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 
Rod, thanks for continuing on. I understand your desire to address this latest statement, and I figured someone would take issue with it!
When a Mormon says that he trusts in Jesus Christ for his salvation, he means something very different than you and I mean by that statement.
He has a different definition for “Jesus Christ.” He means something different by “trust.” His idea of “salvation” is completely different.
I’ll be real frank. I’m not at a point where I can completely agree with you on this. I understand what you’re saying, and in some ways it makes sense. But there’s still something about it that I will have to work through in my own mind before I can high-five you and say, “That’s right, brother.”
Let me put it this way: How is this any different than saying “When a Presbyterian talks about baptism to a Baptist, he means something very different”? Obviously, we all have grids through which we speak and hear, but I’m not buying this closed-door approach to whatever someone says just because of the group they’re affiliated with.
I understand what you’re saying. But I’m just not seeing it quite that way.
Please forgive me for that, and be patient with me. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but your assertions that people you don’t even know are using words differently than what they’re actually saying doesn’t sit well with me.
I’m open, but not there yet. I’m sorry.
It is entirely possible that your friend is more a Christian than a Mormon. But again I go back to my previous point. If he is open to the truth about Jesus Christ, instantly embracing him as a brother in Christ prevents him from investigating the differences between what his church teaches and what the Bible teaches.
I disagree. This is a work that belongs to the Holy Spirit. If he is actually my brother, according to the possibility you said at the start of that statement, then embracing him is my duty in Christ. I have never said that embracing him as a brother ends all discussion about doctrinal variances, or embraces his church’s teaching. In fact, it is highly likely we will continue to discuss things. He wants to, and so do I.
On this point, you and I will likely have to agree to disagree. I appreciate your thoughts about it, though, and definitely take your thoughts under consideration.
John,
I think we’re on the same page, maybe…..maybe not?
I think so.
But it’s tough because sometimes people who profess Christ have rotten fruit and sometimes atheists have great fruit.
At what point do we take Jesus’ statements at face value? Jesus said we could know people by their fruit. If people profess Christ, but have rotten fruit, then what’s the question?
What do you mean when you say “sometimes atheists have great fruit”?
There are a number of groups that use the same language as us (eg Trinity, Jesus, salvation), but they’re using them in radically different ways. So this is why I am raising questions. You aren’t a part of one of these groups, so I wouldn’t question your profession for a moment.
I was part of a Oneness Pentecostal church for about 5 years. Do you question my profession now?
Some have. Ironically, it was while I was at that church that I consider myself to have truly come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, even though I had “walked the aisle” when I was 5 and done a lot of things for God (such as pastoring for several years) prior to the time when I believe I truly placed my trust solely in Jesus for the first time.
I didn’t get saved because of their teaching, and never fully embraced a lot of their distinctives. But the fact that I got saved and rebaptized there might cause some to question my profession of faith. Does it cause you to?
David Riggins, sorry to make you work so hard!
I do appreciate the effort you’ve shown here. It’s always nice to meet new people here on this blog, and I thank you for joining in.
Different interpretations are evidence of the problem we face. Can one Spirit give multiple interpretations? See 1 Corinthians 12:1-11. But we are divided because we interpret the will of God for ourselves.
I see your point here, although I think it may be overstating the case a little bit perhaps.
Be that as it may, does this not behoove us to approach our differences with humility and grace? And is this not some of what I have been contending for in this exhausting marathon of posts and comments?
By the way, allow me to use an example you gave to prove a point I have been trying to make.
You said: The Godhood of Christ was not revealed by Peter’s own understanding, but rather by the Spirit.
I think this is a good example of how we sometimes read back into Scripture things that are not necessarily there.
Did Peter’s confession of who Jesus was say anything about “the Godhood of Christ”? He identified Jesus as the one anointed by God and the “son of the living God”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but does “son of the living God” automatically equate in Peter’s mind or to the Jewish audience of that day to be “God himself”?
It’s tangential in some ways to this conversation, but is an example of what I’m talking about. If someone comes along and says, “I don’t believe that Peter saw Jesus as God — at least not at this point”, would we have the grace and the humility to admit that we might be wrong on that interpretation?
Rod, re: your comments about tradition
I think that’s a whole nother post on a whole nother day
ded, I missed the significance of one of your comments. You wrote: Let’s see if I can do this? and then proceeded to put a sentence in italics.
Way to go!
I saw the comment, but was so overwhelmed by the sheer volume of comments and responses that I didn’t even know what you were talking about!!
I found this very interesting in view of this whole discussion about “which Jesus?” etc.
