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"
Dave,
I would of course agree with your statement. I was just arguing devil’s advocate. I have actually argued similar things elsewhere on this blog. To me in order for the statement that “God is just” to have any decipherable meaning the word “just” must be reflective of what humans conceive of as just. Now it may not be a perfect fit because God’s justice is perfect and human justice is anything but. Yet there must be a correlation. God cannot behave in a manner that is the antithesis of just and still call Himself just if His revelation to humanity in written language is to be meaningful and decipherable.
On another note while some people like SaS claim to “do theology without emotions” I find this statement absurd. Our makeup as a human being including our emotions inevitably influence our theology. There is no such this as a “white-coat” theologian who analyzes things and spits out answers like a computer, it is simply impossible without becoming something other than human. To me anyone who makes such a claim is deceiving themselves.
Brett,
The Biblical concept of love is not one that is chiefly tied to emotion, that idea of love is a product of modern times. However, I think your argument can still hold by reworking it.
I think the point here is one of the analogy entis. When the Bible is does not exclicitly deal with an issue, we move to second level-verification (that which is done by implication). Here is where both sides of the “destiny of the mentally unable” comes to make their case. I think that a case here can be made by both sides, with neither having to appeal to emotion for support. Even here, the issue is somewhat inconclusive. (I am not stating the arguments here).
In the end, some may end up siding with the “all mentally unable are saved” due to emotional reasons, but it would certianly not mean that it is PURELY emotional. As well, they may, as I do, appeal to the analogy entis for support of their emotional bents being representative of the truth.
Michael T,
You said: “To me in order for the statement that “God is just” to have any decipherable meaning the word “just” must be reflective of what humans conceive of as just.”
That is a good description of the analogy entis.
Michael T,
“On another note while some people like SaS claim to “do theology without emotions” I find this statement absurd. Our makeup as a human being including our emotions inevitably influence our theology. There is no such this as a “white-coat” theologian who analyzes things and spits out answers like a computer, it is simply impossible without becoming something other than human. To me anyone who makes such a claim is deceiving themselves.”
Good stuff my brother. You want to start a Credo House in your area? 🙂 Your a good thinker. Have recognized that for a while.
Brett,
“If we think that would be un”loving” then after all, the Bible itself made “love” perhaps the supreme value, even over faith”
That kind of argument can be used just as easily by universalists. Because, as they would say, it would be unloving for a loving God to send people to hell.
Michael T said:
“Our makeup as a human being including our emotions inevitably influence our theology. There is no such this as a “white-coat” theologian who analyzes things and spits out answers like a computer, it is simply impossible without becoming something other than human.”
Me:
I never meant that I was completely objective. What I meant was that we have to try to put our emotions aside when we do theology. If one does not start with the premise that the unborn *deserve* to go to heaven, then the natural conclusion from the exegesis of Psalm 51, Romans 5, and Ephesians 2 is that even children (being sons and daughters of Adam) are under the wrath of God.
Michael T said:
““To me in order for the statement that “God is just” to have any decipherable meaning the word “just” must be reflective of what humans conceive of as just.””
Me:
Well, that depends on who you ask. Most of American society would say that it is unjust for God to send anyone to hell.
Sorry. We are fallen sons and daughters of Adam. What we think is just may not be what is actually just to God.
As such, this argument is an argumentum ad populum.
“must be reflective of what humans conceive of as just.”
In case you did not know, I’m human.
BTW, saying that it would be unjust for God to send such people to hell would be to beg the very question under dispute.
“Most of American society would say that it is unjust for God to send anyone to hell.”
I disagree. Ask most people that if assuming there is a heaven and a hell should Hitler be in heaven or hell and see what response you get. I submit that most would consider it a travesty of justice for Hitler to be in heaven.
Saint, I think that Michael’s point is that to even broach an understanding of what justice is, there has to be an analogy to our being. With this I agree.
