That’s Me, Under the Bus

Modern theology, as far as the mainstream goes, has made every effort to denigrate humans, to make them something less valuable than they actually are. The end result, as far as I can tell, is to turn humanity into some kind of creature that may be abused to the nth degree without second thought.

As far as I’ve been able to tell, this degradation of man almost always leads to one end: it serves to justify God’s wrath towards certain people or groups of people in such a way that he can be made to commit acts that the Church would tolerate from no mortal, but can thoughtlessly applaud when enacted by a sovereign God.

http://www.exegeek.com/blog/?p=282

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.

Tip #173*: Beat Them To The Punch
This week we’re going to look at yet another way to debate theology successfully online. In Tips #57 and #112, we alluded to the very limited list of scriptures that can be erroneously employed by Calvinists to support their platform. That is assuming that they choose to use scriptures, rather than sensational arguments announcing man's inability to comprehend a divine paradox.

Once more, let me lay a foundation for the mechanics of this tactic: Four of the five Calvinist points (U.L.I.P.)are nonexistent in Christian theology or Christian commentaries before the 1500’s. That means that for every scripture the Calvinists employ, there is a 1500-year tradition of interpretation that requires no such interpretation. Many of these scriptures, when taken in their proper context, mean exactly the opposite of what John Calvin would have us believe that they mean.

Many Arminians and Pelagians, as a result of this scripture hijacking, fear to use these scriptures in a debate, for fear of making the Calvinists’ case for them. Such worry is unfounded and imposes limits on your usage of scripture.

This week, let me suggest that the next time you’re debating, try out a new approach. Start your argument with a few properly interpreted, though usually Calvinist-favored scriptures, such as Romans 9 or John 10:28. The former is perhaps one of my favorites, because, as I said in Tip #4, one of the greatest ironies in biblical interpretation is that Romans 9, a writing that was meant to explain away a misinterpretation of the Jewish people—namely, that God shows favoritism—has been misinterpreted again, by the Calvinists, to say that God does, indeed, show favoritism. By beginning with a proper interpretation of election, conveying Paul’s original point, you undercut inevitable Calvinist attempts to stake a claim on that epistle. They may still try to redefine the scripture, but by bringing it up, you may be breaking a rhythm that they had intended to establish later on.

John 10:28, which I also mentioned, says “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” Instead of giving someone the opportunity to quote this verse out of context, begin by starting the quote a verse before, when Jesus defines who the “them” actually is: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” There is great emphasis put on active movement with Christ. Listening to Him. Knowing us. If you don’t listen to Christ, if He doesn’t know you, if you’re not following Him, verses 28 and 29 do not apply to you.

I anticipate that some will try to reverse this method of debate, by striking first and imposing Calvinist interpretations on, well, any scripture, to beat us to the punch, but be encouraged and remember: a theology that began the race 1500 years late can never truly have the first word.







*No, there aren’t really any other “tips” on this blog yet. Funny?

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.

H.O.O.E.Y. I wrote this essay quite a while back and recieved a lot of really great feedback (along with some not so great feedback) concerning it. Later, I mentioned it in one of my blogs, but didn't provide a link to it. Today, I recieved an e-mail asking why they couldn't find it here on Just This Side of Heresy and it dawned on me how representative a work it was to my ouvre. So here it is.

Total Depravity. Unconditional Election. Limited Atonement. Irresistible Grace. Perseverance of the Saints. These are the five theological terms used by Calvinists to describe, in brief, what they believe. Conveniently, it fits together to make the acronym T.U.L.I.P., which sounds nice and flowery, but does nothing more than hide the cruelty of the doctrine behind a bouquet of literacy. Some Calvinists have realized that these terms, especially the one about depravity, aren't exactly seeker-friendly, so they've sought out softer words. Choices abound, but in general, the words still jab like a red-hot poker. This begs the question, "If they're going to offend, why not just say what they mean?" Each of these five points has one word that's at least nine letters long. Unconditional, for example, is thirteen characters. For something as important as salvation, we need to cut through as much of the fat as possible. I propose a new acronym, one that both fits the Calvinist doctrines as a whole and also explains in layman's terms what they mean.

Handpicked: This one used to be called Unconditional Election, and was eleven letters longer in its original incarnation. Aristocracy would also be a fitting term if it just a bit shorter. In brief, Calvinists believe that God picks his children, without any input from them. You cannot seek to be saved, nor can you repent unless God allows you. Like an apple, there's only two ways off the tree: either you're handpicked, or you go down.

Once Saved, Always Saved: That's it. Many Calvinists already embrace this term, which makes this step an abbreviated one. You can't get much simpler than once saved, always saved.

Only for some: Limited Atonement, as this used to be called, meant that, when Christ died, it was only for a few people, and not everyone, as though grace were a physical object that, if left unclaimed, would float around in the ether as waste-grace. It's apparently also what God mean in John 3:16, when He used the word "whosoever.' Even though such a claim makes no sense, it shouldn't bother us, because we know God's ways are above ours.
Evil, through and through: This was called Total Depravity and was probably the most offensive of the five terms. The new name isn't any nicer, but this way, no one's wasting time trying to figure out what it means. It means that you're no good. Period.

You can't say no: When the Holy Spirit grabs you by the collar, you're not allowed or even able to resist Him. It fits back with point #1, that we're handpicked. You don't have a choice in the matter. You're just a machine.