Cameron Cloud linked to a story on John Piper’s site about the very recent death of John’s father.
Listen to what John shared at the end:
I don’t want to put John Piper on a pedestal, but what struck me was how unconcerned he was with figuring out “which Jesus” this young man believed in.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for hanging in there with me on this. You wrote:
“At what point do we take Jesus’ statements at face value? Jesus said we could know people by their fruit. If people profess Christ, but have rotten fruit, then what’s the question?”
I hear you, it seems straight forward. I’m leaving the fruit inspector thing up to God–yes, I probably am being inconsistent here.
With atheists, I mean that there’s a lot of very ethical, loving, kind, compassionate, merciful, etc atheists. On the other hand, there are plenty of very unethical, unloving, unkind, etc. Christians. Hence my struggle with the fruit thang.
Your previous involvement with Oneness Pentecostals doesn’t cause me to question your profession of faith in the least! Though I think modalism is inconsistent with the God revealed in Scripture.
Dear Steve,
I apologize for any confusion. I was at work and pretending I was busy while writing the comment and at times lost my train of thought.
What I meant by my first statement is that although your answers to Dan’s questions were logical and reasonable, which I appreciate, and while you don’t specifically state that you endorse “widening the Christianity tent” you do offer answers which suggest that those with different doctrinal beliefs, yet share faith in Christ, may also have access to heaven. I do not see Evangelicals often making suggestions such as these and it was refreshing.
What I meant by in the second statement was, simply (I hope), was that if various forms of doctrinal beliefs in Christ were acceptable than there would really be no need for the numerous sects or the term Christianity. I think that might be your point in all of this. I am curious. do you associate with any particular sect or church? If so, why?
For Mormons, we believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored through Joseph Smith and thus we have the fullness of the gospel. Baptists think they have it right. Catholics believe they have the gospel in its fullness. If all are acceptable than there is no particular draw to any of them. It would be a free for all. I think there is actually evidence of that now. Mormon baptisms, while still increasing at a steady pace, are not as high as they have been in the last few years, attendance and baptisms are down in the SBC but attendance in the mega-churches is on the rise. The tongue-speakers (sorry, I don’t recall the sect names) are also seeing a rise in membership. That is why you see the SBC discussing whether or not to allow to people who have PPL and speak in tongues a larger role in the SBC tent. For Mormons, if the highest level of celestial glory were attainable within any Christian-like doctrine, there would be no point of membership other than lifestyle, discounts at the Marriott hotel (this is not true…or is it?), and a variety of Jello recipes.
John Smulo argues vigorously against the inclusion of some of the “cult” sects and doctrine; JW’s. Mormon’s etc, as only Evangelical’s have the “truth” about Jesus. That said, I completely understand this point of view and I will not state that Mr. Smulo is “wrong” as I am happy that he knows Christ and has put his trust in Him.
In the end, you probably have it right: “I didn’t get saved because of their teaching…but when I placed my trust solely in Jesus for the first time”.
God Bless,
James
James, thank you for the clarifications. I appreciate your comments and your attitude.
There’s definitely much to think of. Like how I can get a discount at the Marriott, too…
No, seriously. There is much to think of. The many divisions in the body of Christ concern me. And I have a hunch that they grieve God. But that’s just my hunch.
With regard to my church affiliation, I am not affiliated with any particular denomination or church. I gather with a group of believers in what we term “simple church” (a whole nother controversial topic in itself on this blog from time to time!)
In fact, I would venture a guess that the reason I come across as more “free” in my thinking to you is precisely because I have stepped away from the institutional expression of Christianity that is so common. That probably causes some of my readers even more heartburn, but I think that there probably is a connection.
Thanks again for your interaction here. Feel free to hang out and discuss more if you’d like.
Steve,
There are a couple of things about this conversation that make me very uncomfortable.
One is that we are talking about your friend in a forum that he is likely to overhear. The discussion we are having is not one that should take place in front of him.
Second, because of the way you framed the original issue, you’ve put those of us who disagree with you in an awkward position. Because you have asserted something that we cannot completely accept, it makes us look like judgemental fundamentalists. And because you’ve been digging in your heals, it leaves us with two options. Either we can give in and agree with you, or we press on and look even more rabid and judgmental.
This is not an issue that I would have ever raised on my own. But there are significant problems with the position you have staked out.
I get the idea that there is something else at issue here besides what’s been stated.
In my opinion, this discussion has taken off in too many different directions to come to any productive end. I’m happy to discuss some of these issues, but I don’t think this is the time or the place.
