So, there's a connection between the Calvinist iteration of Total Depravity and this compatibilist free will idea. The Calvinist understands Total Depravity more as Total Inability; that a person is completely unable to choose to pursue God and, coupled with that, God must intervene to change the nature of those He elects for salvation so that they will inevitably believe and if He does not change a person's nature, they will never believe because they are unable to, doing so would be contrary to their nature. By now you should start to see the relationship to compatibilist free will: You are only able to make choices that are consistent with your nature… any choice that's inconsistent with your nature is a choice you are not able to make. Calvinists believe that man's nature is inclined against God. And the compatibilist version of free will states that no one can make choices that are contrary to their nature. This would explain why it is that God has to somehow supernaturally change a person's nature to enable them to believe, because without that they never will.
However, that all assumes that compatibilist free will is true. And I think we've shown that compatibilist free will is not true. But what would Total Depravity look like if libertarian free will were true, and man IS actually capable of choosing that which is contrary to his nature? Hmmm… that's a real game-changer, isn't it?
Now Calvinists will frequently take the opportunity of an attack on Total Depravity to play the semi-pelagianism card. Semi-pelagianism denied that man's nature wasn't damaged enough by the fall to render him completely unable to pursue God. Well, it's interesting to notice that if compatibilist free will turns out to be false and libertarian free will turns out to be true, then we can agree that man has a totally corrupt and rebellious nature, but he is nonetheless capable of choosing that which is contrary to his nature: Belief in God.
This thinking can be seen to have implications, then, for what the Calvinist expects from his post-salvation life as well. The Calvinist understanding is that the regenerated man has a "new nature" (and I would agree) but given compatibilist free will, it should be impossible for the Calvinist to choose that which is contrary to his new nature. That is, regenerate man should no longer be drawn toward sin… he is a changed man. However, this is fraught with difficulty because every Calvinist knows that sin persists to some degree in the life of the believer in spite of his new nature. From this flows a prodigious amount of double-speak, since the Calvinist is now torn between this idea that they have a new nature, and yet they plainly see that sin remains. That this is true actually demonstrates that the compatibilist concept of free will is false.
But again, libertarian free will can be seen as a solution here. Only if one is committed to the compatibilist notion of free will can these two realities be seen to conflict. Because given libertarian free will, it is not at all unthinkable that the regenerated person is capable of choosing that which is against this new nature. And isn't that what Paul struggles with in Romans 7?
This is interesting enough, seems to me… but when you combine this with some considerations related to general revelation, it becomes easier to see what God is up to and how this all works together.
Two passages in particular can be seen to reveal God's strategy, or at least part of it. Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20. These passages make it clear that the creation around us isn't merely there to accommodate and provide sustenance for man. Rather, these passages state that there is another purpose designed into creation, and that is to testify to the presence and existence of God. Notice that this is not the Bible's role… the Bible has another role. But the role of creation, clearly, is to alert man to God's presence. And this can be seen then as an appeal to man's libertarian free will, to give us reason to choose--quite against our nature--to pursue God in precisely the same way that my wife can coax me into eating a few slices of zucchini on the grounds that my diet needs to improve.
The conclusion this brings me to is that the Calvinist's understanding of Total Depravity, and in fact much of their theology, appears to be driven more by a compatibilist view of free will than it is driven by what the Bible actually says.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Thursday, December 01, 2011
A Battle of Wills
I am in the midst of studying the tenets of Calvinism or "Reform Theology", and to be honest, it is a theological system that I tend to reject quite strongly. Nevertheless, I'm making an effort to honestly consider the claims of Calvinism and that means listening to what Calvinists themselves say about what they believe. The big issue that must be dealt with in any discussion related to Calvinism is the apparent dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. This is a centuries-old debate that requires the consideration of the idea of "free will," or our ability to make choices that are actually choices as opposed to making choices which we merely believe are choices, but are actually pre-determined in some sense by some entity over which we have no control.
For various reasons, the Calvinist is compelled to divide the concept of "free will" into two possible categories: "Libertarian free will" and "Compatibilist free will."
I was listening to a very good podcast the other day, the host is a man named Jay Warner Wallace, a Christian apologist and, interestingly, a cold-case homocide detective. Wallace claims himself to be a Calvinist, and I listened to two shows in particular in which he dealt with these two categories of free will. What follows is a very close paraphrase of his explanations:
Wallace affirms compatibilist free will and says that the notion of libertarian free will is false.
So, how can we test this idea? Well, it seems to me that if I wanted to show that compatibilist free will is false, I would simply need to demonstrate that I can, in fact, choose to do something that is contrary to my nature, my inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes.
Well, it turns out that I don't have to spend much time conjuring up examples which show that compatibilist free will is false and that libertarian free will is true. For instance:
As I considered this further, I was struck by how completely obvious this seems to be; that libertarian free will is obviously true and compatibilist free will is obviously false. So then I have to wonder: Why is Jay Warner Wallace persuaded of the opposite? He's a smart guy! And I don't want to jump to conclusions here… if I've missed some important point, I'd like to know about it. So I dug a little deeper. Look at my last example; the water exercise routine. It's true, it's not fun getting up at 5:20 every morning and hauling myself down to the fitness center for the class. I really would rather stay at home; that's my nature. And yet, again, I do choose to go to the class. I was thinking about what Wallace might say if I offered that example, and it occurred to me that he might say that there's another aspect of my nature, my inclinations, etc. that IS being preserved in my choice to violate my inclination to stay home. That other aspect might be that it's against my nature, my inclinations, what I like and dislike, to have back pain and not be able to move around easily. Such is the consequence of not going to the pool regularly. So, my decision to violate one aspect of my nature actually honors another aspect of my nature.
Well, that makes a certain amount of sense… except that this isn't what Wallace claimed, is it? He claimed that humans are only able to choose consistent with their pre-existing nature, and he didn't say anything about competing natures or inclinations. So either his claim is true or it's false. Even if I'm choosing consistent with ONE aspect of my nature, if it is possible for me to choose something that is against another aspect of my nature, then it seems to me that compatibilist free will is still demonstrated to be false.
What it comes down to, I think, is that the compatibilist free will idea is much too simplistic. That is, it seems to overlook the fact that we have multiple competing inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes in operation at any give moment in any given context. I might not be inclined to mow the lawn, however I am inclined to keep my house looking half-way decent. I might be inclined to eat the whole batch of chocolate chip cookies, but I'm also inclined toward improving my health so I can be more comfortable and productive. This compatibilist notion seems to ignore that complexity altogether. No allowance is made for ever choosing contrary to your inclinations… under compatibilist free will, such a choice would be impossible.
On the other hand, the idea of libertarian free will doesn't have any such liabilities. The claim of libertarian free will is that each person is able to make choices that are inconsistent with their inclinations… but notice that allowance is made for making choices consistent with your inclinations as well as making choices that are contrary to your inclinations. This allows multiple inclinations to operate simultaneously, where the person is able to prioritize and uphold those inclinations which the person determines to be most important. And notice that this decision as to priority is itself a choice.
There's one other point that could be made about this notion of compatibilist free will: There is a sense in which the argument is circular. It could be stated this way: You don't have free will because your free will won't allow you to have free will. See, the idea of free will has to do with not being compelled by any force outside of yourself to make certain decisions. It may well be that I didn't consciously decide to detest broccoli the way I do. Certainly, my aversion to vegetables and fruits does seem to be a feature of my personality that I didn't actually choose to acquire, so far as I know. But nobody else compels me to dislike broccoli, either. And again, even though my nature is diametrically opposed to the consumption of broccoli, I have chosen in the past to actually eat it. The point is this: It is me and only me that decides not to eat broccoli, even though under certain extraordinary circumstances I might ultimately choose to eat it.
After very careful consideration, then, I have to conclude that the compatibilist notion of free will is absolutely false and that libertarian free will is obviously true.
The reason this is so important is that it relates to the idea of "Total Depravity" as defined in Reform Theology. And that is what I'll analyze next.
For various reasons, the Calvinist is compelled to divide the concept of "free will" into two possible categories: "Libertarian free will" and "Compatibilist free will."
I was listening to a very good podcast the other day, the host is a man named Jay Warner Wallace, a Christian apologist and, interestingly, a cold-case homocide detective. Wallace claims himself to be a Calvinist, and I listened to two shows in particular in which he dealt with these two categories of free will. What follows is a very close paraphrase of his explanations:
Libertarian free will: A human has the ability to choose anything within the realm of possibility, even when the choice that's made is contrary to the person's nature, contrary to the person's inclinations and desires, likes and dislikes.Wallace offers this example as a way of clarifying the Compatibilist view:
Compatibilist free will: A human does have the freedom to make a choice, but he is always restrained by his pre-existing nature, by his inclinations and desires, likes and dislikes.
"In other words, you walk into that pizzeria, you're not going to choose an anchovy pizza, you still have freedom, but you hate anchovies, you don't like them, you dislike them. So therefore you are limited in your choices because you're not going to choose those. You only choose within your nature."
Wallace affirms compatibilist free will and says that the notion of libertarian free will is false.
So, how can we test this idea? Well, it seems to me that if I wanted to show that compatibilist free will is false, I would simply need to demonstrate that I can, in fact, choose to do something that is contrary to my nature, my inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes.
Well, it turns out that I don't have to spend much time conjuring up examples which show that compatibilist free will is false and that libertarian free will is true. For instance:
It is against my nature, my inclinations, my desires, my likes and dislikes, to mow the lawn. And yet, every week or two during the summer I make a choice to mow my lawn. I don't like it, I'd prefer to do something else, I do not consider it pleasant. I have no desire to mow my lawn. And yet, I choose to mow my lawn. That is a choice I make that is contrary to my nature, my inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes.
Similarly, I abhor green beans. They are disgusting, I can hardly believe that anyone would touch them, let alone put one in their mouth. Needless to say, it is inconsistent with my nature, my inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes to eat green beans. And yet, occasionally (very occasionally, I'll admit) I choose to eat them. This choice is contrary to my nature, my inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes.
Let's go the other direction once… I like chocolate chip cookies. It is quite consistent with my nature to eat chocolate chip cookies. And yet, when there are chocolate chip cookies in the house, after I've eaten one or two, and even though I desire, even though I'm strongly inclined to eat a third, or a fourth, or a fifth, I am able to choose to stop eating the chocolate chip cookies.
Every weekday morning I take water exercise classes at a local fitness center. Exercise is against my nature, I am not naturally inclined to exercise, nor am I naturally inclined to transport myself down to the pool at 5:30 every morning. And yet, in spite of the fact that I don't like these things, I choose every morning to do that which is contrary to my nature, my inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes.
As I considered this further, I was struck by how completely obvious this seems to be; that libertarian free will is obviously true and compatibilist free will is obviously false. So then I have to wonder: Why is Jay Warner Wallace persuaded of the opposite? He's a smart guy! And I don't want to jump to conclusions here… if I've missed some important point, I'd like to know about it. So I dug a little deeper. Look at my last example; the water exercise routine. It's true, it's not fun getting up at 5:20 every morning and hauling myself down to the fitness center for the class. I really would rather stay at home; that's my nature. And yet, again, I do choose to go to the class. I was thinking about what Wallace might say if I offered that example, and it occurred to me that he might say that there's another aspect of my nature, my inclinations, etc. that IS being preserved in my choice to violate my inclination to stay home. That other aspect might be that it's against my nature, my inclinations, what I like and dislike, to have back pain and not be able to move around easily. Such is the consequence of not going to the pool regularly. So, my decision to violate one aspect of my nature actually honors another aspect of my nature.
Well, that makes a certain amount of sense… except that this isn't what Wallace claimed, is it? He claimed that humans are only able to choose consistent with their pre-existing nature, and he didn't say anything about competing natures or inclinations. So either his claim is true or it's false. Even if I'm choosing consistent with ONE aspect of my nature, if it is possible for me to choose something that is against another aspect of my nature, then it seems to me that compatibilist free will is still demonstrated to be false.
What it comes down to, I think, is that the compatibilist free will idea is much too simplistic. That is, it seems to overlook the fact that we have multiple competing inclinations, desires, likes and dislikes in operation at any give moment in any given context. I might not be inclined to mow the lawn, however I am inclined to keep my house looking half-way decent. I might be inclined to eat the whole batch of chocolate chip cookies, but I'm also inclined toward improving my health so I can be more comfortable and productive. This compatibilist notion seems to ignore that complexity altogether. No allowance is made for ever choosing contrary to your inclinations… under compatibilist free will, such a choice would be impossible.
On the other hand, the idea of libertarian free will doesn't have any such liabilities. The claim of libertarian free will is that each person is able to make choices that are inconsistent with their inclinations… but notice that allowance is made for making choices consistent with your inclinations as well as making choices that are contrary to your inclinations. This allows multiple inclinations to operate simultaneously, where the person is able to prioritize and uphold those inclinations which the person determines to be most important. And notice that this decision as to priority is itself a choice.
There's one other point that could be made about this notion of compatibilist free will: There is a sense in which the argument is circular. It could be stated this way: You don't have free will because your free will won't allow you to have free will. See, the idea of free will has to do with not being compelled by any force outside of yourself to make certain decisions. It may well be that I didn't consciously decide to detest broccoli the way I do. Certainly, my aversion to vegetables and fruits does seem to be a feature of my personality that I didn't actually choose to acquire, so far as I know. But nobody else compels me to dislike broccoli, either. And again, even though my nature is diametrically opposed to the consumption of broccoli, I have chosen in the past to actually eat it. The point is this: It is me and only me that decides not to eat broccoli, even though under certain extraordinary circumstances I might ultimately choose to eat it.
After very careful consideration, then, I have to conclude that the compatibilist notion of free will is absolutely false and that libertarian free will is obviously true.
The reason this is so important is that it relates to the idea of "Total Depravity" as defined in Reform Theology. And that is what I'll analyze next.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Question #8: How Does One Become Saved?
The eighth and final question is this:
This is really a tough question… for one thing, when discussing this with the cults, the concept of "saved" has to be redefined. The Watchtower and the LDS Church have different concepts of what will happen to someone who's "saved." So, again, in order to compare apples with apples, I rephrased the questions slightly for the JWs and the Mormons.
One would expect that the cults' answer to this question would be very different from Christianity's answer to the same question. Christianity, after all, is said to be based on salvation by Grace and not works. And the cults are widely known to teach salvation by works and I believe that the previous 7 questions have demonstrated that this is indeed the case.
But what happens when you compare the cults' answers to this question with the answer offered by very popular Lordship Salvation teachers? Is there a big difference? Shouldn't there be?
Latter Day Saints (Mormon):
The following quote was taken directly from the LDS web site. It is their expression of how one attains the celestial kingdom, their view of ultimate salvation:
Notice the implications here… you have to "become worthy" to live in God's presence. Hmm. And you do this by learning and following these principles. Notice that it's not enough to have faith in Jesus Christ (again, they reject Christ's deity) but you must "seek to follow Christ's example" for the rest of your life!! This takes us back, again, to the assurance issue. You can clearly see that assurance would be impossible with this view because no one ever can know whether they will follow Christ's example for literally the rest of their life. In fact, you can be sure there will be failure. I suppose that's why they provide themselves a back door when they say "seek to follow". I guess you don't really have to follow, you just have to seek to follow. The seeking is good enough. Ah, the doublespeak.
The Watchtower: (Jehovah's Witnesses)
My interview with a local Jehovah's Witness revealed that you can live forever (their view of salvation) if you meet the requirements for salvation. If we have rejected religious falsehood, repented of our sins, submitted to water baptism, are doing our best to serve God the way he outlines in the Bible we have every reason to trust that we are in good standing with God. If we continue serving him whole souled and meet his righteous requirements.
