I like to be personally preemptive in my own theology, making myself aware of the weaknesses of particular positions I hold. Some of the weaknesses are significant and some are relatively minor in my view. This helps me to keep perspective about why people disagree with my position. It also helps to disarm conversations so that productivity can happen in theological discourse (i.e. you are not just trading shots, one-upping each other). Without this, theological advancement rarely takes place. It simply turns into an exercise in trying to win an argument, and I am not interested in that. I hope my goal is to discover truth.
Therefore, I have put together a list of some of my positions along with what I perceive to be the biggest problems associated with them. I encourage others to do the same. It will give you quite a bit of legitimacy when you can admit your own weaknesses:
Sola Fide. I believe that justification is by faith alone, without the addition of any works whatsoever.
Biggest problem with this belief: There are many passages in the Scripture that are hard to reconcile with sola fide. The one that stands out the most in my opinion is Matt 25:22-46. Christ seems to indicate that the judgment will be on the basis of deeds that we have done or failed to do, not on faith alone.
Eternal security: I believe that once a person is saved, he or she cannot lose their salvation.
Biggest problem with this belief: Hands down, for me, the biggest problem does not arise from the infamous Hebrews passages (I actually think they are relatively easy to understand), but from Matthew 18:23-35. Christ seems to teach that the forgiven can have their penalty laid back on their shoulders due to their own non-forgiveness of others. This parallels the Lord’s Prayer which seems to make our forgiveness from God contingent upon our forgiveness of others (Matt. 6:12). “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespasses against us.”
Premillennialism: I believe that there will be a future thousand-year millennium where Christ will reign on the earth with believers then, following this, the creation of the new heavens and new earth.
Biggest problem with this belief: Easy. Isa. 60. Here Isaiah is definitely talking about the millennial reign of Christ before the creation of the new heavens and new earth. At least until verse 19 where for some reason, without transition or explanation, he jumps to the a description of the new earth (compare Rev 21:23, 22:5). Oh, and then there is Isaiah 65:17-19 which seems to be talking about the new heavens and new earth then, without transition or explanation, in verse 30 jumps to a description of the millennium? In reality, both of these seem to be describing the same event, not two separate events which my view demands.
Restrictivism: I believe that Christ is the only way to salvation and that believing the Gospel message is the only way to Christ. Therefore, hearing and believing the Gospel is the only way to salvation. All others are lost.
Biggest problem with this belief: I have a bit of a contradiction here as I also believe that children, infants, the unborn, and all others who are mentally unable will be saved even though they may not have ever heard and believed the Gospel. My beliefs here open the door for “Christian/Evangelical inclusivism” (i.e. the belief that God might save others through the blood of Christ even though they have never heard of him).
Sola Scriptura. I believe that the Scriptures alone are the final and only infallible source for truth in matters of faith and practice.
Biggest problem with this belief: It is not a Scriptural issue (as I think the Scripture pretty clearly supports this doctrine), but a practical one. It does seem that it would be more expedient and pragmatic if God would provide us with some type of living guide that is reliable in matters of interpretation. Practically speaking, it is very hard for Protestants to have a representative and authoritative theology since we don’t have an authoritative spokesperson. It would be nice to have an infallible guide to protect the truth.
There are more, but I wanted to keep this short. I might do a follow-up soon. As well, I could respond and show you how I attempt to overcome these difficulties, but that is not what this particular post is about.
137 replies to "The Biggest Problems with Some of My Theological Positions"
I enjoyed both the post and the premise. I like the idea of making a list and being aware of the arguments. An infallible guide that protects the truth is a great description of the Holy Spirit!
God’s sovereign will or will of decree. What God has determined to happen, shall come to pass. It cannot be broken. For example, all who are chosen by God to be saved will not be able to resist His effectual call (the doctrine of irresistable grace).
Biggest problem with this belief: This belief either IS, or lies dangerously close to fatalism. Scripture does say our prayers have influence on what happens (Luke 11:9, Luke 18:1-8, Matthew 7:7). Also,
James 4:2 You do not have, because you do not ask God.
Theistic evolution. I believe God used natural processes, such as natural selection and speciation, over millions of years to create the diversity of species which live on Earth today (yes, this applies to humans too, as I believe we share a common ancestor with primates).