God Bless,
Rod
John, I appreciate you. I also appreciate your willingness to admit to a possibility of inconsistency. I do, respectfully, feel like your position is a bit inconsistent, but I mean that in the most loving way possible.
Just the fact that you’re willing to hash this out with me means a lot to me, and I am sure there are inconsistencies on my side, too!
I look forward to more dialogue with you, my brother. I’m not sure how much more we have to talk out on this particular topic, but hope to continue to engage on this or other topics as we journey together.
Blessings on you!
steve
Rod, I’m genuinely sorry you feel that way about it. I respect your feelings on it, but wish it weren’t that way.
I have not tried to paint you or anyone else here in a negative light, nor I have intended to just “dig in my heels”. I’m really trying to work through all of this.
My friend is aware of this discussion, but I don’t think you have anything to fear. I don’t know if he’s read it yet, but he is aware of it and likely will read it. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
I get the idea that there is something else at issue here besides what’s been stated.
If you’re uncomfortable elaborating here, by all means, please email me and share your concerns with me about this. Please!
I’m not sure what you think might be at issue, but I assure you my motives are not (nor have been) at all malicious!
Blessings, Rod. Please continue to stay in touch.
Steve,
I’m not attributing bad motives to you. Nor am I saying that you have some hidden agenda.
I wanted to say this publicly. I don’t want anyone to think badly of you or to think I that I have hard feelings toward you.
God Bless,
Rod
Thanks, Rod!
You’re a great friend.
Got me quoting off the top of my head again…OK, Peter’s profession was “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” And if we really want to parse things, Jesus said “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” NOT the Holy Spirit, as I claimed. My presentation is a bit rusty. But as you say, it illustrates a point. My faulty presentation opens up opportunity for doubts.
As to approaching one another in humility and grace, absolutely. We are all prone to error, and so need to be humble enough to be willing to admit error, and to show grace to those in error.
By the way, I appreciate the time you are putting into this. God bless.
Steve, you said, I don’t want to put John Piper on a pedestal, but what struck me was how unconcerned he was with figuring out “which Jesus†this young man believed in.
Having read a good deal behind John Piper, I don’t think it would be accurate to say that he was “unconcerned” about “which Jesus” the young believed in.
I don’t question every person I meet or even those I engage in conversation about “which Jesus” they believe in. I know labels are quickly becoming a dirty word, but if they identify with a group that I know accepts the biblical account of who Jesus is, I assume they are believing in the same Jesus I do.
My concern is with cults, religions, denominations, etc. who deny, detract from, or add to the biblical revelation of Jesus Christ. When they do this, they are in essence refusing to accept Jesus’ claim for who He is. If they are not willing to believe what the Bible says about that, how can they believe that He rose from the grave and will save them?
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:14,17
Would this not indicate that the biblically revealed Christ must be the focus of saving faith and not our own perception of Christ?
Do you mean by that last part that the statement would define what that part believes, as to distinguish it from other parts?
If so, whatever happened to one faith? And whatever happened to the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17?
I think it’s possible that I misread your statement, though. Did I?
Not for the purpose of distinguishing, but to say that definitively, “This is what we believe.” If some other professing Christian disagrees then this can be a basis for discussion. It isn’t always that way, but a brother can dream.
Unfortunately, I have a bit more of a cynical perspective on this than you. I have seen this as the norm.
No I thinkg that my perspective can be just as cynical if I let it.
You seem, from what you have said, to be coming from a Calvinistic environment.
…snip…
Anyway…that’s probably not really all a response to you, but do you have any thoughts?
I know that creeds are used to divide. I know that we are good at sniping one another and that we lack the unity that Christ desired. Unfortunately thanks to human nature I’m not sure that unity is possible. And if that unity came at the cost of truth (which Christ wouldn’t want) then it’s not desirable.
I think a healthy skepticism to creeds and statements of faith is a great thing. But we must also be cautious not to let heresy creep in. And false Christs and bad teaching are both very real. They exist in every major denomination and have consumed minor denominations.
I feel that your heart desires a sort of ecumenism (if that’s a word) and that’s something that I want as well. Like I said I do believe that it’s possible to be a member of a church that teacehs heresy and still be saved, but it’s like living in a house of vipers and you have to ask yourself why you’d stay there.
David Riggins, thanks for your time as well. I was amazed at the response to this post, and am pretty worn out from trying to keep up with so many people’s comments!!
Rusty presentation or not, I appreciate your input here today, and look forward to the possibility of more conversations with you.
God bless you!