While I agree that emotions cannot dictate the truth, to suggest that they are not important in understanding the truth is to miss Michael’s point. Both experience and emotions are not only present, but they are valuable to help us understand many things, including the character of God. The modernistic ideal that we should set aside our experience and emotions in order to find a better or more truer truth is to sacrafice a biblical epistimology in favor of cartesian objectivity.
“Good stuff my brother. You want to start a Credo House in your area? 🙂 Your a good thinker. Have recognized that for a while.”
Thank you….maybe someday. I still haven’t figured out how to even convince people that this stuff is important yet. That and I have student loans that need repaying before I start in on another degree.
Ask Americans if they deserve to be in Heaven, or hell.
How many would get it right.
Greg, thanks for the recommendation. I’ll look into Denis O. Lamoureux’s book “Evolutionary Creation”.
God would send embryos and children to Hell, because they didn’t read scripture? And forget about love and forgiveness, but just enforce Protestant Law? Because his love is not forgiving, sentimal, human; but is consistent with punishing innocents?
Well, let’s look at that for a second. Is the “love” of God, really tough love? Not much forgiveness? Not much love as humans might think of it? In much of theology, it is thought that the Bible in fact changed slightly on this, and many other issues, from the Old, to the New Testaments. Which was basically a change from the era of “Law,” to the era of forgiveness, or “Grace.”
The God of the Old Testament was very, very severe; he sets firm “laws” – and enforced the death pentality when people didn’t follow them. If he had “love,” it was a sort of very, very tough love it seems. But most theologians believe that God was prevailed upon by Jesus, to become less severe. Jesus instituted another, slighly less deadly and law-enforcing theology, of forgiveness or “Grace.”Hence the Biblical distinction, between the era of “Law,” vs. “Grace.”
How did this change come about? Thanks to the gracious forgiveness and sacrifice of Jesus, the severe God of the Old Testament was moved, it is thought, to forgive man to some extent even for original sin; and to be more graciously forgiving – less punishing; less “law” enforcing – toward him.So that the old severe, unbending, always punishing God of the Old Testament … was modified slightly. To become more fogiving, loving. Thanks to the intercession of Jesus.
For this reason, arguments that this or that behavior is not “loving,” even in the rather human seeming sense of being forgiving, not punishing … do find some theological support. In the idea of a BIble that progressed from an era of “Law,” to an era of “Grace.” From the Old Testament Pharisees, to New Testament Christians.
Ron said:
“and the fact that he doesn’t hold that view is a mark of some sort of intellectual courage.”
Me:
No, I have, at one time, held that very thing in my heart, and that was the sin of pride. But no, the reason I brought it up was because CMP’s belief is frequently used by Universalists as an argument against exclusivism. Also, I’ve seen it used by pro-abortionists as an argument for Christians not to oppose abortion. (I kid you not! A commenter going by ‘CT’ has appeared frequently over at the blog, ‘Between Two Worlds’, and has actually made such arguments.)
Ron said:
“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.”
Me:
Yes. Psalm 51, Romans 5, and Ephesians 2 are clearly on my side.
Ron said:
“There is certainly a Biblical case to be made for the proposition “the unborn don’t go to hell””
Me:
No, there isn’t. People often appeal to David’s statement in 2 Samuel when his son dies that he will join his son, but that probably refers to the grave. Others appeal to the coming of age of a person in their early adulthood, but that has to do with legality in an Israelite court, not whether someone is an object of wrath before God.
Ron said:
“The only evidence he offers for his view is a verse from Ephesians that says nothing about the unborn or their eternal destiny”
Me:
I made my case that my view is the logical conclusion of the text.
Ron said:
“A just God would not eternally punish the unborn who have “done nothing either good or bad”.”
Me:
The quote comes from Romans 9 where Paul is arguing that *election* is not on the basis of foreseen works. This has nothing to do with whether someone has inherited the corruption and guilt (yes, they go together…sorry Eastern Orthodox!) of Adam (Psalm 51, Romans 5, Ephesians 2).
Michael T said:
“I disagree. Ask most people that if assuming there is a heaven and a hell should Hitler be in heaven or hell and see what response you get. I submit that most would consider it a travesty of justice for Hitler to be in heaven.”
