VARIOUS COMMENTS ON THINKMAIL #18 :
Pastor & Author Ralph Woodrow writes:
Thanks for being in touch. I had also received the article about JFK Jr. from our friend Tom Warner. Tom is coming to see us in a few days. I am writing a book that will include some material regarding rumors. I am aware of the NASA, McDonald's, P and G, FCC, Hole drilled into hell, Social security checks requiring a mark, stone cut in Indiana for temple, Amie McPherson buried with a live phone, George Washington's Vision, wooden teeth, etc. Let me know, if you like, of others you have come across and I will respond. I will appreciate the sharing of information.
Advent Christian Pastor Tom Warner writes:
I did receive your thinkmail. Thanks for reprinting my article.
Gary Friesen was one of my professors at Multnomah Bible College during the time "Decision Making..." was released. I enjoyed being able to quiz him on my doorstep one afternoon about questions I had about his ideas in the book. (We lived next door to the campus.)
I especially enjoyed your article about the stories that are circulated among Christians, though they have no basis in fact. Amazing how they seem to never die. Did you hear of the one about hell being discovered in Siberia (or somewhere)?
As for 2 Peter 2 (which is where I'm at in preaching through the book), I think you do an admirable job of arguing that the false teachers were never regenerate. (Other passages pose much bigger problems for unconditional security, I think, as ably demonstrated in Robert Shank's "Life in the Son.") I do feel you may have dealt a bit hastily with a few things, however.
<< Jude compares these men to Egypt (note the words, "them that believed NOT")....>>
Are you sure that it refers to Egyptians and not Israelites? There are at least two other passages in the N.T. which use the Israelites in the wilderness as a warning of the danger of apostacy (i.e., falling away from believing) for Christians (and, by "Christians," I mean those who've confessed faith in Jesus and been baptized; only God knows their hearts):
1 Cor 10 -- (which follows 9:26-27, speaking of Paul's own intent to persevere in the faith so that he is not finally "rejected" ASV) -- He seems to say that the Israelites had every spiritual advantage, including "drinking from the spiritual rock," which was Christ. (If that is only explaining typology, instead of describing a spiritual experience, the fact is that, in the typology, the Israelites would seem to represent fully initiated Christians.) Nevertheless, "with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness." "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things... be idolaters,... or commit fornication.... Wherefore, let the one who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."
That sounds like a warning of the danger of apostacy for Christians. And, that those who think they cannot possibly fall away are in an even greater danger.
Heb 3-4 -- This warning for those who are "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" (v.1), urges them not to harden their hearts as Israel did in the wilderness (3:8-4:2). Sounds, again, like a warning to Christians.
As Shank points out, Jude 12's description of the apostates as being 'twice dead' may be an allusion to their being formerly regenerate, but, after their apostacy, being again "without the Spirit" (as they were before their conversion). Thus, they are "twice dead." When you speak of 2 Peter2:20, you say... << the 'knowledge' is the head knowledge. >>
But, I noted a few days ago, while studying the passage that Williams New Testament (which strives for a very literal translation) renders that as "full knowledge." Gnosis is knowledge, but epignosis is a full knowledge, according to him. (And he taught at Moody Bible Institute as I recall, so he very likely believed in eternal security, but was honest enough to render this problem passage accurately.) Their "knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" enabled them to "escape the defilements of the world." Those considerations make it very difficult for me to see their "knowledge" as mere "head knowledge."
That their escape was "only temporary," as you point out, could be used to argue either an Arminian or Calvinist view.
Our disagreement over this issue doesn't lessen my appreciation for you. I don't have any expectation that you will leave behind your conviction about eternal security, but I think Calvinists and Arminians would be wise to let the promises and the warnings of Scripture stand as they are written, without worrying too much about how they fit or don't fit in our favorite theological system.
Personally, I think we ought to preach these texts to Christians, rather than explain why they should not scare us. I believed the same thing when I was a Calvinist. If we are unconditionally secure, it is only because God has decreed that he will preserve us in faith and holiness. One of the means that he uses is the warning passages.
All because of Grace, Tom
Good to hear from you again! Yes, I have heard various versions of the "we drilled down to hell and heard screams" story. It is amazing how such stories continue to be circulated, some of them being truly unbelievable from square one.