Gordon, I definitely was not trying to turn this into a discussion about Piper’s beliefs or methods. I just found it very interesting that, in the particular incident he related, he asked two very basic questions and, by his own account, walked away satisfied. His questions had nothing to do with any of the things that many in these lengthy threads have deemed to be so vitally important.
Unless Piper left out significant amounts of details, he seemed satisfied with the profession of faith this young man made. This is in stark contrast to the amount of explaining I have had to do here with regard to the profession of faith of my friend.
I’m just saying…
scott, thank you for taking the time to clarify your responses.
Unfortunately thanks to human nature I’m not sure that unity is possible.
I hate to sound so idealistic, (especially after talking about my cynicism!! hehe) but I don’t want to be in the position of saying that what Jesus prayed for us, and what he obviously desires for us, is prohibited by human nature.
And if that unity came at the cost of truth (which Christ wouldn’t want) then it’s not desirable.
I will never argue for unity at the cost of truth. I think this is a false dichotomy, and I’m not willing to buy into it. It’s not unity vs. truth. It’s unity based on truth.
The question is, what truth is it based on?
I think I have expressed this on the blog before, but maybe not, so let me use this example here: I believe in believer’s baptism. But I have come to the point in my walk where I believe it should be, and is, possible for me to fellowship with someone who believes in infant baptism.
Are there differences there? Yes. But to the extent that both of us are seeking to follow Scripture and follow the Spirit, I do not believe we should divide over that.
Rather than punt to the age-old approach of “oh, well, I’ll just go worship over here and pretend that we’re actually still unified”, I would rather sit down and say, “Let’s worship together.”
Many see that as sacrificing truth. I see it as recognizing that the truth that unifies us is not contained in all of the issues we think are so important.
Anyway, thank you all for contributing to this. I’m not sure how much longer I’ll be up tonight to respond.
Blessings upon each of you. And may Jesus Christ be glorified through our discussion here.
Whew! Good discussions. It has taken me a long time to wade through them, but I have really enjoyed them (interspersed of course with watching my Charlotte Bobcats keep up with those blazin’ Suns!). Thanks everyone for staying with the conversation. It has been great to see all of you present your varying positions on these issues. Maybe, in some small way, we are achieving some form of unity even now?
Raborn, wouldn’t that be nice?
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
Hey, you’re the one who brought up Piper, is there anything else you’ve mentioned that you don’t want to talk about?
Just kidding.
I would be interested, though, to hear your answer to the question at the end of my comment.
Steve -
One thing that I keep thinking about … are we using the same words but a different dictionary? I think that is the concern I am reading in the comments. I could be off base here. But I think the concern is that someone may say “I believe in Jesus”, so we’re using the same words, but the Jesus they believe in is a “creation” of men, a mere man, a good teacher, didn’t really die on the cross, didn’t rise on the 3rd day, etc. – that’s the same word (Jesus) but a different dictionary (“Jesus” means something different/He is someone different) than the one that I am using, if you understand my analogy.
I have run into this time and time again in the church on various things – same words, but different dictionary. It’s early, so I’m not sure I articulated that right … what are your thoughts?
Gordon, I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m not arguing for “any ol’ Jesus” in this topic.
The problem is that the phrase “biblically revealed Christ” is a heavily loaded statement. I compare it to the use by Calvinists of the term “biblical theology”. If you don’t see it exactly the way they see it, your theology is “unbiblical”.
Some of the viewpoints that differ from ours are actually derived from interpretation of Scripture. So, to say that one must believe in the “biblically revealed Christ” is to deny that there is a possibility that we have unintentionally added some elements to our understanding of Christ ourselves.
Take, for example, the comment I made earlier about Peter’s confession. It was stated that Peter announced the Godhood of Jesus. But I’m not positive that when Peter said “the Christ” that he understood that to be “God”, nor am I certain that “son of the living God” would have meant deity to him, either. It’s clear that he recognized that Jesus was the one chosen by God to be the Messiah (same as “Christ”, which simply means “Anointed One”).
I’m just using this as an example.
But, to make the point clearly one more time, I am not in any way saying that someone can just manufacture a “Jesus” in their minds with no relationship to what has been revealed and claim that their Jesus is able to save. I have never, nor do I anticipate ever, argued in favor of that.
Heather,
Others have raised this concern, yes. I feel like it is a straw man, however, based on all that I have been saying here.
But I think the concern is that someone may say “I believe in Jesusâ€, so we’re using the same words, but the Jesus they believe in is a “creation†of men, a mere man, a good teacher, didn’t really die on the cross, didn’t rise on the 3rd day, etc.
If someone believes that Jesus was just a good teacher or didn’t die on the cross, rise from the grave, etc., then of course they’re talking about something else other than the Jesus that can save.