That's really not all that different from the LDS answer, is it? If we do these things, then we can live forever, go to Heaven, or whatever. If we continue serving him "whole-souled'. The first key word there is "IF." And that's a big word. As my best friend used to say, "if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts on lily pads." See, they don't know "if" they will continue to serve. How could they? Thus, they have no assurance. And what on Earth does "whole-souled" mean? What about "half-souled"? Or "three quarter-souled"? Those aren't good enough? How do you measure? And notice, once again, the escape clause: "If we… are doing our best to serve…" See, this is very much like the Mormon language of "seeking." Anyway, you get the idea. I'm sure we'll get a breath of fresh air when we ask the popular Lordship teachers, though, right?
Lordship Salvation:
Well, you would think so, wouldn't you? But no, sorry… Lordship teachers, it turns out, have a very similar idea about how one becomes saved. They express this in many different ways, but it boils down to commiting your life to Christ, by continual faith and complete surrender and absolute obedience. Here are some quotes:
How are these answers any different, essentially, than LDS and Watchtower? They're not, are they? I wonder if the "Free Grace" view has anything different to offer:
Free Grace:
The Free Grace answer is incredibly simple. Put your faith alone in Christ alone and you have eternal life. End of story. You can go to Heaven merely by deciding to trust in Christ, realizing that He paid the price, He has made all the provision, you can add nothing to it, and so complete, so profound is God's grace in this matter that there isn't anything you can do to lose that salvation. You can know right now that you have eternal life (and eternal life lasts forever) by simply putting your trust in Christ today. And even if you fail next week, even if you become persuaded at some point in the future that you must add your works (which equates with not trusting Christ) then you still have eternal life. (eternal life, by definition, lasts forever, remember?)
Now this is not to be understood as a recommendation against performing good works once you're saved… we certainly should do good works. But even without those works, Romans 4:5 says, we are justified because we have put our trust in Christ, the one who justifies the unGodly. Therefore works aren't the issue at all in salvation in the Free Grace view. They aren't a requirement, they aren't a "necessary result" (which is the same thing as a requirement) they aren't relevant at all when it comes to whether or not you're bound for Heaven. All that's relevant for salvation is whether you have placed your trust in Christ.
This answer is 180 degrees opposed to all three other views. It is totally unique and distinct, and I think that demonstrates, especially when combined with the answers to the other 7 questions and how they compare, that Free Grace is the only view which properly separates works from grace. That is, the Lordship view is essentially based on works every bit as much as the cults' doctrines. If that's not the case, then how else do you explain the similarities in the answers to these questions?
We are so clever in the way that we constantly seek to make our behavior, our works, our morality, our obedience the issue. Somehow we'll find a way to do it, even as we deny that salvation is by works. Even as we insist that salvation is a free gift. We must check ourselves, we must examine critically what we're taught and think carefully about what a "free gift" really is, about what that really means. And we must realize that when we smuggle our works back into the equation, we are no longer trusting in Christ. That might not mean, thanks to eternal security, that we lose our salvation… salvation is not something that can be lost once it's been received. But the condition for salvation is, quite clearly, trust in Christ. Nothing is more important than this, the core gospel message.
How does one become saved?
This is really a tough question… for one thing, when discussing this with the cults, the concept of "saved" has to be redefined. The Watchtower and the LDS Church have different concepts of what will happen to someone who's "saved." So, again, in order to compare apples with apples, I rephrased the questions slightly for the JWs and the Mormons.
One would expect that the cults' answer to this question would be very different from Christianity's answer to the same question. Christianity, after all, is said to be based on salvation by Grace and not works. And the cults are widely known to teach salvation by works and I believe that the previous 7 questions have demonstrated that this is indeed the case.
But what happens when you compare the cults' answers to this question with the answer offered by very popular Lordship Salvation teachers? Is there a big difference? Shouldn't there be?
Latter Day Saints (Mormon):
The following quote was taken directly from the LDS web site. It is their expression of how one attains the celestial kingdom, their view of ultimate salvation:
To become worthy to live in Heavenly Father’s presence after this life and to receive this peace and strength, you must learn and follow the principles and ordinances of the gospel. The first principles of the gospel are faith in Jesus Christ and repentance. The first ordinances of the gospel are baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. After you learn and follow the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, you must seek to follow Christ’s example throughout the remainder of your life. This continued faithfulness is called “enduring to the end.”
Notice the implications here… you have to "become worthy" to live in God's presence. Hmm. And you do this by learning and following these principles. Notice that it's not enough to have faith in Jesus Christ (again, they reject Christ's deity) but you must "seek to follow Christ's example" for the rest of your life!! This takes us back, again, to the assurance issue. You can clearly see that assurance would be impossible with this view because no one ever can know whether they will follow Christ's example for literally the rest of their life. In fact, you can be sure there will be failure. I suppose that's why they provide themselves a back door when they say "seek to follow". I guess you don't really have to follow, you just have to seek to follow. The seeking is good enough. Ah, the doublespeak.
The Watchtower: (Jehovah's Witnesses)
My interview with a local Jehovah's Witness revealed that you can live forever (their view of salvation) if you meet the requirements for salvation. If we have rejected religious falsehood, repented of our sins, submitted to water baptism, are doing our best to serve God the way he outlines in the Bible we have every reason to trust that we are in good standing with God. If we continue serving him whole souled and meet his righteous requirements.
That's really not all that different from the LDS answer, is it? If we do these things, then we can live forever, go to Heaven, or whatever. If we continue serving him "whole-souled'. The first key word there is "IF." And that's a big word. As my best friend used to say, "if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts on lily pads." See, they don't know "if" they will continue to serve. How could they? Thus, they have no assurance. And what on Earth does "whole-souled" mean? What about "half-souled"? Or "three quarter-souled"? Those aren't good enough? How do you measure? And notice, once again, the escape clause: "If we… are doing our best to serve…" See, this is very much like the Mormon language of "seeking." Anyway, you get the idea. I'm sure we'll get a breath of fresh air when we ask the popular Lordship teachers, though, right?
Lordship Salvation:
Well, you would think so, wouldn't you? But no, sorry… Lordship teachers, it turns out, have a very similar idea about how one becomes saved. They express this in many different ways, but it boils down to commiting your life to Christ, by continual faith and complete surrender and absolute obedience. Here are some quotes:
Jesus is Lord of all and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender. He does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him. -John MacArthur
[Salvation] comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the scripture. It (salvation) is the fruit of actions, not intentions. -John MacArthur
The life we live, not the words we speak, determines our eternal destiny. -John MacArthur
How are these answers any different, essentially, than LDS and Watchtower? They're not, are they? I wonder if the "Free Grace" view has anything different to offer:
Free Grace:
The Free Grace answer is incredibly simple. Put your faith alone in Christ alone and you have eternal life. End of story. You can go to Heaven merely by deciding to trust in Christ, realizing that He paid the price, He has made all the provision, you can add nothing to it, and so complete, so profound is God's grace in this matter that there isn't anything you can do to lose that salvation. You can know right now that you have eternal life (and eternal life lasts forever) by simply putting your trust in Christ today. And even if you fail next week, even if you become persuaded at some point in the future that you must add your works (which equates with not trusting Christ) then you still have eternal life. (eternal life, by definition, lasts forever, remember?)
Now this is not to be understood as a recommendation against performing good works once you're saved… we certainly should do good works. But even without those works, Romans 4:5 says, we are justified because we have put our trust in Christ, the one who justifies the unGodly. Therefore works aren't the issue at all in salvation in the Free Grace view. They aren't a requirement, they aren't a "necessary result" (which is the same thing as a requirement) they aren't relevant at all when it comes to whether or not you're bound for Heaven. All that's relevant for salvation is whether you have placed your trust in Christ.
This answer is 180 degrees opposed to all three other views. It is totally unique and distinct, and I think that demonstrates, especially when combined with the answers to the other 7 questions and how they compare, that Free Grace is the only view which properly separates works from grace. That is, the Lordship view is essentially based on works every bit as much as the cults' doctrines. If that's not the case, then how else do you explain the similarities in the answers to these questions?
We are so clever in the way that we constantly seek to make our behavior, our works, our morality, our obedience the issue. Somehow we'll find a way to do it, even as we deny that salvation is by works. Even as we insist that salvation is a free gift. We must check ourselves, we must examine critically what we're taught and think carefully about what a "free gift" really is, about what that really means. And we must realize that when we smuggle our works back into the equation, we are no longer trusting in Christ. That might not mean, thanks to eternal security, that we lose our salvation… salvation is not something that can be lost once it's been received. But the condition for salvation is, quite clearly, trust in Christ. Nothing is more important than this, the core gospel message.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Question #7: Reward or Gift?
The 7th question goes like this:
This is an important question as the answer ought to really govern other conclusions we reach about salvation. It has huge implications as to assurance of salvation, for example, it seems self evident to me that if we view salvation as a gift, then absolute assurance is ours to keep as well. But if we view salvation as a reward, you can see that assurance becomes much more elusive since rewards are based on performance and, well, maybe you're not cutting the mustard. The question is, how to the cults answer this question and how does that line up with what Lordship teachers teach?
Latter-Day Saints (Mormon):
I put this question to the three LDS missionaries who answered my invitation, and after some discussion the answer finally came back: "Both". They understand it to be both a gift and a reward. Now for them this is more complicated because really "salvation" for them is not what it is to us… "salvation" is just the "First Heaven" and, well, everyone ends up there. So perhaps you could call that a gift. But their ultimate version of "salvation" is entry into the Third Heaven, or the "Celestial Kingdom". And this is certainly a reward and they readily admit that you have to work, you have to perform, to get there.
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
Unfortunately, the Watchtower is apparently rather confused about whether salvation is a gift or a reward, as a quick tour through the Watchtower's web site will reveal to contradictory ideas in this regard:
Lordship Salvation:
Lordship teachers are not consistent even with themselves when it comes to this question. They seem to view salvation as a gift on one day, and a reward on the next, very similar to the Watchtower.
In the last quote, MacArthur is illustrating his view of salvation using Moses and his faithful choice to confront and oppose Pharoah even though Moses knew it would mean he was giving up wealth and power. By the context of the quotation, we know that MacArthur was speaking of entry into Heaven… eternal salvation, and in this illustration, MacArthur clearly views salvation as a reward (for having sacrificed all that wealth and power).
Again, it's important to understand that these ideas have consequences… That you may think salvation is a reward or a gift is not just a trivial matter. A reward is, by definition, earned and a gift, by definition, is not. Any view of salvation as a reward could betray a reliance on works for that salvation.
Free Grace:
For the 7th time, Free Grace provides an answer that is not only unique, but consistent as well. It seems that teachers of Free Grace theology take seriously the Bible's insistence that salvation is a free gift. A gift is something for which you did not work… either before or after the fact. The fact that salvation is a free gift enables us to say, with certainty, that we are saved no matter what. It links up with our 100% assurance quite nicely and doesn't create any conflicts or contradictions. Rewards are given in Heaven for our performance in this life, according to the level of sanctification we attain individually, but going to Heaven is not a reward. You won't ever find Free Grace teachers describing salvation from Hell as a "reward".
Is salvation a reward or a gift?
This is an important question as the answer ought to really govern other conclusions we reach about salvation. It has huge implications as to assurance of salvation, for example, it seems self evident to me that if we view salvation as a gift, then absolute assurance is ours to keep as well. But if we view salvation as a reward, you can see that assurance becomes much more elusive since rewards are based on performance and, well, maybe you're not cutting the mustard. The question is, how to the cults answer this question and how does that line up with what Lordship teachers teach?
Latter-Day Saints (Mormon):
I put this question to the three LDS missionaries who answered my invitation, and after some discussion the answer finally came back: "Both". They understand it to be both a gift and a reward. Now for them this is more complicated because really "salvation" for them is not what it is to us… "salvation" is just the "First Heaven" and, well, everyone ends up there. So perhaps you could call that a gift. But their ultimate version of "salvation" is entry into the Third Heaven, or the "Celestial Kingdom". And this is certainly a reward and they readily admit that you have to work, you have to perform, to get there.
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
Unfortunately, the Watchtower is apparently rather confused about whether salvation is a gift or a reward, as a quick tour through the Watchtower's web site will reveal to contradictory ideas in this regard:
“[Jehovah’s Witnesses] are working hard now for the reward of eternal life… making themselves eligible to receive the reward of eternal life.” -Watchtower publication
“Salvation is a free gift from God. It cannot be earned. Yet it does require effort on our part.” -Watchtower publication
Lordship Salvation:
Lordship teachers are not consistent even with themselves when it comes to this question. They seem to view salvation as a gift on one day, and a reward on the next, very similar to the Watchtower.
“Eternal life is indeed a free gift.” -John MacArthur
“This is a perfect picture of saving faith… the true believer signs up and gives everything for Christ. [Moses] gave up spectacular worldly wealth in order to suffer for Christ’s sake…he was really trading Egypt for a heavenly reward.” -John MacArthur
In the last quote, MacArthur is illustrating his view of salvation using Moses and his faithful choice to confront and oppose Pharoah even though Moses knew it would mean he was giving up wealth and power. By the context of the quotation, we know that MacArthur was speaking of entry into Heaven… eternal salvation, and in this illustration, MacArthur clearly views salvation as a reward (for having sacrificed all that wealth and power).
Again, it's important to understand that these ideas have consequences… That you may think salvation is a reward or a gift is not just a trivial matter. A reward is, by definition, earned and a gift, by definition, is not. Any view of salvation as a reward could betray a reliance on works for that salvation.
Free Grace:
For the 7th time, Free Grace provides an answer that is not only unique, but consistent as well. It seems that teachers of Free Grace theology take seriously the Bible's insistence that salvation is a free gift. A gift is something for which you did not work… either before or after the fact. The fact that salvation is a free gift enables us to say, with certainty, that we are saved no matter what. It links up with our 100% assurance quite nicely and doesn't create any conflicts or contradictions. Rewards are given in Heaven for our performance in this life, according to the level of sanctification we attain individually, but going to Heaven is not a reward. You won't ever find Free Grace teachers describing salvation from Hell as a "reward".
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Question #6: What is Faith?
Question #6 is:
Or, more specifically, what concepts does faith necessarily include or imply? Does faith simply mean to place your trust in someone or something with no other component added, or does it necessarily include and imply obedience? It's an interesting question and the results of asking it are just as interesting.
Latter-Day Saints: (Mormon)
In LDS doctrine, faith equals knowledge plus obedience. The two go together. If you don't obey, you don't have faith. But also notice that, again, there appears to be some allowance for sin, which can only mean a failure to obey. Consider this quote from the LDS web site:
Notice that the goalposts have moved… Faith is knowledge plus obedience. But in this quote we see that merely striving to obey is apparently good enough. But how can this be if faith equals knowledge plus obedience? Perhaps they really mean that faith equals knowledge plus striving for obedience. Consider one other quote from the LDS web site:
According to this quote, I must demonstrate my faith in Christ by keeping His commandments. But if I occasionally sin, and they say that I might, then I am not keeping His commandments.
That's an interesting quandary, I think.
The Watchtower: (Jehovah's Witnesses)
The Watchtower teaches that faith must include obedience. Consider this quote from my interview from a local witness:
Well, this is very similar to the LDS description… you must show that you have faith by obeying and keeping His commandments. But in my interview with a local Jehovah's Witness, I was told that it's possible to get off-track spiritually. Well, how is it possible to get off-track spiritually if you always obey? In other words, the Watchtower acknowledges that everyone slips a bit here and there, fails to obey. And once again we're back into the same quandary as with LDS. Their definition of faith shouldn't allow for any disobedience at all. They say faith necessarily includes obedience, that our obedience is necessary in order to demonstrate that our faith is real, or to validate our faith. This means that if you disobey at all, you're revealing that your faith is not genuine.
