Without question, one of the most disturbing trends in the world of theology is that, far too often, grace is eclipsed by theological legalism.

Twice today I encountered this in its most blatant forms by two very different types of people. Both were very passionate about theology and both, undoubtedly, believe that their attitude toward me or my teaching is justified and honoring to the Lord. However, I believe both of these men sacrificed the major issue – grace – in defense of minor issues in theology.

The first, whose name I will not share as he is undoubtedly well-known to most of you, caught me very much off guard (and it is not really easy to catch me off guard, as I receive dozens of “hate” emails every day from those who believe it is their job to put me back on the path of theological correctness). This man, a significant figure in the world of reformation theology, does not believe I take theology seriously enough. Of course, his reasons come (I imagine) from the fact that I don’t agree with him. And obviously, if I took theology seriously, I would agree with him! Ironically, this lack of grace often comes from those who believe most strongly in the reformed “doctrines of grace.” But this man sent me one of the most ungracious emails I have ever received. And, yes, it did hurt my feelings. But more than that, sensing that this man’s criticism of me comes from his general disdain for the “heresy” of Evangelical Calvinism – it discouraged me that someone who believes he is so right theologically could be so graceless personally.

The second came from a Fundamentalist who was quite disturbed that I would suggest that Catholics could be saved. To be fair, I remember in the mid-nineties when Billy Graham suggested the same on national television. I was so angry and confused. I could not believe that Billy Graham would be so theologically inept as to make such a suggestion. In order for me to retain the belief that Billy Graham was saved, I had to convince myself that he had just gone senile in his old age. But this came from someone who has been a believer for quite some time and is a leader in his local church. This one statement (“Catholics can be saved”) has served to disqualify me and all of my teachings. To him, I will forever be one of the many who has compromised my faith for the glory of acceptance among men.

Theological legalism is nothing new (and is certainly not limited to the world of theology). Think of the Pharisees who, according to Christ, strained out gnats and swallowed camels (Matt. 23:24). To the theological legalist, there is no such thing as a gnat. Christ spoke of the weightier things of the Law (Matt. 23:23). To the doctrinal legalist, all issues are equally weighty. Paul spoke of things of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3); to those who are theological Pharisees, everything is of first importance. There is rarely, if ever, a second.

I find this very typical of those who call themselves “true” Calvinists. You will sometimes be given more grace by these if you don’t claim to be a Calvinist. But if you claim to be so, you are never Calvinistic enough. They live to nit-pick all the minor details they believe you get wrong about reformed theology. Nothing makes them angrier than so-called “Evangelical Calvinists” (such as me). I also find this among those egalitarians who wear bitterness on their sleeves, believing everyone who opposes them is doing so in order to oppress. I see this among Christian evolutionists who attempt to belittle anyone who opposes their position (some even calling creationists “cultic”). This theological fundamentalism elevates doctrine above the mandates that the doctrine necessitates. Right belief becomes their primary call to righteousness.

And let me not forget Roman Catholics. The system itself demands acceptance of everything the Church has ever dogmatized, from the resurrection of Christ to the assumption of Mary. The Catholic Catechism – to which all Roman Catholics must submit – is almost as long as the Bible itself. And I rarely meet a gracious Eastern Orthodox. Though they disdain Catechisms, they seem to have an unspoken canon which produces an incredible arrogance. And then there are the Baptists . . . oh, where to begin?!

Of course, there are many exceptions to all of these and I don’t mean to indict any without qualification. There are some shining examples of grace, wisdom, and humility in all of these traditions. I think of my Eastern Orthodox friend Bradley Nassif. I think of Irene, our Roman Catholic commentator. I think of Thomas Schreiner, an incredibly humble Baptist scholar and pastor. And, as you have noticed, I placed my own Calvinistic tradition on the stand. But the sad truth is that very often, the deeper one gets into theological passions, the more corrupt our ability to treat others with grace and humility becomes.

