Dialogues on religion (Part I: May 5-6, 2008) For my own records, I've decided to copy an ongoing online discussion I'm having. Perhaps it may be of interest to some.

Chosen posed the following question: "Okay, I know this is a pretty basic question, but I honestly had never thought about it until today. What happens to the people who never heard about Jesus? Do they go to Heaven? Or Hell? Why? What are some verses to back it up?I'd really apreciate anyone's thoughts/opinions on the matter. Thanks!"

Jeremiah: "Sure. I'm actually trying to work this into an outline, then a textbook of sorts. Let's start with the Garden of Eden, to build a foundation. Adam and Eve were naked before the fall and after the fall, the only thing that changed was their knowledge of their nakedness, and this knowledge came from the aptly named Tree of Knowledge. Their condemnation came in the form of banishment from the garden and God's presence, and from access to the Tree of Life. Throughout the bible, nakedness is (with two exceptions: Gen. 2:26 and Job 1:21) always symbolic of sin and shame. Verses indicating shame include: Gen. 3:7-10; 9:21-22; Lev. 18:7-19; 20:11.17-21; Isaiah 20:3; Romans 8:3; II Cor. 11:27; and Rev. 3:18. But here's the thing: shame must be taught. Right and wrong must be taught. They are not inherent. If knowledge of right and wrong, virtue and shame were inherent, babies would be born trying to cover themselves. Young children wouldn't want to run around naked. Tribesmen in far off lands wouldn't be caught topless no matter how hot it was. These things must be taught. Romans 4:15 says that where there is no law, there is no transgression.

What doesn't need to be taught? What "laws" are universal? The existence of God. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that his existence is obvious through creation. Though I'm not sure I can prove it scrupturally, psychologically, I think "do unto others" might also be obvious without teaching, speaking in a strictly utilitarian mindset.

Therefore, when an unreached person shows faith, as Abram did, it is counted as righteousness, through the saving blood of Christ, even though Christ the man was never apparent to them. They have known the Father and would therefore, recognize the Son, just as the Pharisees' lack of recognition towards Jesus proved their ignorance of God's true self.

That isn't to say that some tribesmen aren't given over to evil. I am sure that there are many wicked ones who would reject Jesus should He ever be presented to them."

Spyhunter: "Those who die in Christ go to be with Him, as their life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). Those who die without the rebirth into Christ remain in the shadow of death, Sheol/Hades/Hell, until the day of judgment when Hades empties itself of souls and is cast into the lake of fire" as mention in Revelation... oh, chapter 20 or 21. If their name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, then they will know resurrection. Jer's philosophy likely plays a role in that determination, though I don't have the time or energy to expound on it much more than that at the moment."

Jeremiah:"Indeed. As we read about the Lamb's Book of Life, the context almost suggests that everyone's name starts out in the Book (suggesting the primal innocence of babies mentioned in Jer. 19:4; Ezekiel 20:26; Psalm106:38) and is blotted out (Exodus 32:33; Rev. 3:5) as we reject God. This would fall perfectly in line with the idea that condemnation/death is earned as the wage for our sinning (Romans 6:23)."

Spyhunter:"And the Lamb is still the only way to the Father."

Jeremiah:"Very true, but then, you've heard my explanation on that."

Living Sacrifice: "The only problem being that all have sinned, so therefore everyone's name has been blotted out as well.

Salvation come from hearing the Word of God. I don't think that one can be saved without knowing about Jesus. Because after all, how can they be saved unless they hear, and how can they hear unless someone tells them?

I do know of a story about a woman in a remote tribe who knew that spirit worship was wrong and that there must be one true God who created everything. So she prayed to this God every day and said, "Send me your messengers and bring your words to me". After two years, who should come to this woman's village but missionaries bearing the words of one true God who created everything. The woman was not at all surprised to find that God had answered her prayers and immediately accepted Jesus as her savior.I believe that God will bring His words to those who truly want to hear them and to know Him.

I also believe that God knows where people's hearts are at and He knows who is ready to hear the Word and believe. I believe that He will always bring the gospel to them."

