All Christians have a credo. That is, all Christians believe something. Some think theology is bad, without realizing that that position is a theological statement. Others say, “The Bible is my creed†without grasping that the Bible needs to be interpreted; after all, not all interpretations are created equal. Those who have more training recognize that a number of beliefs need to be articulated for one’s credo. It’s this last group that I wish to address in this blog.
Those who know what they believe generally fall into two distinct groups. First are those who hold to what I would call a domino view of doctrine. Such people construct their doctrines like so many 
dominoes, interlocking in such a delicate pattern that the whole system rests on the viability of one block. The problem is this: if one domino falls down, they all fall down. The system depends on the strength of every single subpoint.
I used to hold to this view several decades ago. When a theologically-trained relative of mine said that he didn’t believe in inerrancy, I thought to myself, Oh no! My uncle is going to hell! My whole system depended on every aspect of it being true, and I assumed that those who didn’t embrace the same system en toto were doomed to the fiery pits.
So, I timidly asked him, fearing for the worst, “What do you think of the deity of Jesus Christ?†His response was that if Christ was not God, we are all dead in our sins. That response turned my world upside down.
I soon came to construct my theology with building blocks that did not resemble dominoes, that did not all go flat when one of them stumbled. There were core values and peripheral values in my credo. And I began to construct it so along the lines of four criteria:
- What is essential to believe for the life of the universal church?
- What is vital to believe for the health of the universal church?
- What is important to embrace for the pragmatic working of the local church?
- What is non-essential in any sense and should not cause division among Christians?
Now, admittedly, this matrix is not perfect. Some theologians would want to nuance things much more carefully. But it’s a good starting place. If you think of concentric circles, with the core values at the center, with less important doctrines circling out from there, you have an idea of how this looks. I call it the concentric circle view of doctrine. I know, it’s a lousy name, but it’s the best I can do for now. Besides, I’ve been more concerned with what it means than with how it sounds. And what it means is that there are certain doctrines that are insulated from attack, that are at the center of what we embrace as true. There are truths that I will die for, and beliefs that I won’t let my little toe get cut off for! Most are in between these extremes.
In the discussions we’ve been having the last few weeks, I am convinced that part of the reason some folks have been talking past each other is that we have a different set of doctrinal priorities. Some hold to domino doctrines; others have far more doctrines in their ‘essential for life’ list than others do. Perhaps now is the time to air some of these beliefs, so that we can see where we all stand. As for me, Christ—his deity, his death for my sins, and his bodily resurrection—stand unswervingly at the very core of all I embrace as true. To be sure, there are other first-tier doctrines, but this is at the top of the list. So, here’s the question: What else would you put in that list? What would you put in the tier two doctrines, the ‘health of the church’ list? What’s your credo made of?
47 replies to "Constructing a Credo: Will Dominoes Do the Trick?"
The doctrine of the Trinity would have to be top of the top tier because all of theology is structured around it. I think of 2nd tier as those doctrines that are essential to a certain denomination but not to necessary to Christianitianity as a whole. For instance Paedo versus believer’s baptism. The presnece of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. etc. Third tier would be those doctrines that are not even essential to a certain denomination. These would be like certain views of eschatology etc..
I understand the import of your domino analogy, but in 40 years of seriously looking at Christians doing theology, I don’t know I’ve ever actually seen “domino theology†except among the Truly Reformed.
I’d also suggest a variation on your four criteria, to understand them in terms of another analogy: truth as food. The Bible construes truth in this way – not in every place, but often enough to validate the analogy (cf. Heb. 5:12, 1 Pet. 2:2, Ezk. 3:1ff). With this analogy in mind, you get far more interesting versions of your questions:
What “food†is necessary to eat in order to live?
What, while not necessary, promotes maturity and strength?
What belief, if “eaten,†weakens or dissipates spiritual health?
What belief, if “eaten,†poisons and kills?
At any rate, to answer your question as to first tier doctrines, these would include:
1. The Incarnation
2. The Trinity
3. The Gospel as summarized in 1 Cor. 15
4. The Bible’s “gender theology,†because tier one doctrines 1, 2, and 3 above all spring from the Bible’s centuries long teaching on sex (!), as can be seen in Gen 2 in light of Ephesians 5:31-32, and Romans 5.
Tier two doctrines, these would include:
1. Ecclesiology, which is definitely a tier 2 rather than tier 3 doctrine.
2. Worship: its forms (liturgy) and dynamics (sacramentology)
Woeful errors and deficiencies in these two areas go far in accounting for the exotic ill health of evangelicals today across the board.
Dan, you have echoed my own musings EXACTLY! Thank you very much for putting it into clear words.
Whenever I hear that something is ESSENTIAL, it is an ABSOLUTE for the Christian faith, I ask one simple question:
OK, what if a person does NOT believe that, but believes everything else I believe? Are they still saved and going to heaven?
Is not ultimately salvation itself the touchstone that we all must return to? Yes, Christian life and experience are incredibly important, but if we believe in an eternity either with Christ or without, then how can ANYTHING come close to this in importance in a credo? In fact, I would say that there should be two levels of creed, one on the issue of salvation alone, “what one must do/believe to be saved”, and one for the Christian life and relationships and God’s Work here on earth.
People have said the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., and it is hard to argue against that. How can anyone call themselves “Christian” and not believe these core doctrines? As Michael has said on Theology Unplugged, they might have a belief, but it is not a “Christian” belief by definition. Fine and good, from a definitional standpoint, but what about salvation itself?
What about those Christians in the first and second centuries (and there were thousands of them) who did not have our “clearer” understanding of Christ’s dual nature? Who would not have accepted the idea of the Trinity even if it had been explained to them? What of those who saw him as only God and others who saw him as only Man? They still believed that Jesus was “God’s Son” in one sense or another, and that he was chosen to die for our sins, and that we must believe, etc, all the way down the rest of the NT line of teaching. Are all those “Christians” in heaven today? They sure believed they were going to heaven. Some even died a martyr’s death for Christ, even if they believed incorrectly about His nature.
What of those millions who lived and died without knowledge of the Gospel at all (including the majority of people who have ever lived), but had God’s message “written on their hearts” in some way? What of those who simply cry out to God after the teaching of a missionary, but have NO idea of any of these doctrinal niceties, and die soon after? Are they going to heaven or hell without our credal beliefs? What of those who ARE exposed to these various doctrines but, because of the way they were raised, simply believe wrongly on some of these issues, if they formulate such beliefs at all (let’s face it, most Christians don’t think about ANY of this stuff)?
So, aside from what is essential to call ourselves “Christian” (which I think is another important question, addressed by many above), I start with a threshold question that may have a very different answer: what must a person do to receive God’s Grace?
If you fashion your creed based on what it means to be a Christian without thinking out this threshold issue first (and separately?), then it is easy to go down the “domino” road again and come to believe that only those who hold to those same doctrinal beliefs will be with us in heaven.
Now, as to that threshold question itself, I am still struggling to find a satisfactory answer, and ultimately, I think it may come down to “only God knows”. But the DISTINCTION would still be important, and must be kept firmly in place, before coming full circle and joining you in developing a credo for what it means to be a Christian in the universal church, as opposed to someone going to heaven.
Doctrines I consider essential are:
1. Trinity
2. Incarnation of the Son
3. Salvation by faith in the Gospel (i.e. the death, burial, resurrection)
This is not to say that everyone must have a perfect understanding of these doctrines in order to be saved (that would border on Gnosticism) but I would say that a denial of any one of these three would certainly indicate that the person denying them has not been born again.
In regard to Vance’s question concerning earlier Christians who did not have the clearer understanding of things like the dual natures of Christ and the Trinity that we have, I would simply echo Gordan D. Fee’s sentiments that the Trinity was experienced before it was expressed in a creedal manner [see ‘Paul and the Trinity: The Experience of Christ and the Spirit for Paul’s Understanding of God’ in The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, (Oxford University, 1999)] — the point being that a true personal relationship with the God of creation/salvation necessitates a relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Those of any age who would view Christ as a mere man or all God with no humanity have a false Christ and as we all know, a false Christ cannot save.