Biggest problem with this belief: I cannot reconcile it with Scripture (especially a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis), as well as orthodox Christian doctrines regarding original sin, the origin of physical death, Adam and Eve… just to name a few.
By accepting evolution, I am also giving science significantly more authority as a source of truth, perhaps on par to Scripture (dual source?), something which the Church has never done before… so my position is quite unorthodox and it concerns me sometimes.
Good post.
One value of such difficulties, other than the fact that it helps keep us humble, is that it keeps us digging deeper.
Are these necessary beliefs? Could you just drop them, more or less, in your own mind at least?
To be sure, it would make your Protestantism look more original; more Catholic maybe, in some ways. But maybe that’s good in the way of ecumenism.
I’d also say you are worried about precisely, some of the most problematic doctrines. And also some of the more divisive ones.
Interestingly, if you went with your questioning leanings, you’d end up closer, in most cases, to a mid-way position between Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism. You’d become more universal.
Brett,
Not necessarily. In some areas there will be a middle ground, but more often a tertium quid (third way). But for these I am expressing a firm adherence to these doctrines even though they have problems.
I think that you will find that finding the “right” position is not always finding the one without any problems. In fact, I would venture to say there there will always be perceived or real problems with issues of truth.
For example, I believe that people are going to end up in hell. The problem that I have with this belief is that 1) I don’t want them to and 2) it can seem out of concert with my view of God’s love. My goal is not to manipulate the truth, if revealed clearly, to solve my perceived problems, but to recognize the problems and allow them to reside in tension with the truth.
Sometimes the truth will be that with the least amount of problems, sometimes it wont.
Gold City,
“God’s sovereign will or will of decree” – that is my position AND problem, as well. It does make for some interesting prayers though.
Add to that unconditional election. Biggest Problem: reconciling with the love of God.
Michael,
“Eternal security” – agree with this as well, except my problem is what of those that leave the faith. Now, the pat answer to this is that they never had genuine faith to begin with. It would be interesting to live inside the person’s head who honestly believed they had claimed Christ as Savior and Lord, lived out that belief for some time, and then walked away.
Your big difficulty with “restrictivism” is also a big difficulty with “sola fide,” agreed?
CMP said:
“I have a bit of a contradiction here as I also believe that children, infants, the unborn, and all others who are mentally unable will be saved even though they may not have ever heard and believed the Gospel.”
Me:
Do they deserve a chance to “[hear] and [believe] the Gospel”?
I know this is a touchy subject, but as Peter O’Brien notes in his commentary on Ephesians, when Paul says that men are [lit.] objects of wrath ‘by nature’ (Eph. 2:3), the apostle means nothing less than ‘by birth’.
Many Christians take CMP’s view because it is more emotionally acceptable. Nevertheless, we shouldn’t accept a view simply because we like it and don’t like the opposite.
BTW, I agree with CMP regarding Sola Fide and Eternal Security. Protestants in general and Calvinists in particular need to do some more in-depth work on these subjects.
The debates surrounding the New Perspective on Paul have forced Protestants (mostly Calvinists) to nuance and further defend (and as I would argue, strengthen) the doctrine of Sola Fide.
However, I would still like to see some more work done on the Final Judgment According to Works passages.
There have been some who have discussed the Eternal Security debate in a more in-depth, exegetical fashion, but not many.
Tom Schreiner has been a leader in this field having written extensively on both subjects:
The Race Set Before Us
New Testament Theology (pp.509-616).
Michael, the fact that you’re willing to admit and discuss the ‘biggest problems’ is what makes the website so valuable. These appear to be points that you have called ‘tensions’ elsewhere. None of us understands Bible truths perfectly, nor has anyone ever. It’s when we become emotionally committed to our own views that we cannot learn from others. In practice, that often means that people defend what they learned first—what they were taught in college or even earlier.
While we strive to keep our minds open to learning, we still desire to reach a working accommodation with the problems. Yet, great figures of the past have sometimes held strong one-sided views; uncertainty doesn’t make for good leaders.
In Matthew 25, Jesus clearly says that the ones DOING WORKS in His name, He doesn’t know.
