Theological Musings

ftentimes on group blogs, one runs the risk of their post getting “bumped” by another contributor’s post.  This happens when one posts, say, in the morning, and by mid-afternoon, someone else has posted on top of them.  I guess it’s part of the risk on a group blog.  However, I’m the only author on this blog, and I’m going to bump myself!

I realize I sometimes go days or even weeks without posting, and then inspiration comes all of a sudden.  I should probably draft this one and wait a day or two to post it, but I won’t.

At any rate, I was typing a comment on my previous post when I happened to see the verse of the day from BibleGateway in my sidebar.  I must admit that I rarely read my own blog, so I rarely see the verse of the day over there.  But in this particular case, the position of the comment box happened to be right next to it on my screen, and so it caught my eye.

Here is today’s verse (Wednesday, March 14) — 2 Peter 1:5-8 in the New American Standard (the sidebar shows it in the NIV):

Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There are a couple of things that jumped out at me on this.  But first of all, let’s get the context.  Peter begins with “Now for this reason…”, so obviously it behooves us to look at what preceded this.

He begins this thought in verse 2 by speaking “grace and peace” over his readers “in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord….”  (Not very trinitarian, but I digress…!)  Note that he refers to “the knowledge”, so he obviously sees it important that we either possess knowledge about God, or that we obtain knowledge that comes from God.

He goes on to say that “[God’s] divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness” — wait, let’s pause there.  Think about that.  Everything that we need for life and godliness is ours!  That is an amazing truth!

Then, Peter tells us the way in which we “tap into” all that we need for life and godliness: “…through the true knowledge of Him….”  Now, it would be tempting at this point to think that Peter is exalting knowledge.  Therefore, we should study, and learn, and parse, and exegete, and…  But I don’t think that’s the point Peter is getting at.  That’s where today’s verse caught my eye.  But I’m not there yet.  There’s more.

Peter says that “by these [since it’s plural, I’m assuming that he is referring to “everything pertaining to life and godliness”, or perhaps “life and godliness” itself] He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature” — whoa!  Did you see that?  “Partakers of the divine nature”.  Wow!  That’s heavy!  I’ll leave it up to you readers to ponder what that means, but I’m thinking it might not mean what we have downplayed it to mean.  I’m thinking that it might have something to do with the oneness that Jesus prayed for in John 17.  Just a thought.  (Or maybe Peter was examining Mormonism! hehe) Now, back to our text…

So, all of that lays the groundwork as the reason Peter gives his instruction in the verses I quoted above (2 Peter 1:5-8).  We must, with all diligence, augment our faith (in sort of cascading, or snowballing form) with moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love.  That’s quite a list, but I think illustrates the need to combine knowledge (i.e., theological knowledge) with things that reflect a lot of what Paul called “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5.

“For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  I would say that being “neither useless nor unfruitful” are excellent goals for the believer!

Peter isn’t saying that you must do all these things in order to be saved.  But he does go on to say that it’s a good way to be “certain”.  And I think certainty is a good thing.  If we are unsure of our position in Christ, we (in some sense) teeter on the edge.  But if we are certain of who we are and the position we have, we can grow and move deeper into that.

Several years ago, I had a discussion with a friend about a church in which we were both involved at the time.  One of my frustrations was that the senior pastor was constantly making people feel like they might not be saved.  (This is a horrible thing to do, by the way, and is one of the reasons I ended up pulling away from that particular church finally.)

The friend with whom I was discussing this didn’t quite understand what my problem was.  I pointed to Hebrews 6 where the author of Hebrews says that we should move beyond the elementary things of the faith.  I contended that, by keeping people feeling like they were on the edge of their salvation, possibly falling out, that they were never able to move beyond that and go deeper in their relationship with Christ.  I still believe that.

My prayer for each of you, my dear readers, is that you will find yourself not only certain of your calling and standing in Christ, but that you will find yourself useful and fruitful “in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Until next time,

steve

have been reluctant to take on too many political issues here on this blog. One reason is that I recognize that many of my brothers and sisters have strong differences of opinion regarding political action, patriotism, etc. And I want to completely respect those differences. (Hmmm, that never stops me from talking about other controversial subjects, though…hmmm )

Anyway, I have been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the way in which debates are framed regarding religious liberties in our nation. The message that I seem to keep getting is that we want continued religious freedom, yet somehow that always seems defined as making sure that Christianity gets top billing.

In other words, it’s not enough for us to have the freedom to pray. We want the freedom to make everyone else around us listen to our prayer. It’s not enough for us to trust in God. We want to make everyone else articulate that their trust is in God, too. It’s not enough for us to live “under God”. We want to make sure that everyone else declares that we are a nation “under God”, as well. (Of course, this begs the question whether or not we really are a nation “under God”, but I’ll let that go for the moment.)

I have watched while one leader after another talks about the “attack on Christianity” that is allegedly taking place in our nation. But is it so much an attack on Christianity, or merely a recognition that our version of a “Christian nation” is not what our nation was originally founded to be?

Today, we received another in a long series of phone calls from Jay Sekulow’s organization, ACLJ. The American Center for Law and Justice has been calling us to try to get support for their legal battles against Michael Newdow, the well-known atheist who has attempted to stop prayer at the Presidential Inauguration, remove “under God” from the pledge to the flag, and now apparently is trying to remove “In God We Trust” from our money.