Might not a person have such a relationship with all the aspects of God without knowing how those aspects work together, and how they are distinguishable? Only a small portion of Christianity in the earliest days had the benefit of Paul’s teaching. We have almost no knowledge of what most Christians believed early on in places like Egypt, Northern Africa and the outer reaches of Syria (other than what we can extrapolate backwards from later Christian beliefs in those areas). I think it is very probable that there was a time when MOST people who “called on the name of Christ” had no clear notion of Christ’s true nature, or had a wrong view of it. This does not mean that they did not have a relationship in actual fact and practice with all the natures of God, even though they had a flawed understanding of those natures.
I don’t want to go all “big tent” here, but I keep going back to the law “written on the heart” and the vast majority of people who have lived and died without ANY knowledge of the person of Jesus. There must be more to salvation than correct understanding.
Great post Dr Wallace.
I have thought a great deal about this lately. I attend a baptist church – but I do so because I love the pastor and the church itself. But I have found that searching for more biblical truth has led me to allow more and more dominos to fall. I have ended up rebuilding them in a much sturdier structure which looks a little less baptist but (I think) a lot more Christian. I think many are afraid that compromising even a little will eventually lead to abject liberalism – a fear which I find not reasonable. The truth exists, regardless of where we think it is. What has one to fear from searching for it?
Vance,
You said: “Might not a person have such a relationship with all the aspects of God without knowing how those aspects work together, and how they are distinguishable?”
Yes, which was my point in saying that Paul experienced the Trinity. The language of Nicene Christianity would be foreign to Paul but nevertheless he had a real experience with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It was these experiences that led to later Christians asking the questions that resulted in creedal Trinitarianism.
You said: “Only a small portion of Christianity in the earliest days had the benefit of Paul’s teaching.”
True, but Paul’s writings reflect earlier traditions that were passed on to him (e.g. Phil. 2:5-11) — Paul asserts both the deity and humanity of Christ from what is most likely an early hymn to Christ that pre-dates his conversion and he did this without elaborating on these concepts — this is not surprising in a high context society — these things would have been taken for granted and required no elucidation.
“We have almost no knowledge of what most Christians believed early on in places like Egypt, Northern Africa and the outer reaches of Syria (other than what we can extrapolate backwards from later Christian beliefs in those areas). I think it is very probable that there was a time when MOST people who “called on the name of Christ†had no clear notion of Christ’s true nature, or had a wrong view of it.”
Why do you think this? Why assume that their belief was different in any significant way from the Christians in those areas in the 3rd or 4th centuries? Why think that their belief differed from those Christian communities that we do have extended knowledge of in the 1st to 2nd centuries?
Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham (among others) have gone to great lengths in showing how immediately, from the earliest days of Christianity, Jesus was included in the divine identity of Yahweh and accorded worship proper only for the true God. Even your reference to calling on the name of Christ reflects this (this is a common practice directed to Yahweh in the OT and the very language used in the NT mirrors that used in the LXX).
Concerning the “written on the heart” issue — I’d just ask if you believe that anyone actually follows the law without divine empowerment to do so? I do not.
You said: “There must be more to salvation than correct understanding.”
As I said originally, a perfect understanding isn’t required but a denial would seem to prohibit even the thought that those in willful and active denial were regenerated.
Hey guys, this is great stuff. I am not saying this is off topic, but there may soon be a temptation to move it in that direction 🙂 Keep it up, but remain faithful to the spirit of the post.
Yes, I think Paul’s writings did, indeed, reflect earlier traditions in some instances, but CREATED traditions in others. I think some have proposed the contents of some early prayers or even creeds in Paul’s letters. But, we must always remember that Paul was the missionary to one “direction” of the Church, that which extended into the west. Those which existed in Palestine, Syria and the south carried different traditions and emphases, according to many scholars in this area. These are obscure, however, since they only survived thinly. Ivor Davidson (an evangelical scholar) has a good description of this in his “Birth of the Church”. These were not “Pauline” at all, and we can extrapolate what they likely believed from the groups that came later. It seems they tended toward a “lower” Christology in many cases, or a “higher” one in others. It is from these areas that many of the heretical variations derived, and this fact alone speaks to divergent early beliefs or at least leanings. Some even claim that the Ebionites expressed some of the earliest beliefs about Jesus, at a time when they did not grasp the full nature of Jesus’ deity. I agree that SOME groups “got” this point early on, but given the wide dispersal of the Church, this understanding seems unlikely to become the majority view for a good while. Long enough for MANY Christians to live and die with a bad Christology.
To heed Michael’s warning, I simply think that the salvation issue is a more basic, and ironically, less graspable concept, and it is important to me that I don’t begin to judge someone’s salvation based on differing doctrines that might not be “salvation issues”. I don’t want to start those dominoes falling too quickly.
As for the “written on the heart” issue, I am of the Arminian persuasion, generally, and so we may come at this very differently in flavor. But, regardless, the ultimate question is still the same: do you think, then, that God provides such divine empowerment to any of those who have no direct knowledge of Jesus or the Gospel message? If so, we get to the same point: God showing grace, and allowing salvation, to some who have no direct knowledge of Jesus, much less making a confession of Him. This gets back to my ultimate point that there is a difference between the threshold salvation issue and the issue of “most correct doctrine” and ability to call oneself “Christian”. Unless you are willing to say that God has damned ALL of those who have not heard the name of Jesus (which would be the vast majority of those who have ever lived), then you must agree that these are separate issues.
Dr. Wallace and friends,
This is a great question. It reminds me of the final chapter of Dr. John Hannah’s book Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine. Hannah writes:
“Doctrines are not all created equal: some are more important than others. Consequently, the Christian theologian finds it useful to talk of gradations of convictions. Think of three concentric circles.
First, in the center ring are the essential beliefs of Christianity. These are the core doctrines of Christianity–those beliefs without which there can be no Christianity; those beliefs so central that one should have a willingness to die for them. Among these, in my view, are the existence of God, the deity of Christ, the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and salvation by grace without any human merit.
Second, moving outward by ring one, there are beliefs that are reckoned to be important but about which there is legitimate debate among Christians. Examples of these convictions might be particular views of baptism or the Eucharist, church polity, or the chronology of last things. While Christians may hold such convictions with a significant degree of fervency, they are nonetheless subject to a variance of opinion and are not issues that should divide the fellowship of the saints in the broadest sense. Nor should such doctrines hold center stage in our discussions of the Bible. The central things, the topics that should be our most frequent, fervent topics are those in the center of the circle. . . .
. . . The most important person in all history is Jesus Christ; he must always be the passionate message of the church. Without Christ, there can be no gospel that is really good news. While there are teachings that are important, greatly adding to the maturity of the church, Christ is the keystone of all” (344-45).
Hannah offers a penetrating insight and pastoral wisdom in this passage and throughout his book that has enriched my soul and ministry. I think the concentric circles way of thinking about the priorities of doctrines is a good way to think about it. I agree with the essentials he lists:
the existence of God
the deity of Christ
the atoning sacrifice of Christ
salvation by grace without any human merit
Jay
Dan certainly asks some thought-provoking questions! Hey, did the Catholics among us notice that his “concentric circle view of doctrine” could be abbreviated as CCD? 🙂
Dan is asking what it is that essentially makes a Christian a Christian and what the Christian church needs to be healthy. I notice that he uses the words “believe” and “embrace.” Those are very good starting points, but we need to go one step beyond that and ask what do we DO as Christians? We can BELIEVE that Jesus is God, but the Gospels point out that even the demons believed that. We can BELIEVE that we need to have faith in Jesus to be saved, but do we HAVE that faith? What would that faith look like? Jesus gave his followers a command. He said that we must love God and we must love ourselves and our neighbor. He then gives parables to show what that love looks like. Pared down, it sounds very simple. But DOING that loving is hard work. That’s why we need to remember to turn time and again to the healing love of Jesus. We can’t love the world into the kingdom of God without that all-embracing love. God help me and all of us to remain within his love.
And Vance said, “There must be more to salvation than correct understanding.” YES!
Joanie D.
Great discussion, folks! Glad to see that everyone’s wrestling with this issue. The older I get, the smaller my essential circle is. Ironically, even though John Hannah is a colleague of mine, I have never read his book. But he is saying almost exactly what I’m saying–and even using the same illustration to say it!
