| Author | Message | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Valerie, I do believe that for some people, affiliating with an organized group, even if there are some disputable matters, is okay and good for them. While people like myself find it more of a pain in the neck to affiliate with organizations that teach matters not necessarily in the Bible. This grinds me like nothing else can do. Maybe I'm too rigid in my thinking at this point in my walk. I do know that being the outcast in any church is easy to become if you don't follow ALL their precepts. That of course, makes me an outcast as I am not a trendy person and I probably never will be. So the trends of the Church that are sometimes so dogmatic, bend my hide and I either can just not attend or open my mouth. This has kept me out of the Churches because it is too hard for me to keep my mouth shut. True story. Still, I plan this next sunday to attend church. I pray that the teaching is out of the Bible and the Bible only because basically I'm really turned off at any other teachings added and find that I get irritated in general. So for me, this irritation is not worth going. I can have a better service in my own home, right out of the Bible. God Bless, Denise | ||
| Valm |
Denise, That is the beauty of God's relationship with all of us. He meets our needs where we are; not when we get to a certain developmental spot in our lives. And being somewhere in my mind is not a vertical thing but is just where we are then and there. It is not for me to say whether someone is rigid or not anymore that to say whether they should or should not go to church. I think the answer is an internal matter. (And who is to say that rigidity is not a personal strength most of the time?) I love the little church I go to. I see alot of the trimmings of the Episcopal as unessential but enjoy them. I am a sap for ritual and ceremony. Historically these "traditions" were considered acts of obligation but are not viewed as such by most members and clergy today. Others that sit next to me see those trimmings as necessary for their salvation. I don't know why it doesn't get to me, I guess I see it just as have peaceful tolerance of each others idiosyncracies (although I don't bat 1000 on that one either) Good luck attening church on Sunday. Have fun and let others take care of you!!!! | ||
| Billtwisse |
We have been introduced here to the whole spectrum of beliefs regarding evangelical ministries. One extreme would have us avoid criticism or evaluation of anyone or anything that uses the name 'Jesus.' The other extreme would view all ministries with suspicion--unless an exact set of detailed doctrinal beliefs espoused by one sect is subscribed to. I'm not suggesting that any contributor here has subscribed to either of these extremes--but the spectrum of posts has shown that there is a slight tendency by some in the direction of both. Paul does say that the preaching of any gospel other than that which was revealed to him is of the devil. If anything naming Christ is to be accepted without further evaluation, how could Paul say that? Why do we even dare to challenge the SDA's (who claim to believe in Jesus) on any issue whatsoever? Billy Graham certainly doesn't venture onto such dangerous ground as to challenge SDA's or Roman Catholics. I have asked GTY ministries to supply me with the Graham quote and reference that I cited. I believe that they will do this at some point in time. Isn't it important that we test all things and hold fast only to that teaching which obeys the gospel? --Twisse | ||
| Cindy |
Bill, Hi! I have thought about your question, "Why do we even dare to challenge the SDA's (who claim to believe in Jesus) on any issue whatsoever?" Like you said, belief in Jesus IS proclaimed and salvation by faith alone IS espoused. It's just what is ADDED to Christ alone...Jesus' Supremacy and Sufficiency is never quite enough. I've heard this before: "In Essentials, unity... in Non-essentials, liberty...in all things, Love..." (Calvin?) I guess the problems come in defining "Essentials!" And/or, in what constitutes "non-essentials". :-)) Your question, "Isn't it important that we test all things and hold fast only to that teaching which obeys the gospel?" Yes! and only by Resting always in the Gospel message of Christ crucified for me!; and being open to the Holy Spirit's guidance daily... can we even define "that teaching which obeys the gospel." What are the essentials of the gospel message? How do we evaluate what teachings obey that message? Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Valm |
Bill, If I waited for the perfect church to be found, I don't think I would be going to church. I critically evaluate what I believe is best for myself and for my family, but couldn't do that for another as I am just too imperfect. Can any of us truely comprehend or understand the Gospel message perfectly? I do not think so. Does any church have all of the docrines and beliefs just right? I do not think so. I came to a point in time where I was too exhausted to examine everything and take a stand on it. So I am where I am and find that with all its problems, God is there and gives me a blessing when I show up and participate in prayer with others. Valerie | ||