The ones He knows were not even aware that they were DOING. They had an un-selfconsiousness. There was no ulterior motive (trying to please God out of fear of punishment or hope for reward -[jewels in your crown anyone?] )
They just saw a need and met it.
When people preach faith plus (some) works…they unintentionally shift the focus from Christ (where it all belongs) and onto the DOER of the works (where it does not belong).
It’s ‘Sola Fide’ (the correct doctrine).
Anything else would make the equation 99% , or 98% Jesus and 1% or 2% ‘us’. That just stinks to high Heaven.
No…it’s 100% Jesus…and 0% ‘us’.
Sola Fide.
Though I wouldn’t consider myself a inclusivist in the common usage sense of the word I do sometimes find it amusing when “exclusivists” such as Piper or Macarthur rail against inclusivism as if it’s a black and white thing. There are actually very, very few “true exclusivists”. Most people are inclusivists in the sense that they believe some people (infants, mentally ill, etc.) who have not consciously accepted the Gospel will go to heaven (Piper for instance stated this in response to a question he received), it’s just a matter of how inclusive they are (do people who haven’t heard count).
Michael T. said:
“(do people who haven’t heard count)”
Me:
“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law…” (Romans 2:12).
GoldCityDance,
Have you had a chance to read Denis O. Lamoureux’s book “Evolutionary Creation”?
I’m working through the same position you are regarding TE, but Lamoureux’s book has helped me think through how I read scripture in light of science. This is really one of the best books out there because Lamoureux is uniquely qualified to be speaking on the subject. With three doctorates (dentistry, biology, theology) and a firm commitment to his faith in Jesus Christ, he’s able to navigate through the complexity of reading scripture with modern science in mind.
In a nutshell, the book explains how understanding the Bible through its own ancient phenomenological worldview allows science and scripture to co-exist peacefully, no matter what the science-of-the-day is saying.
Search for his name on Youtube and you should be able to find some of his presentations on the same subject too.
((Just pointing out information to a fellow believer, not wanting to start an off topic debate))
If you find many rational and biblical problems with a position, then after all, doesn’t that suggest that it ISN’T the “right” position after all?
“If you find many rational and biblical problems with a position, then after all, doesn’t that suggest that it ISN’T the “right” position after all?”
No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Dan Wallace has this slogan “follow where the evidence leads”. When examining all the Biblical data understood in its proper context and genre, and that unveils a solid case for a particular truth, then following that evidence one must conclude that the whole counsel of scripture says X is true. That does not mean there won’t be some issues with that particular truth. Although I suspect the problem lies more with us and our faulty thinking and interpretive skills, than with what the Bible is communicating. There are also truths that are just plain hard to swallow, like hell. Nonetheless, we let the Bible says what it says.
Something I have been pondering recently: why must there be an absolutely certain answer to the Calvinism, Arminianism question? Of course there is one, but perhaps it is too complex for us to understand and create a cohesive theology about. It seems to me that the Scriptures are perfectly clear that we as humans created in God’s image have moral responsibility for our actions, and that He has given us a certain kind of free will. It is also perfectly clear to me that God is perfectly sovereign over all things, including us. Did God choose me or did I choose God? Yes to both questions! It is a glorious mystery that should cause wonder and worship. It seems to me the perceived contradictions in Scripture about this, and other issues are supposed to be causing a reverent fear of God and the crazy-awesome desire in His heart to have relationship with man, and to know me personally.
From one perspective, as soon as I begin to think that I am 100 percent eternally secure just because I believe in Jesus and all that goes with that, well I think James would say that even the demons believe and tremble, and it is easy to not come before God with the proper fear and understanding of His righteousness and holiness He desires to create within me, and can morph into a haughty pride before the Judge. On the other hand, as soon as I begin to think that my own sins and imperfection can outweigh what Jesus has done, I will live under a cloud of shame and condemnation, and insecurity in my relationship to the Father. It is also proud in the obvious sense that I may be able to earn the atonement of Jesus, of course. So for me it is not to find a balance, but to live in the tension of these seemingly contradictory concepts of God and myself, and it produces worship, wonder, awe, fascination, fear, love…
Michael,
I also have struggled with Matthew 25 in relation to eternal security and sola fide.