One of the things that concerns me about the modern church is that we typically don’t differentiate among beliefs. The distinctives of one group subconsciously become the core beliefs of that group. When that happens, labels of heresy and liberal and non-Christian get bantered about. I would really like to see some churches offer a doctrinal taxonomy—a list of doctrines by their priorities. And Joanie, you are quite right that there has to be more than belief. But there can’t be less to be a Christian. What we’re discussing here are the essentials that one must embrace to be saved, what one should believe as a framework for a healthy Christian life, etc. I fully agree with you that the doctrine of demons is inadequate. I’ve often wondered if there are demons who could sign Dallas Seminary’s doctrinal statement, demons who could subscribe to the Catholic Catechism, demons who could agree with eastern Orthodoxy’s definitions of the Christian faith. None of that is enough to save, of course, but there are core beliefs that are necessary just the same.
Dan,
“I would really like to see some churches offer a doctrinal taxonomy—a list of doctrines by their priorities.”
I agree. Too many churches either do not have a priority list for doctrines or their majors are really the minors of theology. However I think one can easily go too far while doing a taxonomy. Generally speaking it is good. However I do not want to see a debate on whether the Trinity or the incarnation is more central or whether freewill of man or the sovereignty of God is more important. I think to put doctirns in a general list of priority is where the church should stop.
I like what Fr. Bill said.
But for the Catholic and perhaps Orthodox response, we are asking a strange question.
We seem to still be asking the question from an individualistic point of view. What do “I” put at the top of “My” list. Hmmm…
Historic Churches ask…What does the Church look like? or Where is the Church? All I can do is point out what (or where) that entity is located and leave the saving up to God.
I am suggesting this exercise cannot succeed outside the Church.
DW:[responding] What we’re discussing here are the essentials that one must embrace to be saved, what one should believe as a framework for a healthy Christian life…
This sums my point. The Church already went through this discussion, no?
Why do I need a new CREDO when there are the great creeds of Christendom.
I considered tempering this response but didn’t. Besides I was trying to hit at the Catholic or Orthodox response to the issue. I happen to honor their attitude, but I do love my evangelical brethren.
I could easily understand how orthodox trinitarianism is not a prerequisite for salvation. For one thing, I doubt that more than half of the people in any orthodox church truly understand it – but I believe many of them are saved.
Second, just think about the heroic witness of Ulfilas, Arian missionary who converted most of Europe to Christianity. There were many great Arian martyrs who bore witness for Christ and died for His name. I’m not willing to consign them to hell.
Kris, you are quite right that most people in the orthodox church truly do not understand the Trinity—I would count myself among them! Indeed, I don’t think anyone can fully grasp the mysterious workings of the Godhead. It’s beyond our comprehension. But that’s a far different thing than saying that they do not believe in the Trinity.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, persecution is not the litmus test for orthodoxy. In Ulfilas’s case, he was only fifteen when the Nicene Creed was adopted. So there was plenty of time for him to digest it and, at some point, reject it, before he became an adult and had a position of any influence. Others have noted that when the church universal adopts certain doctrinal statements, we are hard pressed to take such universal assent lightly. In the case of Ulfilas, he not only denied the Trinity but also denied the eternal deity of Christ. Here’s his creed:
“I believe that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: ‘Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high’ (Luke 24.49). And again: ‘And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 1.8). Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.”
As for me—both because of the clear testimony of the New Testament and the confirmation in the early, universal creeds—the deity of Jesus Christ is at the inner circle of my beliefs, at the core of what I think one must embrace to be saved.
Dan, do you think one could hold to some form of ontological subordination and be safe? In other words, it would seem that many in the early church, while holding to the divinity of Christ, allowed for it to be a lesser albeit uncreated divinity.
That’s a slippery question, Michael. When you speak of “the early church,” do you mean the earliest church as in the first couple of decades after the resurrection? If so, then my answer would be yes, someone could hold to ontological subordination and ‘be safe.’ But by ‘ontological subordination’ we are also wrestling with some wide parameters in language. Once we say that Christ is ‘a lesser albeit uncreated divinity’ we are somehow distinguishing between members of the Godhead in a way that could possibly make monotheism meaningless.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the early fathers and I freely admit that they are wrestling with mysteries that are beyond themselves (just as these mysteries are beyond us!). I would call them proto-orthodox because their articulations are simply not what the later creeds would be. Indeed, I would say that if someone read the Chalcedonian Definition to, say, Peter or James, those apostles might raise an eyebrow, stroke their chin, and say something like, “Very interesting! I’ve never thought of it like that!” In other words, I doubt very seriously that the original apostles would have immediately and consciously lapped up Chalcedon if it could have gone through a time-warp and been thrown in their laps in AD 42! They’d have to ponder it for a long time. Does this mean that the apostles were not Trinitarian? Not at all. But it does mean that each of them saw God only partially, and it would be up to the church to put together the whole picture once the New Testament was considered scripture.
Great answer. I approve of your comments. You may now rest tonight in peace.
Thanks Dan
Thanks, Boss!
Very thought provoking guys. Thanks!
Dan, I had never heard of Ulfilas, but in reading what you posted about his creed, it LOOKS like he he is saying Jesus is God since he calls him “…our Lord and God.” But I do see where he says the Holy Spirit is not God: “Neither God nor Lord” he calls the Holy Spirit. You said he “…denied the eternal deity of Christ” so am I reading this wrong? Thanks!
It’s interesting hearing about all these fellows from long ago!
Joanie D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
Dan, I think I got my question answered there.
Joanie D.
I understand considering what are essential beliefs for our own salvation and for building up the Church and the glory of God, but there seems to be an elephant in the room in this exchange that is NOT about building up, but rather about singling out who is “saved†and who is not. I do not mean offense by this—merely it is an observation about the direction the conversation appears to have taken to an outside observer.
~~~~~~~~~~
Romans 14:
8 For if we live, we live for the Lord, 3 and if we die, we die for the Lord; so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.
9 For this is why Christ died and came to life, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 Why then do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;
11 for it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.”
12 So (then) each of us shall give an account of himself (to God).
13 Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
1Cor.10:
27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is placed before you, without raising questions on grounds of conscience.
28 But if someone says to you, “This was offered in sacrifice,” do not eat it on account of the one who called attention to it and on account of conscience;
29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other’s. For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience?
30 If I partake thankfully, why am I reviled for that over which I give thanks?
31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.
32 Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God,
33 just as I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved.
~~~~~~~~~~
Peace,
Felicity
Dan, I agree with you completely on the concept of how the early church leaders, even the apostles themselves, might have still been struggling with these issues. Jesus did not explain EVERYTHING before he left!
In one episode of Theology Unplugged, Michael and Rhome discussed a question I had posed to them: Is it possible that Peter, immediately after the resurrection, or possibly even five years later, would not have understood that Jesus was, indeed, God Himself?
I suspect that this might be true, and that there was a growing understanding of this truth as time went along. If you look at Peter’s first sermon, in Acts 2, and read it with that specific question in mind, how exactly did Peter think of Jesus in Christology terms, it raises a legitimate question.
Vance, you’re on the right track. In fact, you can trace Peter’s sermons through Acts and see a developing Christology. I won’t go into this more now, but you’ve touched on something that I’ve been wrestling with for years.
Felicity, I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. The two passages you quoted (Rom 14, 1 Cor 10) deal with gray areas in the Christian life—things that some Christians think are wrong for them to do and others think that such things are OK. But if you are saying that these two texts mean that we should never judge anyone over anything, then I would have to say that I think you’ve missed what’s going on in the text. Perhaps I have missed your point though. But even a casual glance of the New Testament reveals many places in which it is fully appropriate for believers to exercise discernment about others in terms of what they believe and how they live. If this were not the case, there could be no creeds and there could be no church discipline—two things that are listed with approbation in the scriptures.
Dr. Wallace:
I agree discernment about others behaviors and beliefs are perfectly appropriate and even necessary to live according to the Truth and to avoid being led astray.
However–speculating on the state of another’s soul and expressing an opinion on whether that person is “saved” or “not saved” (AKA going to Heaven or going to Hell) is an entirely different thing. That is God’s domain—and men do not know what God knows in regard to the most intimate reality of a particular human’s spiritual health. God knows us better even than we know ourselves. I merely wished to point out that some of the comments bordered on presuming upon what is God’s domain alone—judging the state of the souls of others than their own.
As for the Scriptures I quoted, Romans 14 tells us God is the only one who judges souls and only the individual is responsible for giving his own account. No one else need even speculate on the condition of another’s soul–it is between God and the particular individual.
1 Cor. 10 tells us to get out of the way of others spiritual journey and only act in accord what we know to be true as an example for our fellow man.