This continued concern in this thread baffles me, to be honest. I am not in any way, shape, or form arguing for (or for that matter, even talking about) accepting the confession of any one who merely says the word “Jesus”.
I just can’t help but feel that we need some more Barnabas-type people in this world. (Acts 9)
Gordon,
Just to clarify why I did mention the John Piper story. It wasn’t that I didn’t want to talk about it, but that I wasn’t intending this to be a discussion about Piper personally. I was using him as an example.
Based on the repetitive concerns raised in this thread and the previous one, my critics here would have to be consistent and say that Piper did this young man a disservice by accepting his confession that he was “ready to meet God” and that “Jesus is the only way”.
Based on the things that have been said to me in this thread, Piper should have found out which Jesus the young man believed to be the only way.
See my point?
Steve -
You said, “This continued concern in this thread baffles me, to be honest. I am not in any way, shape, or form arguing for (or for that matter, even talking about) accepting the confession of any one who merely says the word “Jesusâ€.” … I know. Having read your blog & “conversed” with you for some time now I know this about you, so I didn’t read that into anything that has been written by you here. I just thought I might throw in a thought as to why the comments have swayed in that direction. I apologize if I suggested that I thought that (what you said quoted above) of you or your statements.
I do understand what you are trying to say here in this post and your comments! Just wanted to reiterate that
… you’re a blessing! Keep on pressing on!
~Heather
Heather, thanks for understanding!
I’m sorry if I sounded a bit defensive in my reply to you. I didn’t really mean to.
Steve, I appreciate your answer, but I am a little bit confused.
You say that you are not saying that it is alright to accept “any ol’ Jesus”, and yet you seem to be arguing against those who make a distinction between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Mormons.
I understand that some may have differing interpretations of scriptures, but when someone adds three entire literary works to the Bible’s account of who Jesus is, changing the manner of His birth and incarnation and denying that He and His father are one, that is more than a differing interpretation, that is a different Jesus. There is no salvation in any other than the one revealed in Scripture. I know you believe this, I just don’t understand why your arguments tend to indicate otherwise.
Neither do I think Heather’s suggestion is a straw man. It is a legitimate concern. The very core of our Christian faith is tied to the identity of Christ. Would not Satan love to bring confusion on that matter and cause people to misplace their faith in a counterfeit? John warned in his first epistle that the spirit of antichrist was already in the world, we must be diligent to remain faithful to the doctrine that the Bible reveals about Christ.
Gordon, thanks for continuing the dialogue. I must admit to being rather exhausted today after the incredibly lengthy conversation here yesterday, but I’ll try to use what bit of time I have here this morning (which is not much) to press forward even more.
When I said “straw man”, I was referring to the idea of Jesus being “a mere man”, a “good teacher” who didn’t die for our sins, didn’t rise from the dead.
That is a straw man, my dear friend. Nowhere, nowhere, nowhere in this series of discussions have I even come remotely close to saying that was the Jesus I was allowing or accepting in another’s profession. And in the context of Mormonism, that is not what I have heard.
So when someone presents this discussion as such, it is a straw man. I did not say that the entire concern was illegitimate. In fact, I have been trying to be very careful not to put down anyone’s concern here for truth.
I don’t think you and I are going to see eye to eye on this, but I would at least hope that the argument would be presented fairly.
But let me press on a couple of things you said, to continue.
You mentioned that John tells us about the spirit of antichrist. You are correct. But John also gives us three specific characteristics of the spirit of antichrist:
1. Denies that Jesus is the Christ, and denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22)
2. Does not confess Jesus (1 John 4:3)
3. Does not acknowledge Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 1:7)
Now, I realize number 2 seems kinda vague, but the verse immediately preceding it clarifies this for us. 1 John 4:2 says, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God”.
Apply those tests to this discussion. Are we talking about the spirit of antichrist?
Now, you also said that there is a problem with people denying that Jesus and His Father are “one”.
If by “one”, you mean the way that Trinitarianism defines it, then you have a great point.
However, step back to a time when Nicea hadn’t yet happened, and tell me what Jesus meant when he prayed:
“keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.” (John 17:11)
and
“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me,” (John 17:22-23)
I would respectfully (and believe it or not, humbly!) submit that Nicea didn’t adequately answer this question. Classic proofs for the Trinity include Jesus’ statement “I and the Father are one”, but fail to account for Jesus’ use of the word “one” in referring to us, and equating it to his oneness with the Father.
If the answer is just “Well, he surely didn’t mean the same thing”, then the necessary question is, “Well, then, what did he mean?”