| Max |
To all who are nervous about finding a non-SDA congregation: Belief in Jesus IS proclaimed and salvation by faith alone IS espoused by SDAs. But even more loudly proclaimed is: Get ready for Jesus to come! This message they knowingly and deliberately direct toward already-saved Christ followers. So the sub-message within the message is: You are not ready! Get the menace? The gospel is insufficient! Free costly grace doesn't get the job done! Before you can be admitted into heaven you have to Stand Before God Without a Mediator! The One who said "I will never leave you or forsake you" must leave you and forsake you. And you must go through a time of trouble the like of which has never been seen before upon the face of the earth. All without Christ! Not the devil, though! Thus does the most subtle evil heart of the SDA heresy reveal itself with all its maggots wiggling. It removes from you your certainty of salvation in one fell blow: For if you are not ready for Jesus to come you are NOT saved! "What then," asks this born-again Christian, "do I still lack?" Replies the SDA evangelist: 1. You must accept the fact that your salvation was not complete on the cross or when Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father -- but it only began to be completed in 1844. 2. You must start keeping the Sabbath in order to obtain the seal of God and stop your Sunday worship, for that is the mark of the beast. 3. You must pay me tithe. 4. You must stop drinking wine. 5. You must remove your wedding band from off your finger and never mind that suddenly threatened husband of yours! 6. You must stop eating pork and all other unclean meats. (Never mind that Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19.) In fact, before Jesus can come you must stop eating meat altogether, for, "Those who persist in eating the flesh of dead animals will go from God's people to walk with them no more." --EGW. (It's okay to WEAR their hides, though.) 7. And not only that, but you have to accept Ellen G. White as God's only latter-day prophet and as the sole infallible interpreter of Scripture, as one who has authority to add to and take away from Scripture. 8. Be rebaptized! -- by immersion. 9. Let others defend you and your country by killing in wartime. 10. Etcetera (such as send your kids to SDA schools) .... THIS is what you must do to be saved. And even then you won't be, for you haven't preached this so-called "gospel" to the entire world yet, have you? For Christ cannot come till you do! Legalism? Pharisaism? You decide. Christianity it is not. Max of the Cross | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Hello Max, Just popped by to say 'you were very generous' in your list of do's and don'ts. There is even more to it than that to 'get ready'. God Bless your diplomacy, Denise | ||
| Billtwisse |
Cindy: You're absolutely right! The issue today is not whether a person merely confesses a belief in Christ and salvation by faith alone. In a study of heterodox religions that I read a couple of years ago, SDA's were at the TOP of those PROFESSING Christ and the true gospel of any of the participants. They had been trained to give all the 'right' answers to questions regarding salvation by works vs. faith. The real issue is whether the additional teachings (the 'excess baggage') of a particular group deny the gospel that is professed. Max and Denise have pointed out that the list of 'additionals' from SDA orthodoxy is very long--and really pours contempt on the gospel. The list may be shorter for certain other sects or ministries--but that doesn't mean it is insignificant! Valm, for me there is a difference between fellowshipping with believers at an 'imperfect church' and professing one of its cherished doctrines that might corrupt the gospel. If something taught in a church is not as sure and certain as the Deity and saving work of Jesus Christ, we make a great mistake in submitting to that teaching in such a way that it can no longer be evaluated and potentially challenged by scripture. Many of us have faced this type of issue when asked to be in the pastorate, eldership, or deaconate of a particular denomination. Cindy, you ask what the essentials of the gospel message are as opposed to non-essentials. To define those, I believe that we must go to the final revelation that Jesus gave to Paul and the victories won in Christology and soteriology from historical theology (especially the Reformation). A correct understanding of the person and work of Christ will give us all of the essentials. These include, but are not limited to, the truth regarding: 1. The Trinity, 2. The full Deity and humanity of Christ in one person, 3. The impeccability of Christ (his inability to sin and nullify his work of salvation), 4. The perfect, complete, and substitutionary life and atoning death of Christ (no future atonement), 5. The virgin birth, resurrection, and eternal glorification of Christ, 6. Personal justification and salvation obtained solely through the work of the Holy Spirit in creating faith in the gospel, We could go on with many more. To Jesus be all the glory, --Twisse | ||