Felicity, thanks for your clarification. I can agree with you on a lot of what you said, but not all. I don’t believe that scripture allows us the luxury of accepting all into the fold regardless of what they believe. Allow me to quote a few passages to this effect (all quotations from the NET Bible):
Mark 3.28-29: “I tell you the truth, people will be forgiven for all sins, even all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”
1 John 2.22-23: “Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. The person who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
This seems to be a decisive condemnation based on one’s beliefs. John is not just judging, he’s also telling his readers how they should judge.
2 Peter 3.15-16: “And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.”
Peter says that certain individuals who pervert Paul’s teaching about salvation do so “to their own destruction.” This is a judgment based on what one believes about salvation.
Phil 1.28: “this is a sign of their destruction” (Paul here is referring to the boldness of the believers as evidence both of their own salvation and of eschatological destruction on those who oppose them)
1 Cor 16.22: “Let anyone who has no love for the Lord be accursed.”
This is a condemnation of one in terms of his lack of love for the Lord—thus, as you pointed out earlier, belief ABOUT something by itself is not adequate to save.
1 Cor 6.9-10: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Gal 1.8-9: “But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell!”
See also 2 Thess 2.13-16 where Paul condemns those who hinder the spreading of his gospel; 2 Peter 2, which decisively condemns certain false teachers; the warning passages in Hebrews, 2 John 7-11, etc.
These are simply a few of the representative passages. The apostles often spoke of maintaining the unity of the faith and of making sure that counterfeit elements did not get in. And they got this from Jesus himself. I don’t think we have a right to chuck their insights into the nature of the Christian faith. We also don’t have the right to make up any rules we want to keep undesirables out of our club! And I think that’s what you’re driving at. My point is that true Christianity is biblical Christianity. And the Christianity of the Bible is NOT only a message of love; it is also a message of judgment. It’s not possible to read the Bible without seeing this. Yet without judgment mercy has no meaning. Thus, my salvation is all the more precious to me because I know I deserve hell. Only by the grace of God have I put my faith in Christ.
Hmm, if I understand where Felicity is coming from, I think I might tend toward her position on this.
Dan, you are right, some are saved and some are damned, the Scriptures are clear on that.
What is less clear is who is who, and that is where the danger of dogmatic positions become dangerous. God will show mercy on whom he shows mercy.
My mind keeps coming back to those millions (billions?) who never heard any of the Gospel. It really would seem as if by some standards listed here, they are all condemned to hell for eternity.
Dr. Wallace:
Thanks for responding to my post again. I think there is still some confusion on what I was saying in that you state, “I can agree with you on a lot of what you said, but not all. I don’t believe that scripture allows us the luxury of accepting all into the fold regardless of what they believe.â€
–I DON’T believe you should ACCEPT their BELIEFS into the fold and call it good—I most certainly believe in a clear Creed—but I also don’t believe you deny a person who professes false beliefs access to your example as an upright faithful Christian until their refusal is clearly obstinate. (I really think we are in agreement on this point, but our wording may be at odds. (see Matthew 18:14-17) I also believe that as Christians, our job is to lead people to the Truth of the Gospel—but…in so doing, we do not judge the eternal repose of their soul.
***From DW:
Allow me to quote a few passages to this effect (all quotations from the NET Bible):……
This seems to be a decisive condemnation based on one’s beliefs. John is not just judging, he’s also telling his readers how they should judge.
RESPONSE:
Again—I find nothing wrong with judging actions, or even beliefs…it is speculating on an individual’s soul that is at the heart of this issue of my post.
***From DW:
These are simply a few of the representative passages….
RESPONSE:
Thank-you and I agree. I tend to give Apostles a pass on such bold statements… (just a little jocularity there 😉 ) But really—those passages are to teach and instruct in the ways of the faith rather than to try to figure out who’s “in†and who’s “out.†The Faith has been handed on to us and we can hand it on to others in instruction; I don’t believe the instruction was intended for us Christians to soothsay about who’s in Heaven or Hell, only to help us help others achieve the former and avoid the latter.
***From DW:
The apostles often spoke of maintaining the unity of the faith and of making sure that counterfeit elements did not get in. And they got this from Jesus himself. I don’t think we have a right to chuck their insights into the nature of the Christian faith. We also don’t have the right to make up any rules we want to keep undesirables out of our club! And I think that’s what you’re driving at. My point is that true Christianity is biblical Christianity. And the Christianity of the Bible is NOT only a message of love; it is also a message of judgment. It’s not possible to read the Bible without seeing this. Yet without judgment mercy has no meaning. Thus, my salvation is all the more precious to me because I know I deserve hell. Only by the grace of God have I put my faith in Christ.
RESPONSE:
Well said!. I hope it is clear now that it is not “judging†behaviors, beliefs, and actions that I was concerned about, but rather presuming the consequences of such with a certainty that belongs to God alone.
Thanks,
Felicity
***From Vance:
God will show mercy on whom he shows mercy.
RESPONSE:
Exactly…I am reminded of the workers in the field who only work a few hours and are paid a full days wage. It’s God’s perogative and not ours to question.
Thanks,
Felicity
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with both Felicity and Vance on most points. I’ll address you collectively just for time’s sake (I hope you don’t mind). First, it was argued that “God will have mercy on whom he has mercy.” But that verse in Rom 9 seems to be clearly addressing those whom God elects to salvation by calling them and causing them to believe. God’s mercy is not exercised apart from such faith. That is, the context reveals that God’s mercy is the catalyst for faith; it is not mercy exercised in a vacuum or with no discernible effect. Mercy and faith are linked, and the faith has a content.
It was also said that “I DON’T believe you should ACCEPT their BELIEFS into the fold and call it good” as a clarification on what I said. But we are really not saying the same thing here. I said, “I don’t believe that scripture allows us the luxury of accepting all into the fold regardless of what they believe.†By ‘all’ I am referring to people, not beliefs (otherwise, ‘they’ would mean ‘beliefs’ that believe!). I’m not saying that we should go around condemning people to hell. That’s a mark of button-holing fundamentalism. But I am saying that there is a demarcation of beliefs in which heaven and hell hang in the balance.
I need to make clear that the issue, as we started this blog out with, is what, exactly, is the minimal core that one must believe to be saved. It seems that both Felicity and Vance say there is NO minimal core (please correct me if I’ve read you wrong!), while I think the NT clearly gives a different impression. You said that we should not be dogmatic about such matters. I do agree that too many Christians put too many doctrines in their first tier (see my blog “51% Protestant” again for proof of that!), but I think that we can have a minimal core of essential beliefs that, yes, we should be dogmatic about.
As a consequence of such beliefs, I think it is the height of cruelty to tell a person, “I wouldn’t worry about your eternal destiny if you don’t think that Christ was raised from the dead. Many early Christians believed the same thing. And God will show mercy on whom he shows mercy.” That’s cruel because the apostolic testimony is crystal clear that those who do not embrace this truth are in a world full of hurt.
Pragmatically, one might ask the question, Why were the apostles so concerned about missionary endeavor if knowing Christ personally was not vital to salvation? And as for church discipline, how could the early church (and the modern church) ever legitimately exercise church discipline unless there was a core of beliefs that one had to embrace to be considered within the flock of God? Paul says that it is wrong to not associate with unbelievers (1 Cor 5.10), even sinful unbelievers, while it is equally wrong to associate with believers who are living in sin (1 Cor 5.11-13). Obviously, the early church had to base their approach to church discipline on the beliefs that one claimed for himself/herself. Discernment and even judgment are the duty of the church itself, Paul says. However, in this instance the judgment is on believers who are living in sin; it is not on whether a person is a Christian. Our approach to the world must be one of reconciliation, love, offering of the great gift of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of sinners. But that presupposes that we know what their eternal destiny is IF their beliefs are out of whack with the essential core.
Let me conclude with this: Attitudinally, I’m in agreement with both of you: our attitude must not be one of condemnation. But positionally, I can’t agree. And I think it’s entirely possible to love the world to such a degree that we weep over our neighbor’s destiny, that we cry out before God about our aunt, that we bare our soul to the Almighty, begging for his intervention, for our fellow worker. That kind of love recognizes the consequences; it just doesn’t parade them. That kind of love, at bottom, recognizes that eternal condemnation is a real prospect that those who resist the gospel will face. So, you are quite right: God is the one who judges, not we; but we can know–because he has revealed it to us–on what basis he will judge. And for that reason, we need to be burdened for the world to the point that we are moved to action.