Me:
Fair enough.
Now ask them about every socially descent unbeliever. Most would say that, no, they don’t deserve to go to hell. In fact, most unbelievers would say that they don’t deserve to go to hell.
Brett said:
“to forgive man to some extent even for original sin”
Me:
No, Brett. The sacrifice of Christ does not undo Original Sin for every single last person. It propitiates God and expiates all sin for the person to whom it is applied.
CMP said:
“there has to be an analogy to our being”
Me:
To whose being? Yours or mine?
CMP said:
“but they are valuable to help us understand many things, including the character of God”
Me:
Yet people invent their own deities made in their own image all the time.
This is the argument of the homosexual “Christian.”
This is the argument of the Universalist.
CMP:
“The modernistic ideal that we should set aside our experience and emotions in order to find a better or more truer truth is to sacrafice a biblical epistimology in favor of cartesian objectivity.”
Me:
I never claimed cartesian objectivity. See my comment above (#57).
The gospel allows that a man like Hitler could be in Heaven.
That’s not a recommendation.
It’s just that so many fail to understand the depth of our sin (all of us).
And so few fail to understand God’s freedom in saving ‘real sinners’.
Petevet said:
“One person, a strong Christian, can’t accept that a God of love can allow the eternal damnation of an infant.”
Me:
No, that’s not what I said. In fact, I would most certainly say that He could if Scripture said so (which I wish it did). However, Scripture points in the opposite direction. Though, I would be very glad to find out that I’m wrong.
The universalist could say, “One person, a strong Christian, can’t accept that a God of love can allow the eternal damnation of a socially good unbeliever who followed the Golden Rule.”
I said: “There is certainly a Biblical case to be made for the proposition ‘the unborn don’t go to hell'”
SaS replied: “No, there isn’t. People often appeal to David’s statement in 2 Samuel…”
So, you say that there is no case, but then go on to explain why you disagree with the case? You seem to be confused between “there being no case” and “disagreeing with a case”.
But more to the point; can you please demonstrate how either of the two textual arguments you mentioned are based on emotion?
SaS: “I made my case that my view is the logical conclusion of the text.”
You made no such case, you just quoted a verse. Again, you seem to be confused between actually presenting an argument and just saying “these verses clearly support my view” (the latter merely being an unargued-for assertion).
SaS: “The quote comes from Romans 9 where Paul is arguing that *election* is not on the basis of foreseen works. This has nothing to do with whether someone has inherited the corruption and guilt (yes, they go together…sorry Eastern Orthodox!) of Adam”
Irrelevant. The obvious point is that many see a blatant incompatibility between God’s justice and the claim that God would condemn people who have never done anything, or have never even been conscious for that matter. This is a simple argument based on the meaning of a word, and again, has nothing to do with emotion.
SaS: “Yes. Psalm 51, Romans 5, and Ephesians 2 are clearly on my side.”
Yes, “clearly”. As I demonstrated, there is a long chain of inferences that lie between the premise “original sin exists” and “the unborn who die go to hell”. Many of those inferences can be disputed with relative ease.
Here’s a suggestion: rather than use bad arguments that allow contemporary communities that are capable of perverting ancient ideas redefine the value of those concepts, or speculate beyond one’s ability that Person Type A will not be saved because of Implied Doctrine B, why not instead worry about those issues that we can do something about? No one can preach the gospel to the unborn. No one can save them, but God. Perhaps, that is why we are not savvy to their possible destinies. Instead, we ought to cease to make arguments based on the assumed answers to those questions, and continue in our pursuits of other things. I have my own ideas that I think are based on Scriptural ideas of justice and familial guilt/reward; but in the end, just hope that God’s will is done, because that is the best that can be done. Can’t we all just get along? 😉
Hodge,
Yes, my statement here is based on emotion. But for some of us that have an unborn baby or babies that went somewhere, this is certainly a very loaded issue. The pain involved in thinking that child could be in hell is probably more then most women, (and men too), that have lost a much longed for child in miscarriage or still birth could even begin to wrap their mind and heart around. There is way too much pain and grief involved in this situation to easily put this issue aside and focus on other things like you are suggesting.