Here are some ways to know if you are a theological legalist:

  1. You don’t think there are “minor theological issues”
  2. You always define yourself with the word “true” in front of it (e.g., “I am a ‘true’ Calvinist,” “I am a ‘true’ Baptist,” or “I am a ‘true’ Christian”).
  3. Your statement of faith or catechism is so detailed that no one but your particular tradition can sign it.
  4. Your passions focus on the small issues and this finds expression in your personality.
  5. Most of your theological writing and/or discussion focuses on where other Christians have gone wrong.
  6. You have a bulldog mentality with regard to your “pet” issues; you cannot let things go emotionally. You have to leave the room.
  7. When one disagrees with you they are forever defined by that disagreement (“There goes Joe the Arminian,” or “I would like to introduce you to Katie the Complementarian.”
  8. You think belief is either black or white, you either have it or you don’t; there is no in-between and certainly no room for doubt.
  9. You think all those outside of your tradition are either going to hell or are less spiritual than you are (i.e., all Catholics are going to hell, all Protestants are going to hell, all those who suggest otherwise are going to hell, etc.)
  10. There are only three reasons why people disagree with you: 1) they don’t have enough or the right knowledge, 2) they have compromised, and/or 3) they are justifying in some sin.
  11. No one outside of your tradition wants to talk theology with you (and you take it as a badge of honor).
  12. When you write about other Christians, you continually find yourself putting the word “Christian” in quotes.
  13. Your statement of faith is so qualified no one can understand it.
  14. You are always shutting conversation down by accusations of logical fallacies ad absurdum.

Of course we all have these problems from time to time. And I am not saying the word “Christian” should not be placed in quotes for some people. But if you find yourself identifying with many items on this list too often, you may have the problem of doctrinal legalism which, in my opinion, is the most dangerous trap out there for those of us who love theology. I have been there and still wrestle with my own theological legalism. But this is something we all need to repent of, and teach our students and children about its dangers.

If you love theology, please be the first to put on the attitude of humility. When someone speaks about you in this regard, don’t have your goal to be for others to think you are smart or right, but rather humble and meek. When others talk about your personality with regard to theological discourse, would they say you are arrogant and legalistic, or gracious and gentle? This does not mean we sacrifice our passions or beliefs, it just means we temper ourselves for the sake of the Gospel. The truth is too important for us to lose our witness due to theological legalism.

Titus 3:2
[Instruct them] to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.

Phi 4:5
Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near.

2 Tim 2:25-26
With gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

 


C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    204 replies to "Fourteen Characteristics of Theological Legalism"

    • william

      It seems to me (and not being a great understander of these things I’m probably wrong here lol) that some people are so divisive that they are like the nose that cuts itself off to spite the face thereby ironically no longer being part of the body themselves! I love CMP, I am thankful for this ministry and if I had the cash would fund it for a year. His work has changed my life for the better and many others too.
      Love ya CMP! I probably won’t meet you in this life but can’t wait to shake your hand and thank you in the next.

    • […] Fourteen Characteristics of Theological Legalism – “Without question, one of the most disturbing traits of the world of theology is the far to often reality that grace is eclipsed by theological legalism. Twice today I encountered this in its most blatant forms by two very different types of people. Both were very passionate about theology and both, undoubtedly, believe that their attitude toward me or my teaching is justified and honoring to the Lord. However, I believe that both of these men sacrificed a major issue of grace in defense of minor issues in theology.” Parchment and Pen Blog […]

    • Antoninus

      To Don’s wife: please don’t feel that your ‘doubt’ condemns you in any way. Everyone has doubts, unless they have no imagination; sometimes the fiercest condemn because they are trying to hide from their own doubts.

      Depression is an illness, and no one who has not had it can understand how devastating it can be. It strikes at your core, and you cannot talk or think your way out of it. But it is a disease, not a definition of you, your character, or your spirituality. Seek help for your depression from doctors and counselors who know something about it. And hold on to the Hand that Jesus extends to you every moment. He suffers with you, and will not abandon you, despite the moments of despair and self-doubt you will inevitably suffer. He loves you completely, and you are worthy of love. He is beyond theology or doctrine or anyone’s criticisms. Hold on.

    • David G. Pickett

      Wow, so many blog to say “I resemble that remark!”

      Jesus came, not to condemn, but to save. Some Christians feel their job is to condemn. They ignore that they are charged to save all, not just some, and nobody gets thrown under the bus. If you dislike someone else’s theology, your proof and your vindication is through your love, your ministry. Love is so much more powerful, and sings the truth to all hearts. Why would you set your most powerful tool down, and switch to something weak and eventually less satisfying like hateful language? Whose team is that?

    • David G. Pickett

      It is somewhat impossible to criticize criticism, without shooting oneself in the foot. Still, after leading by loving example and seeing the message ignored, frustration tempts one to address it. Well, we are all sinners, so this is one thing you get. I suppose it is nice to make your stance clear occasionally, but love not criticism will win hearts.