Lordship Salvation:
It's interesting that we find exactly the same idea in Lordship teaching. Lordship teachers believe that obedience is a necessary component of faith.
And here's one more interesting quote from MacArthur:
Under this understanding, we have all the same problems that we have in the cults' teaching! How strange is that?
Free Grace:
Under Free Grace, faith is nothing more than the act of trusting someone or something. Faith has no power in itself, it is entirely dependent on the object and whether or not the object of your faith is actually capable of delivering that which you expect or trust. Obedience is not a necessary component of faith.
I cannot think of any good reason to conflate obedience with faith… in fact, doing so creates serious logical difficulties. Faith, or "trust" simply means reliance on some object. Any object. Could be a person, could be a thing. If I'm a skydiver, I trust my parachute. If trust implies obedience, then in what way do I "obey" my parachute? Has the parachute given me commands? Okay, you might say, but that's pertaining to an inanimate object… what about a person?
Well, that's easy, seems to me. Just think of a young child who relies on his parents for food and shelter. Does that mean the child always obeys his parents? After having disobeyed, does the child immediately start trying to provide his own meals and his own shelter? No… he still appears at the dinner table, relying on his parents (whom he has disobeyed) for his nourishment. Obedience, therefore, is totally independent of trust or faith.
In addition to that, as we've seen, there is a serious logical problem with including obedience as a necessary component of faith: Any lack of obedience, however small, must be interpreted as a lack of faith. Therefore, if you disobey at all, you do not have faith in Christ and therefore you're not saved. If obedience is part and parcel of faith, then nobody will go to Heaven because all of us disobey and this reveal our lack of faith.
For the sixth time, we've seen that Free Grace offers an answer that is not only totally unique from the the other three answers (all of which are essentially the same) but it also is logically consistent and fits what we know about reality… that is, that everybody fails to obey… quite regularly, in fact. And if faith includes obedience then nobody can be saved.
What is faith?
Or, more specifically, what concepts does faith necessarily include or imply? Does faith simply mean to place your trust in someone or something with no other component added, or does it necessarily include and imply obedience? It's an interesting question and the results of asking it are just as interesting.
Latter-Day Saints: (Mormon)
In LDS doctrine, faith equals knowledge plus obedience. The two go together. If you don't obey, you don't have faith. But also notice that, again, there appears to be some allowance for sin, which can only mean a failure to obey. Consider this quote from the LDS web site:
Although you may still sin, you show your love for Him by striving to keep His commandments and avoiding sin.
Notice that the goalposts have moved… Faith is knowledge plus obedience. But in this quote we see that merely striving to obey is apparently good enough. But how can this be if faith equals knowledge plus obedience? Perhaps they really mean that faith equals knowledge plus striving for obedience. Consider one other quote from the LDS web site:
However, Jesus did not eliminate your personal responsibility. You must show that you accept Christ and that you have faith in Him by keeping His commandments and obeying the first principles and ordinances of the gospel.
According to this quote, I must demonstrate my faith in Christ by keeping His commandments. But if I occasionally sin, and they say that I might, then I am not keeping His commandments.
That's an interesting quandary, I think.
The Watchtower: (Jehovah's Witnesses)
The Watchtower teaches that faith must include obedience. Consider this quote from my interview from a local witness:
Obedience is necessary because it demonstrates that our faith is genuine. -Local Jehovah's Witness
Well, this is very similar to the LDS description… you must show that you have faith by obeying and keeping His commandments. But in my interview with a local Jehovah's Witness, I was told that it's possible to get off-track spiritually. Well, how is it possible to get off-track spiritually if you always obey? In other words, the Watchtower acknowledges that everyone slips a bit here and there, fails to obey. And once again we're back into the same quandary as with LDS. Their definition of faith shouldn't allow for any disobedience at all. They say faith necessarily includes obedience, that our obedience is necessary in order to demonstrate that our faith is real, or to validate our faith. This means that if you disobey at all, you're revealing that your faith is not genuine.
Lordship Salvation:
It's interesting that we find exactly the same idea in Lordship teaching. Lordship teachers believe that obedience is a necessary component of faith.
Faith is synonymous with obedience. -Marc Mueller
Faith includes obedience -John Stott
Scripture often equates faith with obedience. -John MacArthur
And here's one more interesting quote from MacArthur:
Genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith. -John MacArthur
Under this understanding, we have all the same problems that we have in the cults' teaching! How strange is that?
Free Grace:
Under Free Grace, faith is nothing more than the act of trusting someone or something. Faith has no power in itself, it is entirely dependent on the object and whether or not the object of your faith is actually capable of delivering that which you expect or trust. Obedience is not a necessary component of faith.
I cannot think of any good reason to conflate obedience with faith… in fact, doing so creates serious logical difficulties. Faith, or "trust" simply means reliance on some object. Any object. Could be a person, could be a thing. If I'm a skydiver, I trust my parachute. If trust implies obedience, then in what way do I "obey" my parachute? Has the parachute given me commands? Okay, you might say, but that's pertaining to an inanimate object… what about a person?
Well, that's easy, seems to me. Just think of a young child who relies on his parents for food and shelter. Does that mean the child always obeys his parents? After having disobeyed, does the child immediately start trying to provide his own meals and his own shelter? No… he still appears at the dinner table, relying on his parents (whom he has disobeyed) for his nourishment. Obedience, therefore, is totally independent of trust or faith.
In addition to that, as we've seen, there is a serious logical problem with including obedience as a necessary component of faith: Any lack of obedience, however small, must be interpreted as a lack of faith. Therefore, if you disobey at all, you do not have faith in Christ and therefore you're not saved. If obedience is part and parcel of faith, then nobody will go to Heaven because all of us disobey and this reveal our lack of faith.
For the sixth time, we've seen that Free Grace offers an answer that is not only totally unique from the the other three answers (all of which are essentially the same) but it also is logically consistent and fits what we know about reality… that is, that everybody fails to obey… quite regularly, in fact. And if faith includes obedience then nobody can be saved.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Question #5: Continual, Perpetual Faith?
Question #5:
Again, I should emphasize that although Christ's deity is an extremely important issue, it's not an issue that's "on the table" for this exercise. I understand that Christ is a different person to Jehovah's Witnesses and to Mormons when compared with orthodox Christianity, and that this incorrect identity is a major issue. But the focus here, regardless of who or what Christ is, is does faith in Christ have to be an ongoing, perpetual, never-ending faith in order for salvation to take place. Now we'll take a look at how the different groups answered the question.
Latter Day Saints (Mormon):
LDS doctrine teaches that belief must be ongoing, but interestingly, the LDS missionaries I spoke with agreed that everyone slips up from time to time so there is some allowance for that. Allowance for how much is not defined.
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
Clearly the Watchtower teaches that faith must be ongoing and continual, along with the obedience that comes with it. But it is possible to get off-track spiritually but later get restored to good-standing with the Creator. Here we have a similar idea to that expressed my the Mormons: Everyone slips up sometimes, there seems to be some allowance for that. But again, that allowance is not defined or quantified in any way. For how long can your belief be suspended? How serious can your failure be before there is finally no turning back?
Lordship Salvation:
Once again, we see a curious similarity between the Lordship view and both LDS and Watchtower doctrine on this question. The answer from the Lordship camp seems to be that belief must be ongoing and perpetual… and if faith ceases at some point, then it was never really real to begin with and person is not saved.
Also notice in John MacArthur's quote that he expresses the idea that believers may "stumble and fall" but goes on to say that they will persevere in faith. Well that's odd because that's very similar, again, to what the LDS and Watchtower teaches. MacArthur is setting forth some sort of allowance for failure, but as in the case with the cults, that allowance is not defined. At what point does stumbling and falling reveal a less-than genuine faith?
Free Grace:
For a fifth time, we see that Free Grace has the unique perspective on this question: If faith in Christ had to be continual, then 100% assurance would be impossible and our salvation would depend on us and not on Christ. The answer is no, it does not have to be continual and the Greek grammar in every salvation passage supports this.
Many salvation passages, such as John 3:15, 3:16, 3:36, 5:24, 6:40, 6:47, 11:25-26, 20:31 are commonly misunderstood to mean that belief must be continuing. The misunderstanding arises from the phrase "The one who believes", which recurs in each of these verses. "Believes" there is typically taken as present-tense verb and from this people conclude that ongoing, continual faith is required.
Think of the implications for assurance that this carries: Since you cannot know whether your belief will continue until death, you cannot know whether you're saved until you actually die. Yet, in 1 John 5:13 John writes:
How could John have written this if belief had to be continual? How would John know that his entire audience would continue in their belief such that he could tell them that they have eternal life right now? The only way he could have told them this is if he knew that they need only believe once.
It's not that difficult to see that it is incorrect to understand the verbs in these passages to indicate continual belief. In every one of those verses, the word "believes" is not a verb at all; it's a participle. Participles don't carry a reference to tense the way verbs do.
It is rather easy to demonstrate that the use of a participle tells you nothing about when something happened or whether it continues to happen. Consider the following sentence:
If "paints" is a present-tense verb which necessarily denotes continuing action, then this person must never stop painting if they are to have a red house. Notice that we would never reach such a conclusion from this sentence… we know that would be absurd. The word "paints" here is not a verb, but a participle. It's used to describe the person, like an adjective would and tells us nothing about when the action took place or how long it endured.
This can also be demonstrated with John 5:24 which reads:
Both the word "hears" and the word "believes" are participles, not verbs. But suppose for a moment that we are to understand "believes" as a present-tense verb indicating continual action… if that's the case, then the same must be true of "hears". So, one must never stop hearing Christ's word either. I dunno about you, but when I'm asleep, I've stopped hearing. In fact, there are many times throughout the day that I am not hearing Christ's word. According to the way these folks understand this verse (due to their distortion of the grammar) I am not saved because I do not continually hear Christ's word.
If we understand these words as participles with no reference to tense, then this problem evaporates. You only need to hear Christ's word once by this understanding, and if that's true of the word "hears" then it's also true of the word "believes." They are the same part of speech. God is logically consistent.
For a fifth time, we see that the Free Grace perspective stands apart from the other three views, totally unique and totally consistent with the absolute assurance promised in the Bible and Christ's absolute faithfulness.
Does faith in Christ have to be continual, or is belief at a point in time sufficient?
Again, I should emphasize that although Christ's deity is an extremely important issue, it's not an issue that's "on the table" for this exercise. I understand that Christ is a different person to Jehovah's Witnesses and to Mormons when compared with orthodox Christianity, and that this incorrect identity is a major issue. But the focus here, regardless of who or what Christ is, is does faith in Christ have to be an ongoing, perpetual, never-ending faith in order for salvation to take place. Now we'll take a look at how the different groups answered the question.
Latter Day Saints (Mormon):
LDS doctrine teaches that belief must be ongoing, but interestingly, the LDS missionaries I spoke with agreed that everyone slips up from time to time so there is some allowance for that. Allowance for how much is not defined.
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
Clearly the Watchtower teaches that faith must be ongoing and continual, along with the obedience that comes with it. But it is possible to get off-track spiritually but later get restored to good-standing with the Creator. Here we have a similar idea to that expressed my the Mormons: Everyone slips up sometimes, there seems to be some allowance for that. But again, that allowance is not defined or quantified in any way. For how long can your belief be suspended? How serious can your failure be before there is finally no turning back?
Lordship Salvation:
Once again, we see a curious similarity between the Lordship view and both LDS and Watchtower doctrine on this question. The answer from the Lordship camp seems to be that belief must be ongoing and perpetual… and if faith ceases at some point, then it was never really real to begin with and person is not saved.
Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation; only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity -R.C. Sproul
Genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith. -John MacArthur
Also notice in John MacArthur's quote that he expresses the idea that believers may "stumble and fall" but goes on to say that they will persevere in faith. Well that's odd because that's very similar, again, to what the LDS and Watchtower teaches. MacArthur is setting forth some sort of allowance for failure, but as in the case with the cults, that allowance is not defined. At what point does stumbling and falling reveal a less-than genuine faith?
Free Grace:
For a fifth time, we see that Free Grace has the unique perspective on this question: If faith in Christ had to be continual, then 100% assurance would be impossible and our salvation would depend on us and not on Christ. The answer is no, it does not have to be continual and the Greek grammar in every salvation passage supports this.
Many salvation passages, such as John 3:15, 3:16, 3:36, 5:24, 6:40, 6:47, 11:25-26, 20:31 are commonly misunderstood to mean that belief must be continuing. The misunderstanding arises from the phrase "The one who believes", which recurs in each of these verses. "Believes" there is typically taken as present-tense verb and from this people conclude that ongoing, continual faith is required.
Think of the implications for assurance that this carries: Since you cannot know whether your belief will continue until death, you cannot know whether you're saved until you actually die. Yet, in 1 John 5:13 John writes:
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
How could John have written this if belief had to be continual? How would John know that his entire audience would continue in their belief such that he could tell them that they have eternal life right now? The only way he could have told them this is if he knew that they need only believe once.
It's not that difficult to see that it is incorrect to understand the verbs in these passages to indicate continual belief. In every one of those verses, the word "believes" is not a verb at all; it's a participle. Participles don't carry a reference to tense the way verbs do.
It is rather easy to demonstrate that the use of a participle tells you nothing about when something happened or whether it continues to happen. Consider the following sentence:
The person who paints his house red will have a red house.
If "paints" is a present-tense verb which necessarily denotes continuing action, then this person must never stop painting if they are to have a red house. Notice that we would never reach such a conclusion from this sentence… we know that would be absurd. The word "paints" here is not a verb, but a participle. It's used to describe the person, like an adjective would and tells us nothing about when the action took place or how long it endured.
This can also be demonstrated with John 5:24 which reads:
whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.
Both the word "hears" and the word "believes" are participles, not verbs. But suppose for a moment that we are to understand "believes" as a present-tense verb indicating continual action… if that's the case, then the same must be true of "hears". So, one must never stop hearing Christ's word either. I dunno about you, but when I'm asleep, I've stopped hearing. In fact, there are many times throughout the day that I am not hearing Christ's word. According to the way these folks understand this verse (due to their distortion of the grammar) I am not saved because I do not continually hear Christ's word.
If we understand these words as participles with no reference to tense, then this problem evaporates. You only need to hear Christ's word once by this understanding, and if that's true of the word "hears" then it's also true of the word "believes." They are the same part of speech. God is logically consistent.
For a fifth time, we see that the Free Grace perspective stands apart from the other three views, totally unique and totally consistent with the absolute assurance promised in the Bible and Christ's absolute faithfulness.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Question #4: Faith Without Works is Dead?
Question #4 is as follows:
This question has to do with James Chapter 2, which I addressed elsewhere on this blog a few months ago. And it is one of the questions that really was the genesis of this project because I hear Christians saying the same things, and reaching the same conclusions, about James Chapter 2 that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do. This just cannot be a good thing.
Latter Day Saints: (Mormon)
In LDS doctrine, ultimate salvation is known as "exaltation"… this is entrance into the 3rd Heaven. With that in mind, the LDS interpretation of James Chapter 2 is that there is no exaltation if works are not added to faith.
The Watchtower: (Jehovah's Witnesses)
According to Watchtower teaching, works are a necessary component of faith. If you don’t have works, you must not have faith and you will not be saved.
Notice that the JW answer characterizes works as a sort of "evidence" of true faith, and so if they don't have works, they must not have faith. The absence of works indicates the absence of faith, in other words. This is why they look to their own works for assurance.
The Mormon position is slightly different, based on my personal conversation with the LDS missionaries, as they didn't say anything that connected works with "evidence" of faith. They just said that if you don't have works added to your faith, you won't be exalted.
Well, in either case works have to be added to faith, and that's the main point we're looking for here so that we can compare that with the Lordship answers.