I look forward to your reply.
Steve you said, When I said “straw manâ€, I was referring to the idea of Jesus being “a mere manâ€, a “good teacher†who didn’t die for our sins, didn’t rise from the dead.
Where, in this entire conversation, has anyone used the argument of Christ being a “mere man” or a “good teacher”. I thought we were comparing Mormonism, JWs, etc. with Christianity. Are you not creating a “straw man” by bringing this into the equation?
The three specific characteristics of the antichrist which you mentioned are legitimate. But are they the only three characteristics of the spirit of antichrist? Would not any spirit that seeks to pervert any part of the doctrine of Christ be antichrist?
As far as Nicaea goes, you have been the only one that I have seen referring to that. I was not speaking of the deity of Christ in the context of the Trinity, but in the context of John 10:30 where Jesus said, “I and my father are one.” The Mormons statement of faith leads one to believe that Jesus is a separate deity from His father. This is clearly contradictory to scripture.
As for your distinction between Jesus stating that He was one with His brethren, you are speaking of a different dynamic. It is not possible for two or more humans to be the same being, so obviously He did mean something different than He did in John John 10:30. But it is not impossible for Jesus and His Father to be one.
Finally, please explain what you mean when you insinuated that I am being unfair in my arguments. I am asking what I feel are legitimate questions based on the discussion at hand. How is that being unfair?
Gordon, first of all, I’m not trying to be adversarial here.
Please allow me to clear up the straw man reference.
Heather said, in summarizing what she thought the concern was in this thread:
But I think the concern is that someone may say “I believe in Jesusâ€, so we’re using the same words, but the Jesus they believe in is a “creation†of men, a mere man, a good teacher, didn’t really die on the cross, didn’t rise on the 3rd day, etc.
I responded to that saying that I thought that was a straw man argument because we had not been talking about people who call Jesus a “mere man”, a “good teacher”, or who deny that he died on the cross or rose on the 3rd day.
Heather said that she didn’t mean to imply that I was arguing that, so the straw man was put to rest.
But then you said that her concern was legitimate and not a straw man. Go back and read through that exchange and see the progression there.
So, it wasn’t I who introduced that!
Heather introduced it, and you persisted with it when I protested. And it was specifically that to which I was referring when I said that the discussion wasn’t being presented fairly.
I wasn’t insinuating that anything else you have said is unfair.
I really don’t want to argue with you, brother. In fact, by the time you read this, I will likely have tried to reach you by phone to make sure this doesn’t get misunderstood further.
With regard to the “one” explanation, I’m going to leave that until I’m sure that we’re not still missing each other on the straw man issue.
Steve, I think I have you now. I obviously overlooked part of Heather’s comment and thought you were referring to another. I apologize.
Thanks for clearing it up.
Dear Steve
I just finished reading through the comments over at Dan’s site. I have been thinking about all that has come forth as a result of his post and your interaction with it. I think I am going to make this my last post on the subject (but of course one never knows what God has planned
).
For someone like me who believes that one can grow cold and fall after salvation, then how one lives out their life after salvation is just as and maybe even more important than the starting point. The need to learn of God and doctrine and the history of the church is vital to a healthy, and maturing christian walk. Holding to the TRUTH of God’s revelation in Christ and his Word is the most important thing we will do with our lives as christians. However growth is not always a matter of learning doctrine or dogma a little bit better today than yesterday. It is also being challanged sometimes by very incomfortable facts that don’t necessarily fit into my neat and tidy frames.
It is a fact that a brother in Christ who deserves my respect and attention due to his long-time witness to Christ and his demonstrated spirit of gentleness and humility has had the unmitigated gall
to challange my preconceptions. It is a fact that he related a moment in his life where his spirit bore witness to something that my preconceptions declare to be impossible. Thank you Steve.
I know that this has been to some extent a pretty unprecedented experience for you. 85 comments and counting, WOW. You will be right there with the Pyromaniacs in no time. I bet that at least part of you is saying “Oh God, never again.”. But you made me think. You allowed me to interact with the other commentors on your board and so stretch my understanding of how God works. This is the best of the blogsphere, where because of your spirit, the commentors drawn to this site are able to challenge each other and learn from each other in civil and polite discourse and thereby each grow as God gives us knowledge. You and Dan have both ministered to the community that God has given you. I don’t know that I have changed my mind at all but I know that I have thought a lot deeper and have a much better understanding of what I believe than when I arrived at this post a couple of days ago.
My final reaction is this: PRAISE GOD, PRAISE GOD, PRAISE GOD!!! You did good and should take joy in how you were able to minister to all of us who gathered in this virtual place you created.