I read Shank's book many years ago. I still consider it one of the best cases for Arminianism, but nevertheless found it unconvincing at the time (I was myself Arminian slowly becoming a Calvinist at that time). Of course, you are correct that there are indeed other passages that are more difficult. I must confess that I certainly don't have them all neatly sewn up ; )
YOU WROTE: "Are you sure that it refers to Egyptians and not Israelites?"
Actually, you are entirely correct here (that's what I get for doing last-minute newsletters!). Of course, Jude 5 parallels 1 Cor. 10:5 somewhat. However, I wouldn't draw from this that the security of the regenerate is conditional. As I think Paul makes clear in Romans 9-11, those truly elect in Israel existed 'in mixed company' with those of natural Israel who were nevertheless not of spiritual Israel. Jude's description that they 'believed not' simply drives this point home to me. I will correct this in issue #19.
Your point on the 'spiritual rock' which they drank from is a good point, but we must also remember that Paul is very clear in saying that his typological reference was true of *all* of natural Israel at that time. Yet we know that not all of natural Israel was truly regenerate from other passages.
I would disagree on verse 12. I find greater significance in the words "let he that *thinks*" as opposed to "let he that stands." Further, I would say that "fall" does not decribe the popular notion of "falling away." In context, the "fall" warned against is that of FALLING INTO TEMPTATION - this is demonstrated by reading on to verse 13.
In my opinion, the entire passage is not a discourse on the possibility of undoing our salvation in Christ, but rather a warning against thinking ourselves beyond temptation.
I would consider Hebrews 3-4 as primarily concerning natural Israel, the objects of the writers discourse being unsaved per 3:19; 4:1-2.
I would disagree with Shank on Jude 12, regarding "twice dead" as referring to the punishment that they are reserved to and in fact ordained to.
I acknowledge Williams' translation of epignosis. Actually, nearly all commentaries will point this out. Here, it depends on what you regard as "full knowledge." I believe that the amount of "light" we have determines the severity of the Judgment. For Peter/Jude to be able to make the statements made of these teachers, I would certainly expect their knowledge to be a full grasp of the Gospel message. This is precisely why their judgment and condemnation is put in such terms. I don't believe that this requires the knowledge to be HEART knowledge though. That such is possible seems clear from Matthew 13 (and the decisive verse from Luke's parallel).
YOU WROTE: "I think we ought to preach these texts to Christians, rather than explain why they should not scare us. I believed the same thing when I was a Calvinist. If we are unconditionally secure, it is only because God has decreed that he will preserve us in faith and holiness. One of the means that he uses is the warning passages."
Oh, absolutely! Remember, I stated at the very beginning of the column that my only purpose was to demonstrate why I believe that those described in that passage were unregenerate. I totally agree with Edward Fudge, and consider the easy believism version of 'once saved, always saved' to be an extreme (and abusive) representation of the doctrine of the perseverence of the saints.
One of my points has always been that the warning passages should be heeded "in fear and trembling" whether the consequence is loss of salvation or not. I do not believe that one truly elect and regenerate can lose salvation, but nor do I believe that it is "no big deal" to "suffer loss" in the face of God! Furthermore, the "assurance" passages so often parroted by some - as I see them - are often based on what we can observe in our walk and on continual self-examination. For instance, I've often heard the verse from 1 John quoted alone in sermons on assurance, but they rarely go on to see that John's concept of "believe" was manifested in our walk.
Believers like you and I just *barely* disagree, I think. The two groups that I have great problems with are (1) those who teach an 'easy-believism,' 'once saved, always saved' type of thing where all warning passages are ignored and the 'suffering loss' of the believer is 'played down' as if it didn't really matter much; -and- (2) those Arminians who teach loss of salvation based on the tiniest infraction, to the point that - since none know their time of death - salvation is literally left up to *chance*. Needless to say, I am not in the first category, and - if I am reading you correctly - you are not in the second ; )
Consider these two facts in your studies:
(1) There are several very clear *absolute* statements concerning unconditional security IF one is truly saved. However, the passages often set forth as teaching 'loss of salvation' seem few and somewhat ambiguous in comparison.