Lordship Salvation:
Lordship teachers account for the apparent tension between faith and works in James Chapter 2 in a couple of different ways. One way is to understand that James advocates works of a different kind than Paul when Paul said salvation is “not of works”. Perhaps the more common explanation, however, is that if you don’t have works, then this is evidence that your faith is not genuine and you were never really saved in the first place. Does that sound familiar?
Notice John Piper's quote and compare it especially to the quote from the Jehovah's Witness. There's absolutely no difference. Why is that? Why is this prominent and incredibly popular Christian teacher teaching the same thing that the Watchtower teaches about this? What does that tell us about Lordship Salvation if we already understand and accept that the Watchtower teaches salvation by works?
If we are to maintain that we understand salvation to be by grace and not of works, then our answer needs to be different than the cults, not the same. And I think it's rather clear that the Bible provides a very different answer.
Free Grace:
The Free Grace perspective on James Chapter 2 is to point out first of all that James knows he's addressing an audience that is saved. We know this from his repeated use of the word "brethren" elsewhere in the epistle. And also that "faith" in this passage is not the word for trusting in Christ. It is the word "pistis" which is a noun which refers to "that which is believed." When we say salvation is by "faith in Christ" usually we mean an act, a verb. Actually the verb "pisteuo" as in so many passages in John and also Acts 16:31. But that's not the word James uses in Chapter 2. He uses the word "pistis" instead and this means "a body of knowledge or belief". Notice that this is a very, very broad term. But James says "faith (pistis) without works is dead." So what does he mean by "dead"? Some English translations use the word "useless" instead of "dead", for the Greek word there is "nekros" which can mean "dead" but also means "useless" and the latter fits better in this context. But what does "faith without works is useless" mean?
Here's an illustration: You believe (I assume) that fastening your seat belt when you drive somewhere is a good idea. You could describe this belief of yours as "pistis", or "that which you believe." Now, if you drive somewhere without actually fastening your seat belt, of what use to you is that belief? Absolutely none. If you get in an accident, the unfastened seat belt that's flopping around at your side will not help you one bit.
To apply this in a more Biblical illustration, consider Jesus' teaching "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is "pistis"; or part of the body of knowledge which you have as a Christian. But if you do not live by that teaching, then obviously the fact that you believe it is of no use to anyone. In other words, James is basically saying "apply Bible doctrine" in your life. If you don't, that Bible doctrine is useless.
That is an answer which is totally different from the cults' teaching and is entirely consistent with the Bible and eliminates any apparent contradiction between James and Paul.
What does James say about the relationship between faith and works?
This question has to do with James Chapter 2, which I addressed elsewhere on this blog a few months ago. And it is one of the questions that really was the genesis of this project because I hear Christians saying the same things, and reaching the same conclusions, about James Chapter 2 that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do. This just cannot be a good thing.
Latter Day Saints: (Mormon)
In LDS doctrine, ultimate salvation is known as "exaltation"… this is entrance into the 3rd Heaven. With that in mind, the LDS interpretation of James Chapter 2 is that there is no exaltation if works are not added to faith.
The Watchtower: (Jehovah's Witnesses)
According to Watchtower teaching, works are a necessary component of faith. If you don’t have works, you must not have faith and you will not be saved.
…anyone who has genuine faith will have works to go with it - works of obedience to the commands of God and Christ, works that demonstrate his faith and love. Without such works, his faith is dead. -Local Jehovah's Witness
James makes it clear that a person with genuine faith will automatically produce action that gives evidence of his faith. -Local Jehovah's Witness
Notice that the JW answer characterizes works as a sort of "evidence" of true faith, and so if they don't have works, they must not have faith. The absence of works indicates the absence of faith, in other words. This is why they look to their own works for assurance.
The Mormon position is slightly different, based on my personal conversation with the LDS missionaries, as they didn't say anything that connected works with "evidence" of faith. They just said that if you don't have works added to your faith, you won't be exalted.
Well, in either case works have to be added to faith, and that's the main point we're looking for here so that we can compare that with the Lordship answers.
Lordship Salvation:
Lordship teachers account for the apparent tension between faith and works in James Chapter 2 in a couple of different ways. One way is to understand that James advocates works of a different kind than Paul when Paul said salvation is “not of works”. Perhaps the more common explanation, however, is that if you don’t have works, then this is evidence that your faith is not genuine and you were never really saved in the first place. Does that sound familiar?
The key is to understand the difference between works as Paul defined them and works as James defined them. For the purposes of my argument I will refer to Paul's term as "works" and James' term as "work." We are not to do works, but we are to work. -Don Johnson, "The Road To Heaven" page 135
And therefore if you say "But I'm justified because I believed the doctrine of justification by faith… and then it doesn't change your life and you go on to live like the devil; a selfish, self-centered person the rest of your life, James would say 'You're not justified" But he wouldn't say that because you didn't add a second thing, simply, to your faith but because your faith is dead. It wasn't faith. -John Piper
Notice John Piper's quote and compare it especially to the quote from the Jehovah's Witness. There's absolutely no difference. Why is that? Why is this prominent and incredibly popular Christian teacher teaching the same thing that the Watchtower teaches about this? What does that tell us about Lordship Salvation if we already understand and accept that the Watchtower teaches salvation by works?
If we are to maintain that we understand salvation to be by grace and not of works, then our answer needs to be different than the cults, not the same. And I think it's rather clear that the Bible provides a very different answer.
Free Grace:
The Free Grace perspective on James Chapter 2 is to point out first of all that James knows he's addressing an audience that is saved. We know this from his repeated use of the word "brethren" elsewhere in the epistle. And also that "faith" in this passage is not the word for trusting in Christ. It is the word "pistis" which is a noun which refers to "that which is believed." When we say salvation is by "faith in Christ" usually we mean an act, a verb. Actually the verb "pisteuo" as in so many passages in John and also Acts 16:31. But that's not the word James uses in Chapter 2. He uses the word "pistis" instead and this means "a body of knowledge or belief". Notice that this is a very, very broad term. But James says "faith (pistis) without works is dead." So what does he mean by "dead"? Some English translations use the word "useless" instead of "dead", for the Greek word there is "nekros" which can mean "dead" but also means "useless" and the latter fits better in this context. But what does "faith without works is useless" mean?
Here's an illustration: You believe (I assume) that fastening your seat belt when you drive somewhere is a good idea. You could describe this belief of yours as "pistis", or "that which you believe." Now, if you drive somewhere without actually fastening your seat belt, of what use to you is that belief? Absolutely none. If you get in an accident, the unfastened seat belt that's flopping around at your side will not help you one bit.
To apply this in a more Biblical illustration, consider Jesus' teaching "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is "pistis"; or part of the body of knowledge which you have as a Christian. But if you do not live by that teaching, then obviously the fact that you believe it is of no use to anyone. In other words, James is basically saying "apply Bible doctrine" in your life. If you don't, that Bible doctrine is useless.
That is an answer which is totally different from the cults' teaching and is entirely consistent with the Bible and eliminates any apparent contradiction between James and Paul.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Question #3: Ongoing Obedience and Perseverance?
The third question is this:
Latter-Day Saints (Mormon):
This is another question that had to be rephrased a bit so that we get a good comparison. The Mormon's ultimate salvation is really called "exaltation," where they enter what they call the "Celestial Kingdom" or the "Third Heaven." So I asked the three LDS missionaries whether exaltation required ongoing commitment and perseverance in obedience.
The answer I received was not surprising at all… in fact it's quite logically consistent with their answers to the first two questions. Their answer was that exaltation certainly does require ongoing commitment and “enduring to the end.”
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
The Jehovah's Witness that I consulted on these questions answered quite buntly "Yes" and then cited Matthew 24:13 to support this. “He who endures to the end will be saved.” Again, this answer is logically consistent with their answers to the first two.
What I mean by that is, for either group, they lack absolute assurance of ultimate salvation, or they locate whatever meager assurance they have in their own performance, because they believe they cannot be saved unless they meet a particular standard (yet undefined) of personal performance. In other words, their salvation ultimately depends upon them and not on God. Though they may claim that salvation is a "grace gift", clearly they don't really believe this. If they did believe it, their answer to question 3 would have to be "No."
In other words, a "Yes" answer to question 3 flows naturally from belief in a works-based plan of salvation. But what is the answer from the Lordship perspective? These are mainstream Christian teachers who profess to teach a by-grace salvation. But do they really embrace it, or is it just lip-service?
Lordship Salvation:
According to several popular teachers, we see that Lordship Salvation requires ongoing commitment and perseverance, absolute surrender and obedience.
That last quote is particularly interesting, because R.C. Sproul is talking about Matthew 24:13 there… the same verse cited by the Jehovah's Witness!!
Now what is Matthew 24:13 about, then? Well it doesn't take much effort to see that in Matthew 24, Jesus is talking about the Tribulation. In Chapter 24 verse 3, the disciples ask Jesus what will be signs of His coming and of the end of the "age". Jesus goes on to describe cataclysmic events of various kinds and then in verse 13 He says "But he who endures to the end will be saved."
Saved? Does this mean eternal salvation? The word for "saved" here is not a technical term which always refers to eternal salvation. In fact, it frequently does not. The Greek word "sozo" means to "deliver" from some danger… but what danger is always determined by context. Jesus is talking about the Tribulation, and clearly there will be people who survive the Tribulation, and those who do will be delivered into the Millenial Kingdom which follows. It's as simple as that. This passage has nothing to do with eternal salvation. But what is the Free Grace perspective on this question?
Free Grace:
The answer is "No." If the answer was "Yes," then that would mean salvation is by works and not by grace and 100% assurance would be impossible. Now it's true that discipleship and practical sanctification require ongoing commitment and perseverance, but eternal salvation does not. It is a free gift, it is not something you have to strive for. And once again, we see that, of the four groups, the Free Grace perspective is the only one with a distinct answer and Lordship Salvation looks more and more like it's based on works every bit as much as the cults.
Does salvation require ongoing commitment and perseverance in obedience?
Latter-Day Saints (Mormon):
This is another question that had to be rephrased a bit so that we get a good comparison. The Mormon's ultimate salvation is really called "exaltation," where they enter what they call the "Celestial Kingdom" or the "Third Heaven." So I asked the three LDS missionaries whether exaltation required ongoing commitment and perseverance in obedience.
The answer I received was not surprising at all… in fact it's quite logically consistent with their answers to the first two questions. Their answer was that exaltation certainly does require ongoing commitment and “enduring to the end.”
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
The Jehovah's Witness that I consulted on these questions answered quite buntly "Yes" and then cited Matthew 24:13 to support this. “He who endures to the end will be saved.” Again, this answer is logically consistent with their answers to the first two.
What I mean by that is, for either group, they lack absolute assurance of ultimate salvation, or they locate whatever meager assurance they have in their own performance, because they believe they cannot be saved unless they meet a particular standard (yet undefined) of personal performance. In other words, their salvation ultimately depends upon them and not on God. Though they may claim that salvation is a "grace gift", clearly they don't really believe this. If they did believe it, their answer to question 3 would have to be "No."
In other words, a "Yes" answer to question 3 flows naturally from belief in a works-based plan of salvation. But what is the answer from the Lordship perspective? These are mainstream Christian teachers who profess to teach a by-grace salvation. But do they really embrace it, or is it just lip-service?
Lordship Salvation:
According to several popular teachers, we see that Lordship Salvation requires ongoing commitment and perseverance, absolute surrender and obedience.
…if there is a reserve in your obedience, you are on your way to Hell. -A.W. Pink
Genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith. -John MacArthur
…the faith [Jesus] demands involves unconditional surrender. -John MacArthur
The New Testament speaks of enduring to the end promising that he who endures to the end will be saved. -R.C Sproul
That last quote is particularly interesting, because R.C. Sproul is talking about Matthew 24:13 there… the same verse cited by the Jehovah's Witness!!
Now what is Matthew 24:13 about, then? Well it doesn't take much effort to see that in Matthew 24, Jesus is talking about the Tribulation. In Chapter 24 verse 3, the disciples ask Jesus what will be signs of His coming and of the end of the "age". Jesus goes on to describe cataclysmic events of various kinds and then in verse 13 He says "But he who endures to the end will be saved."
Saved? Does this mean eternal salvation? The word for "saved" here is not a technical term which always refers to eternal salvation. In fact, it frequently does not. The Greek word "sozo" means to "deliver" from some danger… but what danger is always determined by context. Jesus is talking about the Tribulation, and clearly there will be people who survive the Tribulation, and those who do will be delivered into the Millenial Kingdom which follows. It's as simple as that. This passage has nothing to do with eternal salvation. But what is the Free Grace perspective on this question?
Free Grace:
The answer is "No." If the answer was "Yes," then that would mean salvation is by works and not by grace and 100% assurance would be impossible. Now it's true that discipleship and practical sanctification require ongoing commitment and perseverance, but eternal salvation does not. It is a free gift, it is not something you have to strive for. And once again, we see that, of the four groups, the Free Grace perspective is the only one with a distinct answer and Lordship Salvation looks more and more like it's based on works every bit as much as the cults.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Question #2: Where Do You Find Your Assurance?
Question #2 is this:
This question is aimed at finding out where someone looks for the assurance of their salvation. If someone asks you, for example, whether or not you are "saved" and you say "Yes", then on what basis do you say "Yes?" Do you look at your lifestyle, your behavior, your good works, and conclude: "Well, I must be saved because… look at my performance. Look at all these things that I'm doing for God. Look at how obedient I am." Or, do you say "Yes, I'm saved because Christ promised me that I'm saved if I place my trust in Him and I have done so and I believe the promises of God and therefore I know I'm saved."
Those are two very different perspectives. When I put this question to the four groups, I get essentially two answers, though the LDS answer added another twist:
Latter Day Saints (Mormon):
Of course we know now that the LDS has, well, limited assurance to begin with. But whatever assurance they do have, according to the LDS missionaries I met with, comes from their subjective feelings, (the 'burning in the bosom) the so-called “modern prophets,” scripture, (which includes their other books) but most of all their works and obedience.
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
In Watchtower doctrine, you provide your own assurance which is based on your own performance. Your own actions determine your eternal destiny. Your sense of whether or not you will ultimately be resurrected (as opposed to annihilated) comes from your performance. Are you spending enough time going door-to-door, are you obedient, etc.
Lordship Salvation:
Whatever assurance a Christian might have -- according to many popular teachers -- comes from examining themselves to see if they are in the faith; assessing their own walk and perhaps even by noting whether they are worried about whether or not they’re saved. Assurance comes from what you do, in other words.
Here, MacArthur is directing the reader to look to their own performance for assurance of salvation. If it isn't evident (evident to whom, one might ask) that you're a Christian, then you might not be.
MacDonald is doing the same thing as MacArthur… look at your performance. If you don't keep your promises to God, then you're not saved. You see, that's a performance issue. Conversely, if you are keeping your promises to God, then you are saved. Look to your performance, MacDonald is saying.
Here Sproul finds some assurance in the fact that he's concerned about whether or not he is going to Heaven. Only a true Christian would care about such a thing, after all. But this assurance is coming from something he does… namely, caring about salvation.
The bottom line is that these Lordship teachers find their assurance in exactly the same place as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses: They look at their personal performance. Here's a quote from John Piper to demonstrate this:
In this quote, Piper asks how someone can have assurance of their salvation. And clearly, John Piper believes the answer lies in the person's works. The person should look for assurance in their own personal performance in the Christian life.
Now if we're looking at our personal performance to assess whether we're saved or not, upon whom does our salvation depend? On God? Or on ourselves? Looking at my own performance for assurance demonstrates that I'm not trusting in Christ's promises, but I'm trusting in my works instead.