Riley
Thanks, Riley, for encouraging my brother, Steve!!
He’s a sound man of faith, who seeks to know people after the spirit as Paul recounts in Corinthians.
A lost part of the gospel perhaps?
Steve,
Even though I did not comment, I followed this post and the comments. At first, I wondered how you made it through yesterday. For a while I wondered if it was even worth it to have a conversation like this.
But, I forgot something in all of this. Riley reminded me in his last comment. Everyone may not have “agreed”. But, was everyone edified? Was everyone encouraged toward maturity in Christ?
I think you did that. And, along with Riley, I praise God for that.
-Alan
Riley, ded, and Alan:
Thank you gentlemen. I don’t feel like I deserve any pat on the back for this, but I sure am edified and blessed by your comments.
If God can receive glory from these posts and interactions, and if people can be edified and built up in their faith, then I am very grateful to our Lord!
Riley, I have an urge to rebuke you for that pyromaniacs comment, but I’ll resist
hehe
Hi Steve,
These last few comments are precisely why I continue to read your blog! I did pray for you a couple of times yesterday….
And because of this post, I was able to have a wonderful conversation this morning with a sister in Christ, and we were both edified by it. God is good!
kkmhmom, bless you!!!!
I certainly did not expect this turn in the conversation here, but am blessed.
I tried to read this comment out loud to my wife and choked up.
Even in the midst of 80+ comments of difficult dialogue (on both sides, I’m sure!), I have become even more convinced that I have an awesome group of readers!!! That goes for every single person who commented here, and those who quietly prayed without commenting.
God bless you all!
steve
Steve,
Sorry, I have been busy with school and work. I guess what I meant to say when I said I agreed with good fruits and bad fruits as mentioned in the post by Daniel is that if a person has true faith in Christ then he will bring forth good fruit. Maybe that rings more to me because I am a Mormon. I personally think that we need to show God our faith. That means following the commandments and doing everything he asked of us.
As for the other arguments I didn’t mean to say that I disagreed with them. Sorry with that came across that way in my last post.
Michael, I’m curious when you say:
That means following the commandments and doing everything he asked of us
What commandments are you referring to? The 10 commandments? The entire OT law? The commandments that Jesus specifically gave?
Can you be more specific? Thanks!
In all the deeply theological stuff floating around, I kind of missed out on the conversation with Michael about fruity faith. I think it goes back to
I’ll probably explain this badly, but I think of faith as having two sources: My faith (or belief) in God, which is flawed and limited, and Gods faith, which is perfect. I don’t think of myself as being saved by my own faith, and I don’t believe that the things that I do are good works. I guess the best way to explain is that Paul, in Hebrews 2, speaks of Jesus being the author (creator) and perfector of our faith. That tells me that the faith that saved me comes from God in His own power. Jesus once chided His disciples, when they asked for more faith, that if they had the faith of a tiny mustard seed, then they could do huge miracles. To me that sounds like they needed faith, period. Remember, these are people that already believed. To me, belief in Christ and the faith that sustains us are two different things. James wrote, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.” We can believe (have faith) that Jesus is the Christ, that He died on the cross, rose again, and sits at the right hand of God, and still not be saved. Satan knows Jesus is the Christ, but Satan refuses to accept the Lordship of Christ, and so is fated to eternal damnation. If we believe and accept the lordship of Christ, then we have faith, residing in us. James continues with the example of Abraham: “Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.”
Abrahams faith, flawed and imperfect, was completed (made perfect) through obedience. He allowed God to have control and so direct his actions, and so his faith was made complete. The actions of Abraham were considered righteous because Abraham allowed God to act in Him.
In Isaiah, God speaks of the righteousness (good works) of man being something equivalent to the rags women used for menstruation, simply because our attempts at holiness are warped and twisted by our sin nature. The whole concept of allowing Jesus lordship over our lives is so that our actions are replaced by the actions of Christ working in us. So the evidence of Christ at work in and through us is “good fruit”. What is fruit? In the natural world, fruit is the encapsulation of a seed that feeds and nurishes the seed until it is able to grow on its own as a plant. To me, “good fruit” is not so much ‘works’ as it is the planting and nurishing of the word of God in the lives of others: discipleship and teaching. So Good Fruit becomes the growth of a strong body of believers: One with God and one another. John the baptist, in one of his rants against the Pharisees, said “produce fruit in keeping with repentance.” The pharisees preached a doctrine of obedience to a myriad collection of rules and laws that governed every minute of a man’s life. Yet John likened their “fruit” or culture of legalism, to chaff that would be burned up. In Matthew, Jesus tells a parable, starting in like this: “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.”