(2) There is no good reason to transpose on Scripture our own terminology and 'needle-point' theological distinctions. I have observed in Scripture that the writers seemed to have accepted as 'believers' in a practical sense, all those who made such a profession - even when chastising them for grievous sins in their letters! I think the key here is that even the Apostles realized that they did not know the hearts of men, and so dealt with all PROFESSING believers on the same level. This is basically what the Calvinistic Puritans seemed to do as well. I believe that the truly regenerate do in fact CONTINUE, but I have no way of distinguishing the 'wheat' from the 'tares'. So what can we do? URGE THEM *ALL* TO CONTINUE. WARN THEM *ALL*. And so forth. I haven't yet totally organized my thoughts on this, but you get the idea.
As always, I appreciate your comments! And, again, I believe our disagreement is rather slight and I pray that God would keep us both from the extremes in our respective theological traditions.
God bless you, brother.
ALBERT DONAHUE WRITES :
I hope you don't mind my questions. What are your thoughts on the prederist movement? I have lost my way with churchs. Seeking on my own.
Ask all you want.
(1) "preterism" contains much truth. However, the "full preterists" are heretical in that they place EVERYTHING (Second Coming, resurrection, 'new heavens & earth', etc.) in the past! This forces them to twist many Scripture passages.
(2) I've been where you're at - "seeking on my own." And I was wrong to do so. God knows what He is talking about: "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together ... all the more as you see the day approaching." Christianity is not meant to be a 'single person' enterprise! It is a COMMUNITY faith - this is the way God has designed it. I promise you that you will 'lose your way' even more trying to practice your faith 'on your own.' It cannot be done - it is impossible.
If worst comes to worst, you could always start a home-based fellowship with some other believers.
A VISITOR ASKS :
What do you think about Acts 16:5? Do you think that this verse, plus the events in Acts 15 show that Jerusalem was the head of the church in that time? I ask because from what I can tell from the NT, it seems that Paul set up each church with Elders and Deacons with the intention that they govern themselves - with the exception of a directive from him. Acts 16:5 seems to suggest that Paul was requiring submission to those at Jerusalem. Or perhaps, since Paul was also an Apostle and party to the decision made in Acts 15 he thus wanted it to go out. Comments?
In my opinion (for what that is worth), I believe that Jerusalem served a needed function in overall Church govt. at the time, while the Apostles remained alive. Of course, Bishops and Councils continued to bear influence upon one another in early Church history.
On local church govt., I find myself agreeing more and more with some of the Rushdoony group (in particular, Steve Schlissel). Basically, we see a few different variations in Scripture, so we shouldn't set up a hard & fast "rule" on it - i.e., be flexible. This being said, I do believe that Scripture, and early writings both support a 'multiple elder-rule' type of arrangement.
A VISITOR TO THE WEBSITE WRITES:
Dear Thinkman,
I just finished reading "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" and only recently found your site. I may finally be beginning to see what God has been doing in my life over the past 5-6 years, as I have been leaving behind the 'sacred cows' and 'distinctives' of evangelicalism and foraging (rather blindly at times) for the essentials. Many times I have felt adrift, heading for the slippery slope of agnosticism. When I left behind all the stuff I was doing AT God, it seemed that I had lost Him, as I was so 'personally invested' in my performance. And when I looked around at all the clamouring opinions of God and how we all relate to him, according to those opinions, I thought perhaps we have all made this stuff up....a God of our own understanding...for each denomination, and schism, and religion. Strangely enough, I have a personal softness in my heart for Jehovah's Witnesses, as I see them being victims of this very mindset, of having been fed a crock of nonsense and faithfully having to live by it. My 2 best friends on the Internet are exJW's and I appreciate the article you wrote about the situation of exJW's and our support of them. My husband is a Native American Indian, seeking culturalism and spirituality in the Sweat Lodge ceremonies, that he attends. I am struggling to deal with all of these issues, to think Christianly about life and the lives of the people that I touch. It is very hard and lonely at times. I have quit attending church for 10 months now. Although my last church was a definite Grace ministry, without guilt trips or manipulation, the congregation was basically addicts in recovery and I couldn't figure out why God wasn't making more progress in these peoples' lives through the ministering and encouragement of the gospel? I find that pastors have a limited rhetoric and then start to become repetitious after that, so I must move on in search of understanding. Anyway, now that I have been on the Internet, my favourite stuff is theology and apologetics. I just got the book you recommended "The God Who Hears" because I had been so burned out by the Charismatic teachings of thinking I had to maintain my life through MY prayers and MY words....aarrgh....I finally stopped praying and said, "God just does whatever He wants to and I'm tired of trying to twist His arm to bless me or get all the circumstances of my life to line up favourably!!!!!" Anyway, it takes me a long time to figure stuff out in this life, and I appreciate people like you who can articulate some of the things that are going on. I am now very interested in Reformed Theology and have some books to study and a drawer full of printouts from the Internet. :-)
Thank you for writing. From your letter, you are definitely on the road to becoming a "Christian thinker" and I would hope & pray my website helps to encourage in some small way. btw, it has been my experience to find that when most believers reach the crossroads you have (sounds like you're crossing that now into better things), they generally gravitate toward the Reformed view of God and His work. I hope that The God Who Hears is a blessing to you as it has been to me and others.