Free Grace:
Once again, the Free Grace perspective provides an answer that is totally and absolutely distinct from the other three groups. 100% assurance comes from the promises of God and the work of Christ on the cross. If you believe the promises of God, you are saved. Period. God said it, Christ did it, I believe it, that settles it. Assurance is not located in my own performance in any way because my salvation does not depend on me and my performance. It depends on God.
To the extent that a person has assurance of salvation, where is that assurance found?
This question is aimed at finding out where someone looks for the assurance of their salvation. If someone asks you, for example, whether or not you are "saved" and you say "Yes", then on what basis do you say "Yes?" Do you look at your lifestyle, your behavior, your good works, and conclude: "Well, I must be saved because… look at my performance. Look at all these things that I'm doing for God. Look at how obedient I am." Or, do you say "Yes, I'm saved because Christ promised me that I'm saved if I place my trust in Him and I have done so and I believe the promises of God and therefore I know I'm saved."
Those are two very different perspectives. When I put this question to the four groups, I get essentially two answers, though the LDS answer added another twist:
Latter Day Saints (Mormon):
Of course we know now that the LDS has, well, limited assurance to begin with. But whatever assurance they do have, according to the LDS missionaries I met with, comes from their subjective feelings, (the 'burning in the bosom) the so-called “modern prophets,” scripture, (which includes their other books) but most of all their works and obedience.
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
In Watchtower doctrine, you provide your own assurance which is based on your own performance. Your own actions determine your eternal destiny. Your sense of whether or not you will ultimately be resurrected (as opposed to annihilated) comes from your performance. Are you spending enough time going door-to-door, are you obedient, etc.
Lordship Salvation:
Whatever assurance a Christian might have -- according to many popular teachers -- comes from examining themselves to see if they are in the faith; assessing their own walk and perhaps even by noting whether they are worried about whether or not they’re saved. Assurance comes from what you do, in other words.
If there’s no evidence of salvation in your life now, you need to face the fact that you may not be a Christian -John MacArthur
Here, MacArthur is directing the reader to look to their own performance for assurance of salvation. If it isn't evident (evident to whom, one might ask) that you're a Christian, then you might not be.
People who don't keep their promises to God don't really know the Lord -James MacDonald
MacDonald is doing the same thing as MacArthur… look at your performance. If you don't keep your promises to God, then you're not saved. You see, that's a performance issue. Conversely, if you are keeping your promises to God, then you are saved. Look to your performance, MacDonald is saying.
…The question hit me, ‘R.C., what if you’re not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not Heaven after all but Hell?’…I thought ‘Well, it’s a good sign that I’m worried about this because only true Christians really care about salvation. -R.C. Sproul
Here Sproul finds some assurance in the fact that he's concerned about whether or not he is going to Heaven. Only a true Christian would care about such a thing, after all. But this assurance is coming from something he does… namely, caring about salvation.
The bottom line is that these Lordship teachers find their assurance in exactly the same place as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses: They look at their personal performance. Here's a quote from John Piper to demonstrate this:
How does [Isaac] maintain and warrant and have assurance that he is right with God and that he will be right with God at the end of the age? And the answer that James gives is he'll be justified in that sense, he will continually be regarded as just by the works which show that he passes the test for the authentication of his faith. -John Piper
In this quote, Piper asks how someone can have assurance of their salvation. And clearly, John Piper believes the answer lies in the person's works. The person should look for assurance in their own personal performance in the Christian life.
Now if we're looking at our personal performance to assess whether we're saved or not, upon whom does our salvation depend? On God? Or on ourselves? Looking at my own performance for assurance demonstrates that I'm not trusting in Christ's promises, but I'm trusting in my works instead.
Free Grace:
Once again, the Free Grace perspective provides an answer that is totally and absolutely distinct from the other three groups. 100% assurance comes from the promises of God and the work of Christ on the cross. If you believe the promises of God, you are saved. Period. God said it, Christ did it, I believe it, that settles it. Assurance is not located in my own performance in any way because my salvation does not depend on me and my performance. It depends on God.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Question #1: Assurance of Eternal Destiny
Question #1 was this:
This is one question that had to be rephrased a bit so that I could get meaningful answers from LDS and JWs. Christians think of eternal life in terms of "going to Heaven" when they die. For Mormons and JWs, it's not quite that simple.
For Mormons, everyone is going to Heaven, sort-of. They believe there are 3 different Heavens, and that even non-Mormons go to the first, the lowest, Heaven. This, actually, is what they call "salvation" and they believe that this is a grace gift. Everyone goes there. However, there are two Heavens above the first, and the ultimate is the "Celestial Kingdom" or "3rd Heaven". they call this "exaltation." Since Heaven is ultimate salvation for us, I'm interested in their views on ultimate salvation for them, not the salvation that everyone gets. So my question to the LDS missionaries was:
The Watchtower also has a different understanding of "Heaven". They actually believe that most JWs alive today will not go to Heaven. They believe that Heaven was reserved for only 144,000… basically the first 144,000 JWs. So those seats are already taken. The rest of JWs hope to be resurrected after they die to rule and reign with Jesus Christ (whom they believe is the archangel Michael, not God) here on Earth. So ultimate salvation for them is this resurrection. The alternative is simply annihilation… you cease to exist. So for the JWs, my question was this:
Now let's compare answers:
Latter-Day Saints (Mormon):
According to the LDS missionaries who visited me, it is not possible to have 100% assurance that you'll enter the Celestial Kingdom because there’s always a possibilty, however remote, that a person will fail in faith and obedience before the time that they die. Now ask yourself this question: If the person might fail in faith and obedience before they die and thus lose out of ultimate salvation, then on whom does their "exaltation" depend? Does it not depend on their own ability to persevere in their faith and obedience?
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
According to Watchtower doctrine, it is not possible to have 100% assurance that you will be resurrected, and this is demonstrated clearly by this quote from the witness I spoke with via telephone and e-mail:
This is an odd answer because there's quite a blatant contradiction in there. "Yes, it's possible to 100% certain if you continue serving him, etc.…"
Well okay, so I guess the question becomes "Is it possible to be 100% certain that you will continue to serve God whole-souled and meet His righteous requirements?" Clearly, the answer to this is "No" because the witness used the conditional "if". So they claim certainty, and then promptly revoke that certainty because they can't be sure whether they'll continue to do the things they're supposed to do. Once again it's important to notice on whom the person's future resurrection depends: Does it depend on themselves, or does it depend on God?
Lordship Salvation:
According to popular Lordship teachers, it is not possible to have 100% assurance of salvation.
The question is, why don't these Lordship teachers believe they can have 100% assurance of salvation? Unless you believed that your salvation depends upon your own performance, (as the LDS and JWs do) what reason would there be to doubt it? If a person had the understanding that their salvation depends upon God and not on themselves, what reason would this person have to doubt their salvation? Is God not trustworthy? Is He not faithful? Can He fail to keep His promises?
This lack of assurance seems to point toward a reliance on self for salvation, which is totally consistent with a salvation that is based on works and not God's grace.
Free Grace:
If you ask the same question to a proponent of Free Grace, you will get an answer which is 180 degrees out-of-phase with the other three views. The Free Grace answer is that it most certainly is possible to have 100% assurance of salvation. This assurance comes from the promises of God and the work performed (and completed) by Christ on the cross. The Free Grace view relies totally and completely on God, who is absolutely faithful and will keep His promises. There is simply no reason whatsoever to doubt my salvation because my salvation depends upon Christ, and not upon me.
For the first question, we see that the Lordship answer is indistinguishable from the answers given by LDS and JWs, two 'cults' that teach that salvation is a product of works. Why, then, should I not conclude that the Lordship teachers are also teaching a works-based salvation? Because they claim not to be teaching a works-based salvation? Well… the LDS and JWs claim this as well, yet these Lordship teachers would agree that these cults teach a works-based salvation!
The only view of the four that gives a distinct answer is the Free Grace view.
We have seven more questions to go, so stay tuned.
Is it possible to be 100% certain that you have eternal life?
This is one question that had to be rephrased a bit so that I could get meaningful answers from LDS and JWs. Christians think of eternal life in terms of "going to Heaven" when they die. For Mormons and JWs, it's not quite that simple.
For Mormons, everyone is going to Heaven, sort-of. They believe there are 3 different Heavens, and that even non-Mormons go to the first, the lowest, Heaven. This, actually, is what they call "salvation" and they believe that this is a grace gift. Everyone goes there. However, there are two Heavens above the first, and the ultimate is the "Celestial Kingdom" or "3rd Heaven". they call this "exaltation." Since Heaven is ultimate salvation for us, I'm interested in their views on ultimate salvation for them, not the salvation that everyone gets. So my question to the LDS missionaries was:
Is it possible to be 100% certain that you will enter the 3rd Heaven?
The Watchtower also has a different understanding of "Heaven". They actually believe that most JWs alive today will not go to Heaven. They believe that Heaven was reserved for only 144,000… basically the first 144,000 JWs. So those seats are already taken. The rest of JWs hope to be resurrected after they die to rule and reign with Jesus Christ (whom they believe is the archangel Michael, not God) here on Earth. So ultimate salvation for them is this resurrection. The alternative is simply annihilation… you cease to exist. So for the JWs, my question was this:
Is it possible to be 100% certain that you will be resurrected?
Now let's compare answers:
Latter-Day Saints (Mormon):
According to the LDS missionaries who visited me, it is not possible to have 100% assurance that you'll enter the Celestial Kingdom because there’s always a possibilty, however remote, that a person will fail in faith and obedience before the time that they die. Now ask yourself this question: If the person might fail in faith and obedience before they die and thus lose out of ultimate salvation, then on whom does their "exaltation" depend? Does it not depend on their own ability to persevere in their faith and obedience?
The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses):
According to Watchtower doctrine, it is not possible to have 100% assurance that you will be resurrected, and this is demonstrated clearly by this quote from the witness I spoke with via telephone and e-mail:
It is possible to be 100% certain that God will save us if we continue serving him whole souled and meet his righteous requirements.
This is an odd answer because there's quite a blatant contradiction in there. "Yes, it's possible to 100% certain if you continue serving him, etc.…"
Well okay, so I guess the question becomes "Is it possible to be 100% certain that you will continue to serve God whole-souled and meet His righteous requirements?" Clearly, the answer to this is "No" because the witness used the conditional "if". So they claim certainty, and then promptly revoke that certainty because they can't be sure whether they'll continue to do the things they're supposed to do. Once again it's important to notice on whom the person's future resurrection depends: Does it depend on themselves, or does it depend on God?
Lordship Salvation:
According to popular Lordship teachers, it is not possible to have 100% assurance of salvation.
No Christian can be sure that he’s a true believer. -John Piper
There’s no valid assurance of election and final salvation for any man apart from deliberate perseverance in faith. -Robert Shank
The question is, why don't these Lordship teachers believe they can have 100% assurance of salvation? Unless you believed that your salvation depends upon your own performance, (as the LDS and JWs do) what reason would there be to doubt it? If a person had the understanding that their salvation depends upon God and not on themselves, what reason would this person have to doubt their salvation? Is God not trustworthy? Is He not faithful? Can He fail to keep His promises?
This lack of assurance seems to point toward a reliance on self for salvation, which is totally consistent with a salvation that is based on works and not God's grace.
Free Grace:
If you ask the same question to a proponent of Free Grace, you will get an answer which is 180 degrees out-of-phase with the other three views. The Free Grace answer is that it most certainly is possible to have 100% assurance of salvation. This assurance comes from the promises of God and the work performed (and completed) by Christ on the cross. The Free Grace view relies totally and completely on God, who is absolutely faithful and will keep His promises. There is simply no reason whatsoever to doubt my salvation because my salvation depends upon Christ, and not upon me.
For the first question, we see that the Lordship answer is indistinguishable from the answers given by LDS and JWs, two 'cults' that teach that salvation is a product of works. Why, then, should I not conclude that the Lordship teachers are also teaching a works-based salvation? Because they claim not to be teaching a works-based salvation? Well… the LDS and JWs claim this as well, yet these Lordship teachers would agree that these cults teach a works-based salvation!
The only view of the four that gives a distinct answer is the Free Grace view.
We have seven more questions to go, so stay tuned.
8 Questions to Reveal a Works-Based Salvation
In the past several years I've been confronted with ideas about salvation within Christianity which are troubling to me and which I think represent misunderstanding on a large scale of this important issue. Earlier posts have dealt with this to some extent, but recently I had an idea about how to demonstrate that one very popular view of salvation taught by such well-respected, dare I say "famous" teachers as John MacArthur, John Piper and R.C. Sproul, a view that is generally referred to as "Lordship Salvation" is essentially indistinguishable from a works-based salvation.
How might I demonstrate such a thing? Well, rather easily I'm afraid. What I've done is selected 8 questions pertaining to salvation and compared the answers to these 8 questions between 4 groups: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (Mormon or LDS), The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses), Lordship Salvation proponents and proponents of "Free Grace," which is the view that I hold.
To get answers to the questions, I invited 3 LDS missionaries into my home studio and conducted a sort of interview, asking these questions. I also spoke with someone at a local Kingdom Hall via telephone and also via e-mail to get the answers from the JW perspective.
For the Lordship answers, however, I had compiled quotes from the writings of John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul and a few others… quotes which clearly addressed these particular issues. In a few cases, we'll see that these teachers seem not to be consistent in their answers, which creates a certain amount of confusion. I'll point out these conflicts as we go along.
The basic premise of this exercise is that knowledgeable Christians generally understand at least two major problems with the doctrine of LDS and The Watchtower: First, both groups deny the deity of Christ. We're going to set that particular issue aside, however… not because it's not important, but because it's really not in dispute at all. Even LDS and JWs agree that they deny Christ's deity. And Lordship teachers are all quite willing and able to defend the deity of Christ. So, no dispute there.
But the second major problem with LDS and Watchtower doctrine is that their concept of ultimate salvation is based on works and not on grace. And among Christians, at least, this does not seem to be controversial. What's interesting, however, is that Mormons and JWs both will steadfastly deny that they are basing salvation on their works. They will claim a salvation "by grace."
Given that Christians generally agree that the Watchtower and LDS teach a works-based salvation, it seems to me that we ought to use our knowledge of the LDS and Watchtower views as a yardstick by which to measure other ideas we hear taught in Christian churches. We are told over and over again to be discerning; to double-check what we're taught; to make sure that what we're taught is correct doctrine. These questions ought to serve as a sort of a test to determine whether any given teacher is really committed to a salvation by grace, or is merely giving lip service to the concept of a by-grace salvation.
The first step here is to divulge the questions. It should be noted, however, that Mormons and JWs have different understandings of what salvation itself entails. This means that I had to rephrase certain questions to use their jargon the way they understand it, otherwise I wouldn't be comparing apples with apples. So here are the questions, and the following 8 posts will deal with each question individually and compare the answers I received.
Question #1: Is it possible to be 100% certain that you have eternal life?
Question #2: To the extent that a person has assurance of salvation, where is that assurance found?
Question #3: Does salvation require ongoing commitment and perseverance in obedience?
Question #4: What does James say about the relationship between faith and works?
Question #5: Does faith in Christ have to be continual, or is belief at a point in time sufficient?
Question #6: What is faith?
Question #7:Is salvation a reward or a gift?
Question #8: How do you become saved?
How might I demonstrate such a thing? Well, rather easily I'm afraid. What I've done is selected 8 questions pertaining to salvation and compared the answers to these 8 questions between 4 groups: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (Mormon or LDS), The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses), Lordship Salvation proponents and proponents of "Free Grace," which is the view that I hold.
To get answers to the questions, I invited 3 LDS missionaries into my home studio and conducted a sort of interview, asking these questions. I also spoke with someone at a local Kingdom Hall via telephone and also via e-mail to get the answers from the JW perspective.
