type of work shown. Those who Christ rejected were doing some pretty spectacular things. Those Christ invited into His Kingdom were doing rather mundane service-and were unaware of whom they served. They apparently served out of love for all, not from a desire of exhaltation of salvation. In Matthew 23:11 Christ says that the greatest will be a servant. He reiterated this in Mark 9:35 by saying that the one who seeks to be greatest must be servant of all. Paul wrote that we need to have the same attitude of Jesus, who became a servant obedient to the point of death!
I don’t think a human could truly be that humble without Christ being in complete control of their heart.
David, thank you for your continued interaction on this.
It’s hard not to over-emphasize either grace/faith or works. I believe this was at the heart (no pun intended) of Martin Luther’s frustration with the book of James. He saw it as antithetical to Paul’s teaching about grace, and in his pendulum swing away from the RCC teachings about works, he desired to keep anyone from focusing on works.
It reminds me of a discussion we had in our fellowship one time several years ago. I was talking about Paul’s exhortations to us to walk in the Spirit, and to “watch carefully how you walk”, etc. A dear brother could not accept the fact that I even mentioned this and cried, “That’s legalism!”
To him, anything that put any responsibility on us, even if it wasn’t for salvation itself, was legalism. And he felt like I was putting people in bondage by teaching that.
I think, like most dichotomies we end up presenting in our theology, there is a both/and to all of this. That’s why I pointed out Eph 2:10 in that it immediately follows Eph 2:8-9. We love to quote 8 and 9, but rarely quote 10. I think Luther might have been choosing to have similar myopia in emphasizing “the just shall live by faith” and sticking the book of James in the category of “questionable authenticity”!
This has been an interesting ride. It’s important that we rehash foundational stuff like this, and the web seems to be the new quaker meeting, in a sense.
David Riggins,
the web seems to be the new quaker meeting, in a sense.
I like that analogy! Thanks again for all of your involvement in this marathon. I hope to continue to see you around in other discussions (although I’m very hesitant to post again after this topic!! hehe)
Aw, c’mon Steve. What’s another 110 comments between friends? Go ahead and post again… but maybe not too often?
-Alan
“The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.†-Ezra Taft Benson
Well, I can’t hold off any longer… too much fun!
There are some great points made all around but there was something that jumped out at me. Steve, your comment to Heather about “Barnabas type people” got me to thinking about the first century believers. They didn’t have the blessing of the entire Word of God as we do. In fact if we look at the Christology of the NT we see the deity of Christ seems to strengthen/grown over time. Not to suggest it wasn’t there but it seems to have come on stronger later. Perhaps in response to need – to confront growing incorrect teaching. My thought is perhaps now, as then, there is a process whereby we should be growing in our understanding of the Lord and our understanding of proper “definitions” for the words we use. Doest this mean that there is a “timetable” for one to move from infancy to maturity? Yes, no doubt there is. The writer to the Hebrews seems frustrated with the lack of growth among his readers (Hebrews 5:12).
Can someone not fully understand who Jesus is and yet be saved? I think so; but, I think each one who calls upon that name takes on a responsibility to find out (either before or after) what they have gotten themselves into and what is expected.
Thank you all for the challenging and stretching comments! Especially thanks to you Steve for working through these.
In Christ,
-marty