I was sitting here spending time with God and some thoughts came to mind. They are not necessarily fluffy and fun things, but I think these thoughts are very relevant to the state of the church, as we know it.
This said, I don’t want you to think this is coming from someone on a “anti-western Christianity high” due to my travels overseas. Instead this is from someone who desperately wants to see Jesus’ name proclaimed in our country and our world.
I think the Western church needs a wake up call. We have become so materialistic that it has blinded us to the reality of where we are at spiritually. Denominations, programs, commercialization and everything in-between have consumed the church.
What happened to simple faith? I mean you read any of the Barna statistics about the church and it is staggering. But do we really stagger? I mean we may say, “Oh my that is terrible! I can’t believe that the church has come to that!” But do we do anything about it? Have we considered that each of us has a part to play in it? If ¾ of all church growth is transfer growth… do we have a problem? Are we fulfilling our mission as a body of Christ?
I don’t just want this to be a rant-and-rave but a discussion among believers. Below I have asked some questions and would love some feedback.
What do you think?
John 13:35
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
If we are called to love each other, why has the church become a battleground of doctrine? If we are the “body” (1 Corinthians 12) why do we choose to separate ourselves? Did the early church separate itself? Do we really show love?
Mark 11:17
And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: " 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.’"
If Jesus Himself said, His house is to be called a house of prayer, why do we spend more time brushing our teeth then spending time in prayer? Why do we have a “National Day of Prayer” if prayer is not a cornerstone in our churches? (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) Wasn’t the church born out of prayer? (Acts 4)
Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
This is our last mandate from Jesus before he ascended to heaven, is it a priority in our churches? In the book of Acts we hear of thousands coming to know Christ, these were the uneducated disciples empowered by the Holy Spirit that brought these people to Christ. Is not being properly “trained” or having the right “education” really a good excuse not to share the gospel?
This may not be the best-written or most in-depth blog, but I hope you sense my heart. I am not trying to hurt or discourage, rather bring about holy conviction. Today while I was praying about these specific thoughts I felt very convicted. I know that I have dropped the ball in many of these areas! The incredible thing is that through God’s grace and the Spirit’s empowerment we have to opportunity to be different to not be satisfied with “status-quo Christianity.” We can really impact the world for Christ.
Let’s do it together. Let’s be world shakers.
... sorry for any typos ahead of time :)
Comments
Good thoughts, sir. I think you are touching on something very deep and you're asking questions that are not easily answered.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems is that we no longer give people the freedom to disagree without demonizing them or calling their salvation into question. I see it all the time: someone doesn't believe in the Trinity - they must not be a Christian. Someone calls themself a Christ-follower, but also believe that monogamous homosexuality is not immoral - they must not be a Christian. Someone doesn't believe in a 6-day creation - they must not be a Christian.
Rob Bell uses an analogy of a brick wall when it comes to this. For many Christ followers, taking out one brick causes the whole wall to fall. If you don't believe x, y and z - or, if you believe x and z, but not y - well, then, you're not a Christian - the whole wall falls.
The Church needs to learn to be more graceful. It is not a belief in a doctrine or a moral characteristic that unites us as followers, it is our common faith in Jesus Christ.
...Sorry for my rant!
Ok, Rob Bell, likes to act like its no big deal to remove doctrine. Even if that means contradicting what is plainly written in the bible. How he gets away with it so often is lost on me. I will address the issue of the Trinity Doctrine:
In regards to the Trinity Doctrine, Jesus says in John 17:5, "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
In many ways on repeated occasions Jesus says that He is God. One of two ways in this verse that Jesus says He is God is when He says, "...with the glory I had with You before the world was." This means that Jesus was with God before creation or that He is eternal and preexists created things. This shows Godly eminence in itself. I don't believe that any of the prophets existed before creation, showing that Jesus was more than just a messenger or a leader, in fact He is God.
The second way that Jesus says He is God in this passage is when He says, "...glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
Saying this was a huge, and definitive statement that Jesus is in fact God. The evidence for that is in Isaiah.
Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to anyone else..."
If Jesus did, as He claimed, share in the glory with God, then Jesus is God since God shares His glory with no one. On the other hand, if Jesus did share in the glory with God as he stated, but is not God himself, that negates what God said in Isaiah 42:8 and makes God a liar. Finally, if Jesus didn't share in the glory with God as He said He did, it still retains God's integrity, but makes Jesus a liar.
So what is our defense then for believing the doctrine that we do believe in? Is it biblical, or does it take on more of the form of our current cultural ideals? Do we ignore certain parts of the bible because they don't make sense and are inconvenient, or do we struggle and study to understand God deeper through all the mystery?
When Rob Bell creates scenarios like the brick wall, or the trampoline springs, that ask, "If we removed one brick would the whole wall collapse," or, "if we took out one spring, could we still jump on the trampoline (if we remove one piece of doctrine could we still have faith)," the question I think is inherently no. If we deny the trinity, we deny statements made by Jesus, Son of God, and by God the Father.
Ridley, you are missing the point!
I'm not denying the doctrine of the Trinity and neither is Bell. We are saying that it is not our beliefs, those ideas that we assent to intellectually, that save us. It is Jesus Christ and him alone. And once we come to that conclusion, there is room for disagreement on all the ideas. Of course, you can and should form your own opinion on matters of doctrine and what you believe, we are simply asking that you have enough grace and humility to let others do the same without demonizing them or questioning their salvation.
Do you get what I'm saying?
Hi Jessica, if I may say a few words here. Ridley made a great biblical point and laid out truths that are easily understood. He answered you based on your statement that it's all about following Jesus.
Very true statement, it is about Jesus and Jesus alone, but when we claim to follow Jesus, we are saying we believe everything that he says, about himself and about how to live. Everything you laid out in your reply to Nate goes against Jesus and His teaching.
Jesus said we can't have two masters. We are either for him or against him. Jesus also said to love the world and its message is to be an enemy of God.
This is not Christians demonizing other professing Christians, this is Jesus' words. Remember Jesus said that many will say on that day will call me Lord and I will say to them, depart from me you workers on iniquity.
I agree, these are tough words but they are God's words and to put our thoughts and reason above his word is to put ourselves above God. Now how can we say we are truly a Christ follower if we don't follow his words?
The problem is that in today's society many people who sincerely love God and have given their hearts to Jesus, do not read his word, they have fallen for the lies of the enemy that speak doubt into the absolute truth of God's word. The books of Timothy, Peter and Colossians discuss this very issue.
I agree that their are some things which are hard to interpret, but the basic things you mentioned are very explicit and there is no room for personal interpretation.
From personal experience, I have found that many people who believe the things that you mentioned are okay with God are people who have never studied the Bible in-depth. I have friends who have been Christians for quite sometime and they have never read the entire Bible,nor have gone to Bible studies regularly. They attend church and like to discuss what makes sense, but anything that goes against their logic, they disagree with.
I am not judge of their hearts, I cannot say if they are saved or not, but as believer, I have the God-given right to discern that they are weak in the ways of God simply because they do not study His word.
This is not a judgemental attitude in the negative sense, but it is an observation and one that Jesus calls us to make.
God's grace is cheapened and the death of Jesus is not fully appreciated because many people do not understand the depth of their depravity. Somehow some Christians really believe they deserve to go to heaven. The book of Roman and Ephesians are detailed evidence of the fact that no one is deserving. We are all born spritually dead and only by the power of the Holy Spirit and the shed blood of Jesus do we have a right to become a child of God.