I am wondering if this passage is not talking about just the faithful (those in Christ) but also the unfaithful (those who rejected Christ). From this view point, we see in the story of the talents Jesus talking about three people: the mature Christian (5 talents); the ‘new’ Christian (2 talents) and the one who has rejected Christ (1 talent).
I just think there must be some other explanation for Matthew 25 in lieu of the view of a direct correlation between works for salvation. I feel if we lean toward the later we began to build a contradiction with the rest of the Gospel and Jesus actions of unrelenting forgiveness, i.e. Jesus forgave Peter’s denials, Sauls murderous heart, the gentile woman looking for crumbs, etc, etc, etc…
I know, I know, rationalization to ease ones conflict is easy but we must alway look toward truth no matter how uncomfortable….I must watch myself….
CMP,
Yet another great sharing from you.
Under Eternal security, instead of Matthew 25:14-30, I think the story you referred to is more like what’s in Matthew 18:23-35?
By the way, I share the same struggle with you on “Restrictivism”, probably the biggest one in my own theology. I have much difficulty dealing this one with children (how young do we consider them to be “children”?), infants, and the unborn, especially during this one time when I was attending a funeral of a near full term baby girl.
Saint and Sinner
2:11 For there is no partiality with God. 2:12 For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous.25 2:14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, 2:16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.
Hmm in context the verse you quote doesn’t seem quite so cut and dry. There is also a significant amount of scholarly debate and disagreement even among Evangelical scholars as to what the word “law” refers to in this passage.
That being said let’s just run with your interpretation and proof text. I submit that if one accepts what you propose at face value then one must accept that the mentally handicapped and young children are going to hell. Many of them (I have dealt with severely mentally handicapped individuals in a group home setting) have committed actions which would be considered sin. Whether or not they have heard or comprehended the law is irrelevant according to you. They sinned, have not accepted the Gospel, and therefore are going to hell. Do you actually believe this???
My biggest problem is that I want to know everything, yet I know I never will. While I continually strive to know all truth of the scriptures, I am willing to admit I may be wrong. I still believe I’m right though! “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:24)
Michael T said:
“Do you actually believe this???”
Me:
See my comment (#8) in response to CMP above.
I don’t do theology on the basis of emotion.
If God was just to wipe out the entire human race in the flood (save a few), then he would be just to bring His wrath upon everyone who still bears the image of Adam. No one deserves a chance.
And yes, Romans 2:12 refers to the Torah.
Sorry didn’t see your earlier comment. You are one of the few. Although I would submit that your view creates it’s own set of problems. Just not going to open that can of worms here….too far off topic.
If you are troubled by Hell, you might research it; Hell is not quite as certain or concrete as many think.
Traditionally, 1) much the Old Testament, doesn’t really believe in Hell, as a place where people live on in everlasting torment; Jews believed in “Sheol,” which is a shadowy place at most, in which people have a shadow existence at most it seems.
2)Ecc. often doubts any kind of afterlife at all, Heaven or Hell, many scholars say. from Ecc. 3.14, 3.19-22, 6.4-6,9.2, especially 9.5-10.
3) Hell might appear suddenly in the New Testament in Luke 16. But curiously, the NT maintains that no one ever came back to tell us whether it existed or not (Luke 16.26) – but then recounts a story of people in Hell anyway. And denied the importance of raising from the dead (Luke 16.30). Which is hard to square with the importance of the resurrection of Jesus; and the Jewish tradition of Sheol.
4) Revelation seems in popular interpretation to end with people being thrown into a lake of fire, and having to live there for eternity. Because it is described by some as a lake of “eternal fire”; but the language here is open to more than one reading (and is not found in Rev. 20.13-15). A fire might be eternal, or burn forever; but that does not mean that you yourself will live in it eternally. While “Hades” itself is supposed to be thrown into this fire Rev. 20.14. So that it seems Hell itself is destroyed?
So what is Hell? Is it really as clear as many thought?
5)Indeed, in Rev. 22.15, it seems that bad people survive outside the walls of the City of God; but probably not in Hell, since Hell was destroyed in Rev. 20.14.
6) The term “Hades” is clearly Greek; as is perhaps the concept. So is it from God?
7) “Gehenna” might ha been a burning garbage dump outside the walls; perhaps poor people’s bodies were thrown there.