Cheryl,
I realize the benefit in telling oneself that one way is right and another wrong, but there is simply no way to know other than speculation. That’s my point. If it makes you feel better to believe one way, then believe it. If not, then don’t. But it’s not going to contribute to a genuine understanding of these issues one way or another. In my view, the children of believers are saved. That may bring comfort to believers; but in the end, we just don’t know, and it has not been revealed by God for good reason, since our concern must be for the living. It would bring great comfort to me if my Dad were saved, but I have no way of knowing if he actually was. I can’t live my life wondering about it when he has set me to minister to the living. The fate of my father, no matter how joyful or painful it might be, will not contribute beneficially to my ministry here if I let it occupy my mind instead of that which God has purposed me to do here. That’s my only point. I’m not saying it won’t be difficult and painful either way. I’m just saying that the living need to set their minds in service of God toward the living.
Hodge,
You keep using the word “speculation”. Are you suggesting that anything the Bible does not make a definitive and unequivocal statement on necessarily falls into the range of speculation?
Ron,
No. I’m suggesting that this issue has not been revealed to us either explicitly or by way of implication. I say that because all sides can make arguments from certain parts of Scripture that don’t necessarily imply what those arguments suggest. So I say it’s speculation because that best defines theory about the unknown.
Many questions have been raised here; was CMP’s point that nothing is ever certain in life; we can learn to live with some questions?
I personally can live with a theology that leaves many things open.
Isn’t the practice of theology rather like a statistical regression? With a regression, we have a bunch of data points (on price and quantity, say) and we are trying to figure out what the process was by which these points were generated (price determines quantity according to some formula, for example).
Scripture (and Tradition(!), for us Catholics) gives us a bunch of data points — these things that God has done, ways he has interacted, activities of his people, all that. Then, theology attempts to figure out what sort of God it is that generates these observations. One measure of the strength of a theology is the degree to which it explains the data, to be a bit clinical about it.
Thing is, the theology is only so good. Just like the statistical analysis, there are goingto be many data points that are not exactly predicted by the theory as it is applied. If I had a perfect model for the demand of some product, I’d never be surprised by how much gets sold in a quarter. If I had a perfect theological model, I’d never have unexplained data points when it comes to God.
If we think that God is larger than we can grasp, then we would expect that every theology is mistaken on some level. Moreover, supposing that we can focus only on those things we figure are “essential” is an error, since our goal is not merely to “explain” some of the data points, it is to understand the system that makes the data points. Anyone who works to understand God will not content himself with explaining some so-called essential teachings, but will work to understand the One, though that is impossible in this life.
Ron said:
“You seem to be confused between “there being no case” and “disagreeing with a case”.”
Me:
It is common English to say that a bad case for something is no case at all.
Ron said:
“But more to the point; can you please demonstrate how either of the two textual arguments you mentioned are based on emotion?”
Me:
Because you can’t make an exegetical case (as opposed to an eisegetical case), emotion normally trumps any exegetical case made for the opposite position. When Scripture says that all people are deserving of wrath ‘by nature’ (i.e. the logical implication of that would be ‘by birth’), then we should infer that Scripture strongly points in the direction of my position. However, human emotion (usually caused by thinking that the cute cuddly infant is somehow completely innocent) overrides the logical inference based on Ephesians 2 (not to mention Psalm 51 and Romans 5).
Ron said:
“You made no such case, you just quoted a verse.”
Me:
If you want me to cite the entire comments on the passage from Peter O’Brien’s commentary when I get home, I will.
Ron said:
“Irrelevant. The obvious point is that many see a blatant incompatibility between God’s justice and the claim that God would condemn people who have never done anything, or have never even been conscious for that matter.”
Me:
False. That is exactly what it is arguing against! Election or reprobation is ***not*** based on anything foreseen in someone’s life. That is why Paul appeals to the fact that God chose before they were born.