God is Holy and pure and we who claim to be Christians are to live the same. It doesn't mean we are perfect, but we don't use our weakness as an excuse to sin or approve of others who blatently sin against a holy God.
Paul tells us in Ephesians and in Romans that we who call ourselves Christians yet approve of the deeds of darkness are putting ourselves under the ways of darkness. This is not to be so.
Jesus said we are known by our fruits. Take the teachings of the Bible and your personal beliefs. Do they differ? If they do, who is wrong? Not Jesus, this is how we measure ourselves. If I am a true follower of Jesus, then His ways are to govern my ways. And it is out of a heart of gratitude that he saved me that I would follow. Not because of some religious duty.
There is a big difference between extending grace and excusing sin. Grace is for those who have fallen and need help getting up, it is not for those who willfully reject God's word and then expect to go to heaven. Believe me, I need grace, depend on grace and extend grace, but in know way will I ever compromise the word of God, not for myself nor someone else. This does not make me mean person. It makes me one who desires to please God above all else.
Sorry, I didn't mean this to be so long. You may not agree, but I hope it helps to give you another perspective to consider. Lord bless you
Honestly, I can't even understand the response. First of all, I never made any mention of my beliefs. I simply summarized several things that I have seen become a source of demonization for many Christians. So before assuming that I don't believe in the Trinity, don't think that homosexuality is a sin, and reject a 6-day creation - it would serve you better to ask me.
Second of all, both you and Ridley are proving my point. The very fact that you have so eagerly jumped to defend a position I wasn't attacking shows your unwillingness to give grace to others. Let me say again that I was not stating what I believe about the Trinity or about Jesus' words - I was not interpreting Scripture at all - so where did all of this come from?
Let me state my point, one more time: when we, as Christians, make salvation about intellectual assent to doctrinal issues, regardless of how important those doctrinal issues are, we've fooled ourselves.
Since there seems to be confusion, let me articulate what I am NOT saying. I am not saying that doctrine is irrelevant or a waste of time. I am not saying that all beliefs are equally valid. I am not saying that right belief, or accurate interpretation does not matter. I AM saying, that none of those things save us. They may be important, but our salvation is not contingent upon them.
Hi Jesse, I was not personally attacking you or assuming you did not believe in the biblical doctrines you mentioned, I was just responding to your statement that they should be accepted with grace.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Christians should set aside biblical truths for the sake of unity. Am I correct? If so, Jesus did not teach this. He taught the exact opposite. Jesus never united himself with those who opposed the truth, but he did love them and accepted them with grace, while preaching the truth. This is what we are to do with those who oppose the truth.
Your tone is angry and I don't think that my tone or ridley's tone is anger, we just stated biblical truth. How does this make us ungraceful?
You say our salvation is not contigent upon doctrine, but biblically it is, because our salvation comes from believing who Jesus said He was and if we choose not to believe that,then we are not saved. Jesus said so Himself. Jesus said if you do not believe that I Am HE, then you shall die in your sins. Again, not attacking you, just stating the truth for who it might pertain to.
I don't see were me or Ridley accused you personally of not believing this, but as I said we are resonding to your intial statements.
Ridley and I are not proving your point, because we never said we do not extend grace to those who disbelieve the doctrines you mentioned, we are just doing what Jesus said to do.
I am sorry if you felt attacked. With humilty and respect, if you read your response you would have to include yourself in proving your own point because you are making a judgemental statement by saying that we are unwilling to give grace to others. That is a big statement since you do not know us personally.
Again, Jesus did not give grace so it could be trampled on by people who willfully reject the teachings of the One they claim to follow. And again, these are God's words not mine.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you completely, it would help me if you listed the Scriptures where it shows that not believing the things you listed as examples do not matter as it pertains to salvation. Or maybe you could tell me how I might be misunderstanding what Jesus taught. I desire to know God and His word and I can accept correction when given. So please, in all sincerity, show me Scriptually how I am not giving grace by standing on God's word.
Lord bless you and keep you and may he make his face to shine upon you and give you peace...and I mean this with all my heart. Peace.
Hi Teresa,
To answer your questions, no, I don't think Christians should "set aside" Biblical truth for the sake of unity. Not at all. In fact, I find it difficult to answer the question for a couple of reasons: first, the question itself is loaded - "biblical truth" is a relative term. What you believe to be a biblical truth may differ from what I believe to be a biblical truth. For example, many believe that it is a biblical truth that women are not permitted to be in positions of authority. Many more think this is something tied directly to the culture of the time and is no longer a truth by which we must life. So which is it? That's an easy one, though. I could take it a step further and say that many believe in a 6-day Creation, but others believe the Creation Narrative to be poetic in nature thus allowing the wording to go either way - it could be a literal day or it could just be poetic language. So which is it? And is one answer more "Christian" than the other? Will one answer strip you of any salvation you may have had or prevent you from being saved at all?
Second, unity can be thought of in a couple of ways. We could make it about organizational unity which means everyone who calls themselves Christians all agree to accept a set of doctrinal beliefs and anyone who does not is not a Christian (good luck with this one, by the way). Or we could strive, instead, for spiritual unity where we can agree to disagree on the basis that we share the unifying factor of a faith in Jesus Christ. Which is better?
My guess is you would say the second, but much of what you've said so far actually falls under the first. You're judging (despite your denial of such) who is in and who is out based on the various ideas or doctrines they agree with. And I'll add that as that list of ideas or doctrines to be believed in for salvation gets bigger, the number of people who can be saved gets smaller.
Your tone may not be angry (and I apologize if mine is), but your position is ungraceful for a simple reason: you've demonized those who disagree with you. Don't think so? Notice the language you use. You are "just stating biblical truth" - this assumes that those who might disagree with you on these issues are not stating biblical truth and thus are typically categorized (as Ridley has just done to me) as apostates - false teachers. Why not instead just say, "this is, by my best understanding, what the Bible is saying, but you are free to disagree"? Where is the harm in that? How does this compromise your faith in the slightest?
Actually, no, believing who Jesus said he was is not the basis for our salvation. Not at all. You see, belief can remain in the brain - intellectual assent. But following Jesus, having relationship with him, learning to love and live like he did, learning to commune with God the way he did - that is salvation, and you can assent to the intellectual ideas without it affecting your life in the slightest.
As far as you and Ridley doing what Jesus said to do, I'd like to know what it is that you're doing and where Jesus said to do it...
<< With humilty and respect, if you read your response you would have to include yourself in proving your own point because you are making a judgemental statement by saying that we are unwilling to give grace to others. >>
It is not a judgment statement that makes someone ungraceful - it is the demonizing of others because they disagree with you that makes you ungraceful. We have to make judgments, we have to discern, but our job is never to condemn others because they disagree and I'm sorry, but no matter how many times you say "I can't judge this persons heart" when you go on and actually do so you've committed the crime.
<< Maybe I am misunderstanding you completely, it would help me if you listed the Scriptures where it shows that not believing the things you listed as examples do not matter as it pertains to salvation.
Sure. How about when Jesus speaks about the parable of the ten virgins and the five who get locked out get this response: "I dont know you". Or, how about Matthew 7:21 wherein Jesus says: ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." - notice that neither of these passages speak about what one believes about God only about whether you know God and live out his commands in their lives. Or take John 13:35 where Jesus describes people will know we are his disciples by our love for one another - not by how right our doctrines are.