| Valm |
Well said Bill. | ||
| Cindy |
Bill, Hi again... I just checked in and read your post above; don't have time to write more right now, but I second Valerie's "well said"! Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Chyna |
hi my friends, well, just like many of you, i myself, am in the process of finding a new church. as i have said in the past, i started to attend a nondenominational church back East during college, and I really admired the church for following the model that the new testament gives us. so, with trepidation, I finally told my mother i wanted to find a new church instead of the one i had been growing up in, and I started to scour the internet for churches b/c i'm too shy to call. so, here is how it went, it went yahoo! > orange county > christianity > churches > nondenominational i found a church that might fit what i consider to be the best place for me to grow. my mental checklist 1. preaching from the Word, sound biblical teaching as the church's foundation 2. fellowship, a place where God's love is apparent between the members 3. service - because after we love God we want to serve Him. 4. a church that understands the importance of prayer the remarkable thing I loved about college church was that it had outreaches to the community. here are some that i remember: pregnancy counseling center (very apt for the large college population in the area), and a healthcare clinic for the homeless (it actually wound up being more for poor people without medical insurance), as well as a firm emphasis on global outreach as well. so, despite the growing nervousness of my stomach, i got ready for church this morning. in my mind were several fears: what if i don't fit in? what if i feel uncomfortable there? what if they aren't what they claim to be? after getting lost i swung my way back around. I won't kid you guys, it was a big church, much bigger than i am used to. but several observations. first i was thinking: "why doesn't the singing sound louder with this many people?" but then i was unsure if it was just the acoustics of the room. then i was thinking about how many songs they wanted to sing. then the communion was integrated with the message. but the thing that stuck out with the most clarity was how clear the gospel message was preached. truly it must have been God speaking through the pastor because I and probably everyone else in there could understand how to be saved and the need for it. this is the last part of what he said, he said, "what did you say at your wedding?" to his friend. his friend said "all I said was 'I do'" and the pastor said, "and that's how you got married, right? all you had to do is say, 'i do'" and to become a Christian all you have to do is say, "'I believe.'" then the pastor asked the congregation if any of them were tired of trying to manage their lives all alone, and asked them to stand up and say, 'I believe' loud enough so that he could hear them. first there was a pause, and then the sounds of theatre seats bouncing as people stood up to declare, 'I believe' truly, it was an awesome experience. one after another stood up to say 'i believe'. it was marvelous. i was thinking how much the angels must have been rejoicing! i also liked the other part of the message where he had us write down when we could come to the cross in your: bad moments, happy moments, mad moments, last moment. how Jesus came so that He could be with us (Emmanuel). i was particularly struck with the beauty of the last verse, in the last point. emphasis mine: John 14:3 When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am. doesn't that make you want to weep that even at death that Jesus will come to get us. which is also! inconsistent with the Adventist school of thought of soul-sleep (bleh). anyway, I delighted to find that they did not even pass around collection plates, but that they had collection boxes at the back mounted with simply "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." and the break down of the funds going into local outreach and then global outreach. so i signed up for some local outreach: orangewood homes for abused children, and house of hope that shelters battered women and children, and for info about bible study. maybe this is the one! we'll see. i know church shopping sounds like a horrible term, but you have to see what's out there. of course, the final decision is up to God. good luck to all those still looking for a church, remember to Keep the Faith, love, Chyna | ||
| Billtwisse |