Ron said:
“As I demonstrated, there is a long chain of inferences that lie between the premise “original sin exists” and “the unborn who die go to hell”.”
Me:
Being born in sin clearly demonstrates guilt before God. The guilty will be punished. So, yes, I have made my case.
Saint and Sinner,
On the other hand, Ezekiel 18 makes it plain a couple of times that it is the person that sins that shall die and that a person does not die for his father’s sins. Has an unborn baby had the opportunity to sin yet so that he/she should die?
SaS,
You know when you describe you opponents as “eisegetes” and claim that “no case can be made” you really do show that the position you hold is one of pride. You enjoy being able to sit on your ivory tower separated from everyone else and accuse them of eisegesis while your positions are 100% solid exegesis. The fact that just about everyone (scholars and lay people alike) disagree with you is something that to you only proves that you’re right. I could name person after person (Mohler, Spurgeon, Piper, Warfield, Sproul, Macarthur, CMP, Wallace (I think), etc. etc. etc.) who are Calvinists and considered world class pastors, exegetes, and scholars and disagree with your position, yet to you this would be a badge of honor. Everyone else is wrong while you in your emotionless tower are secure knowing that you have the only “right” answer. Ultimately you’re just as emotional as the rest of us.
I ultimately agree with what Hodge said. I believe what I believe, but it is speculation and inference from Biblical arcs and themes, not something that is explicitly taught.
SaS: “Because you can’t make an exegetical case (as opposed to an eisegetical case), emotion normally trumps any exegetical case made for the opposite position.”
Wow. Pure hubris.
SaS: “If you want me to cite the entire comments on the passage from Peter O’Brien’s commentary when I get home, I will.”
No thanks, just as long as we agree that you in fact made no such case, I think we’re fine!
SaS: “False. That is exactly what it is arguing against! Election or reprobation is ***not*** based on anything foreseen in someone’s life.”
This is just subject changing. Nobody is talking about election. The “reprobate” will be punished for the sins they committed.
SaS: “Being born in sin clearly demonstrates guilt before God. The guilty will be punished. So, yes, I have made my case.”
You have presented no case– um, I mean, you have presented a bad case:
“Being born in sin clearly demonstrates guilt before God.”
No. You have not argued for this. Saying “clearly” is not an argument. Being conceived in sin can just as easily mean that we are conceived with a “sinful nature”, but are not actually guilty before God.
Secondly, even if original guilt is embraced, it simply does not follow that the unborn who die will go to hell. It is possible (and we have Biblical examples of this) that God can regenerate the unborn apart from a conscious profession of faith. Thinking back to my Biola days, I believe both Grudem and Erickson made this argument. But I’m sure they’re just eisegetes arguing from pure emotion.
Ron said:
“This is just subject changing. Nobody is talking about election. The “reprobate” will be punished for the sins they committed.”
Me:
You brought up the passage from Romans 9. Election is the context of the passage.
Ron said:
“No. You have not argued for this. Saying “clearly” is not an argument. Being conceived in sin can just as easily mean that we are conceived with a “sinful nature”, but are not actually guilty before God.”
Me:
That’s a Hellenistic distinction that was completely foreign to the Ancient Near Eastern context in which the Bible was written. The two go together.
Ron said:
“(and we have Biblical examples of this)”
Me:
Could you name them? I’ve already addressed the 2 Samuel passage. What others did you have in mind?
Michael T said:
“You know when you describe you opponents as “eisegetes” and claim that “no case can be made” you really do show that the position you hold is one of pride.”
Me:
Alright, make your case.
S and S,
Again, what do you do with Ezekiel 18? (See comment # 82)
SaS: “You brought up the passage from Romans 9. Election is the context of the passage.”
Irrelevant. I merely borrowed a phrase from the passage which demonstrates that the unborn have done nothing good or bad. For you to assert that the claim only has meaning in the context of election is just downright bizarre.
SaS: “That’s a Hellenistic distinction that was completely foreign to the Ancient Near Eastern context in which the Bible was written. The two go together.”
Argument please.
Sas: “Could you name them? I’ve already addressed the 2 Samuel passage. What others did you have in mind?”