Lets take this into the hypothetical for a second: did the disciples believe for the majority of their time with Jesus, in the Trinity? Or, better yet, did they believe him to be the Son of God (as opposed to just the Messiah - who, at the time, was not expected to be divine in nature)? The text seems to suggest that for the most part, they were clueless to both of these facts as evidenced by their frequent confusion with Jesus and his teachings regarding himself. Lets say, hypothetically, that one of the disciples happened to die a year and a half in, prior to coming to these conclusions about Jesus being the Son of God - would that disciple go to heaven or hell? If you say he goes to hell, well, then it is not really a relationship with God that saves us. If you say that he went to heaven, then obviously intellectual assent to a series of ideas is not the source of our salvation. So which is it?
The evidence seems, overwhelmingly, on my side. Perhaps you'd like to cite the Scriptures for your side?
Hi Jesse, I hope you had a great day, sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you.
First, I need to apologize for my typo in calling you Jessica--that is my son's girlfriend's name and she goes by jesse, so it came out naturally..
Okay, back to our discussion.
Thank you for clarifying yourself. It helps me to better understand your point and hopefully it will allow me to explain my self better.
Let's start with the easy one. I can see by response that you may have misunderstood what I said.
I am not saying that just because a person has head knowledge of who Jesus says he was, is saved. I am in agreement that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and the evidence of true salvation comes from a changed heart and lifestyle. Jesus was angry with the Pharasees because they had head knowledge but did not have a heart change or practice what they preach. We agree here.
You yourself stated that true salvation comes from believing in Jesus and doing the will of His father. We know the will of the father is to follow the son. You also said that true salvation is a changed heart and lifestye. Agreed.
So if the will of God is to follow the Son, than naturally we must look at what the Son says and does.
Here are my Scriptures to show that believing Jesus's words and who he says about himself are important in salvation.
John Chapter 8 beginning in verse 12 Jesus begins to share with the people that he is the light of the world and that he is God...for the sake of space, I wont write it all out, I know you will read it....In verse 24 Jesus said, "Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
So they asked him, "Who are you?" He goes on to explain that he is the son of God... and then we get to vrse 31-32 "If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free... continue on the the end of chapter 8, Jesus tells them that their father abraham saw his day, of course the people were outraged.. and then in vs 58 Jesus says, Most assuredly, I say to you before Abraham was, I AM."
This he said, making himself god and equal with the Father. (Ex 3:14) Ridley referenced the Isaiah passages, so I won't repeat them.
Another verse is Matt. 3:4, where Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
Now, we know that Jesus is speaking of literal bread because he was hungry and this was the devil's temptation, however, we also can see the spiritual application here, because later Jesus calls himself the bread of life.
SO, this passage could have two meanings-literal and spiritual, meaning man does not live by Jesus alone, but by every word that proceeds from his mouth. this makes sense when we read it in light of the passage from john when Jesus said if my words abide in you, then you are my desciples indeed. Add this to everything Jesus said about who he was (the 7 I Am statements) and we see that having faith in him, includes what he says about who he is.
These are just a few passages, but I hope you can see where I am coming from so far. Lets move on.
Because true salvation is evident by obeying his commands and living a changed life, wouldn't that include believing what the apostles taught? Remember, Jesus gave all authority to the desciples to go out and teach the ways of God. And we know from the book of Acts that Paul was taught for 3 years by the Lord Himself. So when Paul, Peter, Timothy and John lay out the doctrines of Christ, we are to heed them.
You mentioned the 6 days of creation or women being leaders in the church that not agreeing makes one less of a Christian. These thoughts have nothing to do with salvation. The reason I believe they are secondary issues and have nothing to do with salvation is because they do not affect lifestyle and when spoken of in the Bible they are never qualified with "Those who practice such things". I believe these examples you gave are obvious and not worth fighting about. I fellowship with many other Christians who hold different view on this and many other issues. we pray together and study together and have awesome conversations.
The ones I was addressing in your initial post had to do with the triune Godhead and a homosexual lifestyle. Whenever these are spoken of, they are always qualifed with a condition...and this is why I believe the two you originally stated have to be taken into consideration. You say that people like me demonize others for disagreeing. That is not true, all we are doing is discussing what we believe the bible to teach very clearly. But if you still think that is demonizing another, than you would have to also be saying that you believe Peter, Paul, Timothy and Jesus did the same. And so do you, I might add. I have a hard time believing you would go that far as to say that. But you would have to include them for the simple fact that with the ecception of the gospels and Revelation, the New Testament is spent refruting false doctrine. We are told to preach the gospel, we are told to teach,, rebuke and correct our fellow believers in love with grace lest we fall, as Paul says. Then you have John in the book of 1 John who goes as far as to call the believers liars if they say they have no sin. Is that demonizing them? I have never said that to someone.
As for specific Scriptures that refer to lifestyle, particulary homosexual behavior since this is the one you mentioned.
Lev 18:22-You shall not lie with a male as with a female, it is an abomination.
Rom 1:26-27, for this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for hwhat is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men committing what is shameful, and reciving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Gal 5:19-21 now the works of the flesh are evident which are: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, idiolatry....and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
How can these be misintrepreted to mean something other than what they say?
The key word here being practice--meaning lifestyle. A deliberate choice to disobey God. And we agree that obedience is evidence of true salvation. So to believe something is not sin, whatever that something is, before salvation, when we receive the Holy Spirit, he indwells us and convicts our hearts of sin. The natural outcome would be realizing that there is something wrong after all. This is what brings about change in behavior and it also includes a change in the way we think.
Jesus said, Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. Loving God with our mind means allowing him to correct our sinful way of thinking. So if God says that Homosexuality is a sin, then we as Christ followers must come to the same conclusion. What does Romans 12:1-2 tell us? " I beseech you therefore, brethern, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service and do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may be able to prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
The whole point in the corrective letters of the new testament were to correct the behavior of those professing to be believers.
What did God's grace do? It reached out to us while we were sinners, but it did not allow us to remain in that state. Grace is given so that we have the ability to choose Christ and then walk in Him.
Jesus said Narrow is the gate that leads to life. Jesus said, go and sin no more.
The whole point in salvation is to be conformed into the image of Christ. It is a process and each of us are in a different growing place with God.
I think the passages I shared leave no room for misinterpretation. Please understand, I am not saying that someone who is struggling with homesexuality, drugs or whatever state they were in when they called on Jesus is not true salvation. What I am saying is there is a difference in the one who has no conviction of their lifestyle whatsoever, they disregard what the Bible makes plain, and then they willfully disobey with no intentions of changing, and the one who struggles. Going back to what John says all throughout the book of first John. How can anyone have Christ in them and not believe what he says? It doesn't make sense.
One last thing, I don't believe anyone looses their salvation because they do not follow every doctrine taught in Scripture. The question would be did they have true salvation in the first place. Meaning, did they truly die to themselves and make Jesus their Lord? Only time will tell, and just because I share what I believe the Bible makes clear does not mean I am demonizing anybody. I never question anyones salvation. But if you insist that is what I and people like me are doing, then we are in good company because it is what the apostles did.
As for the other passage you quoted, That Jesus said we are known by our love, I agree wholeheartedly, but love includes correction. It's what Jesus showed us. Love paid a price, Love does not leave sinners alone, love woos them.
I remember not to long ago, you had a wonderful exchange with Manuel about reincarnation. You shared some awesome truths and laid out Scripture well, does that mean you were demonizing him? Or was that someone else. (Not being mean, just trying to understand the difference between what you do and what I do.) I can't speak for everyone, but I am not questioning if they are saved, I am questioning how they handle explicit teaching.