      It seems like there is enough hate in the world without Christians adding any hate of sinners of competing traditions. I am not Roman Catholic, I am PCUSA, but my just confirmed RC granddaughter wonders why we are not all RC. I worship with them, minister with them, sometimes take communion with them, for while humans have denominations, Jesus just has followers.

      There is much more sin in the shunning than in any participation.

      Ditto for when I worship with the Fundamentalist friends, and my Jewish family wing, Orthodox through very reformed. Love is my law, guide, armor, shield and sword; my God and the essence of my Savior is love.

    • David G. Pickett

      It is sad that the words ‘true’ and ‘full’ are used to denigrate other traditions, in large print for emphasis in text and signage. Jesus showed us love is true and full, love fulfills the law. That does not say love drives us to obey the law, it says that law was a tool to create a more loving society, When we are loving, we more than obey the law, we give the law a sense of success, because the purpose of the law was love, and its purpose was achieved more fully than the law alone could hope for, through the example, teachings, love and sacrifice of Jesus.

      Playing catch up today!

    • Francis

      I actually (partially) agree with “law was a tool to create a more loving society”. Rather, law was (and is) a tool to create a more loving, and JUST, society.

      More correctly, law was a tool to reveal to man who God is, what man is, where man falls short, and indirectly, how man can be redeemed in spite of his deficiencies. –> This is the ultimate purpose of law.

    • william

      This morning while washing up the dishes I felt a real conviction over my previous posts. I felt that I had been ‘superior’ in my manner and condemning even. So I prayed and asked God for forgiveness of my sins. It was nice to come here and see posts about love.

      David G. Pickett said

      “It is somewhat impossible to criticize criticism, without shooting oneself in the foot. Still, after leading by loving example and seeing the message ignored, frustration tempts one to address it. Well, we are all sinners, so this is one thing you get. I suppose it is nice to make your stance clear occasionally, but love not criticism will win hearts.”

      This had been my exact line of thinking when it hit me that I had been criticizing criticism too and how hypocritical I had been. It occurred to me, if I was asking my child why she had done something wrong and she kept saying ‘but look daddy, your other daughter did something wrong too…’ then I would say to her, but this is about you and me, not me and them. This is a simple (and probably wrong) analogy of how we can be with God sometimes. We forget to look at where we stand with Him and look at where others stand with Him. Pointing at others and using diversionary tactics to take the focus off our own faults. But if it doesn’t fool us, it isn’t going to fool God. Sometimes we get so angry or superior with others who do not agree with us that we are prepared to slander, mock and even condemn them to hell (in our own minds). We (esp me) get on such a high horse just the dizzying height can cause us to fall off and often we don’t even realize we are on one.

    • […] If your statement of faith is crafted with such precision that it really only applies to your church, you might be bound by theological legalism. […]

    • Dennis J.

      Well, I came really late to this and am not expecting to have my questions answered, but here goes anyway. Regarding the “discussion” David Bishop brought forward:
      1) I am not clear on the difference between Accomplished and Particular Redemption. They sound like the same thing to me, especially in view of Charles Spurgeon’s sermon here: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm What am I missing?
      2) CMP stated in (12) “I don’t know what you are talking about. I do believe in particular redemption. But, having said that, I don’t think it is an issue of first importance.” By that I assume he means the issue between particular and possible redemption is not of first importance, not that redemption is not of first importance? At least, I hope that’s what he meant.
      3) To David, although I doubt you will ever see this, I remember my days of being oh, so dogmatic, the years have taught me that extending grace goes a lot further in a “discussion” than punching people in the nose.

    • David Bishop

      What you are missing, Dennis, is the fact that most people here do not believe a particular redemption (redemption made only for some people) is also one that has actually been accomplished (was concluded 2000 years ago). Of course you don’t think it is of first importance. Rather, you think a particular redemption that needs something more to finish it is just as fine as one that is already finished and therefore needs nothing to complete it.

      Your days of being oh so dogmatic were just as self righteous as your days are now. The fact that I am dogmatic is not why I am righteous. You think it was why you were righteous. You are deceived on both accounts.

    • David Bishop

      I have no interest in answering stupid questions. All that needs to be said I have already said. If you desire to plod heedlessly ahead in your foolishness, then be my guest. Your blood be on your head. Either way, I shake the dust.