For these and a thousand other reasons, many scholars are not so sure of Hell after all.
Folks, those of you who are trying to console me about the doctrine of eternal punishment, I appreciate it. I have had many of you send me personal email, links to sites, and even papers you have personally written. Good stuff.
However, please trust me, I have studied this extensively. It is my job after all (which does not mean that I am right, but it does mean that you are probably not going to be able to show me anything new. I have tried to believe every other theory that is out there. I actually want to!
I fully believe in the eternal punishment of the unredeemed, yet I am not comfortable with the doctrine itself. That is all I was saying.
As an aside, I don’t think that God likes the doctrine of hell anymore than I do!
CMP, this post illustrates one of the main reasons I enjoy this blog so much – you have enough honesty and humility to admit that your knowledge and the positions you hold may not be perfect. I get so tired of people who seem to think they’ve cornered the market on truth. Just makes me suspect they haven’t really thought it through. I’m convinced you have. Thanks.
So this post will assume that for sure you and only you know the truth; and it is just a matter of emotionally reconciling yourself and us to that?
I would think that your biggest problem with justification by faith alone would be that the Bible doesn’t ever put the words “faith alone” together in the same sentence, except in James 2:24, which says just the opposite – – “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. ”
Even granted that James is taking this idea from Abraham, who was reckoned righteous before he did anything but believe, this must be an inconvenient way for James to phrase the idea.
Brett, not sure where that came from but it was not really a good tone for conversation.
All I was saying that I have studied the issue. The point of the post is to demonstrate that I still have problems with issues that I believe. No reason for us to zero in an debate a particular issue, but the point that all of us need to recognize that many of the positions we hold are not as clean as we would like AND they don’t necessarily have to be in order to commit to them.
In the spirit of the post, what is the biggest problem you have with your own position about the punishment of the unregenerate (and don’t attempt to answer it. Just leave it be.) Then and only then will it be on topic and beneficial right now.
Sam,
Many interpreters contend that James is not using justification in the same way Paul is. The justification James is speaking of is a demonstration of faith, which does fit in his argument that genuine faith will produce good works. Paul is referring to the legal declaration of “not guilty” due to the work of Christ and faith in that work.
Henry,
You are exactly right. I don’t know how I did that. Thanks so much. It was a big mistake and pivotal for my presentative.
Everyone, please see the revised passage in reference to my problem on “eternal security.”
Thanks Dave (and all others who are commenting)
Lisa,
I understand that, and even agree that James is speaking that way. But the inconvenient fact remains – – faith is only saving faith if it does not attempt to stand alone.
Of the 5 you list I only hold 2, and we would probably differ over what we mean by the first.
Sola Fide
Agree, but I don’t see belief or intellectual ascent to an idea, or trust in someone as a work. Are there other difficulties beyond the passage you quoted? I don’t see that necessarily as a problem as the first passage is about an unfaithful servant, thus they lack faith. And the second is possibly about nations not individuals. Even if it were about individuals, our actions can show that what we claim to be true is in fact not. Many will say Lord, Lord…
Eternal security
Don’t believe it. Way to many biblical problems with this one and no clear passages that teach it.
Premillennialism
No fixed eschatological ideas. The idea of a millennial reign seems somewhat appealing based on some biblical idea I have. Would your problems be attenuated by having a futurist, but not necessarily pre-millennial interpretation?
Restrictivism
Don’t really hold to this, but uncertain how my concept answers the child question.
Sola Scriptura
Agree. Don’t have your difficulty. Though there is the issue of what is the Scripture.
I understand the post is really about how one can be convinced of doctrine yet still have issues with it, scriptural or logical. And recognising these is important. This does raise the question as to how big a problem has to be to force one to revisit his interpretation.
CMP,
Really enjoying another post from you Michael. I felt the same way about the Matthew 25 passage and the sheep/goat judgment. Listening to Chris Rosebrough’s podcast, he pointed out that the sheep and goats are separated first by who they are before the Lord gets to what they did. It did clear some things up for me. Keep up the great work as so many enjoy thinking through our faith.
Don
CMP,
Thank you, thank you, thank you so much for being the first ever restrictivist/exclusivist that I have encountered anywhere to not confuse inclusivism with universalism or pluralism or a belief that “everyone who is generally good enough will go to heaven”. Thank you so much for actually stating what it is, that the salvation of Christ through His death might be applied to some people who have not heard the gospel of Jesus.