Thanks for your time, I hope this helps. God bless you. Peace.
Teresa, I completely understand everything you are saying and agree with almost all of it. I say almost because you still seem to be misunderstanding my position.
I've stated, time and again, disagreeing with someone does NOT mean you are demonizing with them. Demonizing someone is saying that because they disagree with you, they are not Christian. Or because they don't believe in [fill in the blank], they are not a Christian. In other words, anytime you (general you, not you specifically) call someone a non-Christian or call their salvation into question, because they don't agree with you on some matter of Biblical interpretation, you are demonizing them. But disagreement is not demonizing and I've never accused anyone of demonizing another because they disagree. I am sorry if I ever came across as saying that.
There is one interesting thing, though: you consider the women in leadership and 6-day creation to be secondary issues. I agree. But many others do not. Many others will question your salvation if you do not agree with them on matters like this. So this begs the question: what are the essentials, what cannot be compromised, and what are the non-essentials that believers can agree to disagree on?
Oh, and just for the sake of clarification, the apostles didn't teach on the Trinity - at least not by that title - plus, there is no indication that they understood the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit the way we do today. The concept of the trinity did not emerge until the early 300's and the same is true for much of the way we understand the concept. Google "trinity" and you'll find plenty of information supporting this.
Ha! (In a truly humorous way), because It certainly sounded like you were saying if we disagree, we are automatically calling their salvation into question.
In my responses to you, I stated over and over that I was not questioning the person's salvation, only questioning the reasoning behind agreeing or disagreeing with biblical teaching and how they reconcile their belief with Jesus' teaching. And yet you continually accused me of being ungraceful.
How did we miss these? Without starting all over again, I believe the bottom line is there is only one truth. Just because our understanding is incomplete, doesn't make it untrue. This is where continual study and prayer and the willingness to accept instruction come in.
In my opinion, the essentials are the doctrines that are talked about as they directly relate to who Jesus is and what constitutes true salvation. Which I believe are:
The Triune Godhead
The Diety of Christ
The Total depravity of man
Salvation by grace through faith alone
The death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
I agree that trinity is not a biblical word, but the triunity of God is taught through out Scripture beginning in the Book of Genesis--Elohim. And Jesus stating that he and the Father and the Spirit are one. John also spoke of the Father, the Son and the Spirit agreeing as one in 1 John. I think this passage and John chapter one indicate that they were aware of the concept of the oneness of the Godhead. Paul even spoke of the Godhead in Colossians. Maybe they didn't call it the Trinity, but I do believe they understood that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. This was prophesied by Isaiah.
Jesus also told them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe this to be evident that they understood the concept. Even if they didn't didn't understand it to the degree we do today, doesn't mean it was not there and that they didn't write about it through the power of the Holy Spirit. Even Daniel said he did not understand the things God told him to write. God told him its not for him to understand now, but later it will be revealed. A similar thing was told to John when he was given the revelation of Jesus Christ. Remember, at one point, the angel told him to seal up the message for the time being.
Also, I think the case John was making in the book of 1 John was directly refuting the gnostics and those believers who were being led astray being told that they could just have the Father without the Son and Vice-versa. It was evident that you could not separate the two.
After all, the concept of the trinity came from careful study of the Old and New Testaments. When added all together they spell three "persons" (distinct in their rol, yet one in purpose) in the Godhead.
Right in the 1st chapter of Genesis we see the Father, The Spirit and the Son. Maybe Moses missed it, but he wrote it nonetheless.
I have not come across anyone questioning my salvation because I believe in a literal 6 day creation or that (believe it or not), I don't think women should be in authority over a man, but if they did, I would graciously have that conversation and ask them to show me how these would disqualify me for salvation. I have several friends that believe that women can and should be pastors if they want to. We each have our reasons. I guess the bottom line for me is that if God has not made something abundantly clear and you can prove your case either way, then I consider that secondary. But if there is an issue that only has one idea, thought or teaching than that is something so important, God wanted to leave no room for misunderstanding. In other words, the only way to have an opposing position is to take out the Scriptures that discuss "that" particular issue.
Does this make sense?
Yes, but we'll have to agree to disagree on one thing: sincere, honest people have come to different conclusions on everything from 6-day creation, to the deity of Christ, to the nature of the Trinity, to slavery, to women in leadership, to worship, and everything in between. Nothing is as clear-cut for every sincere person as you would like it to be. Not everyone who comes to different conclusions on the Trinity, or whatever, do so out of malice or to try to manipulate the text. Certainly there are those people, too, but we cannot assume that every person who comes to those conclusions is insincere and malicious.
I agree completely. Seriously. I do not assume this at all, never said I did. But some are so obvious that you notice it when you see it, others are cunning and crafty. If this were not true, we would have no need to test the spirits. Yet we are told to do so. Lord bless you. Have a great day. And I guess I can't get past the fact that Jesus said if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins. That spells out cleary that if I do not believe Jesus is God, then I am not saved. Now, granted when we first get saved and all we know is Jesus, we may not believe this, but as we talked about earlier, true salvation leads to understanding God through the power of the Holy Spirit. As a person reads and studies the Bible, they have to consider this passage and many others. After all the evidence is laid out, what do they do with it? This is a question only they can answer.
How else would one interpret this passage?
I think its been a great exchange. Peace.
Keep in mind that just because someone says they don't believe in the Trinity, doesn't mean they don't think Jesus was God. For example, some believe that Jesus was the Father in human form and that God just morphs himself into different modes - Father, Son, Spirit. I don't agree with them, but I'm also not comfortable saying that because they believe this, they are not saved.
There are so many variations on the Trinity, modalism, and all the other stuff - its crazy.
Hi Jesse: Would you mind clarifying something for me (please note that this is not a challenge...just a question). When you say "it is not our beliefs, those ideas that we assent to intellectually that save us, it is Jesus Christ and him alone" I'm not sure I understand what that means.
Hi Joan,
What I mean is this: while one can agree with ideas like the Trinity or the redemptive value of the cross, they can do so without being affected by these things whatsoever, while they may agree, on the intellectual level, until their belief affect the way they live their lives, we can reasonably conclude that they have not experienced salvation. On the other hand, one can not believe these things, and still follow Christ and be changed in the core of their being and thus be saved.
In fact, if we are to say that it is a relationship with Christ that is the substance of our salvation, then it must be this way. If we are to say that it is by grace alone that we find redemption, then it would be a fallacy to add on believing x, y, and z.
I hope this makes sense. If not, let me know and I'll try to reframe it.
Jesse, I agree, sometimes doctrine is fouled up and people can get it wrong. But biblical truths that are laid out and plain to see, e.g. trinity doctrine, can not be refuted. If refuted or even disagreed upon, it calls into question what the arguer really believes. Of course it is not my job to say if someone is saved or not and I will not pass judgement on them, even if they say they don't believe what I hold to be essential truths. An important point though, you ask for me to have humility and grace upon those who disagree with me. If I just agree with you or whomever that the things I hold to be essential can be interpreted by both of us in completely opposite ways, that would just be an apostasy. But in consistently trying to edify my brothers and sisters in biblical truths, instead of judging then, I think that is where humility and grace are found.
A side note, what is the point in calling it Christianity if Christ isn't the center? If Jesus is seperate from God than all of our focus should be on God, not Jesus. We don't pray to Paul, or John the Baptist, or Isaiah; therefore if Jesus isn't God, and just another messenger, we should be calling what we believe in something completely different.