I politely asked the lady on the other end of the line to take us off of their call list. Why? Because I don’t care about Christian freedoms? No, that’s not it at all. What I don’t care for is the fear and misrepresentation of events that continues to be the norm in Christian political action groups.

See, in the recorded message that they played for me, Jay Sekulow said that if Newdow succeeds, there will be “no public religious expression allowed” (I think those were the exact words). I’m sorry, but that is an overstatement of the facts, and is designed (whether intentionally or not) to spark fear and action in the hearts of Christians all across our nation. After all, who wouldn’t want to stand up for that, right?

Ironically, in a statement on ACLJ’s own website, this explanation is given as to why the national motto should remain what it is:

The price of freedom in this country is that sometimes you are exposed to words, expressions, or phrases that you do not agree with or that offend you. That is the price of freedom.

The problem with this statement is that it never seems to apply when, for example, merchants choose to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. Or when someone wants to talk about evolution. Or when an atheist expresses his desire to pledge allegiance without saying “under God”.

Are we really in support of freedom? Or are we trying to make this nation something that it’s not? I’m afraid it’s the latter.

Paul wrote that we should pray for our government (1 Timothy 2:1-2) so that we could live at peace. I believe that the implication would be that we could worship as we wish without government interference.  But this does not extend to making sure that we can publicly force others to say words that have no meaning to them personally.

I would love to see politically active people like Jay Sekulow, James Dobson, and others think through the ramifications of their positions before scaring others into aligning with them.

Any thoughts?

Until next time,

steve

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

ome of my regular readers may remember an interesting discussion we had here last September regarding the essentials of Christianity. One of those posts carried a tongue-in-cheek title of “But What About Those Mormons?” The basic gist of that post and other posts was that we often seek to define Christianity by who or what our definition excludes.

The reason I brought up the particular topic of Mormons was because of some comments on a post prior to that one where some expressed concern that the “short list” of things I felt needed to be agreed upon for fellowship was sufficiently short that it “would include Mormons as Christians.” This sentiment seemed to indicate that the desire on the part of some is to begin with a presupposition of who’s “in” and who’s “out” and then find what those who are “in” agree on and make that the basis for salvation.

Well, with that in mind, I wanted to share with my readers a comment that was recently made to me. A family that Christy and I have gotten to know over the past few months came over to our house for dinner last night. We had a great time! They are a very sweet couple who have adorable identical twin toddler boys (each of which I consistently called by the other’s name through the whole evening!).

After dinner, the husband and I (I won’t reveal their names here since I did not ask their permission to do so) talked about spiritual topics. I knew prior to the time together that this family is part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, aka the Mormon Church. He was gracious enough to allow me to pepper him with questions and to share some of my own thoughts. It was a delightful conversation.

As we talked, and I shared some of the things that I have been mulling over for the last several years (many of which I’ve mused about here on this blog), he made a very interesting comment. He said, “If I didn’t know prior to this conversation, from the things that you are saying about God and the Bible, etc., I would think that you were a very good Mormon.”

(Insert pause here to allow my readers time to go remove my blog from their links, pray for my salvation, and mourn over the loss of their good friend…)

No, seriously. I have to tell you that this comment took me quite by surprise.  I wanted to share it here (I got his permission to do so) because I wanted to illustrate a point that I have been mulling over all day long now.  It is the point that I tried to make last fall in the aforementioned post.

We can be so quick to write off entire groups of people because of what we think they believe. But I found in conversation last night that there are an awful lot of points of agreement. Some of my readers may disagree quite strongly, and I respect that.

Do I believe that Mormonism has all the answers? No, I don’t. And I was quite up front with my guest that I was not asking questions with the intent of converting to Mormonism. But at the same time, I would have to ask, is there any denomination, world religion, or belief system that has all the answers? I don’t think so.

One of the things I found out about Mormonism last night that I admire is that they respect truth wherever it is found. Is this not something that I, as a non-Mormon, can affirm? If truth comes from God — indeed, Jesus said that He is the truth — then truth is valid, even if it is found in some source other than what we perceive to be a “safe” source. Does Paul not say in Romans 1 that even creation speaks truth about God?

Another thing that came out of our discussion last night is the fact that each one of us is responsible for trusting God for ourselves, and seeking the truth that comes from God within our own heart. We can’t ride on the coattails of some other person, teacher, or leader. This, I believe, is consistent with Scripture (i.e., the Bereans searching out Scripture to verify Paul’s message, our instructions to weigh prophecy, test spirits, God’s instructions to Israel to test the words of a prophet, etc.).

Some of my readers might not understand why I would think that it was a good thing to be told that I sounded like a good Mormon. But I’ll tell you why I actually took that as a positive thing. That shows me that there are many, many points of agreement between us that could have been missed if I just wrote him off as “just a Mormon”. And I, for one, am glad I took the time to look for those points of agreement without jumping to conclusions.

In the same way that I desire not to write someone off because of a group they’re associated with, I likewise do not take last night’s conversation to lead me to a conclusion that all within Mormonism are saved. But then, I don’t operate on the assumption that all within the Baptist camp, or Methodist, or Presbyterian, etc. are saved, either! In other words, salvation is something which each individual must receive themselves. And we should engage in fellowship on that basis.

As for the fruit I have seen in my friends’ lives, and the conversation I had last night, I came away more convinced than ever that they are my brother and sister in Christ. And when I said that, my dear friend responded with, “And we would say the same about you.”

Until next time,

steve