Response from 'Grace to You' ministries: Brethren, Many weeks ago, I promised to reveal the source of a Billy Graham quotation that I was challenged on. If anyone is still interested, I finally got the information I requested back from GTY. Here is the response: Thank you for writing to Grace to You. As one of John's colleagues, I am familiar with John's materials and perspectives on various issues, so he asked me to write to you on his behalf. I welcome this opportunity to help you with your question. I apologize for the delay in my response to you. Over the past couple months, a number of unforeseen events have caused a backlog of letters to develop. I wanted to answer your letter sooner, but I'm glad I can do so now. I trust you understand. You wrote: I am desperately trying to find a reference for a Billy Graham quotation that John MacArthur referred to in his 11/05/00 sermon at GCC. I was in attendance. The issue of concern was Billy acknowledging that persons of non-Christian religions and 'unbelievers' are partakers of Christ and salvation. If it is possible for you to provide this quotation and reference, I would be most grateful to receive it . . . Good to hear from a brother in Christ from (:my home town:). I grew up in (:a neighboring town:) and went to (:my home town:) when our team played basketball games there. To answer your question, I went on the internet and found these remarks at a site I visited: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/ecumenism.htm This unfortunate interview was conducted by Rev. Robert Schuller in 1997. For a copy of the video tape this interview came from, call Robert Schuller Today at 1-800-9POWER9, and order the $20 video tape of the May 31, 1997 (Program #1426) Hour of Power TV broadcast message titled, "Say 'Yes' To Possibility Thinking." Please note that the corresponding $5 audio tape DOES NOT contain the interview with Billy Graham -i.e., you really have to cough up the $20 if you want to see this evidence that one of the men God has used to bring countless millions to salvation has now given in to the spirit of the age, the spirit of false unity called Ecumenism and Inter-Faith. Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity? Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer-you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved and that they're going to be with us in heaven. Schuller: What, what I hear you saying that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying? Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived. Schuller: I'm so thrilled to hear you say this. There's a wideness in God's mercy. Graham: There is. There definitely is. I hope my reply has helped you. "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:3). Sincerely, Doug McMasters Supervisor of Pastoral Correspondence dougm@gty.org Grace to You P. O. Box 4000 Panorama City, CA 91412 As for me, I haven't the slightest interest in buying the tape from Schuller. I firmly believe that Schuller teaches 'another gospel.' If someone wants to do it that is his/her own business. Two October messages on the GTY webpage on 'discernment' contain the essence of MacArthur's passion on this issue. I recommend these to all. The quote was an incidental reference to begin with and was not the real point of what I was trying to say. It is not much different from the SDA shibboleth of people saved who 'live up to all the light they have from sun, moon, tree, and star (works).' Pure natural theology in both cases. Trivia: Does anyone know the name of the evangelical theologian who 'walked off the stage' when Billy Graham exhorted listners not to pray for those in the audience who were in the 'valley of decision?' Supposedly, prayer could not make a difference because God could not violate their 'free-will.' If you wan't to know, find it (it is out there for those who want to search 'with all their heart and soul'). I don't want to be torn apart for misquoting again! --Twisse | ||
| Max |
Bill, I read Billy Grahamís remarks carefully twice, and I donít find anything in them with which I disagree. To the contrary, they seem to come from a deep understanding of Scripture. Here, for example, is one such passage: NIV Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now WHAT YOU WORSHIP AS UNKNOWN I AM GOING TO PROCLAIM TO YOU. 24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 GOD DID THIS SO THAT MEN WOULD SEEK HIM AND PERHAPS FIND HIM, THOUGH HE IS NOT FAR FROM EACH ONE OF US. 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.' MC | ||
| Billtwisse |