Jesse, in your frist response to me you said, "We are saying that it is not our beliefs, those ideas that we assent to intellectually, that save us. It is Jesus and him alone." But Jesus saves us because we believe in what He said (about Him being God, etc.), and what he said constitutes a lot of the doctrine that we adhear to. In that sense, belief is big a part of salvation.
In your response to Teresa, you said, "First of all, I never made any mention of my beliefs...it would serve you better to ask me (what they are)." When you brought up the fact that some Christians are demonized and treated ungraciously because they don't believe in some specific doctrine, it seemed like you were defending their non-belief. You said, "I see it all the time: someone doesn't believe in the Trinity - (Christians think) they must not be a Christian." When you said this, it seems like you are making the argument that it is ok to not believe in the Trinity. If it is in fact ok, then what is the benefit to you in believing in the trinity? If you don't believe in the trinity, then what point is there is Jesus sharing in God's glory like Jesus says He does?
Ridley,
Yes, they can be refuted and regardless of whether you agree with the conclusions of these refutations, many have come to disagree with the concept of the Trinity due to sincere and rigorous study of the Bible. I'm not saying I agree with these conclusions, but I am saying that believing in the concept of the Trinity does not make or break you as a Christian.
<< If I just agree with you or whomever that the things I hold to be essential can be interpreted by both of us in completely opposite ways, that would just be an apostasy. >>
That makes absolutely no sense. To be an apostate is to turn away from one's faith/religion - how does agreeing to disagree cause either party to be an apostate?
<< A side note, what is the point in calling it Christianity if Christ isn't the center? If Jesus is seperate from God than all of our focus should be on God, not Jesus. We don't pray to Paul, or John the Baptist, or Isaiah; therefore if Jesus isn't God, and just another messenger, we should be calling what we believe in something completely different. >>
Considering I actually do believe in the Trinity, I feel no need to respond to this. Find someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity and ask them.
<< Jesse, in your frist response to me you said, "We are saying that it is not our beliefs, those ideas that we assent to intellectually, that save us. It is Jesus and him alone." But Jesus saves us because we believe in what He said (about Him being God, etc.), and what he said constitutes a lot of the doctrine that we adhear to. In that sense, belief is big a part of salvation >>
No, Jesus does not save us because we believe in what he said. He saves us because we believe in him, because we trust him, and are being conformed to the type of person he is. Also, Jesus said surprisingly little about doctrine. Most of the doctrine that is at the core of Christianity comes from either the early Church or the modern era - so what gives?
<< When you brought up the fact that some Christians are demonized and treated ungraciously because they don't believe in some specific doctrine, it seemed like you were defending their non-belief. You said, "I see it all the time: someone doesn't believe in the Trinity - (Christians think) they must not be a Christian." When you said this, it seems like you are making the argument that it is ok to not believe in the Trinity. If it is in fact ok, then what is the benefit to you in believing in the trinity? >>
It is okay not to believe in the Trinity. Did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, Paul believe in the Trinity?
Now to your question about what benefit I get by believing in the Trinity - what an incredibly odd question! Must something benefit me in order for me to believe in it? Can't I just believe in something because I am convinced that it is true? Do you only believe those things which "benefit" you?
So it is with my belief in the Trinity. To me, Scripture seems to support it and it makes the most sense. But, others who are just as sincere as myself disagree and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that they are not Christians.
"No, Jesus does not save us because we believe in what he said. He saves us because we believe in him, because we trust him, and are being conformed to the type of person he is."
If you can back this up using scripture references I would really appreciate it.
To clarify on the my usage of the word apostate: In my agreement to disagree with your beliefs yet still call us both Christians despite the massive differences in our beliefs, I am concluding that my beliefs (truths) are no more superior than yours, thusly rendering my beliefs (truths) inferior simply because two different "truths" can not both be true. By agreeing that my belief is no more true than your belief, I have betrayed and left my faith and original belief, whose tenents state that it is the only truth.
Having clarified that, I really want a response to the first part of this post.
Ridley,
The entirety of the Gospels prove my point. There were plenty who believed all the right things - including the pharisees. But Jesus wasn't looking for people to buy into ideas, he was looking for people who would follow him and become his disciple and I'm sure that you would agree this is so much more than just saying "amen" when Jesus talks. And look at what Jesus says to his disciples at the end of Matthew 28: "Go and make disciples ...teaching them to obey ..."
If it is intellectual assent that saves us why wouldn't Jesus say, "teach them to believe all the stuff I've said"? The only answer here is that intellectual assent, indeed, does not save us. Obeying Christ and following his commands do.
Can I ask you to provide Scripture references for your position?
And regarding the apostasy - you're still wrong. You're wrong because you assume that giving someone the freedom to disagree is actually agreeing with them. You may not put it into these words, but you think it. And you're still caricaturizing my position. I'm not - read that again - I'm not saying that all ideas are equally valid or that there is no absolute truth, so what anyone thinks is true, is true. I'm saying that since you do not have absolute knowledge, regarding anything, you must always hold your beliefs with a degree of humility and give other people the freedom to disagree with you without assuming their disagreement is an indication that they are not a Christian.
You are perfectly free to think something is true, and you are perfectly free to think someone else is wrong when they take a different stance. But you are not free, ever, to assume that someone disagreeing with you makes them a non-Christian.
You said, "But Jesus wasn't looking for people to buy into ideas, he was looking for people who would follow him and become his disciple."
If I am following Jesus, wouldn't I be agreeing with (buying into) His ideas? I know it doesn't take just agreeing with Jesus, but instead it takes complete and wholehearted action. But you make it sound like we don't need to believe what Jesus said, we just need to do what He did. I know plenty of atheists who act like Jesus, but do not believe a word He said.
You said, "But you are not free, ever, to assume that someone disagreeing with you makes them a non-Christian."
What if someone is disagreeing with me on the divinity of Christ? Can I still assume (assume, not judge) that they are a Christian, even if they don't believe Jesus is God?
You quoted the end of Matthew, "And look at what Jesus says to his disciples at the end of Matthew 28: "Go and make disciples ...teaching them to obey ..."
One of your arguments this whole conversation was that we don't need to just believe but act (obey), right? But by citing this part of scripture shows that belief is equally important. To illustrate that let me write Matt. 28:19-20 and Matt. 7:22-23 from the NASB.
Matthew 28:19-20, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
In Matthew 7:22, Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out many demons, and in your name perform many miracles.' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."
So, Jesus says in Matt.7 that acts alone do not save and in Matt.28 that we must obey what Jesus said. This was clearly a message to the Jews of the time who were desperatly trying to just do what was written in the law, despite the awful state of their hearts. I think that is a pretty strong case that Jesus wants us to think the right things and believe the right things (not just do the right things), so that our hearts would be right and in line with Jesus' message. If doing good things makes you like Jesus then Jesus wouldn't have denied those people in Matt.7. Like I said, plenty of atheists do good things.
I think you misunderstand my position, Ridley. I am not talking about works. I'm talking about faith - which is not mere intellectual assent and may even be quite different from intellectual assent.
For example, which is a demonstration of faith: to say that I believe (agree with the idea) that the airplane will not crash, but refuse to get on it; or to say that I actually think the plan might crash, despite the pilots assuring me otherwise, and still get on it? Which is a demonstration of faith: for Peter to see Jesus walking on the water and think to himself, "I think I could walk on water, too" but refuse to do so; or for him to think "If I try this, I'm going to sink" but try it anyways?