Jeremiah: "Generally speaking, you're right. But when you get to specifics, those are misinterpretations. Look at the first one. Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned..." but the verse doesn't end with a period. It ends with a comma. It then goes on to say that all men are justified, which we know doesn't apply to all men everywhere. It does, however, apply to all men in Paul's audience, namely the Roman church. That would not, therefore, include those that had not heard the Gospel. Paul's point wasn't that all men have sinned, but that all of you (speaking to the Romans) have sinned, and are only saved through Christ. Christ said that there are some "whose names I will never blot out" (Rev. 3:5) so we know that not all are blotted out.

The second part has to do with Abram. Abram did not know Christ, yet that did not stop him from having his faith counted as righteousness. His faith was based in God the Father, or more correctly (to his Jewish mind) God the creator. This Creator is the same creator that Romans 1:19-21 says that men can know through creation. If you know the Father, then you know the Son. The Pharisee's lack of knowing the Father was evident by their denial of Jesus. If, therefore, a tribal man knows the creator, then he knows Jesus, at least in essence, which is why some peaceful tribes so readily convert to a proper presentation of Christ.

The "traditional" post-reformation model of the mechanics of salvation has numerous "paradoxes." I found it interesting that John MacArthur, in a sermon series on Calvinistic principles, kept demanding that we believe what the bible says, and only what the bible says. But then when he mentioned that there are verses that seem to contradict those Calvinistic principles, he said that we must label them as paradoxes, and we must not try to solve them. He actually suggested that we not try.

In other words, if the bible agrees with MacArthur, all Christians should accept his interpretation. When it disagrees with MacArthur, it's a paradox that's beyond anyone's understanding, even though there are centuries-old explanations that make a paradox unnecessary.

What I am suggesting is a model (P.A.R.K.)without paradox. Since the bible was written to and for men, it only makes sense that the information included within it is understandable to the audience. If incomprehensible "tongues" were frowned upon, why would an incomprehensible message be acceptable?"

-------------

I'm always excited to discuss these things with Living Sacrifice. Of all the Calvinists I know, he and one other are the only two that can debate in a civil manner. He is always willing to listen to an explanation. That's why I thought this conversation would be one worth saving. Thanks and enjoy.

Under the advisement of the Holy Spirit, and great men like John Wesley and Steve DeNeff, and friends like Pete Aldin, I have begun to wonder if this idea of "Emergent Venom" is not, somehow, counter-productive, or even counter to scripture. I can rationalize (and perhaps even be correct) that men like John MacArthur are inadvertently describing, by their actions, how they want to be treated, at the same time, I do not wish to address anyone in their fashion.

This first struck me while reading Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, and again, while reading More Than Forgiveness, by Steve DeNeff (A MUST READ). But lately, Pete Aldin has been doing a series called Famous Last Words, a study of the last verse of each book of the bible. When he touched on Joshua, he made the following comment:

We live in a day of reformation in the church. As an older style of leadership dies away over the next 15-20 years, lets not adopt a position of "Good riddance!", but let's honor them. And not just honor them, but take their bones - their "presence" and legacy - with us into the future. Click for full text.

And that struck me because, as I said to him in response, This is something that I struggle over struggling with. It is very easy for me to see the passing of certain prominent (yet wrong) leaders of the church as the glorious passing of a tainted era. I rejoice that they are in Heaven where they can do no more damage. And that's wrong of me. There are few, if any, in whom I should not be able to find something honorable and good.

I want to seek love and unity and holiness, not a purging of the people that I disagree with from Christianity's steering commision. So be patient with me while I sort this out. It may be that Emergent Venom will become a grounds of defense, or it may cease to exist altogether, or honestly, I may realize that I was okay to begin with (though I doubt it), and keep right on. I appreciate your patience.

Check out my Just This Side of Heresy offspring project: Emergent Venom. It's a new blog I've started. My motives are given both in the JTSoH Newsletter (subscribe now) and on the Emergent Venom page itself. Hope to see you there.

Thanks.