For the Lordship answers, however, I had compiled quotes from the writings of John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul and a few others… quotes which clearly addressed these particular issues. In a few cases, we'll see that these teachers seem not to be consistent in their answers, which creates a certain amount of confusion. I'll point out these conflicts as we go along.
The basic premise of this exercise is that knowledgeable Christians generally understand at least two major problems with the doctrine of LDS and The Watchtower: First, both groups deny the deity of Christ. We're going to set that particular issue aside, however… not because it's not important, but because it's really not in dispute at all. Even LDS and JWs agree that they deny Christ's deity. And Lordship teachers are all quite willing and able to defend the deity of Christ. So, no dispute there.
But the second major problem with LDS and Watchtower doctrine is that their concept of ultimate salvation is based on works and not on grace. And among Christians, at least, this does not seem to be controversial. What's interesting, however, is that Mormons and JWs both will steadfastly deny that they are basing salvation on their works. They will claim a salvation "by grace."
Given that Christians generally agree that the Watchtower and LDS teach a works-based salvation, it seems to me that we ought to use our knowledge of the LDS and Watchtower views as a yardstick by which to measure other ideas we hear taught in Christian churches. We are told over and over again to be discerning; to double-check what we're taught; to make sure that what we're taught is correct doctrine. These questions ought to serve as a sort of a test to determine whether any given teacher is really committed to a salvation by grace, or is merely giving lip service to the concept of a by-grace salvation.
The first step here is to divulge the questions. It should be noted, however, that Mormons and JWs have different understandings of what salvation itself entails. This means that I had to rephrase certain questions to use their jargon the way they understand it, otherwise I wouldn't be comparing apples with apples. So here are the questions, and the following 8 posts will deal with each question individually and compare the answers I received.
Question #1: Is it possible to be 100% certain that you have eternal life?
Question #2: To the extent that a person has assurance of salvation, where is that assurance found?
Question #3: Does salvation require ongoing commitment and perseverance in obedience?
Question #4: What does James say about the relationship between faith and works?
Question #5: Does faith in Christ have to be continual, or is belief at a point in time sufficient?
Question #6: What is faith?
Question #7:Is salvation a reward or a gift?
Question #8: How do you become saved?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Eternal Security vs. Perseverance of the Saints
There was an interesting and very instructive exchange on Greg Koukl's "Stand To Reason" radio program (Sunday, October 18) regarding the doctrines of "Perseverance of the Saints" and "Eternal Security." I think Koukl really reveals some important things about Reform or Calvinist doctrine here, and I also think he demonstrates that he's unwilling to deal honestly with the opposition to "Perseverance of the Saints."
I should point out that having been a regular listener to his show for a couple of years now, I can say that Koukl does a fantastic job of pointing out "The World's" use of 'straw man' arguments presented against Christianity or other controversies related to Christian apologetics in general. But what you'll see from the excerpts is that Koukl himself employs two 'straw man' arguments as he defends the Reform doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints."
Koukl took a phone call from a listener who wanted to know what the difference is between eternal security and "Perseverance of the Saints" and he (Koukl) says this:
Okay, so Koukl asserts that, at least in many cases, "Once saved, always saved" means that you believe praying the sinner's prayer saves you and that then you can go and do whatever you want. I'll acknowledge that some Christians believe this. But that's not my view nor is it the view of any of probably 20 pastors that I've listened to who teach Eternal Security.
That being the case, Koukl has erected a straw man here. Or, at the very least, he has only chosen to refute a subset of people who clearly do not have a Biblical understanding of Eternal Security or even salvation, for that matter. He's completely ignored the other group whose view is solidly Biblical and would be much more difficult for him to refute.
But that's just one straw man. Koukl puts up another one even in the same breath. That is, he's assuming that folks (like me) who reject the Perseverance of the Saints doctrine but believe in Eternal Security also believe that it's okay to continue living like a reprobate after you're saved. This is not an accurate characterization of my view, either. I don't think it's "okay". I don't understand the Bible to teach that there's no good reason for me to grow spiritually and avoid getting ensnared by "the World" after I'm saved. I believe I should "work" as a Christian, which entails learning Bible Doctrine and various kinds of service and living as uprightly as I can. It's just that I know this doesn't impact my eternal salvation, that's all. Why should it impact my salvation, if in fact salvation is by grace and not works?
Regarding the "Perseverance" thing, this is really very odd. I mean… I feel awkward saying this 'cuz, look, an Associate of Applied Arts degree is the extent of my formal education and yet even I can understand that perseverance is not in any way related to preservation. Just because the two words use a similar combination of letters doesn't mean that they go together or are synonymous. Why Koukl, who, let's face it, is far more educated than I will ever be, doesn't understand this is beyond me.
Preserve and persevere are two entirely different concepts, and this relates directly to the grace vs. works issue. Perseverance is thought of as something that people do. The saints, to be more specific. Those who have been saved.
The doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints" comes out of Matthew 24:13 in which Jesus says:
It's rather easy to see, however, that Matthew 24:13 has nothing to do with eternal salvation. It's important to remember that "saved" doesn't always refer to eternal salvation. There are many examples in the Bible where the word "saved" is used to describe being delivered from a particular kind of danger or circumstance… it isn't always used to refer to salvation from Hell. But those who subscribe to "Perseverance of the Saints" believe that this passage pertains to eternal salvation. They ignore the context of Matthew 24.
In Matthew 24, Jesus is describing events of The Great Tribulation. In verse 13, He's saying that anyone who lives through the Tribulation will be delivered from it, into the Millenial Kingdom which follows. It has nothing to do with salvation from Hell.
At any rate, preservation is something that God does for us, It's not something that we do for ourselves. God preserves. You might say God "perseveres" in preserving us. But if we are the ones who must "persevere" until the end, then guess what? Our salvation becomes dependent on our own performance, on our perseverance, and not on Christ's work. This is salvation by works.
Koukl also says that the elect "persevere through all things." Oh really? Who does this, literally? Koukl admits that he sins. I admit that I sin. How can we say we "persevere" when we admit that we sin frequently, if not almost constantly?
What I think is interesting about this doctrine is this: The Reform guys believe that sin in your life might mean that you're not really saved. And yet, they will admit that they sin. From this we can infer that there is a threshold of some sort. If you sin past a certain point, then you should question your salvation. But since no threshold is defined in the Bible, determining when a person has sinned enough that their salvation is in question becomes very subjective. Well… seems to me, and I'm sorry to have to say this, but it seems to me like these men are taking advantage of this subjectivity and placing this threshold conveniently outside their own personal envelope of sin. That way they're safe.
See, it all comes back to human viewpoint versus divine viewpoint, doesn't it? With respect to salvation, God doesn't see degrees of sin at all… a tiny sin (from our perspective) is just as significant in God's eyes as the most egregious sin. This is why no threshold is defined… to the extent that there is a threshold, we're already way past it. The Reform guys seem to want to define a threshold based on what sins they think they can resist and then say that everyone who surpasses that threshold (sins more than they do) is not saved. I think this is extraordinarily bad.
I don't think there is any issue more important than getting soteriology exactly right. If a person trusts in Christ (and that entails the belief that Christ is who He said He was, etc) then that person is given, at that point in time, eternal life and eternal life, by definition, lasts forever. It can never be lost. The "sinner's prayer" has nothing do with anything, except that most versions of the sinner's prayer I've ever been exposed to, in fact, do seem to contain the nuggets of truth one must accept. But no matter… praying the "sinner's prayer" doesn't save anyone. Trust in Christ results in eternal salvation whether it's accompanied by the "Sinner's Prayer" or not. And it's true… for the sake of eternal salvation, it doesn't matter what you do downstream of that. If it did, then salvation wouldn't be by grace. God preserves me. I do nothing.
I should point out that having been a regular listener to his show for a couple of years now, I can say that Koukl does a fantastic job of pointing out "The World's" use of 'straw man' arguments presented against Christianity or other controversies related to Christian apologetics in general. But what you'll see from the excerpts is that Koukl himself employs two 'straw man' arguments as he defends the Reform doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints."
Koukl took a phone call from a listener who wanted to know what the difference is between eternal security and "Perseverance of the Saints" and he (Koukl) says this:
"The idea that you cannot lose your salvation can be expressed in two different ways, and they are a little bit different. One is eternal security, and that means "Once saved, always saved" and the other one is called "Perseverance of the Saints" which I think is a more precise and carefully characterized view…
[some cross-talk with caller here]
Here's the way I'd put it: When people say "Once saved, always saved" what often they mean is, "If you pray the sinner's prayer, you're 'in' no matter how you live or what happens after that. But when Reform folks talk about "Perseverance of the Saints" they're not talking about a sort of shallow understanding of praying the sinner's prayer and you get your fire insurance. They're saying, "Lookit, if you're genuinely regenerate, it is only because God reached out and rescued you by His sovereign grace, and His sovereign grace that rescued you will preserve you and preservation means that you persevere." So those who are genuinely called of God and the elect are those who persevere through all things, not just those who say a prayer and get their fire insurance and then are off doing other things."
Okay, so Koukl asserts that, at least in many cases, "Once saved, always saved" means that you believe praying the sinner's prayer saves you and that then you can go and do whatever you want. I'll acknowledge that some Christians believe this. But that's not my view nor is it the view of any of probably 20 pastors that I've listened to who teach Eternal Security.
That being the case, Koukl has erected a straw man here. Or, at the very least, he has only chosen to refute a subset of people who clearly do not have a Biblical understanding of Eternal Security or even salvation, for that matter. He's completely ignored the other group whose view is solidly Biblical and would be much more difficult for him to refute.
But that's just one straw man. Koukl puts up another one even in the same breath. That is, he's assuming that folks (like me) who reject the Perseverance of the Saints doctrine but believe in Eternal Security also believe that it's okay to continue living like a reprobate after you're saved. This is not an accurate characterization of my view, either. I don't think it's "okay". I don't understand the Bible to teach that there's no good reason for me to grow spiritually and avoid getting ensnared by "the World" after I'm saved. I believe I should "work" as a Christian, which entails learning Bible Doctrine and various kinds of service and living as uprightly as I can. It's just that I know this doesn't impact my eternal salvation, that's all. Why should it impact my salvation, if in fact salvation is by grace and not works?
Regarding the "Perseverance" thing, this is really very odd. I mean… I feel awkward saying this 'cuz, look, an Associate of Applied Arts degree is the extent of my formal education and yet even I can understand that perseverance is not in any way related to preservation. Just because the two words use a similar combination of letters doesn't mean that they go together or are synonymous. Why Koukl, who, let's face it, is far more educated than I will ever be, doesn't understand this is beyond me.
Preserve and persevere are two entirely different concepts, and this relates directly to the grace vs. works issue. Perseverance is thought of as something that people do. The saints, to be more specific. Those who have been saved.
The doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints" comes out of Matthew 24:13 in which Jesus says:
But the one who endures [perseveres] to the end, he will be saved.
It's rather easy to see, however, that Matthew 24:13 has nothing to do with eternal salvation. It's important to remember that "saved" doesn't always refer to eternal salvation. There are many examples in the Bible where the word "saved" is used to describe being delivered from a particular kind of danger or circumstance… it isn't always used to refer to salvation from Hell. But those who subscribe to "Perseverance of the Saints" believe that this passage pertains to eternal salvation. They ignore the context of Matthew 24.
In Matthew 24, Jesus is describing events of The Great Tribulation. In verse 13, He's saying that anyone who lives through the Tribulation will be delivered from it, into the Millenial Kingdom which follows. It has nothing to do with salvation from Hell.
At any rate, preservation is something that God does for us, It's not something that we do for ourselves. God preserves. You might say God "perseveres" in preserving us. But if we are the ones who must "persevere" until the end, then guess what? Our salvation becomes dependent on our own performance, on our perseverance, and not on Christ's work. This is salvation by works.
Koukl also says that the elect "persevere through all things." Oh really? Who does this, literally? Koukl admits that he sins. I admit that I sin. How can we say we "persevere" when we admit that we sin frequently, if not almost constantly?
What I think is interesting about this doctrine is this: The Reform guys believe that sin in your life might mean that you're not really saved. And yet, they will admit that they sin. From this we can infer that there is a threshold of some sort. If you sin past a certain point, then you should question your salvation. But since no threshold is defined in the Bible, determining when a person has sinned enough that their salvation is in question becomes very subjective. Well… seems to me, and I'm sorry to have to say this, but it seems to me like these men are taking advantage of this subjectivity and placing this threshold conveniently outside their own personal envelope of sin. That way they're safe.
See, it all comes back to human viewpoint versus divine viewpoint, doesn't it? With respect to salvation, God doesn't see degrees of sin at all… a tiny sin (from our perspective) is just as significant in God's eyes as the most egregious sin. This is why no threshold is defined… to the extent that there is a threshold, we're already way past it. The Reform guys seem to want to define a threshold based on what sins they think they can resist and then say that everyone who surpasses that threshold (sins more than they do) is not saved. I think this is extraordinarily bad.
I don't think there is any issue more important than getting soteriology exactly right. If a person trusts in Christ (and that entails the belief that Christ is who He said He was, etc) then that person is given, at that point in time, eternal life and eternal life, by definition, lasts forever. It can never be lost. The "sinner's prayer" has nothing do with anything, except that most versions of the sinner's prayer I've ever been exposed to, in fact, do seem to contain the nuggets of truth one must accept. But no matter… praying the "sinner's prayer" doesn't save anyone. Trust in Christ results in eternal salvation whether it's accompanied by the "Sinner's Prayer" or not. And it's true… for the sake of eternal salvation, it doesn't matter what you do downstream of that. If it did, then salvation wouldn't be by grace. God preserves me. I do nothing.
Monday, October 12, 2009
What's The Difference?
Aprille has her alarm clock set to a Christian radio station, KNLR, for 6:15 and she heard something this morning directly relevant to a discussion her and I had very recently.
The discussion was recalling an apologetics series by David T. Moore that we had heard many years ago. In the series, Moore said that there are minor, "stylistic" differences between Christians churches and that this was okay, 'cuz there ought to be different kinds of churches for different kinds of people. This has bothered me for some time because, well, unless it's very carefully qualified, the statement seems to leave a lot of room for post-modernism. It all depends on just exactly what Moore meant by "stylistic" differences. If Moore was referring to the decor of the church, then obviously that is entirely a matter of personal taste and no one ought to leave their church over interior design. I'm not exactly sure what Moore had in mind, specifically… that's part of problem: He didn't give an example.
Suffice it to say that there are differences between churches. Some differences can be categorized as superficial and merely "stylistic" while other differences concern doctrinal issues. And even among doctrinal issues there are issues that have much more gravity and issues that carry much less importance. And it's obvious that no single church is likely to have the right position on every doctrinal question and this means that every one of us will have to make compromises when looking for a church. But that said, some doctrinal issues are extremely important and compromise may not be advisable. While he may not have intended it, Moore's expression could be seen as a capitulation of sorts.
Now I'm not sure who the pastor on the radio was this morning, as I was already downstairs when the alarm went off. But Aprille listened to what he was teaching as she mustered up the will to actually get out of bed. He, he. According to Aprille, the pastor said that he applauded all the different denominations within Christianity and he related the different denominations to the different body parts of Christ as described in the Bible. Apparently he said that all of the denominations really teach the same thing. She knew that this would pique my interest.
A very popular notion outside of Christianity is that all world religions, at their core, teach essentially the same thing… be a good person, treat others the way you want to be treated, etc. Of course, on closer examination, other world religions teach things that are vastly different than what is taught in the Bible. The Bible, for example, teaches that God is distinct from His creation, while New Age religions teach that God IS the creation. Christianity teaches that evil had a beginning and will have an ending, while other world religions (particularly eastern religions) teach that evil and good coexist eternally and that evil will never be done away with. Christianity teaches that Jesus is God and that He is the Messiah, while other religions teach that He is merely a prophet or perhaps an unusually wise teacher. These are not minor details, minor differences. So the claim that all world religions teach basically the same things is shown to be false.