And yes, if you are following Jesus, you will believe what he says. But - and here's the catch - being removed 2000 years, it is not always easy to determine what Jesus was saying. Did he really mean to cut off your hand and gouge out your eye if they cause you to sin? Or could he have been using hypberbole?
So, because it is not easy, and because we are 2000 years removed from not just the historical context, but the way people thought and processed information, from cultural language where a series of words meant something different than the words themselves, etc. Because of all of that, we must give people the freedom to disagree with us. If they say they are following Jesus, have received forgiveness of their sins, and are sincere in their attempts to understand what he said, then you must give them the benefit of the doubt.
By the way, Matthew 7 can easily be on my side: "Lord, Lord (we believe you are Lord), didn't we prophesy in your name (we believed that you gave us a gift and we believed there was power in your name), didn't we cast out demons (we believed in demons and believed you power over them), didn't we perform miracles in your name (we believed that miracles could happen and we prayed in your name and they actually did happen). But what does Jesus say to them? "You never believed in me"? No. "You didn't agree with me when I said this"? No. "Your doctrine doesn't line up with truth"? No.
"I never knew you."
Nothing about right belief.
<< I think that is a pretty strong case that Jesus wants us to think the right things and believe the right things (not just do the right things), so that our hearts would be right and in line with Jesus' message >>
This, I think, brings us to a pivotal point. Does right thinking cause the heart to change? And what change, specifically, is supposed to occur in our hearts as a result of a faith in Christ?
Why else would Jesus say "I never knew you," to those people in Matt.7, unless they didn't beleive? Isn't it implied that they didn't believe, because obviously they did all the right things. They performed miracles, casted out demons, called Jesus Lord, and overall demonstrated the power of Jesus. So, they did all the actions, what else could they have lacked but faith or belief? But you said it doesn't have anything to do with the right belief.
Actions are not faith nor are they relationship. And neither is agreeing with idea.
I've already demonstrated how faith and belief are different - perhaps you need to read that part again?
Jesus said that to them because - read this slowly and carefully:
they
did
not
know
him
This says nothing of belief/intellectual assent. Nothing. If anything it says that these people really believed that there was power Jesus' name and actually drew upon that power, but they lacked the most important thing: relationship.
How is this so difficult for you to understand?
So how do we get to "know" Jesus, as it is stated in Matthew 7? How do we form the relationship that Jesus demands in Matthew 7?
That is a good question. Obviously prayer is huge to this end as are the various spiritual disciplines. Bible study. Community with other believers. Serving others.
Guys: I have to get in the middle here, but I think you may be in an either/or cycle on some things that may just be both/ands. I cant speak for others, but I want all of it. I want to know Jesus, I want to follow Him, I want to have deep abiding faith in Him. I want to know His commands and delight in them. I want to pursue a deeper love and to have wisdom that is deeper and wider than I could imagine--not for my own edification, but to serve and glorify God. I find that I need scripture. I savor it. I rely on it as a critical part of my relationship with Jesus because He speaks to me through it (by the Holy Spirit) on a regular basis. I see no contradiction in relying on the Word of God as truth and following/having a relationship with Jesus. In fact, I can't imagine having one without the other. Is truth more important than love? Is love more important than truth? Is faith more important than works when faith without works is dead and we are saved by faith not works? These are the wonderful morsels that I get to contemplate and wrestle with in prayer and studying the Bible regularly. I love to read many authors and philosophers, but I cannot begin to rely on their teaching more than I do the Bible...that, for me, is a dangerous game. I do not have the answers...but that does not mean that there are no answers. I cannot comprehend every nuance of the truth...but that does not mean that there is no truth. I just keep on truckin' and take great care to resist the temptation to think I have it all figured out.
Best,
Joan
Thanks Joan. And I completely agree. And I, too, want the relationship and the theology and all the other good stuff.
But, and this is the only point I am trying to make: we need to give other Christians the freedom to disagree with us without calling their salvation into question. Because being a disciple is not about agreeing with all the correct ideas.
Or is it? Maybe the people who believe that being a disciple is about agreeing with all the correct ideas should be extended the same grace that you ask of them regarding a difference in interpretation. Is it possible that you are applying the same rigidity of thinking that frustrates you, but with different details?
No - there's an important distinction: I don't question the salvation of those who actually do think that believing the right things is necessary for salvation. I have no reason to think that they are not saved - I simply think they're wrong. So, yes, I do extend to them the same grace that I'm asking them for.
And once again I state that disagreement is not the same as demonization.
Jesse, I asked you a question earlier but I didn't get a response so I am going to repost it:
What if I don't believe that Jesus is God? Am I still a Christian? Am I saved?
That's not for me to judge. I will say that I think you're wrong (that is, the person who doesn't believe Jesus is God), but I can't determine whether you're saved or not. If God judges the heart and thus determines who is saved, how can I then go and condemn someone based on their theology?
I do think that God judges sincerity. So if you just don't want to believe that Jesus is God, I think that will be considered. But if through their own study and with all the sincerity they can muster, someone doesn't think that Jesus is God, I can't tell them their not saved. All I can do is try to show them why I think they're wrong, why I think Scripture is pretty clear when it says he is, and hope that they take an honest look at that stuff and change their minds.
I know that's not the answer you're looking for. Sorry. I just happen to believe very strongly that salvation is not based on correct theology, as important as correct and sound theology is.
You responded Jesse, "That's not for me to judge. I will say that I think you're wrong (that is, the person who doesn't believe Jesus is God), but I can't determine whether you're saved or not."
Cool, you said that you will point out to someone that you think they are wrong. Are you mkaing that claim that they are wrong because they don't believe in what you believe, or because they aren't in agreement with scripture?
I think they're wrong because I think Scripture says something different. But please note that being wrong is not synonymous with being unsaved.
Ok, you think they are wrong because of what you have read in scripture which says something contrary to their point. You and I are on exactly the same page here. I agree that being wrong does not make one damned, but, if one chooses to not believe something written in the scriptures, that does make them wrong as you just said, right?
In the scriptures it says:
John 10:30- Jesus says, "I and the Father are one."
John 5:22-23- Jesus says, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgement to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."
All these scriptures and more tell us that Jesus is God. What's more is that they say that we will honor Jesus in the same way we honor God. And that if we don't honor Jesus, we don't honor God. One way of honoring Jesus is listening to and doing what He said.
Now, like we said, someone is wrong if they believe something contrary to what it says in scripture. Let's say that I say Jesus is not God. Well, in scripture it says that He is God. So I am wrong. But there is a catch here with me being wrong. I didn't just understand incorrectly, but I chose to not believe or act upon what clearly was written in the scripture.
In John 5:24, it says, "...he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement but has passed out of death into life."
Jesus said He is God in John 10:30 and John 17:5, and God says we must believe everything Jesus said to have eternal life in John 5:22-23. If we don't believe it when Jesus said that He was God, we don't have eternal life. So not only are we wrong by not agreeing with scripture, we are not saved. We don't need to wonder about their salvation, God tells us how He judges salvation, through belief in Jesus Christ as God.
We'll have to agree to disagree, here, Ridley. Because for you, disagreement on this issue necessarily entails that the person disagreeing is willfully rebelling against what they know Scripture says. And while I agree with you on what Scripture says, I simply cannot agree with you that believing all the right things, regardless of how plain you or I think it is laid in Scripture, is required for salvation.
But I do thank you for the discussion.
But scripture says so plainly that belief is part of what leads to salvation.
Don't we then have a requirement to believe all that is written?
I really don't want to end this conversation. I don't think we have said all that needs to be said.