I do believe that I’ve found the perfect way to ring in the New Year, namely, by being declared a heretic. For someone having a blog titled Just This Side of Heresy, you cannot plan this kind of attraction. The story follows thusly: I posted a comment on YouTube that said, in essence, that the shared belief of Muslims and Christians, that we are sinful people, can be used as an opportunity for evangelism. This was read by one enthusiastic person as “All religions are the same. Let’s not make salvation by Christ a requirement for Heaven.” I tried to clarify myself with another response, affirming that I do believe we should preach Christ crucified, but I was too late—I was labeled a heretic and an enemy of Christ. The first part had no impact, because I’ve been called that on several occasions (now three), but the second statement genuinely hurt. I felt as though I was being chided by a high school student, who was insisting that they were Jesus’ best friend. Even though I know that they’re in no place to make such a judgment (nor am I), it still stung. Unity of the body is important to me, so I found the person’s blog, read a few entries, posted a positive and hopefully encouraging comment, with a preface that said I hope that there are no hard feelings between us. I cannot guess how it will be received, but I can hope for something positive.

This comes on the tail of a joke I made to a friend, only a few weeks ago. I said that if my non-fiction career ever takes off, it will be a great pleasure to be declared a heretic by the likes of John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul. Perhaps, I thought, it might even be worthy of the Top One-Hundred Things To Do Before I Die (dispensationalists, you may insert “…before the Rapture,” if you so choose). As I am currently reading Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy, I am surely already on their prayer list. It’s a sad commentary on the Christian community that McLaren (may I call you Brian?) can preface the book with a half-comic warning to his readers that they risk guilt by association, and everyone knows what he’s talking about.

So it’s true, in my very first theological discussion of the year, I was declared a heretic and worse. Perhaps this is going to be easier than I thought. Rather than shooting for a condemnation by MacArthur, I ought to make a New Year’s resolution to insure that my excommunication is an earmark in the next Reformed Baptist constitution. What I find most distressing is that though I follow McLaren closely in orthodoxy, I am not primarily a post-modern Christian. Where I part ways with most evangelicals is my departure from T.U.L.I.P. Calvinism which, somehow, is still misconstrued as being morally relative. Someday, I hope someone will explain that accusation to me in light of the fact that Calvin preached something that was entirely new in his day.

Epilogue: I refuse to be the guy who gets self-righteous about other people’s self-righteousness. Hypocrisy-detectors have become the new Pharisees, replacing those that they accost. I was pleasantly surprised to find that neither McLaren nor Doug Pagitt, who co-wrote Church Re-imagined, do this. It’s a very likely pitfall for people who don’t follow the recently traditional version Christianity.

Friday, I got mad at my radio...

...because I was feeling generous and gave John MacArthur's Grace To You a chance. As many of you know, I have issues with MacArthur and his theological beliefs. But it's not only his beliefs that I get frustrated with. There's a bit of arrogance, quite a bit, that comes along when you start a statement with, "If you believe the bible..." or "All bible-believing Christians hold that..." I don't mean to say that we can't be certain in our beliefs. I do, however, think that it's very arrogant to take a stance that suggests there's nothing that we could have possibly overlooked. This is especially true of doctrines that were not in existence for the first 1600 years of Christian history.


I was, however, very pleased to hear the following words come from MacArthur's mouth:


"We have to be the first to the first to admit that our understanding of virtually everything is somehow warped and twisted and affected by our own sinfulness."


"[W]e cannot be wrestling with [the doctrine of election] intellectually as if there is going to be some answer in our reason."*


MacArthur is stating what many Calvinists have felt for years: election doesn't seem like the product of a loving God. Rather than explain this biblically, however, he groups it in with other biblical paradoxes (i.e. other Calvinist doctrines) and says not to try and understand them. This is an odd statement for a man who just said that all bible-believeing Christians should adopt Calvinism. I've said this before: we are humans, created in the image of God, Christians with the mind of Christ, and believers, indwelled by the Holy Spirit. If something seems unfair, it's probably because the whole of the Trinity is testifying to our spirit that it actually is unfair.

I have to stand with Doug Pagitt when he says, "I think [reading your bible] might give you a more full understanding of the gospel than the one perverted by the likes of John MacArthur. I do not say "perverted" lightly, either. I really think what he communicates is so distant from the message of the Bible that it is dangerously harmful to people."

~J



*The Doctrine of Election, Part 1 (Selected Scripture), John MacArthur