    • Gary Brown

      David Bishop – if your theological legalism were only confined to your private condemnations, that would be one thing and we could all simply ignore it. But the real problem with graceless Phariseeism is that it drives people away from Christ. Pride is that way. It repels people. So, while you seem to take great pleasure in spewing revealing condemnations like “your blood be on your head” and “I shake the dust” to fellow believers who you have condemned to hell simply because they disagree that belief in particular redemption is a prerequisite to a poor lost beggar being saved, you are as much an antievangelist as Bart Ehrman. Utterly graceless and blind in your pride, you can take great solace that you’re “right”. The pharisees who nailed Jesus to the cross felt the same way.

      This article was written for a reason. You’re it.

    • David Bishop

      I explain why Christ alone is my righteousness, and you call it legalism. Typical.

    • David Bishop

      I am not associated with Chris Duncan or his associates from Outside the Camp. I have never spoken to him, don’t know him, and have no desire to. I have read some of what his friend Marc Carpenter has posted on his site, and I detest the fact that Carpenter makes secondary issues a part of his gospel. I have continued here to make the redemption which Christ accomplished for His people the entire focus of the discussion. I have not deviated from this.

    • cherylu

      Interesting website there David.

      All Pelagians, semi Pelaginas, and Arminians are lost. And for that matter, so are all Calvinists that believe any of the above are brothers/sisters in Christ.

      I would guess from what you say there that you are probably the only one commenting any where on this blog–including all of the blog contributors, that is really a saved person.

    • David Bishop

      If you mean Mr. Patton’s blog, then you would again be wrong. I have not spoken to everyone on Mr. Patton’s blog. As for Mr. Patton himself, he has made it clear that he does indeed deny an accomplished redemption, therefore I indeed call attention to the fact he denies redemption accomplished.

    • cherylu

      I was speaking of Mr Patton’s blog–not yours. And I may or may not be wrong when it comes to this blog. But I don’t believe I have ever heard any one here express your views. In fact, if my memory is correct, (and I have commented here for years), any Calvinist here that has expressed an opinion on the subject in all of that time has not agreed with your views. So, if any one here holds the same beliefs as you do, they are certainly keeping them to themselves.

    • David Bishop

      Well I’ll take your word for it that you have read every single comment that anyone has ever posted to this blog over the course of its life. Of course, I’m just being facetious. I rather believe you are embellishing.

    • cherylu

      Maybe I am embellishing. The fact remains that there have been many discussions on Calvinism/Arminianism here over the years and not once do I recall any other Calvinist stating the view point that you and your friends have. I remember one Calvinist saying something to the effect that Arminians worship a different God but that is as far as he took it I believe.

      Of course, my memory could be failing me in this area.

    • David Bishop

      Oh, I see, in your eyes worshiping a different God means worshiping the same God. Yeah, no surprise there.

    • cherylu

      David,

      I have no interest at all in getting into a long debate with you.

      I am simply stating that you and your friends hold a radical and seemingly very minority view that seemingly casts even most of your fellow Calvinists as unsaved people.

    • David Bishop

      Minority, yes. Radical, perhaps. Unique, not even close. You might read the Canons of Dordt sometime.

    • Gary Brown

      D.L. Moody
      John & Charles Wesley
      Charles Spurgeon
      Amy Carmichael
      Hudson Taylor
      Brother Andrew
      Charles Finney (especially!)
      George Whitefield
      George Muller
      Billy Graham
      C.S. Lewis
      Michael Patton
      and almost everyone else who has ever changed the world for Christ;

      are on their way to hell. But not David Bishop. No, his theology is perfect on all the essential particulars. He is going to heaven.

      So good to finally know what I need to do to be saved. Up till now, I was laboring under the misconception of Romans 10:9-10. Silly me. To be saved, you must agree theologically with David Bishop. Go spread the good news!

    • David Bishop

      Who said Michael Patton is going to hell? I didn’t. Mr. Patton is still alive. He may be one of the elect, and God may yet bring him to repentance.

      As to your list, don’t forget Watchman Nee and every pope who has ever sat in the seat of the Roman Catholic throne.

      I’m glad you didn’t include Augustus Toplady, John Owen, John Gill, Tobias Crisp, or any of the other saints of God.

      C S Lewis? Pfft. That old heretic? I just posted a new essay about that dog and his master Chesterton this morning.

      http://cornbreadandbourbon.wordpress.com/2013/06/

    • cherylu

      Hey Greg, how did you guess?? 🙂

    • David Bishop

      Sure, because that’s what the Pharisees were, all right, they were perceived as being rude.

      Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

      Or . . . ahem . . . maybe they weren’t the ones who were perceived to be rude, after all.

    • David Bishop

      Emotionalism is not an epistemology. And the tremendous feeling of hurt that has infected you is not really a disease. Why is it that most Brits are immune to your cause for tears? Might it be the result of the tremendous feeling of butt hurt that your rich, white founding fathers felt at being told to pay taxes, before they sent a bunch of poor people to fight and die for them in their quest for more power and wealth . . . er, I mean, independence. “Give me liberty or give me death, but dontchya ever, ever hurt my little feelings.”

    • David Bishop

      You know what’s not so funny? The fact that Billy Graham believes Hindus and Muslims and Mormons will be in heaven, and that Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation. C S Lewis was in full agreement.

      I challenged his grandson, Tullian Tchividjian, with this. Someone on his staff wrote back to tell me I was being mean and vicious and that Billy Graham was a man of God. Yep, straight from the mouth of the horse’s ass. Funny that you sound the same, Greg.

      Contrast Billy Graham’s lies with the Puritan Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, and you will discover why what I say hurts your feelings.

    • cherylu

      There is one thought that keeps going round and round in my mind about all of this.

      In Revelation 7, it speaks of “a great multitude that no man could number” that are worshiping around the throne of God. Has there been such a multitude in the past or will there be such a multitude in the future that believes what David insists has to be believed in order to have salvation?

      In view of the minority group he is part of now, it would really make me think that if he is correct, Heaven may be a very lonely place.

    • craig. bennett

      Sigh! Thank God that Scripture tells me Christ has taken my sins away. I became a changed person the day the Spirit of God convicted me of this need.

      That will do me.

    • Gary Brown

      Salvation is a very complicated matter. David Bishop took no exception to the list of the unsaved that included Billy Graham and posted evidence that Graham gave an interview in 1978 in he really did give a pluralistic, inclusivist answer, contrary to scripture.

      So I suppose the take away is this: it doesn’t matter whether a person repents of their sins and asked Christ for forgiveness – to be their Lord and Savior. It doesn’t matter if they preach one message to millions from the pulpit – that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation and that only through repentance and turning to Christ alone can one be saved. It doesn’t matter if millions heed the call and turn to Christ as Lord and Savior.

      What really matters is whether Graham ever made a false statement in an interview. Because if he did, he was never saved in the first place. Besides, did Billy Graham ever stress the importance of believing in particular redemption before someone could be saved? NO! He only preached Jesus as the way of salvation. So, Graham is clearly on his way to hell!

      It’s funny. Armenians are often accused of “saved by grace, kept by works”. It appears that Calvinists have their own version of “saved by grace unless you ever stumble theologically, then you were never the elect in the first place!” I like the Armenian version better.

    • craig. bennett

      Sighs!!! The irony is killing me.

    • David Bishop

      Luke 13:22-30
      He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem. And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God. And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”

      Acts 4:11-12 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

      Mark 13:21-23 And then if anyone says to you, “Look, here is the Christ!” or “Look, there He is!” do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be on guard, I have told you all things beforehand.

      Mormons repent of their sins and ask Christ for forgiveness – to be their Lord and Savior. Mormons preach one message to millions from the pulpit – that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation and that only through repentance and turning to Christ alone can one be saved. Millions heed the call and turn to this Christ. Is this the same Christ of Scripture?

    • David Bishop

      ***** WARNING: RIPPED FROM MORMON WEBSITE*****

      Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God. He is our Redeemer. The Holy Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ’s mother was Mary, His father on earth was Joseph, that He was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth, and labored with Joseph as a carpenter. When he turned 30, He began a three-year ministry of teaching, blessing, and healing the people of the Holy Land. He also organized His Church and gave His apostles “power and authority” (Luke 9:1) to assist in His work.

      But what do we mean when we say He is the Savior of the world? The Redeemer? Each of these titles point to the truth that Jesus Christ is the only way by which we can return to live with our Heavenly Father. Jesus suffered and was crucified for the sins of the world, giving each of God’s children the gift of repentance and forgiveness. Only by His mercy and grace can anyone be saved. His subsequent resurrection prepared the way for every person to overcome physical death as well. These events are called the Atonement. In short, Jesus Christ saves us from sin and death. For that, he is very literally our Savior and Redeemer.