Max, The issue here (for me--I know others will disagree) is not whether certain truths about God are known by those who haven't yet encountered the gospel of Christ. The 'unknown God' means just that. They don't yet know him--but have a hope of knowing who he is one day. God works in the hearts of elect persons prior to when they actually hear the gospel and experience regeneration. But the moment of personal salvation is still when the gospel is believed--not before. Paul was 'kicking against the pricks' (struggling with the issue of who God really was and what he required) prior to his conversion. God is not far from any of us, yet only some will find him savingly. Those whom HE hunts and finds with irresistable grace. We are all his offspring; he created our spirits individually (I accept creationism, not traducianism, as the biblical doctrine of the origin of each human soul). He is the father of our spirits. All eternal spirits will dwell in his presence forever. The only question is, in what condition--true worship or rebellion? Let's look at this quote one more time: He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved and that they're going to be with us in heaven. I'm sorry, but I can't see how this notion has anything to do with what Paul preached to the Athenians. There is no 'light' in Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or Unbelievism (Skepticism, I guess). If those in a pre-salvation state come to understand some truth about God, it is in contrast to all of the tenets of these false religions, not because of them. I know that in rejecting natural theology and common grace 100%, I am in the minority. Yet I can do no other based on what I have been confronted with in scripture. Contrary to MacArthur and many Protestant theologians, I believe that elect persons who don't know the gospel in this life can be saved. However, it is not because of any 'light' in false religions or nature. Graham may be correct in affirming that persons 'living apart' from heathen people steeped in false religion are 'seeking' the truth. But he is absolutely wrong in proposing that they are already 'in Christ.' Paul talked about other Christians being 'in Christ' before he was. Elect persons seeking the true God have not yet come to know him. They will experience this 'knowing' in the future, in one of three ways: 1. They actually hear the gospel in this life and believe it, 2. The rocks proclaim the gospel and they believe it (yes, this is possible--however unlikely), or 3. They are confronted with the gospel in their first glimpse of the life to come and believe it. This is how many elect infants and idiots are saved. I believe passionately in Grace but completely deny 'common grace,' 'general revelation,' and natural theology. --Twisse | ||
| Max |
Bill, Regardless of what Billy Graham says -- or MacArthur or Schuller or natural theologians (no, Iím not one) or any others -- the first issue to be addressed here is: what does Scripture say? In Acts 17 Paul does not say, The people of Athens have a hope of knowing who God is one day. He says, ìWhat you WORSHIP as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.î And I have to take at face value exactly what Scripture does say: They WERE worshipping the true God Yaweh. In my mind there just can be no question about that. As far as I am concerned, any discussion of what the text means must begin by taking the text seriously and exactly for what it says. Therefore, my starting point is this: They WERE WORSHIPPING God already. Paul's stated reason for saying this is that they could read about their Creator in nature or creation. He immediately proclaims the God of their worship to them: ìThe God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.î Meaning he dwells both in the universe as a whole and in every particle of the universe, including the bodies of these Athenians. Then he proceeds to teach them that this God who is within creation is also outside of it, for it is impossible for the Creator not be outside of his creation. If this is going to be classified as pure ìnatural theology,î then Paul must be classified as a natural theologian. But Paul isnít, as we both know. For after establishing common ground (ìAs some of your own poets have said, ëWe are his offspringíî), Paul moves quickly on to pure revealed theology: ìHe has given proof of this [Godís commandment that the whole world should repent] by raising him [the man (Jesus Christ) God has appointed] from the dead.î At this point some believed, some didnít, and some wanted to hear more. I submit, therefore, that only God has the right to judge the salvation of people who WERE WORSHIPPING God. We donít have that right. Therefore, I believe Billy Grahamís criteria for his belief on this point are satisfied on the basis of pure textual evidence alone. Another text has a bearing: NASB Romans 1:15 I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "" but the righteous man shall live by faith.'' 