Which, by the way, is one of my most problematic beliefs for me.
I know this may not be necessarily as broad as some of the topics being discussed, but I am a trinitarianist, yet sometimes I have difficulty with this concept. As my previous post states, the confusion I have about it is one that causes me to have wonder and awe before the Lord, but also frustration as well. From time to time I have to face up to the fact that it is hard to fully embrace this view in terms of relating to God. I can defend this view doctrinally and logically, at least to some extent, but sometimes in the relationship aspect it can get tricky… although one of my downfalls is that I can be way too over-analytical. And also, thanks for starting a conversation of this type. It is disarming, honest and helpful.
One problem I have with the assertion of a belief in “sola scriptura,” apart from the fact that many people misunderstand it as “nuda scriptura”, naked Scripture, completely divorced from the community of the Church:
People who assert this doctrine also usually assert their belief in the general presuppositions of the Reformation, and are unwilling to examine these presuppositions in the light of Scripture.
An example of this is the reaction of some to what has become known as the “new perspective on Paul.” No doubt there are those who can refute these ideas and considerations on Scriptural grounds, but much, much, much of the criticism I have seen is content to assert that it contradicts a reformed understanding of salvation, without ever dealing with the Biblical arguments.
Sam,
You (and everyone else that agrees with you) had better hope that you are wrong re: Sola Fide.
If you are not wrong, you’ve got a lot of work to do.
CMP: “I encourage others to do the same.”
Alright. I identify myself as a soft 5-point Calvinist. Where I’m soft on is on the “P” of TULIP.
Biggest Weakness: Well, the “P” says that if a person doesn’t persevere, then that person was never a Christian to begin with.
Well, there are some (hopefully not too many) apostates who *look like* they were really regenerated as Christians before and who also had thriving ministries before they became apostate.
Such cases make it rather difficult to say that they were *never* Christians in the first place.
I’m with you T,U,and D.
What’s this whole ‘spiritual battle’ thing if a believer can’t be lost?
Faith can be lost. Not by Jesus…but by us!
No…eternal security is wishful thinking. We need to be kept in faith.
I can’t help but laugh at Saint and Sinner’s insinuation that the view “the unborn don’t go to hell” is based purely on “emotion” (e.g. “I don’t do theology on the basis of emotion”) and the fact that he doesn’t hold that view is a mark of some sort of intellectual courage.
In the absence of any passage that unequivocally states one way or the other where the unborn go when they die, all we are left with are inferences from other scriptural truths. There is certainly a Biblical case to be made for the proposition “the unborn don’t go to hell”; you would think that a well-read fellow like SaS would know that. But instead of acknowledging that case and saying why he disagrees with it, he mentions the emotionalism charge, twice. I find that curious.
The only evidence he offers for his view is a verse from Ephesians that says nothing about the unborn or their eternal destiny, so he too is left merely with an inference. Let’s compare his inference with a common inference in support of the view he apparently disagrees with (both arguments assume that what the Bible teaches is true):
1. A verse in Ephesians says we are objects of wrath by nature.
2. By “nature” Paul means from conception.
3. People who have not consciously repented and believed in the gospel remain objects of wrath.
4. Objects of wrath go to hell when they die.
5. The unborn have not consciously repented and believed in the gospel when they die.
6. The unborn are objects of wrath if they die (3 and 5).
7. Therefore: the unborn, who have “done nothing either good or bad”, go to hell if they die (6 and 4)
Ah, “Sola Scriptura”. Gotta love it!
vs
1. The entire Bible teaches that God is just.
2. A just God would not eternally punish the unborn who have “done nothing either good or bad”.
3. Therefore, the unborn don’t go to hell.
SaS’s argument: Pure Bible!
Our argument: Pure “emotion”!
Perhaps it’s the people who hold the SaS’s view who do so for emotional…
“Well, there are some (hopefully not too many) apostates who *look like* they were really regenerated as Christians before and who also had thriving ministries before they became apostate.
Such cases make it rather difficult to say that they were *never* Christians in the first place.”