Dan, I am curious as to what translation of the Bible you read. I noticed that the passage you took from 1 Cor 6.9-10 is written quite differently from that in the NIV. The NIV refers to “slanderers” where what you wrote calls them “verbally abusive.” Verbally abusive certainly seems more far-reaching than slanderers! Thanks.
Joanie D
***From DW:
First, it was argued that “God will have mercy on whom he has mercy.†But that verse in Rom 9 seems to be clearly addressing those whom God elects to salvation by calling them and causing them to believe…
RESPONSE:
It’s called First Grace. “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.”(1 Cor 12:3.)
God is not a puppet master that CAUSES belief in him—that would deny free-will. He gives His merciful Grace, and He does so as He wills. His grace is sufficient for us to be called, and our response is accepting that call or denying that call–FAITH. Nothing that is good that we do is the result of our own effort—all goodness is ultimately from God—as Rom 9 states: he is the potter that has molded us according to His will. Specifically in verses 30-32—God gives the First Grace in His call to us—our response in faith is the choice we make of abandonment to His will, or not. The Grace of God is not a rival to our freedom, it affirms it.
~~~~~~~~~
30 What then shall we say? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have achieved it, that is, righteousness that comes from faith;
31 but that Israel, who pursued the law of righteousness, did not attain to that law?
32 Why not? Because they did it not by faith, but as if it could be done by works. They stumbled over the stone that causes stumbling,
~~~~~~~~~~
And why does God do this—allow us to respond according to our OWN FREE WILL?
Verse 17 explains:
17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth.”
***From DW:
I’m not saying that we should go around condemning people to hell. That’s a mark of button-holing fundamentalism. But I am saying that there is a demarcation of beliefs in which heaven and hell hang in the balance.
RESPONSE:
And I agree with that entirely—there is a demarcation of beliefs, but GOD judges where that demarcation is for every individual “No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” (1 Cor 2:11.). Scriptures also say, “to whom much is given, much will be expected.†This seems to indicate that God judges us “particularlyâ€â€”He is a personal Savior, and He knows what light he has given us. His Mercy is Just.
~~~~~~~~~~
Luke 12
47 That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely;
48 and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.
~~~~~~~~~~
***From DW:
It seems that both Felicity and Vance say there is NO minimal core (please correct me if I’ve read you wrong!),
RESPONSE:
You are wrong! 😉 Jesus—the God-Man is the core of Christianity—However—God has sovereignty over every soul and does as He Wills. God is beyond religion—not a slave to it.
~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew 19
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”
~~~~~~~~~~
***From DW:
but I think that we can have a minimal core of essential beliefs that, yes, we should be dogmatic about.
RESPONSE:
I think we need to be dogmatic about many things (isn’t that the primary criticism of Catholics? 🙂 ). However, I am MOST dogmatic about the sovereignty of God over ALL things and I will not place “requirements†on how He will show His Mercy. GOD’s Will be done.
***From DW:
As a consequence of such beliefs, I think it is the height of cruelty to tell a person, “I wouldn’t worry about your eternal destiny if you don’t think that Christ was raised from the dead.
RESPONSE:
I have to be honest here—I have no idea how you could come up with that as something I might suggest is okay to say. I repeatedly referenced that we are to teach according to what has been handed on to us and I even referenced Scripture that said if one is obstinate in refusing to accept the Gift of Christ’s Salvation, we are to leave them in their obstinacy. To confirm a person in error is extraordinarily sinful and scandalous. I ask that you please not generalize a comment about deference to the sovereignty of God to be the equivalent of confirming erroneous beliefs as appropriate. It is an unfair characterization of what I have stated.
***From DW:
Pragmatically, one might ask the question, Why were the apostles so concerned about missionary endeavor if knowing Christ personally was not vital to salvation? And as for church discipline, how could the early church (and the modern church) ever legitimately exercise church discipline unless there was a core of beliefs that one had to embrace to be considered within the flock of God?
RESPONSE:
Look at the issue of spreading God’s word from God’s perspective. God is not simply some great thing for US to HAVE– WE are made for His glory. It is NOT ABOUT US—All creation is to glorify God. Spreading His message (although beneficial to us) is really in service of God—it’s about HIM. To view mission work as some way to get new members to join the God-Club is to do a disservice to its meaning. We act in obedience—to share the reality of God with others as a means to worship Him by the created acknowledging his Creator’s Greatness.
***From DW:
Our approach to the world must be one of reconciliation, love, offering of the great gift of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of sinners. But that presupposes that we know what their eternal destiny is IF their beliefs are out of whack with the essential core.
RESPONSE:
That’s a position where one’s worship of God is world-focused rather than God-focused. It seems to suggest that WE have to KNOW something for God to show His Mercy. Sharing the message of God’s Mercy is the act of worship—it is directed toward God.
***From DW:
I think it’s entirely possible to love the world to such a degree that we weep over our neighbor’s destiny, that we cry out before God about our aunt, that we bare our soul to the Almighty, begging for his intervention, for our fellow worker. That kind of love recognizes the consequences; it just doesn’t parade them. That kind of love, at bottom, recognizes that eternal condemnation is a real prospect that those who resist the gospel will face.
RESPONSE:
When one receives this gift of knowledge about the Mercy of God, then it is incumbent upon that person to worship as well by also sharing that message. God is glorified in the act of Christian communion. In my trust in the Mercy of God, I do not place a requirement of other’s understanding a particular minimal amount to receive that Mercy—rather, I trust that “I†am doing what he calls “me†to do for His glory and my justification. I want my brother to do the same, and I pray for the aid he needs to do so, BUT, to be God-focused rather than world-focused, my INTENTION should be that my brother turn to God for GOD’S sake, not for my brother’s sake.
***From DW:
God is the one who judges, not we; but we can know–because he has revealed it to us–on what basis he will judge. And for that reason, we need to be burdened for the world to the point that we are moved to action.
RESPONSE:
I disagree. I believe we need to be burdened toward action for the sake of giving what honor we may (by His grace) to the Almighty Creator. That humble service should be at the core of all we do in His name.
Thank-you for your in-depth consideration (I’m sorry my post is so lengthy)—I am truly enjoying these exchanges and I do believe that God is glorified in Christians sharing their love of the Master.
Felicity
Oh, I definitely think there are minimums but I am still struggling with them. I keep coming back to those who live and die in complete ignorance of Christ, or ANY of the points on your list (which would be my list as well, BTW).
I suppose that the Catholic position of ignorance and responsibility might be the best approach I have heard. If you are in complete ignorance of the Gospel, then conscious belief in particular doctrines would be impossible. While salvation is still through Jesus alone, there is a way for some of those billions to have connected to Jesus without even being conscious of it. This extends to those who may have heard OF Christianity, but only heard lies about it, or a distorted view of it, so remain in actual ignorance.
Dan, what WOULD you say about all those people (again, the vast majority of people who have lived on this earth), who never heard the Gospel, and could NEVER attest to that list?
Vance and Felicity,
If you both convert to Calvinism, these issues concerning the destiny of the unevangelized will be solved! Sure, other problems will surface, but they have much less exegetical difficulty and more emotional difficulty (at least at first).
Walk into the light . . . I can see you coming . . . 😉
Sorry Michael–there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church! Didn’t you get the memo from the Pope?;)
Hey, if I wanted to just “make it easy” and have all my questions answered, I would become Catholic! 🙂
I am arminian precisely because I have to figure out so much more! I am a theological masochist. 🙂
***From Vance:
Hey, if I wanted to just “make it easy†and have all my questions answered, I would become Catholic!
RESPONSE:
😀 (raspberries!) HEY! You don’t have to become Catholic to get your questions answered , we have Catholic Answers for that! Right Michael?
http://forums.catholic.com/index.php?
Then as the Holy Spirit moves you…THEN you can become Catholic–we’re always happy to welcome you home!
🙂 Felicity
Actually, I LOVE Catholic Answers. I get it every day as a podcast, and listen to probably half of the episodes, which is a pretty heavy dose of Catholic indoctrination (good thing I balance it with Theology Unplugged to remain balanced!) 🙂
I have even called into the show and been “on air”!