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because THAT WHICH IS KNOWN ABOUT GOD IS EVIDENT WITHIN THEM; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world HIS INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES, His ETERNAL POWER AND DIVINE NATURE, HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that they are without excuse. I believe that in this passage Paul is NOT telling the Romans that Nature Proves Godís Existence, as the natural theologians keep proclaiming (via the ìdivine watchmakerî theory, etc.). That is NOT Paulís concern. Both he and his hearers already assume that God exists. That was NOT the issue either in Rome or in Athens. The fact that God's philosophical existence may be an issue for humans today is insufficient reason to falsely superimpose it upon the ancient world in which Paul witnessed. The issue is salvation. God does not prove his EXISTENCE through nature. Nor does He need to. Ever! What God proves through nature his utter SOVEREIGNTY and absolute JURISDICTION over all beings at all times everywhere in the creation. God RULES, not the pious scientists and philosophers, who think vainly to prove Godís existence through their telescopes and test tubes, so that we can obey THEM and what THEY say about God rather what Scripture says. As far as Scripture is concerned, this "prove Godís existence" movement is pure flushable excrement. These so-called wise men need to read Job: ìThen the Lord answered Job out of the storm. He said: ëWho is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?î NIV Job 38:1-2. No! Paul is just flat-out telling the Romans: You already KNOW that God the Father is Creator, you already KNOW that He is sovereign, you already KNOW that He is Judge of all the world, and therefore you stand ìWITHOUT EXCUSEî if you donít believe on God the Son whom the Father has sent to die for your sins! This is a moral and not a philosophical issue. For if God is the Judge, then it is God, and not MacArthur or anyone else, who gets to say who among ìthe heathen" is saved or lost. It is Jesus, and not MacArthur, who gets to say: 14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I HAVE OTHER SHEEP THAT ARE NOT OF THIS SHEEP PEN. I MUST BRING THEM ALSO. THEY TOO WILL LISTEN TO MY VOICE, AND THERE SHALL BE ONE FLOCK AND ONE SHEPHERD. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." Letting God the Son alone be Judge of all the world and gladly so, Max of the Cross | ||
| Billtwisse |
Max, I think that we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I have no problem with Christians mutually agreeing to differ on an issue. You state: They WERE worshipping the true God Yahweh. My position (I'm not claiming it is anyone else's): They were worshipping Yahweh only in the same sense that Paul worshipped him before his conversion. They did not yet know him savingly. At that point in time, they were still 'without hope and without God' and foreigners to the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12). I'm sure that the Bible has many instances where pre-conversion saints 'worship' (I don't have time right now). The first person that comes to my mind is Nebuchadnezzar. Conversion and incorporation into the body of Christ occurs at a historical point in time. It is clear to me that this other position blurs the truth of regeneration--by stating that certain classes of present non-believers in Christ are 'saved already.' I not only reject 'pure natural theology,' I reject all natural theology. I deny that Christ is mediated through any of the following prior to conversion, and #4 even after conversion: 1. Nature (all aspects) 2. Conscience 3. Reason 4. Religion (especially). Christianity is not a religion (man reaching up to God) in ANY sense. The first three of the above four are not evil in and of themselves. The fourth is strictly of the devil. Although mankind may gain a sense of the loving and gracious creator through nature, conscience, and reason (not religion), these are insufficient to bring men to a saving knowledge of Christ. Not all who 'seek God' (even sincerely) find him, either. They may willingly be deceived by religion at some point in their experience. Only those in whom the Spirit of God works (preveniently) will one day become Christians. Many who 'live apart' from the heathen do so for the wrong motives. It is incorrect to say that all of them would hail the gospel as 'the best news in the world' if only they could hear it. We know this by experience. To summarize, the only reason an unbeliever truly seeks God is because of the prevenient work of the Holy Spirit; not nature, conscience, reason, or religion. Paul had the Spirit working in him prior to conversion--but he was not yet saved. His experience is typical of all the elect. --Twisse | ||
| Max |