We’re it. All of humanity is the fruit, good and bad. Good fruit is harvested and made complete. Bad fruit is burned up. At the same time, we who put ourselves under the lordship of Christ are servants of God. If we allow Jesus to act through us, then our fruit, the people we touch in our lives, will be Gods fruit, good fruit. But if we try to override God, and act as we think we should, as the Pharisees did, then the fruit we produce is our own, bad fruit good only to fuel the fire.
Sorry this is so long. It’s a difficult subject. I’d appreciate any corrections, clarifications, comments…
Wow. lots of interesting comments..:) Amen brother..no one has voted me to be the Holy Spirit yet and He is the only one who can draw men or convict them of sin…it is His job not mine…similarly, I would fear and tremble to judge another who claims to own Christ…He, after all is the one who knows the end from the beginning…He knows how it all turns/has turned out ..out there in eternity. I would tend to think he is far more full of grace than man is…on the other hand, I’m thinking there may be quite a few folks we expect to see in glory who don’t make it…God knowing their hearts and all…:)
Great comment, David, which describes a real issue, that we tend to equate good behavior as righteousness and therefore, evidence of God.
As Christians we often focus on how groups like Mormons (or even the Christian church down the block), are not like us. We are adept at marking the differences. Maybe we should take time to analyze how we are the same? In doing so, we may be able to identify self-effort which is evidence that we work without Jesus.
How are we like Mormons? We teach (some subtly and some overtly), self-discipline to the right rules will make a Holy life. And in fact, it would appear to be true. Self-discipline is a fruit of the spirit, after sll. Why should it surprise that a group, any group, can emphasize self-discipline and obedience to things like the Ten Commandments and turn out to be good, moral neighbors? Christians churches have been doing this for a very long time! Then holding revival once a year to bring the life back. Huh?
But the Christian faith is so much more!! It isn’t morality. It is life itself. When faith in the in-dwelling presence of Jesus is real and vibrant, people don’t simply make good, disciplined decisions. God is in their heart, their mind, their actions. He is the All in All. There is an unshakable peace about these people and a definite light in their eye. Deep and wondrous life poors out. The folks who carry this revelation, don’t hold their good works up as the evidence of God either. Usually they work to hide who did the work with an attitude of, “to God be the glory.” They hold forth the wonder and majesty of Jesus, His tremendous love, faithful companionship and other facets of this unearthly relationship which they find themselves living.
Sometimes good morals are, in fact, evidence that God is not there. Rather all the person knows is devotion and discipline under the guidance of their holy doctrine. Sometimes Christians look nothing more than like a Mormon.
oops
poors = pours
sll = all
Wigh din’t I sea it befour?
Steve,
When I said the commandments I meant the teachings of Jesus. Not all the ones in the OT.
I agree that we need to have Christ within us and that our actions should be pure. We need to act righteously not for show and to get gain in the public eye, but rather because we know that is how the Savior would act. I agree that Christ will use us to accomplish his work and that we can all be powerful instruments in his hands.
Which reminds me, I should have helped that old lady across the street today.
I guess tomorrow will provide new oppourtunites to serve.
Michael,
There are many Christians who would use words very similar to yours. There are probably many who would even mean the very same things that you mean.
But Christianity is about putting our trust in God, not our own efforts. There are many respectable, generous, good people who know nothing of God’s grace.
Many see Jesus’ teachings as a new standard that we sould follow. They read the Sermon on the Mount as a new interpretation of the law that Christians must keep. They read 1 Corinthians 13 as an outline of what their behavior should be.
But this is not the easy burden and light yoke of Jesus.
Of course, following Jesus is not just a big party. It requires renouncing the self and carrying one’s cross. But it is possible to turn “carrying the cross” into a self-improvement project that quickly becomes overwhelming.
Salvation is more than a fresh start. It is the transforming power of God.
Rod
While I appreciate your caution in how much we interfere with the work of the Spirit, I think it highly dangerous to not warn people (for example) out of the WatchTower.
You repeatedly mention leaving the Spirit to work in the heart and life, but do you not believe the Spirit works through both the encouragement, guidance and rebuke of other Christians?
Armen, allow me to quote from my post above:
I think this demonstrates that I believe the Spirit can work through encouragement, guidance, and rebuke. I believe all of those could be included in what I wrote.
I do believe, however, that the results of those interactions are up to the Spirit’s leading and the other person’s willingness and ability to listen to, and be led by, the Spirit’s voice.
Does that answer your question at all?