Where does Scripture plainly say that right belief on all the "right" issues is part of salvation? And which doctrines do you think we have to believe in?
In John 5:24, it says, "...he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement but has passed out of death into life."
I think that is a clear case where Jesus is saying, "You need to listen to what I say (and obey it), you need to believe what God says (Jesus has shown that He is also God), and if you listen to my words and heed them, you don't come into judgement and have passed out of death. Therefore, if one does not listen to and heed Jesus' words, and believe in the God who sent Him, one doesn't come out of judgement and one doesn't pass out of death into life.
And the scriptures lay all that out, in Jesus' words. Jesus said we must believe what He said (which has been written down, the Bible in our case) to be saved, and Jesus said He is God.
Perhaps you and Gonzo can start a new reply at the bottom and link them by a phrase in this one, so it can be viewed better in a new comment string. This has been very interesting to read.
Ok, I posted my last one on the bottom of the page but I don't know how to link them.
Just a short phrase in this thread that matches the new thread, e.g. subject part1 see part 2. Then in the new thread subject part 2 see part 1. At least you can search on the phrase or key words.
To continue reading subject part1 see part 2 below.
Interestingly, the Greek word that is used for "believe" in this verse (pisteuō) shows that it is not mere intellectual assent. It actually indicates a sense of trusting or placing your confidence in.
Hi Nate, great post. Well needed for today's believers.
I agree and join you in prayer.
We are in desparate need of God's forgiveness and we need the scales removed from our eyes as a whole.
Somethings are worth fighting for--in a peaceful and gracious way, but we have gone off the deep end fighting about things that do not matter.
We have allowed the devil to use us as pawns to accomplish his will instead of remaining steadfast and strong in the ways of God, reading his word and spreading the uncompromised love and grace of God.
Thanks for a post that has got us talking. Lord bless you! Teresa
PART 2, see threads above for part 1
In John 5:24, it says, "...he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement but has passed out of death into life."
I think that is a clear case where Jesus is saying, "You need to listen to what I say (and obey it), you need to believe what God says (Jesus has shown that He is also God), and if you listen to my words and heed them, you don't come into judgement and have passed out of death. Therefore, if one does not listen to and heed Jesus' words, and believe in the God who sent Him, one doesn't come out of judgement and one doesn't pass out of death into life.
And the scriptures lay all that out, in Jesus' words. Jesus said we must believe what He said (which has been written down, the Bible in our case) to be saved, and Jesus said He is God.
Interestingly, the Greek word that is used for "believe" in this verse (pisteuō) shows that it is not mere intellectual assent. It actually indicates a sense of trusting or placing your confidence in.
Also, I'll note that, so far, you haven't provided a verse where Jesus says the alternative. Saying something in the positive sense ("If you do x, y will happen") does not automatically mean that the negative alternative is also true ("If you do not do x, y will will not happen").
For example, there were various times when Jesus healed people and did so because they "had faith". It would be easy, then, for us to assume that in order to be healed, you must have faith. But, there are various other instances where there is no mention of someone's faith and they are healed anyways. So, its not a hard and fast rule...
Make sense?
I just want to preface this thread with this statement: When I use the word believe or belief I am not equating it with intellectual assent, or purely logical agreement, even though many things that Jesus tells us must be logically agreed to (where 1+2=3 is a logical statement, Jesus gives us statements in a "x+y=z" fashion with which we can not logically disagree). I mean by belief, a whole hearted, undenying, acceptance of who Jesus said He is and life based on that.
Earlier, I asked, “If it is in fact ok (to not believe in the Trinity), then what is the benefit to the believer in believing in the trinity? If you don't believe in the trinity, then what point is there is Jesus sharing in God's glory like Jesus says He does?
You responded, “Now to your question about what benefit I get by believing in the Trinity - what an incredibly odd question! Must something benefit me in order for me to believe in it? Can't I just believe in something because I am convinced that it is true? Do you only believe those things which "benefit" you?”
Well, the benefit we receive from believing (having faith in, not just agreeing with) the Trinity is knowing that in fact Jesus is God, and that they share glory together being one. Why would Jesus say something if it wasn’t of use to us in our faith. What would the benefit be of Jesus telling us He was God, unless it leads to us believing that He was God and being saved initially because of our belief? If believing that Jesus is God isn’t a necessary in what makes up our faith, then why believe it in the first place, why was it even said? You said that you believe in the Trinity but make no distinctions as to whether someone is saved if they believe in it or not. So then why do you believe in it if it doesn‘t affect your salvation? It doesn’t add to your faith, it actually detracts from it being utterly worthless doctrine. We are instructed by Christ to believe in the Trinity because it matters. Because Jesus said He was God, and because He said to believe in that is necessary to actually believing that He has the ability to save us.
You have been consistently making the case that intellectual assent to something doesn’t give someone claim to salvation or faith. At the same time you have been saying that it doesn’t matter what one believes because it is up to God to judge where our hearts really lie and if we are saved (on Friday you said"...I simply cannot agree with you that believing all the right things, regardless of how plain you or I think it is laid in Scripture, is required for salvation."). It seems like you are making the case that not believing in some of what Jesus says is better than intellectually agreeing to all of what Jesus says. Obviously, from scripture, neither of those two satisfy God and I will give 2 examples:
1. Many came to Jesus having done things in the power of His name but Jesus said I don’t know you to those people because their faith didn’t lie in Him but in themselves and what they could do. They came to Jesus as if to demand something they deserved because of all their great works, just like the Jews thought they could earn righteousness by the law, or works. Jesus points out that doing the right thing isn’t always evidence of faith, nor does it lead to “knowing Him.” And if those people in Matt.7:22-23 didn’t know Jesus, how could they have understood or believed in Him, or obeyed Him. These people are a classic example of choosing to believing in some things about Jesus and thinking their acts constituted belief.
2. Many people believe that by agreeing with what Jesus says, they have essentially “made it” and they constitute such agreement as belief. James 2:17, “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” We can assume that this persons faith never really existed if it never manifested itself through works. James says a few verses later in 2:22, “You see that faith was working with his works and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.” Obviously, faith without works is dead. Works are important, but they must be coupled with an earnest faith.
From your last thread, you noted, “Also, I'll note that, so far, you haven't provided a verse where Jesus says the alternative. Saying something in the positive sense ("If you do x, y will happen") does not automatically mean that the negative alternative is also true ("If you do not do x, y will will not happen").”
If belief and obedience to Jesus’ words are a requisite for passing into life, we can assume that disbelief will send one unto death. And here is why: Every human has sinned and falls short of the glory of God. The only thing that separates us from them is belief that Jesus is Savior and God. If faith in Jesus and thusly what He said is what separates us from the rest of the world, there can be no other way to pass unto life save believing in Him and what He said. (Once again, this belief is not intellectualy assent, but whole hearted belief in everything Jesus said, and the showing of that belief/faith through works). Like I said ealier, I know plenty of atheists who do great things, but don't know Christ at all. Does that mean they will pass unto death, just because they don't believe all of the right things? If they chose not to beleive in what Jesus has said, about faith in Him and living life for God, I would say yes. I also know Christians who do great things in the name of Jesus but don't really believe He is God or just aren't sure. What then seperates them from the atehists? Not their belief or faith in Christ, that is what unites them with the atheists, because their belief in Christ is so little or non-existent.