Good exchanges, folks. Joanie, the version I quoted from is the NET Bible (see http://www.bible.org for downloading). Felicity, you may recall that I was writing to both you and Vance together (a point Iexplicitly made in my last comment), so that you should have no reason to be upset about characterizations that didn’t apply specifically to you. What I still don’t get is why you think that we can’t possibly know any criteria for whether a person is saved. You said that the deep things of God are mysteries to us, but does this mean that what one must believe to be saved is one of those mysteries? I think that’s taking 1 Cor 2 way out of context.
I would argue as well that your understanding of Rom 9 is, well, too Catholic. The text just doesn’t scan that way to me. I won’t get into any detailed response to that point, since it’s bringing us far afield from the original intent of this blog. But you might want to see John Piper’s The Justification of God, a detailed exposition of Rom 9 that is right on target.
To Vance, I would say what Michael has said: become a Calvinist and all these problems vanish! You asked the question, “what WOULD you say about all those people (again, the vast majority of people who have lived on this earth), who never heard the Gospel, and could NEVER attest to that list?” I’d say precisely what the Lord Jesus said to his apostles, “Make disciples of all the nations,” and what Paul said to the Philippian jailor, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved,” and what Peter said to the Sanhedrin, “There is no other name under heaven by which people can be saved,” and what Paul said to the Romans, “How can they hear without a preacher?” The NT is filled with the urgency of the task, an urgency that simply does not seem necessary if belief in Jesus Christ is optional. I would also say that if God chose to save only one person, he would still be infinitely merciful. When you read Rom 9-11 in one sitting, I begin to see God’s perspective on things. I begin to see that none of God’s mercy is deserved, none of it is based on my disposition, will, or any attributes I possess. All of it is based on God’s eternal character and is manifested in the cross. I begin to see how much I have offended God by my sin, and I feel an urgency to get the good news of his mercy through the cross of Christ out to the world.
Well, ok then, just become a Pascal Calvinist Catholic. The Catholic church gives some freedom with the issue of predesination, doesn’t it?
http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html
I finally got around to checking out the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism and I can see that I line up more with Arminianism. That probably would not surprise anyone on this blog who has read my posts for the past couple months that I have been here.
Joanie D.
***From DW:
Felicity, you may recall that I was writing to both you and Vance together (a point Iexplicitly made in my last comment), so that you should have no reason to be upset about characterizations that didn’t apply specifically to you.
RESPONSE:
I don’t think Vance said that either. :shrug:
***From DW:
What I still don’t get is why you think that we can’t possibly know any criteria for whether a person is saved.
RESPONSE:
I don’t think other’s personal salvation is any of our business–It’s presuming upon God. Salvation is between the individual and God—Jesus died for MY sins, He paid the debt for ME, He is MY PERSONAL Savior. (~~and every other Christian’s PERSONAL Savior).
***From DW:
You said that the deep things of God are mysteries to us, but does this mean that what one must believe to be saved is one of those mysteries? I think that’s taking 1 Cor 2 way out of context.
RESPONSE:
What another person is within is a deep mystery to us as well. 1Cor.2:11 says that as well: 11 Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. I do not think it is out of context one iota—it is exactly the point I am trying to make.
God is in charge. Does a merciful and loving God expect a severely retarded person to comprehend his majesty in ANY way? Or does the severe mental incapacity preclude that individual from the elect and so after this life of suffering he must suffer eternally? I don’t comprehend LOVE that way. Nothing is beyond God.
God judges different people differently according to what grace he has bestowed upon them. The Bible repeatedly attests to this.
~~~~~~~~~~
Romans 2:13-16
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, 6 while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~
Some others… James 3:1, Matt.7:2-5, Luke 7:40-43
***From DW:
But you might want to see John Piper’s The Justification of God, a detailed exposition of Rom 9 that is right on target.
RESPONSE:
I will look for that…but I would like to add…. it’s “right on target†by who’s authority? 😉
Thanks,
Felicity
Thank you all again for your helpful comments and healthy exchanges. I’m afraid I will have to wind this down because I think that many of our comments are still going past each other. Feel free to add what you want, but this will be my final comment here.
I’d like to address Felicity especially, since you have made several points that require some response. We have talked about these a bit before, but I think this is the time for a more detailed discussion (from my end, anyway). I’ve tried to organize your thoughts around three specific points: God’s sovereignty, essential core of beliefs, and reasons for evangelism.
To make sure there is no misunderstanding this time, I will quote you on these points.
1. The sovereignty of God: “God is not a puppet master that CAUSES belief in him—that would deny free-will.†Your interaction with verses in Romans 9 were used to confirm this, including quotations or allusions from vv 20-22, 30-32. You said that in Rom 9.15, where God says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy†that this was called “First Grace.’ And you underscored again our free will by quoting Rom 9.17, saying “And why does God do this—allow us to respond according to our OWN FREE WILL? Verse 17 explains….â€
Yet later you said, “I am MOST dogmatic about the sovereignty of God over ALL things and I will not place ‘requirements’ on how He will show His Mercy.â€
When I mentioned John Piper’s book, The Justification of God (which is a detailed exposition of Rom 9), calling it ‘right on target,’ you asked, ‘by who’s [sic] authority?’
Response: I believe that your understanding of Rom 9 is incorrect, and that your understanding of God’s mercy, human responsibility, and God’s freedom, are incorrect. Now, to be sure, I don’t think that one’s understanding of this text is an essential credo, but I do think that how one understands Rom 9 informs many other issues, such as who is saved and who is not, why we evangelize, and what God’s sovereignty is all about. But what’s most confusing to me is how you can use Rom 9 to argue for human free will, and at the same time say “I am MOST dogmatic about the sovereignty of God over ALL things….†It seems to me that a non-negotiable for many Christians today is human free will. They are simply unwilling to question whether this is what scripture teaches. And yet, the evidence we see every day reveals that human beings do not have an absolutely free will. If we do, then God doesn’t. In essence, to argue for human free will is to deny God’s free will. Let me illustrate with a few points, then discuss Rom 9 again.
Here are some things that we did not choose: our parents, our height, our eye color, our sex, when or where we would be born, what kind of personality we would have, what nationality we are, etc. Now, all this is obvious, but some might object, “Yes, but once we came into this world, our choices are our own—we have free will after that.†Really? Suppose you walk into a Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Shoppe. Do you have free will to choose any ice cream you want? In a sense, yes. You can spend your money on licorice or pistachio but you might not like what you get. (As for me, if they have licorice, that’s always my first choice, and I never order pistachio.) But when you realize that your choice is related to your desire—and that that desire is not just borne of your volition, you have limited choices. You don’t have an absolutely free choice. The same goes for all sorts of foods. Just study your own family history and you’ll see some genetic patterns that reveal how limited our choices really are. Or consider whether you are a detailed person or a synthetic person, whether you have mechanical inclinations or are all thumbs. We can certainly nurture those predilections that God gave us, but I can’t become a machinist. I have no desire, no inclinations, no skills in that regard. The irony is that my father owned his own gear shop for decades and I worked for him. I never rose above a class C lathe operator. It wasn’t in me. Why? Because those machinist genes must be dormant in me (my boys have them, but they passed right by me!); I have my maternal grandfather’s inclinations toward study and research.
To be sure, someone can point out that within our genetic make-up, we do have freedom. Granted—to a degree. I would say that we have a tethered will. But Rom 3 is very clear that before one is saved, his will is tethered to sin. “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God†(Rom 3.10-11). And that’s the problem with Felicity’s argument: you are saying that we have a free will before we are saved. Yes, we do—we are free to choose sin, but we are not free to choose God. “There is no one who seeks God.â€
One more clarification: the opposite of a free will is not no will. It is a bound will. If our will is bound, this in no way makes us puppets. To caricature my view that way is not accurate. I think even a moment’s thought reveals that we all have a bound will to some degree. No one is absolutely free, except God alone.
As for Rom 9, if I were to argue for human free will, this is the last chapter I would go to to do so. For example, v 11 says, “even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling)…†What is the point here? God’s choice of Jacob was not based on merit. God did not look down the annals of time and see that Jacob would believe and on that basis choose him. That would deny God’s freedom, and therefore, diminish his sovereignty. God’s choice was entirely due to his free sovereignty—not by works but by his calling.
Paul then responds to the criticism that is surely to be raised by some when they hear this: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not!†(v 14). Now, he has the opportunity to set the record straight, to tell us that man’s free will is not up for grabs. But instead he says, “For he says to Moses: ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy†(vv 15-16). Paul thus goes even one step beyond what he said in v 11. God’s sovereign mercy does not depend on what a person does (‘not by works’); it also does not depend on what a person desires.