    • David Bishop

      What you say:

      Salvation is a very complicated matter. David Bishop took no exception to the list of the unsaved that included Billy Graham and posted evidence that Graham gave an interview in 1978 in he really did give a pluralistic, inclusivist answer, contrary to scripture.

      So I suppose the take away is this: it doesn’t matter whether a person repents of their sins and asked Christ for forgiveness – to be their Lord and Savior. It doesn’t matter if they preach one message to millions from the pulpit – that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation and that only through repentance and turning to Christ alone can one be saved. It doesn’t matter if millions heed the call and turn to Christ as Lord and Savior.

      What they say:

      Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God. He is our Redeemer. The Holy Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ’s mother was Mary, His father on earth was Joseph, that He was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth, and labored with Joseph as a carpenter. When he turned 30, He began a three-year ministry of teaching, blessing, and healing the people of the Holy Land. He also organized His Church and gave His apostles “power and authority” (Luke 9:1) to assist in His work.

      But what do we mean when we say He is the Savior of the world? The Redeemer? Each of these titles point to the truth that Jesus Christ is the only way by which we can return to live with our Heavenly Father. Jesus suffered and was crucified for the sins of the world, giving each of God’s children the gift of repentance and forgiveness. Only by His mercy and grace can anyone be saved. His subsequent resurrection prepared the way for every person to overcome physical death as well. These events are called the Atonement. In short, Jesus Christ saves us from sin and death. For that, he is very literally our Savior and Redeemer.

      My point is, you sound just like a Mormon.

    • Gary Brown

      Exactly. What is your point? That Billy Graham’s preaching is akin to Mormonism? Or that his presentation of the gospel is insufficiently clear because he doesn’t lecture millions in his TV crusades on the necessity to understand and accept particular redemption as a prerequisite to salvation?

    • David Bishop

      You keep bringing up the fact he has lectured millions as though that means something. Lots of people have lectured and taught millions. Albert Einstein and Mark Twain lectured and taught millions. Lecturing and teaching millions proves nothing.

      My point is precisely that Billy Graham’s gospel is no different in its idolatry than Mormonism. You can’t even tell them apart!

    • Gary Brown

      David – do you believe salvation is a matter of precise definitions thoroughly explained and clearly understood? Or does the Holy Spirit any role in illuminating a person’s mind and heart? Or would that be too close to Mormonism?

      If a Christian in a remote village of Nepal tells a poor beggar about Jesus and the poor beggar repents and puts his trust in Christ, can that person be saved without having understood the finer points of systematic theology? Or does God require precise acceptance of your theology (which excludes the message of almost everyone who has made an impact on the world) first?

    • David Bishop

      Gary, do you think the Holy Spirit has illuminated the minds of Mormons?

    • Gary Brown

      David, of course not. Mormonism is a false religion. The Holy Spirit could not illuminate falsehood.

    • Gary Brown

      How is Billy Graham’s gospel – that he has preached since the 50’s (not an isolated interview in the past 60 years), similar in idolotry to Mormonism?

      When has Graham ever preached that Jesus is anyone other than the second person of the Trinity? When has Graham ever preached that “As man is, God once was; as God is, man can become.” When has Graham ever one time preached any of Mormon history? When has Graham ever PREACHED that salvation is anything other than by grace through faith in Christ ALONE?

      Do the fruits of the Spirit include slander?

    • cherylu

      David,

      I agree with those that have made the point here about the Mormon version of God and the Christian version of God.

      Arminians believe that God in His sovereignty planned the way He will interact with mankind in one way. Calvinists believe that He planned to act in a different way.

      That is completely different ball game we are talking about then the differences between the Hindu understanding of God, or the Mormon understanding, or the Muslim understanding of who Jesus is.

      The Calvinism/Mormonism debate is a difference in the understanding of how God functions. The difference between Christians and Mormons, Hindus, and Muslims is an ontological difference–a difference in the very essence of who God or Jesus is. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet–not God Himself. Mormons believe that God was not always God but became God and someday we can/will too.

      You seem to be making categorical errors here. You are “comparing apples and oranges”.

    • craig. bennett

      Within the construct of God’s mercy and grace, do you think its possible that in the back blocks of Nepal or other places, if the only mention of Jesus came from a JW and a child / adult earnestly prayed to God for their forgiveness – that God would actually Damn that person to hell?

    • David Bishop

      You are missing the point. What separates Mormonism from Arminianism and Arminianism from Calvinism?

      D-O-C-T-R-I-N-E

    • craig. bennett

      David Bishop. So doctrine separates us from the love of God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.