Unfortunately, the pastor that Aprille heard was expressing exactly the same view, but within the more narrow scope of Christianity and the various denominations. He was basically saying that it doesn't matter which denomination you belong to, they all teach basically the same thing. They just appeal differently to different people, and the differences are no greater, no deeper than that. This is post-modernism right in our own back yard, I'm afraid.
Just as careful examination of world religions reveals that world religions teach fundamentally different principles, careful examination of different denominations within Christianity reveal that different denominations teach very different things. The different denominations make contradictory truth claims. And since two contradictory truth claims can't both be true (law of non-contradiction) either one claim is true and the other false, or they're both false. Different denominations, and in fact different churches, teach different things about the reliability and historicity of the Bible, for example. They teach different things about what one must do in order to be saved (and what's more important than that?) They teach different things about whether or not a person can lose their salvation. It's easy to see that this pastor's assertion is every bit as false as the claim about world religions.
In fact, some denominations--or at least some churches--teach that different denominations do not teach the same thing!! (in fact, that's exactly what I'm saying) This fact alone renders the pastor's claim to be catastrophically false.
It's unfortunate, but true: Humans screw things up to varying degrees. We have a tremendously difficult time keeping our own little power-plays out of the game. We slip into ruts in our thinking and pride makes it incredibly difficult to break out of the rut. And yet, it's clear that ruts are not always bad. There are certain 'ruts' that you want to be in. Jesus and His apostles taught that with respect to how one is saved, we should be in a rut. Jesus described such a 'rut' in Matthew 7:13 when He said:
There are many questions that have right answers, and wrong answers… questions pertaining to salvation are certainly the most important, but that's not to say that others aren't important as well. Unfortunately, we're going to encounter bad teaching at some point… it might be about a critical issue, or it might be about something relatively trivial. Knowing where to draw that line can seem a bit tricky at times, but we must draw that line. Pretending that everyone within Christianity is right even though they hold contradictory views is simply not an option. It destroys the notion of truth and opens the door to post-modern thought within the Church. Either it's true that a person can lose their salvation or it's false. Either it's true that baptism is required for salvation, or it's false. Either it's true that you must confess your sins to a priest privately for absolution of your sins, or it's false. Whatever the question, the denomination or church who teaches opposite of the truth is, I'm sorry to say, wrong. And we ought to be able to say so.
Now the question is, how can we know? Simple. By reading and studying the Bible carefully. We are supposed to check this stuff out ourselves and verify that what we're being taught is actually consistent with the Bible. We're to be on the lookout constantly for false teaching (which means we must be able to recognize it when we encounter it) and either do whatever we can to correct that teaching or flee from it.
Imagine if you attended, say, a class on how to design a web site and the instructor tells you that html tags are enclosed with brackets ([]). Is that wrong, or is it just the instructor's opinion? What if the guy down the hall is teaching that html tags are enclosed with greater-than/less-than symbols (<>)? One of the instructors here is teaching something that is false. Are you going to get the same results regardless of which instructor you believe? Absolutely not.
Why do we have so much trouble reaching these same sorts of conclusions about questions of Christian doctrine? Why do we feel the need to say that all answers are equal? We wouldn't do that in any other context, would we? Why is that? Why do we have the idea that spiritual truth is malleable and that the law of non-contradiction somehow doesn't apply in that realm? Why would we think that?
These are very tough questions.
The discussion was recalling an apologetics series by David T. Moore that we had heard many years ago. In the series, Moore said that there are minor, "stylistic" differences between Christians churches and that this was okay, 'cuz there ought to be different kinds of churches for different kinds of people. This has bothered me for some time because, well, unless it's very carefully qualified, the statement seems to leave a lot of room for post-modernism. It all depends on just exactly what Moore meant by "stylistic" differences. If Moore was referring to the decor of the church, then obviously that is entirely a matter of personal taste and no one ought to leave their church over interior design. I'm not exactly sure what Moore had in mind, specifically… that's part of problem: He didn't give an example.
Suffice it to say that there are differences between churches. Some differences can be categorized as superficial and merely "stylistic" while other differences concern doctrinal issues. And even among doctrinal issues there are issues that have much more gravity and issues that carry much less importance. And it's obvious that no single church is likely to have the right position on every doctrinal question and this means that every one of us will have to make compromises when looking for a church. But that said, some doctrinal issues are extremely important and compromise may not be advisable. While he may not have intended it, Moore's expression could be seen as a capitulation of sorts.
Now I'm not sure who the pastor on the radio was this morning, as I was already downstairs when the alarm went off. But Aprille listened to what he was teaching as she mustered up the will to actually get out of bed. He, he. According to Aprille, the pastor said that he applauded all the different denominations within Christianity and he related the different denominations to the different body parts of Christ as described in the Bible. Apparently he said that all of the denominations really teach the same thing. She knew that this would pique my interest.
A very popular notion outside of Christianity is that all world religions, at their core, teach essentially the same thing… be a good person, treat others the way you want to be treated, etc. Of course, on closer examination, other world religions teach things that are vastly different than what is taught in the Bible. The Bible, for example, teaches that God is distinct from His creation, while New Age religions teach that God IS the creation. Christianity teaches that evil had a beginning and will have an ending, while other world religions (particularly eastern religions) teach that evil and good coexist eternally and that evil will never be done away with. Christianity teaches that Jesus is God and that He is the Messiah, while other religions teach that He is merely a prophet or perhaps an unusually wise teacher. These are not minor details, minor differences. So the claim that all world religions teach basically the same things is shown to be false.
Unfortunately, the pastor that Aprille heard was expressing exactly the same view, but within the more narrow scope of Christianity and the various denominations. He was basically saying that it doesn't matter which denomination you belong to, they all teach basically the same thing. They just appeal differently to different people, and the differences are no greater, no deeper than that. This is post-modernism right in our own back yard, I'm afraid.
Just as careful examination of world religions reveals that world religions teach fundamentally different principles, careful examination of different denominations within Christianity reveal that different denominations teach very different things. The different denominations make contradictory truth claims. And since two contradictory truth claims can't both be true (law of non-contradiction) either one claim is true and the other false, or they're both false. Different denominations, and in fact different churches, teach different things about the reliability and historicity of the Bible, for example. They teach different things about what one must do in order to be saved (and what's more important than that?) They teach different things about whether or not a person can lose their salvation. It's easy to see that this pastor's assertion is every bit as false as the claim about world religions.
In fact, some denominations--or at least some churches--teach that different denominations do not teach the same thing!! (in fact, that's exactly what I'm saying) This fact alone renders the pastor's claim to be catastrophically false.
It's unfortunate, but true: Humans screw things up to varying degrees. We have a tremendously difficult time keeping our own little power-plays out of the game. We slip into ruts in our thinking and pride makes it incredibly difficult to break out of the rut. And yet, it's clear that ruts are not always bad. There are certain 'ruts' that you want to be in. Jesus and His apostles taught that with respect to how one is saved, we should be in a rut. Jesus described such a 'rut' in Matthew 7:13 when He said:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
There are many questions that have right answers, and wrong answers… questions pertaining to salvation are certainly the most important, but that's not to say that others aren't important as well. Unfortunately, we're going to encounter bad teaching at some point… it might be about a critical issue, or it might be about something relatively trivial. Knowing where to draw that line can seem a bit tricky at times, but we must draw that line. Pretending that everyone within Christianity is right even though they hold contradictory views is simply not an option. It destroys the notion of truth and opens the door to post-modern thought within the Church. Either it's true that a person can lose their salvation or it's false. Either it's true that baptism is required for salvation, or it's false. Either it's true that you must confess your sins to a priest privately for absolution of your sins, or it's false. Whatever the question, the denomination or church who teaches opposite of the truth is, I'm sorry to say, wrong. And we ought to be able to say so.
Now the question is, how can we know? Simple. By reading and studying the Bible carefully. We are supposed to check this stuff out ourselves and verify that what we're being taught is actually consistent with the Bible. We're to be on the lookout constantly for false teaching (which means we must be able to recognize it when we encounter it) and either do whatever we can to correct that teaching or flee from it.
Imagine if you attended, say, a class on how to design a web site and the instructor tells you that html tags are enclosed with brackets ([]). Is that wrong, or is it just the instructor's opinion? What if the guy down the hall is teaching that html tags are enclosed with greater-than/less-than symbols (<>)? One of the instructors here is teaching something that is false. Are you going to get the same results regardless of which instructor you believe? Absolutely not.
Why do we have so much trouble reaching these same sorts of conclusions about questions of Christian doctrine? Why do we feel the need to say that all answers are equal? We wouldn't do that in any other context, would we? Why is that? Why do we have the idea that spiritual truth is malleable and that the law of non-contradiction somehow doesn't apply in that realm? Why would we think that?
These are very tough questions.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Chris Matthews on Hardball
What follows is a portion of a transcript from Chris Matthews' "Hardball" program in which Matthews interviews representative Jim Moran (D-VA) and representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). I'll add my own comments as pull quotes. This conversation is very instructive and illustrates something about the left's tactics and their preparedness. These people do no have truth on their side and they reveal this when they refuse to respond to Rohrabacher's reasons for being skeptical of global warming and instead resort to character assassination.
I've edited out some brief exchanges which aren't relevant and/or don't contribute anything meaningful.
REP. MORAN: Because I'm reading what the experts are telling us, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all of the most credible scientists other than those that are being paid by the industry to support the industry. And now the industries are siding with the scientists. They understand this debate has taken place for decades, and they've lost it.
The fact is, it is real. The globe is warming. There are hundreds of millions of people that live within a few feet of the oceans' borders, and their lives are in danger. In fact, the world economy --
REP. ROHRABACHER: And this is caused by mankind? This is caused by humans?
REP. MORAN: Yes.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Well, if it's caused by mankind, why do we have those same temperature fluctuations going on on Mars and Jupiter? Isn't it more likely that the sun is causing this rather than the automobiles?
REP. MORAN: Dana, you know, it doesn't get us anywhere --
REP. ROHRABACHER: Come on. Answer the argument.
REP. MORAN: -- to argue this point. I'm going to rely upon the experts.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Answer the argument, the scientific argument, that we have fluctuations going on on Mars and Jupiter that parallel what's going on here.
REP. MORAN: Dana --
REP. ROHRABACHER: And if that's the case --
REP. MORAN: -- read the scientists --
REP. ROHRABACHER: That's science. No, that is science.
REP. ROHRABACHER: By the way, let me just point out that Dr. Richard Lindzen, the top scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, along with hundreds of other scientists throughout the world, totally disagree with what you're trying to say, Chris. And I would suggest to the audience to take a look at global warming skeptics and Google that and see these top-level scientists --
MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I know they exist. They're in the papers all the time.
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- from around the world --
MR. MATTHEWS: The ads run in every paper.
REP. MORAN: Dana, these are the last gasps of a dying party. You know, to continue to fight this in the same way you fought the link between cancer and smoking --
REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, well, there you go again.
REP. MORAN: -- this is where we are today.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Don't answer the argument.
REP. MORAN: You've got to look to the --
REP. ROHRABACHER: Don't answer the scientific argument that it was warming through all these fluctuations.
MR. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about --
REP. ROHRABACHER: What we have here is a normal fluctuation of weather patterns over the world's history, and with a power grab trying to tax this money from the American people with that as an excuse.
REP. MORAN: We're trying to save the planet.
REP. ROHRABACHER: There's your climate change disaster.
REP. MORAN: And we're creating millions of green jobs in the process --
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Rohrabacher --
REP. MORAN: -- of saving the planet.
MR. MATTHEWS: I wonder if Mr. Moran has a point. I want to know if you'd respond to it this way.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS: Is there a cultural divide between the two parties that goes beyond this issue, where one party is more traditional in its values? It relies more on faith than on science. For example, we've had people on this program -- I'm sure they're all over the country -- who don't believe in evolution. They don't believe in biology the way it's taught. They don't accept the way that we --
REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, Chris --
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, are you one of those?
REP. ROHRABACHER: Chris, that's a good way to shut down the argument -- case closed.
MR. MATTHEWS: No, I'm asking the question. If it's not true, the answer is no.
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, you're not. What you're doing is trying to throw other things in there to poison the well of an argument.
MR. MATTHEWS: How is this another thing?
REP. ROHRABACHER: How about tackling the argument, Chris, that solar activity has caused these fluctuations in the past? How about saying -- how about answering the argument that those people who --
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, the reason I do that is to get back to scientific method.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Let me finish my one point.
MR. MATTHEWS: Do you accept the method?
REP. ROHRABACHER: Let me finish my one point. They started the global warming -- their baseline started at a 500-year low in temperature. Is that the way you decide what's warming? How about the fact that we've had warming trends and cooling trends --
MR. MATTHEWS: Right.
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- that lasted -- like, for example, during the '40s, '50s and '60s, there was a cooling trend even though CO2 was on the rise. How about answering all those solid scientific questions --
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I just want to know whether --
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- rather than trying to poison the well with that type of nonsense?
MR. MATTHEWS: I'm not. I'm asking, do we accept science? Do you accept science? Do you accept evolution, for example?
REP. ROHRABACHER: I just gave you scientific --
MR. MATTHEWS: You won't answer the question, will you?
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, no, no. I just gave you scientific challenges on this issue, and you throw that kind of garbage back at me.
MR. MATTHEWS: It's not garbage if you --
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, no --
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, is evolution garbage?
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, wait. How come you are trying to argue creationism when you're supposed to be talking about global warming? The bottom line --
MR. MATTHEWS: Because it gets to method.
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, no, because you're trying to poison the well.
MR. MATTHEWS: How do you logically achieve truth? Do you go through a scientific method or do you go through something called this general skepticism toward science --
I've edited out some brief exchanges which aren't relevant and/or don't contribute anything meaningful.
REP. MORAN: Because I'm reading what the experts are telling us, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all of the most credible scientists other than those that are being paid by the industry to support the industry. And now the industries are siding with the scientists. They understand this debate has taken place for decades, and they've lost it.
Moran protects himself by, right out front, characterizing anyone who disagrees with his position as having been corrupted by the industry.
The fact is, it is real. The globe is warming. There are hundreds of millions of people that live within a few feet of the oceans' borders, and their lives are in danger. In fact, the world economy --
REP. ROHRABACHER: And this is caused by mankind? This is caused by humans?
REP. MORAN: Yes.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay. Well, if it's caused by mankind, why do we have those same temperature fluctuations going on on Mars and Jupiter? Isn't it more likely that the sun is causing this rather than the automobiles?
REP. MORAN: Dana, you know, it doesn't get us anywhere --
Let the evasion begin. Moran can't answer the question.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Come on. Answer the argument.
REP. MORAN: -- to argue this point. I'm going to rely upon the experts.
And Rohrabacher's not relying on experts when he says that Mars and Jupiter exhibit similar warming patterns?
REP. ROHRABACHER: Answer the argument, the scientific argument, that we have fluctuations going on on Mars and Jupiter that parallel what's going on here.
REP. MORAN: Dana --
REP. ROHRABACHER: And if that's the case --
REP. MORAN: -- read the scientists --
Moran remains unable to answer the evidence Rohrabacher offers. He's clueless. The data from Mars and Jupiter come from scientists.
REP. ROHRABACHER: That's science. No, that is science.
REP. ROHRABACHER: By the way, let me just point out that Dr. Richard Lindzen, the top scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, along with hundreds of other scientists throughout the world, totally disagree with what you're trying to say, Chris. And I would suggest to the audience to take a look at global warming skeptics and Google that and see these top-level scientists --
MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I know they exist. They're in the papers all the time.