But perhaps we read Paul wrong here. Perhaps he is really saying that non-Christians have a free will to choose God, to believe without his initiating grace. Let’s see if he clarifies his argument. In the next two verses he says, “For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.†So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden†(vv 17-18). This does not sound like ‘first grace’ to me; God does not show mercy to all, but his grace is selective.
Maybe we still have misunderstood Paul. Let’s see if he clarifies things any better as we go along. In the next three verses he says, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?’ But who indeed are you—a mere human being—to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?†(vv 19-21). If ever there was a place where Paul could have argued for human free will, this would be it. Why? Because Paul did not like being misunderstood on great theological truths. In Rom 5 and Rom 7, he has already shown us that he can backtrack when his thought could be misunderstood. There are important theological points he is making in those chapters. But here he digs in his heels. Rom 5 and 7 show us that Paul knows how to clarify his thought when an important issue is on the line. Since Rom 9 does not backtrack but marches ahead full speed, we have little justification for seeing him argue for human free will in this chapter.
And this brings me to Piper’s book on Rom 9. The accolades for this carefully done work are incredible. For example, Richard Muller of Calvin Theological Seminary said, “I find The Justification of God the most compelling and forceful exposition of Romans 9:1-23 that I have ever seen.†But you’d expect that from a fellow Calvinist. But Leander Keck, former Dean of Yale Divinity School, and an acknowledged world-class New Testament scholar, said, “Piper leads one through complex exegetical issues, engaging important literature fairly….†And David Dunbar of Biblical Theological Seminary noted, “Even for non-Calvinists Piper’s work is too carefully reasoned and stays too close to the text to the ignored.†Felicity, I would simply urge you with this: if you really do embrace God’s sovereignty, then you owe it to yourself to read this book.
2. Minimal core of beliefs needed for salvation: When I said that “It seems that both Felicity and Vance say that there is NO minimal core) please correct me if I’ve read you wrong!),†you said, “You are wrong!†Your answer then went on to say “Jesus—the God-man is the core of Christianity—However—God has sovereignty over every soul and does He Wills. God is beyond religion—not a slave to it.â€
Response: This is where I am really confused. I am arguing about beliefs; you are arguing about the realities behind those beliefs yet seem to be saying that whether one actually has such beliefs is not crucial. We are agreed that Jesus is the core of Christianity. But your “However†suggests that belief in him is not crucial. And your statement that “God is beyond religion†sounds again as if there is no minimal core that one must believe to be saved. That sounds good on one level, and seems to speak well of God’s sovereignty. But I would argue that God does not contradict what his Word teaches. Is God sovereign? Absolutely! But to suggest that he ‘goes beyond’ his revealed will (in the sense I think you mean) actually contradicts his sovereignty because it makes him an imperfect deity. So, again, how am I wrong in my assessment of what you’ve said?
3. The need for evangelism: You criticized my argument about the need for evangelism as “one of reconciliation, love, offering of the great gift of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of sinners†to approach that was man-centered: “That’s a position where one’s worship of God is world-focused rather than God-focused.â€
You criticized me for saying, “I think it is the height of cruelty to tell a person, ‘I wouldn’t worry about your eternal destiny if you don’t think that Christ was raised from the dead. Many early Christians believed the same thing. And God will show mercy on whom he shows mercy.’ That’s cruel because the apostolic testimony is crystal clear that those who do not embrace this truth are in a world full of hurt.â€
You responded, “I have to be honest here—I have no idea how you could come up with that as something I might suggest is okay to say. I repeatedly referenced that we are to teach according to what has been handed on to us and I even referenced Scripture that said if one is obstinate in refusing to accept the Gift of Christ’s Salvation, we are to leave them in their obstinacy. To confirm a person in error is extraordinarily sinful and scandalous. I ask that you please not generalize a comment about deference to the sovereignty of God to be the equivalent of confirming erroneous beliefs as appropriate. It is an unfair characterization of what I have stated.â€
I responded to this by saying, “What I still don’t get is why you think that we can’t possibly know any criteria for whether is person is saved.†You responded: “I don’t think other’s personal salvation is any of our business—It’s presuming upon God. Salvation is between the individual and God—Jesus died for MY sins, He paid the debt for ME, He is MY PERSONAL Savior.â€
You continued with this point by arguing that 1 Cor 2 means that what one must believe to be saved is one of those mysteries. I said that to argue this way was to take 1 Cor 2 way out of context. You said, “I do not think it is out of context one iota—it is exactly the point I am trying to make.â€
Response: There are two issues here. First, what should motivate us in evangelism; second, whether there is a core of essential beliefs that one must embrace to be saved.
As for the first issue, you thought that to be motivated to share one’s faith by reconciliation, love, offering of the great gift of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of sinners is to be man-centered (or, in your words, ‘world-focused’) in our worship. Felicity, with all due respect, that’s a bit silly. Let’s assume (as I think you do) that Paul had a high view of God’s sovereignty. We already talked about Rom 9. But in the beginning of that very chapter—a chapter that many acknowledge as one of the most exalting statements of the sovereignty of God ever written—Paul begins by expressing his deep pains for his fellow Jews: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed—cut off from Christ—for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen….†(vv 2-3). How is this statement not borne out of love, even anguished love, for other human beings? Would you call it world-focused? We also see this as Christ’s motive himself. In Mark 10.45 he says that he came “not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many.†Would you call that a world-centered approach? Elsewhere, he says, “I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do†(John 17.4). In your view, it seems that we have to choose between loving the world and glorifying God. But this is hardly Paul’s take on things, nor is it Jesus’. I do not think there is any contradiction whatsoever in being motivated to glorify God while also being motivated to see human beings come to know Christ for their sake.
As for the second issue (which really is what got you started in your comments on this blog), I again must admit my confusion. I have looked over the scripture references you listed, and not one of them says what you claim they say. There is not one verse that you cited that says “if one is obstinate in refusing to accept the Gift of Christ’s Salvation, we are to leave them in their obstinacy.†Now, if you really believe that, then I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. But your later responses seem to contradict your own view, for you went on to say that (1) it is none of our business whether someone else is saved, and (2) only God knows whether they are. On one level, I can agree with you: only God knows who is saved. However, you seem to be saying that scripture only gives personal truth, not propositional truth; I think it offers both. There is a content that we must believe to be saved; but there is a person whom we must trust to be saved. Your response to my repeated question about the content is that ‘it’s a mystery,’ citing 1 Cor 2 in your defense. Again, I must say that your treatment of this passage is wholly out of context. Paul is not talking about the content that we must believe to be saved as a mystery. Indeed, if he were, why would he make explicit what that content is later in the same letter (1 Cor 15.1-8)? And here Paul makes very clear that this gospel is that “by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you†(v 1). If 1 Cor 2 means that the content of the gospel is a mystery, then it contradicts 1 Cor 15.
Now, to be fair, let me try to parse what I think you might have meant to say all along. I think you meant that human beings cannot know whether another person is truly saved because only God knows the heart. On one level, I completely agree with that. If you mean by this that God knows whether someone has truly put his faith in Christ, I agree. But if you mean that whether a person believes in Christ or not is not essential, since God knows the heart, I disagree. Further, the reverse of this is not the same thing: scripture gives us clear guidelines for knowing whether a person is not saved. At bottom, the way we can tell is by what they believe—and that is seen in their confession. Otherwise, 1 Cor 5.10-11 has no meaning. And that brings us back to the issue we started with: What are the essential beliefs that one must have for life?
Felicity, I don’t in any sense mean to pick on you. But you’ve said some things that seem contradictory, and you’ve criticized me for significantly misunderstanding your views. I have quoted you at length to show why I have understood you the way I have. But I must admit that I’m still bewildered by what you’re saying. I do hope that my own views on these matters are a bit clearer, and I’d like to give you the last word to clarify your own position.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this comment (which is significantly longer than the original blog!), this will be my last comment on this issue.
Dan, great statements on free will. I would also encourage people to read Piper’s work. As I have been talking about authorial intent hermeneutics lately, this would be a great example for people to read. I have also written lately on Romans 9 and the idea of prevenient grace which deals with this notion of free will. I agree, our choices are free, but we don’t have liberty. In other words we freely choose those things we choose, but who we are is necessarily determined. We deal with this in The Theology Program’s Humanity and Sin course in session 8. Thanks for the insights.