Bill, I have no problem agreeing to disagree. I do have a problem with MacArthurís judging of Billy Grahamís beliefs. The text you quote, Ephesians 2:12, is certainly very powerful. The Gentiles were indeed ìwithout hope and without God in the world.î However, this is said in the face of the gospel. I donít think we human beings can make judgments about the saved or unsaved status of humans who have never heard and never do hear the gospel. Say, for example, the Native Americans who were living in the New World at the time. I believe we have to refrain from judging them, being content to know that the God of all creatures is just. I like NIV Romans 2:14-15. ìIndeed when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.î The NIV text note to the ìlaw for themselvesî phrase says, ìThe moral nature of pagans, enlightened by conscience, functioned for them as the Mosaic law did for the Jews.î Bottom line: Theyíre not better off than the Jews who had the Law of Moses; nor were the Jews better off than these Gentiles. Everyone is saved by the cross alone. ìSalvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be savedî (Acts 4:12). ìEveryone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his nameî (Acts 10:43). But these texts do not say that the heathen must hear the name in order to be saved under it. And I think it is going beyond Scripture to so judge. You raise a very interesting point about unsaved people worshipping God. Scripture says, "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God'" (NIV Romans 14:11). And, ìat the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earthî (Philippians 2:10 NIV). But there are two ways of worshipping God -- (1) loving response to Godís loving actions in history and (2) the begrudging worship of a beaten foe: ìThe devils believe and trembleî kind of worship acknowledgment. Iím not ready to say that Christís statement, ìOther sheep have I not of this fold,î is not an assertion of His prevenient grace. Yes, I would agree that ìConversion and incorporation into the body of Christ occurs at a historical point in time.î But is this ìbody of Christî identical to the ìother sheep penî? Or are their other considerations related to Godís jurisdiction? I do not reject all natural theology, only natural theology that fails to subordinate to revealed theology. I think Paulís statements in Romans and Acts are statements of natural theology -- not meant to prove Godís existence, but to prove His sovereignty and jurisdiction over all. I agree that not all who seek God find him. But I take that a step further and say no one seeks God who is not sought by God first. And God seeks all (John 3:16-18). The Spirit of God works in all residents of the planet. I cannot agree with this: ìThe only reason an unbeliever truly seeks God is because of the prevenient work of the Holy Spirit; not nature, conscience, reason, or religion,î since I believe that the Holy Spirit works THROUGH nature, conscience, and reason. Iím not so sure about other religions, but I think that the sovereignty of God is so powerful and all-pervasive that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that God could work through Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. How can we say that He canít? MC | ||
| Billtwisse |
Max, When I have time later today or tomorrow, I will attempt to respond to the above points (which are major and embrace issues related to the heart of the gospel). I will only respond to one point right now: I do have a problem with MacArthurís judging of Billy Grahamís beliefs. I do not--even though I certainly don't agree with MacArthur on all points. Paul commended the Bereans for attempting to judge HIS (the greatest apostle's) beliefs by scripture. If we get into a mindset that wants to commend all evangelicals--regardless of any potential errors in teaching, we are on very dangerous ground. We have lost the biblical mandate to test all things (I'm sure that the word 'test' has a very pregnant meaning--if I had my Greek helps right now I would check it out). There are levels of error. I don't suggest for a moment that Graham is on the same level of wrong teaching as Schuller. There are more issues involved when contemplating that comparison. However, I believe that he needs to be challenged (as all Christians do--including myself) when he promotes ideas contrary to the spirit of the gospel. 'Judge not' refers to condemnation, not evaluation and testing. Certainly we can agree on that. --Twisse | ||
| Max |
9?< "judge not" text does refer to condemnation. In fact, Christians must judge: * Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. * Cast not your pearls before swine, nor give that which is holy unto dogs. * You will judge angels, how much more the things of this life. * Shake the dust off your feet.... Bill, I really do want to hear your thoughts on Christ's statement, "Other sheep have I not of this fold." The thing that worries me a bit about this dialogue is the danger of drifting into an assumption that we must judge for God. Who are we to sit here and say that people who have never heard the name of Jesus cannot be saved? Seems as though that kind of judging is God's job, not ours. I need to rein in my tendency to reign instead of letting God be God. Vaunting self unto God's prerogatives is the alpha and omega of sin. Looking forward to your response, MC | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Max, As is quite obvious, I have not been around all you wonderful people lately;-(((((((( There are issues and incidents that I have been un-aware of. You are in my thoughts and prayers. See y'all at FAF tonight;-) :):):)...Still looking for a moniker...Maryann |