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- from around the world --
MR. MATTHEWS: The ads run in every paper.
REP. MORAN: Dana, these are the last gasps of a dying party. You know, to continue to fight this in the same way you fought the link between cancer and smoking --
Still no substantive rebuttal from Moran. Now he's attacking Rohrabacher's party.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, well, there you go again.
REP. MORAN: -- this is where we are today.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Don't answer the argument.
REP. MORAN: You've got to look to the --
REP. ROHRABACHER: Don't answer the scientific argument that it was warming through all these fluctuations.
MR. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about --
REP. ROHRABACHER: What we have here is a normal fluctuation of weather patterns over the world's history, and with a power grab trying to tax this money from the American people with that as an excuse.
REP. MORAN: We're trying to save the planet.
REP. ROHRABACHER: There's your climate change disaster.
REP. MORAN: And we're creating millions of green jobs in the process --
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Rohrabacher --
REP. MORAN: -- of saving the planet.
MR. MATTHEWS: I wonder if Mr. Moran has a point. I want to know if you'd respond to it this way.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS: Is there a cultural divide between the two parties that goes beyond this issue, where one party is more traditional in its values? It relies more on faith than on science. For example, we've had people on this program -- I'm sure they're all over the country -- who don't believe in evolution. They don't believe in biology the way it's taught. They don't accept the way that we --
Here it comes.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Oh, Chris --
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, are you one of those?
REP. ROHRABACHER: Chris, that's a good way to shut down the argument -- case closed.
MR. MATTHEWS: No, I'm asking the question. If it's not true, the answer is no.
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, you're not. What you're doing is trying to throw other things in there to poison the well of an argument.
MR. MATTHEWS: How is this another thing?
REP. ROHRABACHER: How about tackling the argument, Chris, that solar activity has caused these fluctuations in the past? How about saying -- how about answering the argument that those people who --
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, the reason I do that is to get back to scientific method.
What does Matthews care about the scientific method? Rohrabacher's presenting scientific data and Matthews and Moran are unable to refute it. They have no answer. Now they're going to try to paint Rohrabacher as a person who disregards science when actually it's Matthews and Moran who are disregarding science.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Let me finish my one point.
MR. MATTHEWS: Do you accept the method?
REP. ROHRABACHER: Let me finish my one point. They started the global warming -- their baseline started at a 500-year low in temperature. Is that the way you decide what's warming? How about the fact that we've had warming trends and cooling trends --
MR. MATTHEWS: Right.
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- that lasted -- like, for example, during the '40s, '50s and '60s, there was a cooling trend even though CO2 was on the rise. How about answering all those solid scientific questions --
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I just want to know whether --
Again, still no answer to yet MORE scientific data. Rohrabacher's got 'em runnin' scared.
REP. ROHRABACHER: -- rather than trying to poison the well with that type of nonsense?
MR. MATTHEWS: I'm not. I'm asking, do we accept science? Do you accept science? Do you accept evolution, for example?
So if you don't accept evolution, then you don't accept science. Because, as everyone knows, evolution is an absolute fact and you had better not question it.
REP. ROHRABACHER: I just gave you scientific --
MR. MATTHEWS: You won't answer the question, will you?
No, Matthews is the one who's evading a question here. See how he's trying to turn this around on Rohrabacher and put him on the defensive? Diabolical.
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, no, no. I just gave you scientific challenges on this issue, and you throw that kind of garbage back at me.
MR. MATTHEWS: It's not garbage if you --
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, no --
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, is evolution garbage?
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, wait. How come you are trying to argue creationism when you're supposed to be talking about global warming? The bottom line --
MR. MATTHEWS: Because it gets to method.
REP. ROHRABACHER: No, no, because you're trying to poison the well.
MR. MATTHEWS: How do you logically achieve truth? Do you go through a scientific method or do you go through something called this general skepticism toward science --
Matthews is ignorant. If science can only pursue naturalistic explanations for all questions, then science isn't about discovering truth because IF it's true that there is a "supernatural" cause behind the universe, and science by definition cannot consider such explanations, then science must replace that truth with a lie.
Secondly, science is all about skepticism. Skepticism is healthy in science. It's how you discover truth if truth is what you're concerned with discovering. But Matthews isn't concerned with truth at all.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Building Bridges?
Back on July 4th, Pastor Rick Warren addressed the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Initially, I saw only a few choice soundbites from Warren's speech. Those soundbites didn't lead me to believe that Warren's time here was what I would call well-spent, but it's hard to make that judgment without hearing the whole speech. I searched for a transcript online, but eventually had to settle for watching a video of the speech, which was 25 minutes long.
In Warren's speech, I found just a few things to appreciate, but unfortunately there was a fair amount in there that made me say "HUH???" I've done my best here to think things through and avoid knee-jerk reactions, but at this point I'm really having a hard time understanding just what it was Pastor Warren hoped to accomplish with this speech.
I will start off with what is far and away the best 'bite' from the speech, which happened fairly late in the speech:
I agree completely. Big rounds of applause. This appears to be a welcome slap in the face to post-modernism. Bravo. The only trouble is, earlier in the speech he said this, and the context was religious beliefs:
He goes on to describe, quite correctly, that God created 60,000 different kinds of beetles. He cites this as testimony for the notion that God likes diversity. Well, certainly there are diverse forms of life on the planet. But Warren was speaking in the context of religious beliefs, and when it comes to religious beliefs, God most certainly does not like diversity. Jesus is the only way. That sounds like uniformity, does it not? Now, granted, it should not be forced uniformity. But when Jesus said to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations, He wanted the disciples to spread the uniformity of the gospel, not diversity. So I'm not at all sure what point Warren is trying to make here. This statement sounds for all the world like religious pluralism. I don't know how a person could get anything else from it.
I know that Warren supported Prop 8 in California. And that's a good thing. I guess I would know better how to react to this if I understood exactly what he means by "tolerance." But again, this has a very post-modern "flavor" to it, with "tolerance" being a popular buzzword for the post-modern crowd. I'm not saying that's necessarily what Warren intended, but it definitely has that flavor especially in context. And by the way, I don't believe the tensions in the world are ever going to be solved by mankind at all, with or without "tolerance."
Let's break this down into three parts. Two of these three sentences I agree with:
Absolutely right. No problem there.
Well sure. I agree with that, too. All humans are called to treat each other with dignity and respect. Now put the third sentence together with the second:
WHAT?
Well, surely Warren deserves applause for speaking the truth here in the first and third sentences. But throw the second sentence into the mix and everything goes sideways. The question you have to ask is this: "Who commands us to treat each other with dignity and respect? God of the Bible, or Allah?" You see, it turns out that the matter of who and what God is is one of the beliefs about which Christians and muslims disagree. In spite of the popular understanding, Allah and the God of the Bible are not the same entity. This is crucial, because it determines whether you're going to accept the Koran with its set of commands and principles or the Bible with its set of commands and principles. And yes, the commands and principles are very different.
So Warren says we may disagree on beliefs. But then he cites this command to treat each other with dignity and respect, a commandment with which they don't agree! Well if it's okay to believe different things, then why present the commandment to them? Do you see my quandary here? The two religions are different. Sure… we're taught to try to convert unbelievers to Christianity. But we're not taught to kill people that won't make the switch!! We are taught to treat the unbeliever with respect in spite of their unbelief.
I don't see how this is possible, given what Islam actually teaches. Working together with Christians without killing them seems to be a compromise of what should be muslim convictions. Don't get me wrong… it would be a compromise I would welcome (them compromising, not me) but I don't see how they can, as truly good muslims who follow the Koran, do what Warren asks and not compromise their convictions.
I can't know Warren's intentions here. Maybe Warren has some brilliantly conceived incremental strategy that we don't know about. That's possible, and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such a thing. But I am opposed to any strategy that gives any support at all to a post-modern, pluralist view of religion. And whether Warren intended it or not, the vast majority of his speech comes across that way.
To reinforce all of this, consider the comments of a muslim attendee named Ann Zahra, who, according to the Associate Press, said she had never heard of Warren before Saturday but agreed with much of his speech.
Before I actually heard Warren's speech, I was prepared to conclude that this woman simply may not have been listening. But now that I've heard the speech in its entirety, it's obvious she was listening. Warren's speech contained nothing to challenge this woman's beliefs. She took from it a message of religious pluralism. She came away with her false beliefs reinforced. How is that helpful? The basics are not the same, and some religions most certainly do teach cruelty, disrespect and hatred. Islam is one of 'em.
I guess I can't really blame Warren too much for the content of the speech, because I cannot imagine that ISNA did not insist on approving the content of Warren's speech ahead of time. And that's no criticism, by the way… it's their event, they have that right. ISNA should not be expected to allow Warren to say anything meaningful from a Christian viewpoint… they're going to restrict the content of Warren's speech to vague platitudes in order to 1) prevent the truth from being presented and b) to perpetuate the myth that Islam is a "peaceful" religion.
Assuming that ISNA had such oversight, I think it's fair to be critical of Warren for having accepted their terms. True, if he hadn't, he would not have presented at all. But what's the difference? Either way, these muslims will go on believing what they believe, and by giving the speech, Warren has given many more people reason to think that "God likes diversity" when it comes to religious views. This is no help at all, I'm afraid.
The lesson here is not that Rick Warren messed up. Rather, I think the lesson here is that evangelizing muslims is something that is best done on a person-to-person basis where we don't have to operate under the Islamic authority structure. It's not that I'm opposed to evangelizing a large group of muslims, that's fine. But I can't find any evangelism in Warren's speech, and I think it's obvious that ISNA would not have allowed it, anyway.
In Warren's speech, I found just a few things to appreciate, but unfortunately there was a fair amount in there that made me say "HUH???" I've done my best here to think things through and avoid knee-jerk reactions, but at this point I'm really having a hard time understanding just what it was Pastor Warren hoped to accomplish with this speech.
I will start off with what is far and away the best 'bite' from the speech, which happened fairly late in the speech:
When I talk about the civil public square, I'm not talking about a civil religion where everybody compromises their beliefs and we dumb it down so we really don't believe in anything. Differences make a difference, differences do matter. The right to believe anything does not mean everything is right.
I agree completely. Big rounds of applause. This appears to be a welcome slap in the face to post-modernism. Bravo. The only trouble is, earlier in the speech he said this, and the context was religious beliefs:
You can disagree without being disagreeable, you can walk hand-in-hand without seeing eye-to-eye, you can have unity in America without uniformity. We don't need that. I don't know if you've discovered this, but God likes variety. Have you noticed this? God likes variety, God likes diversity.
He goes on to describe, quite correctly, that God created 60,000 different kinds of beetles. He cites this as testimony for the notion that God likes diversity. Well, certainly there are diverse forms of life on the planet. But Warren was speaking in the context of religious beliefs, and when it comes to religious beliefs, God most certainly does not like diversity. Jesus is the only way. That sounds like uniformity, does it not? Now, granted, it should not be forced uniformity. But when Jesus said to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations, He wanted the disciples to spread the uniformity of the gospel, not diversity. So I'm not at all sure what point Warren is trying to make here. This statement sounds for all the world like religious pluralism. I don't know how a person could get anything else from it.
The tensions that we see around us in the world are not going to be solved by mere tolerance. Tolerance is not enough. People don't want to be tolerated, they want to be respected.
I know that Warren supported Prop 8 in California. And that's a good thing. I guess I would know better how to react to this if I understood exactly what he means by "tolerance." But again, this has a very post-modern "flavor" to it, with "tolerance" being a popular buzzword for the post-modern crowd. I'm not saying that's necessarily what Warren intended, but it definitely has that flavor especially in context. And by the way, I don't believe the tensions in the world are ever going to be solved by mankind at all, with or without "tolerance."
As the Holy scriptures tells us that since we are created in the image of God, each person has intrinsic value and dignity. We may disagree on the beliefs, we may disagree on the behavior. But we are called and commanded to treat each other with dignity and respect.
Let's break this down into three parts. Two of these three sentences I agree with:
As the Holy scriptures tells us that since we are created in the image of God, each person has intrinsic value and dignity.
Absolutely right. No problem there.
But we are called and commanded to treat each other with dignity and respect.
Well sure. I agree with that, too. All humans are called to treat each other with dignity and respect. Now put the third sentence together with the second:
We may disagree on the beliefs, we may disagree on the behavior. But we are called and commanded to treat each other with dignity and respect.
WHAT?
Well, surely Warren deserves applause for speaking the truth here in the first and third sentences. But throw the second sentence into the mix and everything goes sideways. The question you have to ask is this: "Who commands us to treat each other with dignity and respect? God of the Bible, or Allah?" You see, it turns out that the matter of who and what God is is one of the beliefs about which Christians and muslims disagree. In spite of the popular understanding, Allah and the God of the Bible are not the same entity. This is crucial, because it determines whether you're going to accept the Koran with its set of commands and principles or the Bible with its set of commands and principles. And yes, the commands and principles are very different.
So Warren says we may disagree on beliefs. But then he cites this command to treat each other with dignity and respect, a commandment with which they don't agree! Well if it's okay to believe different things, then why present the commandment to them? Do you see my quandary here? The two religions are different. Sure… we're taught to try to convert unbelievers to Christianity. But we're not taught to kill people that won't make the switch!! We are taught to treat the unbeliever with respect in spite of their unbelief.
Muslims and Christians can work together for the common good without compromising my convictions or your convictions
I don't see how this is possible, given what Islam actually teaches. Working together with Christians without killing them seems to be a compromise of what should be muslim convictions. Don't get me wrong… it would be a compromise I would welcome (them compromising, not me) but I don't see how they can, as truly good muslims who follow the Koran, do what Warren asks and not compromise their convictions.
I can't know Warren's intentions here. Maybe Warren has some brilliantly conceived incremental strategy that we don't know about. That's possible, and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such a thing. But I am opposed to any strategy that gives any support at all to a post-modern, pluralist view of religion. And whether Warren intended it or not, the vast majority of his speech comes across that way.
To reinforce all of this, consider the comments of a muslim attendee named Ann Zahra, who, according to the Associate Press, said she had never heard of Warren before Saturday but agreed with much of his speech.
"The basics are the same. No religion teaches cruelty or disrespect or hatred."
Before I actually heard Warren's speech, I was prepared to conclude that this woman simply may not have been listening. But now that I've heard the speech in its entirety, it's obvious she was listening. Warren's speech contained nothing to challenge this woman's beliefs. She took from it a message of religious pluralism. She came away with her false beliefs reinforced. How is that helpful? The basics are not the same, and some religions most certainly do teach cruelty, disrespect and hatred. Islam is one of 'em.
I guess I can't really blame Warren too much for the content of the speech, because I cannot imagine that ISNA did not insist on approving the content of Warren's speech ahead of time. And that's no criticism, by the way… it's their event, they have that right. ISNA should not be expected to allow Warren to say anything meaningful from a Christian viewpoint… they're going to restrict the content of Warren's speech to vague platitudes in order to 1) prevent the truth from being presented and b) to perpetuate the myth that Islam is a "peaceful" religion.
Assuming that ISNA had such oversight, I think it's fair to be critical of Warren for having accepted their terms. True, if he hadn't, he would not have presented at all. But what's the difference? Either way, these muslims will go on believing what they believe, and by giving the speech, Warren has given many more people reason to think that "God likes diversity" when it comes to religious views. This is no help at all, I'm afraid.
The lesson here is not that Rick Warren messed up. Rather, I think the lesson here is that evangelizing muslims is something that is best done on a person-to-person basis where we don't have to operate under the Islamic authority structure. It's not that I'm opposed to evangelizing a large group of muslims, that's fine. But I can't find any evangelism in Warren's speech, and I think it's obvious that ISNA would not have allowed it, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)