TUAD, I agree also (see comment #6)
Steve, regarding spiritual battle, is it about rendering the Christian ineffective or about an actual loss of salvation?
Lisa,
It’s about salvation (I believe) and the devil’s desire (and our own complicity) to steal it away from us. The devil isn’t so much after small potatoes…he wants it all.
That we are ineffective and then effective is the human condition.
God uses it all.
“A just God would not eternally punish the unborn who have “done nothing either good or bad”.”
I think (could be wrong) that SaS would say that this is an emotional argument. He would say that it is purely based on emotion that we say that a just God would not punish those who have done nothing good or bad. I think there are a couple problems with this of course, but I think this is what he would say.
Such interesting reading. And, it seems that herein lies the basis for denominations. One person, a strong Christian, can’t accept that a God of love can allow the eternal damnation of an infant. Another, a strong Christian, can’t accept that a person who truly was a Christian can change their mind and walk away and be lost. Yet another, a strong Christian, knows that the earth is older than 6,000 years, but wants to believe in the literal words of the Bible which says it is 6,000 years old. I don’t know why so many interpretations of the same Bible words are possible, but I do know that the reason we can’t worship together is pride and arrogance of opinion. One of Jesus’ primary battles was combatting the petty, legalistic arguments of the Pharisees with His simple, common sense, heart-of-the-matter approach to them. Should you heal on the Sabbath? Aren’t there rules against that? Of course you should when someone is hurting and in need. And a million other examples of His rule breaking example. Rules that came from thousands of years of tradition. I think we get too wrapped up in having exacting answers, just the way the Pharisees did. Just relax. God is going to take care of it all, and in the most loving and wonderful manner, way better than we can imagine. I don;t have a problem discussing the hard things, just getting so crazy you have to start your own church because of it.
The biggest problem I have with your dilemma of solvability, or at the least finding solace perhaps a better word perspicacity, in pursuit of knowable truth, is, no one out of theological circles really cares. Let me explain, as much as I love engaging in theology (thanks to you Michael Patton) and the philosophical realities facing humanity greatest challenges in a biblical worldview. I find the average (if I can say this without malice towards brothers & sisters in Christ) Christian does not care about all the hub bub. To them simple belief (and do some degree meritus efforts to engage socially in the church) is an easier pill to swallow than to dwell in the land of the theological elite and the wannabee’s like myself that find this stuff fascinating and spiritually edifying for the soul, body and mind, especially the mind. One needs, to say the least, in this age, be well tutored in a biblical theological Christ centered mentality. I find when I engage in this sort of thing with family and friends, especially family. They tend to be forceful enough to conjure up “what is your problem do you believe or not” attitude. Or you chase people off with your talking over their heads, or how do you know you’re right and so on.
It becomes self defeating and at times seems like the best thing is to walk away from all of these endless debatable questions and live a simple believer’s life. But I can’t something tugs me back into the circle of the few and lonely. For what I don’t know, perhaps in the questions themselves such as your list (which by the way I struggle with too) and some of my own. Perhaps the logic is in sustained chaos until an orderly system overruns our own feeble desires to know. As you have said and I default here, Deut. 29:29
It seems to me that we get our sense of justice from God. Perhaps it’s part of the imago Dei. Corrupted in the Fall? Yes, but still with roots in divine Justice. Therefore, what we see as unjust may be aligned (to an unknown extent) with real God Justice. It may provoke an emotional response, but that does not erase the very real question of justice.
Dave Z:
Are we really sure that an SaS argument, that would condemn the unborn to Hell, really is from the Bible and God? And not from men, and their opinions about the BIble? And their own negative and angry emotions?
Consider in fact, the “loving” God argument: it is not “just” an emotional argument. Because oddly. the emotion invoked here – love – is approved by God, in the Bible, as a major principle of Christian Life.
If we think that would be un”loving” then after all, the Bible itself made “love” perhaps the supreme value, even over faith:
“Faith Love and hope abide, but the greatest of these is love”(1 Corin. 13.13)
There is after all, one emotion that is allowed and given preeminence in the Bible: Love.
Therefore appeals to “love” are not JUST emotional, but ALSO biblical.
We should be suspicious of theologies that embrace deadly and angry consequences; in part because the Bible itself finally instituted love as a major biblical value and principle.