John the Baptist. “and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”
And for the record, you said like one sentence with regards to the 2 Samuel passage. The fact that you believe your assertion settles the matter is just incredible.
Things are getting too heated (on both sides).
I apologize if I came across as prideful. I may have had some of that in me.
I apologize for anything else that I have done wrong.
CMP: I’m sorry that I attributed motives to you without knowledge.
Everyone, please forgive me.
Saint and Sinner,
Forgiven. I may very well be the one feeling the need for it before the day is over.
SaS,
The reason I have avoided making my case is because it will very quickly degenerate into Calvinism vs. Arminianism as well as numerous other issues which are not the topic of this post. Since this debate is already semi-off topic I’m trying to keep from dragging it further off topic. That being said Al Mohler, a noted Calvinist, wrote on the topic of infant salvation here.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/
Spurgeon also gave a sermon on the subject which can be found fairly easily on the internet and Warfield wrote extensively on it as well.
Michael T,
Thanks for that link.
Also I apologize if my earlier statement came across harshly. It’s just that when someone paints the vast majority of Christian scholars (including most Calvinists) as emotional “eisegetes” who are holding a “unbiblical” position I can’t help but see that as a rather arrogant position to take. It simply assumes that your position and arguments are correct and convincing and no one has a good reason for rejecting them.
I am by training a lawyer and I can tell you first hand that arguments which were convincing in my own head were convincing only to me. In order to state what you boldly state one would have to attribute things to your opponents I am not sure you want to attribute to them. Either they have heard your arguments and completely ignored them (making them willfully ignorant) or never explored those argument (making them poor scholars considering how long this argument has existed). It is far more likely that many of them have heard your arguments, carefully considered them, and found them unconvincing.
I just cannot see why anyone would want to hold to a doctrine that has major problems. In my theology (dispensational Pentecostal)has no doctrinal problems that I could not reconcile.
r,
I could inform you of many of the problems with dispensationalism (and I am one!). The point is that there is no theology that does not have SOME problems. Problems do not mean that they cannot be overcome, they are just areas in our theology that are not as clean as they could be.
And since no theology – or church – is all that certain, we should always be open to many different opinions, many points of view.
Michael,
I commend you for your honesty in recognizing that some of the most cherished and even fundamental beliefs of evangelical Christianity are not without problems. Most evangelicals that I know will not admit this fact.
Here is my take on it:
The reason there are contradictory passages (problem passages in your view) is because the Bible reflects the various theologies of its writers. If it were divinely inspired, I don’t think you would have these contradictions.
Most evangelicals resolve the tensions in the following way: They give priority to one set of passages (as an example, let’s say those that teach faith alone) and then interpret the other passages (problem passages) to agree with those that they have given priority to. Often, they have to stretch and remold the problem passages to agree with the ones they have given the priority. You see this all the time. The problem passages for the Calvinist are the proof texts for the Arminian and vice-versa.
Interesting discussion on infant salvation. If Mohler and others are right, then faith is not necessary for salvation. Election saves in and of itself. Add this little problem to your list of difficulties.
I think the Bible really has nothing to say on the subject of infant salvation. Preachers who have to deal with grieving parents have come up with “the age of accountability” and other such extra-biblical phrases to justify what they are saying. As Mohler notes, original sin is a huge problem for the idea that infants go to heaven. His solution that election saves them without faith on their part is extra-biblical and I would say is driven by man’s sense that these children really are innocent. However, if they really are innocent, then why did God order the extermination of the Canaanite children along with their parents? Ditto, the Amalekite children. Ditto, the first-born children in Egypt.
God can surely save apart from Baptism.
But He has chosen to also save IN Baptism:
http://utah-lutheran.blogspot.com/2010/03/baptism-saves.html
Why some people believe that Jesus neglected to give us an age, when he commanded us to baptize (all peoples – ponta ethnae – the whole world) just boggles my mind.
There is way too much rationalism in the church when it comes to the things of God.
Michael T, Cherylu,
Thank you.