Dr. Wallace,
I appreciate your lengthy response—mine’s a little shorter, but not much. 😉 I will try again to express the concepts I find troubling in the pursuit of determining a minimal set of beliefs that are required for salvation that is accurate for all mankind because I do believe you have erroneous conclusions concerning the points I have made. As I said, I do believe that Christians are held to particular creedal beliefs that are clearly indicated Biblically, but also Biblically, it is clear that we humans have no business declaring the state of the soul of another individual. While the journey toward Salvation is one we Christians share, our Salvation itself is a personal matter between the individual and God.
In the opening of your post, you said the following: “You said that in Rom 9.15, where God says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy†that this was called “First Grace.’
This is not correct. Perhaps you misunderstood to what I was referring, but I was not saying God having Mercy on whom he will is the first grace. I cited a verse that expresses that no one can turn from their sinfulness without that first bestowal of grace by God. The verse I cited was “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.â€(1 Cor. 12:3.).
Later in your lengthy post, in reference to something else, you site another source that bolsters the idea that God’s Grace is the impetus of our journey toward Salvation. You said,
“But Rom 3 is very clear that before one is saved, his will is tethered to sin. “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God†(Rom 3.10-11). “
In you post, you also cite something that you termed “initiating graceâ€â€”you used that term while suggesting I believed that man could turn to God “without his initiating grace.â€
It appears that you also share the belief that “first†before anyone can turn to God, God “initiates†within his creature a desire to know Him, and this is by the “Grace†of God alone. I don’t see a distinction in our beliefs on that as you apparently do.
I seems we both are claiming that Salvation can only occur by the Grace of God’s call.
Where our agreement apparently breaks down is at the question of WHO is called. You seem to indicate that this initial grace is only for a certain group—the elect. I contend that God calls ALL men, because Christ died for all—2Cor5:
14 For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died.
15 He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
You go on to explain in detail how Romans 9 affirms your position specifically calling into question the notion of free will. You go so far as to make the following bold statement in reference to verses 19-21: ““Why have you made me like this?†Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?†(vv 19-21). If ever there was a place where Paul could have argued for human free will, this would be it.
I can see from where you draw your conclusions—IF—you only look at Romans 9 in isolation, or in a limited scope of reference. You do refer back to Romans 5 and Romans 7, but I suggest that you should rather go FORWARD in Romans to get to Paul’s COMPLETE message rather than try to impose your own personal prose techniques on to the Apostle.
Paul is building an argument and each of the Chapters within Romans does not stand separate from another as I’m sure you are aware. If you read further on in Romans, through Chapter 11 at least, you get a better picture of the full message that Paul is preaching.
In Romans 11:11-24 he brings his message to a culminating point—to iron out the confusion of grace and works and justification and the elect and man’s free response to God’s grace. He says in 11-14 that The Jews stumbled so that Gentiles might be saved and that through the Jews rejection, a greater number was added onto God. Then in 15-20 he says their rejection of God was a “grace†to the world in that through their rejection, reconciliation occurred. He states that the Jews were “broken off†due to their unbelief so that the Gentiles could be “grafted in†due to their faith.
21-24 is where the culmination occurs in regard to the notion of salvation and free will. In those verses, Paul states that branches that have been grafted in can indeed be broken off, “For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.†He also states that those who were once broken off, “if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.â€
This continuation of his explanation clearly points to a better understanding of what Paul says concerning Pharaoh back in Romans 9, and agrees with the way I interpreted the hardening of Pharaoh for the purpose of calling men to Himself with which you took issue.
The Jews were hardened (Rom 11:7) so that more could be grafted in, and they, in turn, could also change and begin to believe though they had been broken off and be grafted back in (Rom. 11:23)—Likewise, Pharaoh was “raised up†(like the Jews were the chosen people) so that God could demonstrate his power and more could respond to the grace given them by God. This implies that Pharaoh had a role to play and perhaps, as the Jews who played a role in Salvation history, Pharaoh could repent and believe if he had chosen to.
When it comes to choosing God, some do so, and some do not—but they do so of their own volition “if they do not remain in unbelief†(Rom. 11:24).
Because God moves in our lives in differing ways as evidenced in Pharaoh’s life and the experience of many of God’s chosen people, it is clear that he also judges us according to what he knows of us (which is everything). In an earlier post, I gave you a list of verses on how God’s personal particular judgment is demonstrated in the Bible. Since you did not address those, I am not sure whether to assume you accept the point I was making that our individuality is so in order that God’s “name may be proclaimed in all the earth†(Rom 9) through our unique differences and our responses to Him and as such, our particular judgment differs, or not. I think you do not considering the bulk of your post appears to disagree, but I cannot tell what you make of those verses.
To address the supposed “contradictions†you perceive, I can only respond that I do not see the gift of free will and God’s ultimate Sovereignty at odds—precisely because God is Just. Your contention that we do not have “free will†because, as you state, “to argue for human free will is to deny God’s free will†is a bogus fallacy supported by the fallacious belief that the elect are CHOSEN by God rather than merely KNOWN by God.
I call this belief bogus and fallacious partially because of the evidence I have already supplied and because it is most certainly not beyond the abilities of the Omnipotent Immortal One to allow his creations the freedom to choose or not choose Him while at the same time know the choice we will make. God is not bound by time as we are. Further, to broaden “free will†to an absolute limitless concept akin to raising man’s will to the level of God’s is also a fallacious argument in that free will has never meant an absolute will as Gods’ Will is.
So in summary so far:
1. God’s “first grace†or if you’d rather, His “initial grace†calls all to Him so that we might live.
2. Christ’s death on the cross was for all—he is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (not just the sins of the elect)(John 1:29)—”God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). To deny that all men have an opportunity to turn to God is to limit the Gift of Christ’s Sacrifice and calls into question the Justice of the Almighty.
3. God made us as he did and judges us according to His knowledge of our being per numerous biblical passages: Romans 2:13-16, James 3:1, Matt.7:2-5, Luke 7:40-43, etc…
4. What we are responsible for, and free to choose or deny, is to live the call of God to our utmost ability—and He will determine whether our effort justifies our faith, or falls short.
That is how we can have free will and God can be sovereign over all things. For Christians—and especially Western Christians, more is expected since we live in an environment where we can freely exercise our religions. However, there are others in repressive societies that do not have the same opportunities and therefore God will judge them accordingly because He is Just. That is only one example—I already referred to the severely handicapped and how by the Divine Election Principle (I don’t know what else to call it) those poor people must be assumed destined for Hell. Is that really what a just and loving God does? What evidence is there that that is so? I would argue that the Beatitudes deny that concept.
As a side note: When looking for access to the book you referred me to, I came across a YouTube video of John Piper on the Prosperity Doctrine. It was wonderful—and I agree wholeheartedly with everything he said. His argument against the Prosperity Doctrine is applicable to the argument that God can, and will in His Mercy, save souls with imperfect understanding of the Revelation He gave mankind.
As for the final issue, when you take issue with my statement that “God is beyond religion,†I think you again assume a meaning that is not intended.
As many have pointed out, the verse “we see through a glass darkly†evidences our limited human ability to grasp the limitless Godhead. When I say “God is beyond religion,†I mean exactly that—God revealed Himself to us so that we may know him to the best of our ability and religion is the repository of what he revealed so that we might come to know Him and worship Him. ~~However, religion is NOT God Himself.~~ It would be idolatrous to claim religion and God were one and the same– It is contrary to the first commandment and I reject that.
Likewise, I do not limit God’s sovereignty in matters of the salvation of souls—in or out of religion. Since God knows the individuals he created better than we know ourselves, He calls all men to salvation Since Christ died for the whole world, and he judges our salvation according to the graces he has bestowed upon us as I evidenced above, the “core beliefs†for salvation of a particular individual are known only to God. Therefore, we CANNOT determine the eternal repose of another’s soul. We know what He has revealed to us, and we strive constantly in that race that Paul references, but only God knows the depth and breadth of understanding and acceptance of his revelation by which we will be finally judged. And THAT is why we work out our own salvation in fear and trembling until we stand alone before him to render our account.
Again, thank you for the exchange—it is unfortunate that you believe we are speaking past each other and therefore have decided not to post further. I enjoyed the opportunity nonetheless.
Sincerely,
Felicity