At the end of your thread, you say, “…there were various times when Jesus healed people and did so because they "had faith". It would be easy, then, for us to assume that in order to be healed, you must have faith. But, there are various other instances where there is no mention of someone's faith and they are healed anyways. So, its not a hard and fast rule…”
Yes, it isn’t said in those circumstances why they were healed. No doubt, despite their faith, Jesus had great compassion on them and for that reason they were healed. I believe another reason why Jesus healed people without faith was to witness to them, and cause them to have faith in Him. I wouldn’t doubt that many people who had no faith came to faith because of what Jesus did for them/to them. I think Jesus healing people was a lot different than Jesus saving people. We should look for an example where Jesus says that something saved someone specifically different than their faith in Him. I am going to wager that there is no such passage.
<< When I use the word believe or belief I am not equating it with intellectual assent, or purely logical agreement, even though many things that Jesus tells us must be logically agreed to >>
Which things, Ridley? I've asked you this before, but you still haven't been able to define which things require agreement on the intellectual level in order for to be saved. So which things are they? And then, once you have that list, I'd like to know how you came to these, which factors are taken into consideration when you are determining the things that are required to be believed in for salvation.
I used an analogy earlier that you seemed content to ignore and that was Peter walking on the water. Which is a demonstration of faith: for him to think that he can actually walk on water, but refuse to try; or for him to not think that he can walk on water, but to give it a shot anyways? I'd like to know your response.
<< Well, the benefit we receive from believing (having faith in, not just agreeing with) the Trinity is knowing that in fact Jesus is God, and that they share glory together being one. Why would Jesus say something if it wasn’t of use to us in our faith. What would the benefit be of Jesus telling us He was God, unless it leads to us believing that He was God and being saved initially because of our belief? >>
First, I never said it wasn't of use to us in our faith. It very much is. But that's not why I believe it. I believe it because I think it is actually true. If we only believe the things that are beneficial to us, we distort the gospel and add on all kinds of things that are not really true for the sole reason that they are beneficial - which is what many Christians have actually done. Second, you are still nearly equating belief with faith. Or, you think that belief is the pre-cursor to faith, but its not. One can have faith without belief because while belief remains a matter of the mind (discussing, now, the way "belief" is most commonly used), faith is a matter of action - and you can act without having everything lined up in your head. It is action that God is looking for. By that I don't mean works, as if we perform the right actions and are thus saved, but God is asking us to agree with him in our actions not just (or at times, in spite of) our minds. This is true trust.
<< So then why do you believe in it if it doesn‘t affect your salvation? It doesn’t add to your faith, it actually detracts from it being utterly worthless doctrine. We are instructed by Christ to believe in the Trinity because it matters. Because Jesus said He was God, and because He said to believe in that is necessary to actually believing that He has the ability to save us. >>
That's nonsense. Salvation is not the only thing that matters or the only thing that Jesus came to accomplish. It is not converts that Jesus is seeking, it is disciples. There are plenty of reasons to believe the things Jesus said, but only putting them through the does-it-actually-save-us test is both irresponsible spiritually and intellectually.
Also, once again, you have not provided any Scripture where Jesus says that we must believe he was God (which, I'll note, is different than saying you believe in the Trinity - many people believe Jesus was God without believing in the Trinity) in order to be saved. The question, though is what makes Jesus being God necessary for our salvation? Couldn't God have set things up in a such a way so that he chose one man to be his Messiah, who would die on a cross, and be resurrected and through him everyone is able to come to eternal life?
<< It seems like you are making the case that not believing in some of what Jesus says is better than intellectually agreeing to all of what Jesus says.
No, what I'm saying is that its better to actually follow Jesus and heed his instructions, to live with faith, to pray, to forgive people and so on, than it is to believe all the "right" things about him.
And this leads to another question that we have not addressed. For those who have not heard of Jesus - will they be saved? Or, perhaps they have heard of him, and have believed that he really is the source of their salvation and live according to the various teachings of his that they have heard, but were never taught that he is actually God - will these people be saved?
<< Many came to Jesus having done things in the power of His name but Jesus said I don’t know you to those people because their faith didn’t lie in Him but in themselves and what they could do. They came to Jesus as if to demand something they deserved because of all their great works, just like the Jews thought they could earn righteousness by the law, or works. Jesus points out that doing the right thing isn’t always evidence of faith, nor does it lead to “knowing Him.” >>
You're right, their faith didn't lie in Jesus, but in themselves, but they still believed the right things about Jesus. They believed that, in his name, miracles could actually be done and demons actually be driven out. But this next part is interesting...
<< And if those people in Matt.7:22-23 didn’t know Jesus, how could they have understood or believed in Him, or obeyed Him.
Very interesting, indeed! So which is more important: to know Jesus, or to believe the right things about him? Or, to use your logic above, isn't knowing Jesus the pre-cursor to believing the right things about him?
Here's something to think about - flow with me here. If I were to die, Jesus could (and most likely will) fix my theology. If I didn't believe correctly in an area, for whatever reason, Jesus can fix that by helping me to understand what I was missing by explaining where I went wrong and what is actually right and true. But, Jesus cannot do the opposite. Jesus cannot take someone with right theology, but who refuses to trust him, and fix them into trusting him. If I spend my life trying to believe what is true and trying to live accordingly, I cannot imagine that the loving and merciful God we serve would deny me salvation because I happened to believe incorrectly on something.
So if I have to choose one way or the other, I will always encourage people to trust Jesus even if they don't believe all the right things. Jesus will fix our misdirected or untrue beliefs - that's not difficult, but he can't cause someone who has all the right beliefs to trust him.
<< Obviously, faith without works is dead. Works are important, but they must be coupled with an earnest faith. >>
I agree completely.
<< If belief and obedience to Jesus’ words are a requisite for passing into life, we can assume that disbelief will send one unto death >>
Ah, watch yourself, here. I've already pointed out that the verse you used to make this point actually uses a word different from "intellectual assent" but actually means "trust, confidence in" - there's a difference. I'll also note that you never responded to that part - how convenient. I want to see you wiggle your way out of that one.
<< And here is why: Every human has sinned and falls short of the glory of God. The only thing that separates us from them is belief that Jesus is Savior and God >>
And by belief you mean that we trust and confidence in Jesus' ability to save us from our sins. I agree. But one doesn't need to believe Jesus is God for this.
<< Like I said ealier, I know plenty of atheists who do great things, but don't know Christ at all. Does that mean they will pass unto death, just because they don't believe all of the right things? >>
I'm not talking about those who refuse to believe in Jesus at all. I'm talking about those people who believe that Jesus actually is the way to eternal life, that he does have the ability to save us from our sins, that he is the way to a relationship with God - but who don't believe, for whatever reason, that he is actually God or who don't believe that God is trinitarian in nature and that perhaps Jesus was just God the father in human form.
<< I also know Christians who do great things in the name of Jesus but don't really believe He is God or just aren't sure. What then seperates them from the atehists? >>
What do you mean they do great things "in the name of Jesus"? Do they pray to God in Jesus' name? Do they exercise love for others in Jesus' name? Do they live in such a way to demonstrate that they've received forgiveness in Jesus' name?
<< We should look for an example where Jesus says that something saved someone specifically different than their faith in Him. I am going to wager that there is no such passage. >>
No, we should look for an example where someone acknowledged that Jesus was our way to eternal life without having all the correct theology. And there is at least one: the thief on the cross who simply asked that Jesus would remember him when he came into his kingdom - and Jesus replied by telling the man that on that very day, the man would be with Jesus in paradise...a proclamation of salvation.
Salvation is not contingent upon correct theology.