Yes, that's right. H.O.O.E.Y. In my opinion, that's pretty much what it is. God gave it to us plain and simple: Live for Christ or die without him. The fact that we're told what to do implies we have a choice in the matter. All of these extra rules and regulations do nothing but plant hurdles between people and the Cross.

[Side Note:] After posting this, I found that a friend of mine, Remade Gold also made some excellent comments on God's sovereignty. The first is God's good and our good . The second is Sovereign Grace (part one). I want to urge you to check them out.

Overstepping Compassion (archived from October newsletter)
At the beginning of the year, I told many of my readers that one of my New Year's resolutions was to become better informed on the doctrines of Universalism and Restorationism, the idea that sooner or later, everyone ends up in Heaven. My interest was born from the fact that I was not-so-strangely attracted to this seemingly unbiblical doctrine. I hoped that, at the end of my research, I could embrace the idea that I would eventually be reunited with every friend I ever lost, on the other side of the Pearly Gates.

The inquiry started accidentally with a book called I'm Saved, You're Saved...Maybe, by Jack Renard Pressau. The book followed the five stages from new believer to maturity. It addressed the near-bibliolotry that accompanies young belief and says that something is true because the bible says it is (as opposed to the bible saying something is true, because it is). Those in the second-to-last stage of maturity say that God, while compassionate, is never unfair. I traveled with Pressau through those first four stages, taking it all in, and being awed by his flawless, logical, and rational deductions.

The last stage, however, adopted a Restorationist stance, and I secretly thought, finally, someone who can defend this idea so that I might embrace it. As I read on, I found only arrogance. It was as though the brilliant author had been replaced by a careless heretic.

I was almost instantly turned off to the idea then, but I pressed on. There seems to be a few early church fathers that adopted this idea, though because their words so closely resemble the scriptures that Restorationists use, I cannot rule out that they mean the same thing as the bible means. If the bible is not necessarily restorationist, then neither are they.

The clencher for me was Matthew 18:8, which says that some will be thrown into eternal fire. Those who believe that all will be saved try to substitute one Greek word for another to make it mean "an age of fire," but the change is unwarranted.

On a side note, the source of Universalism is, I believe, the confusion that results from defining God's love and "salvation." Nothing separates us from God's love, the scriptures say, but that doesn't mean that nothing can separate us from Heaven. Thier arguments are helped by Calvinist uses of the same scriptures to prove that one cannot forfeit their salvation. This may explain why some Calvinists, such as Karl Barth, eventually took that assertion to it's logical conclusion and became Universalists themselves. It's very similar to the way Arminians can take the additional step to become Open Theists, and believe that God cannot know the future outside of His own deductions.

It only took until October to finish out that resolution. Not bad, huh?

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

SATIRE: A Reason For Election (archived from newsletter, August 2007)

Let me give you a little background on the guy creating this newsletter: He was raised in a middle class family, attended a Wesleyan church, was enrolled and edukated in a Wesleyan school. I moved to the Bible Belt a year ago, and am now attending a non-Wesleyan, though very Arminian, church. I cannot bear Calvinist doctrines, though I do not call myself anti-Calvinist any more than I would call myself, as a Christian, anti-athiest. "Anti-" implies a response to something. I'm just naive enough to think that I could have come to my particular theological bent without ever having to refute Calvinism.

Lately, however, I've been thinking more and more about Unconditional Election. For those of you who are also theologically naive, or for those of you who have never read my essay on H.O.O.E.Y., Unconditional Election is the idea that God has handpicked a spiritual aristocracy to rule on who gets to Heaven and who doesn't. Some people are born for Heaven; some are born for Hell. I've come across dozens of reasons why God would work in such a fashion. Let me list a few reasons, with some commentary:

A. Election...So that those who get to go to Heaven feel extra special.
The reasoning behind this goes like this: If a teacher gave a piece of candy to every child in the class room, some would take it for granted. If she only gave it to a few, those would feel priviledged to recieve it. This ignores the fact that rewards are generally given to those who do well. Imagine your child coming home to tell you that the nasty old teacher gave out candy to some kids, but not yours. Would you tell them that that's okay because now some of those other kids feel better about getting candy? No. It's called favoritism and most people in civilized society know that it's wrong. More importantly, however, we're not just talking about a teacher that denies some kids candy. If we're honestl, we'll admit that we would also be talking about a Teacher that denies some kids candy, then lights them on fire. Forever.

B. Election...for God's pleasure.
In this country of ours, we have laws against parents who torture their children. In short, if we're supposed to be a Christian nation, and our Heavenly Father sends some of his children to burn forever, what right do we have to yell "foul" at those who do similar things to earthly children? I swear I'm getting to the satire part.

C. Election...because the alternative is "faith by works."
I won't take the time to explain this all here because I think I did it in a previous essay already, this month. But needless to say, "works" doesn't mean doing something, it indicates a pharisaical method of earning Heaven by holy rituals and good deeds.

All of these fall short, but while I was eating at Applebee's one Sunday afternoon, it dawned on me. The reason why we need election is so that we have heathens who will serve us our dinner on the Lord's Day, after the rest of us leave church. If, by some miracle of evangelism, all of the world was brought to the altar, where would we fellowship? Where else would we have the opportunity to leave Gospel tracts as tips?