I have placed you on my THINKMAIL list. I would also encourage you, if you haven't already, to visit the websites on my LINKS pages for some excellent resources. Edward Fudge's free e-mail newsletter, gracEmail, is second to none. I have also added you & your husband to my prayer list.
"BLESSINGS" ASKS ABOUT PREDESTINATION & FAITH:
If we are predestined to believe in Jesus where does faith come in? I'm still thinking of this verse Romans 10:13-17. Also, the verse that states we are saved by grace through faith.
I think that faith plays an important part in believing in Jesus. We need faith to believe in Jesus. God gives us the ability to believe, then shall I say God gave us faith to believe?
But if I say that God gave us faith to believe, then why did Paul say faith comes by hearing the word unless God uses his word to build faith in us?
Yes, I believe that the very faith with which we believe is itself God's gift to us.
On Paul's words in Romans 10, you're missing the significance of the key word in Paul's statement: "hearing." The only ones with "ears to hear" are those who are "once enlightened" by God. Remember John 10:26-27 - Only "the sheep" HEAR His voice; in contrast, those who are NOT "of His sheep" DO NOT BELIEVE.
God has ordained the MEANS in the Gospel - His Word. But only the sheep hear His voice, and are given the gift of faith.
PAT ASKS ABOUT ESCHATOLOGICAL VIEWS:
Hi my name is Pat and I been following the straight and narrow for 3yrs. I've been ever increasing with different aspects of the faith, such as does it make a difference if I'm PRE, MID ,POST? I can't really say. I'm most likely pan, because it will all pan out in the end. But I want to make sure I'm not leaving out any essentials, and be Biblically sound.
My other question is this: do you know anything about new covenant theology and is it right on or what? Also, can you suggest any books that would explain this further in layman's terms? Of course, thank you. GOD BLESS.
First of all, eschatological positions (none of them) are not really 'essential'. The only way you can come out heretical is to deny the resurrection, Judgment, or literal Second Coming. None of the common views do this. What I do think you leave out, however, is the fact that the things God has revealed to us in Scripture are there for us to learn. I would recommend that you "study to show yourself approved to God."
What I have found helpful when deling in an area where there is much disagreement is this - STUDY THEM ALL. Give premill., postmill., & amill a chance and see what you come up with depending on God in prayer as you study. You'll be surprised! Now, once you settle on a position - defend it. But in defending your position, remain open to the Scriptures and don't forget that those holding the other positions are your brothers & sisters in Christ. You can read my own view in my article REALIZED MILLENNIALISM.
I am not very well-read on the "New Covenant" stuff yet. But basically, NCT is the antithesis of Reconstructionism. The complete replacement of the Old Covenant by the New is strongly emphasized, and the siginificance of the OT Law for us is downplayed in favor of "the law of Christ." The system of thought, like Reconstructionism, is thoroughly Calvinistic. Is it "right"? Well, I think that all systems of theology can contribute to our understanding, and no doubt NCT has many fine truths to share. However, I recommend the 'broad-based' approach to theology. If you commit yourself to one type of theology, I think you'll miss out on many things. Check out this webpage for a good source list on NCT: http://www.solagratia.org/NCT.html
"BLESSINGS" ASKS IN JULY OF 1999:
What do you think about water baptism? Is it compulsory? People usually quote Mark 16: 16 to state that unless a Christian is baptised the person is not really saved. I personally don't think that verse is referring to water baptism, do you?
Water baptism is important, and in fact is the SCRIPTURAL point of faith in justification. Unfortunately, we today have lost this emphasis. Please see Ernesto's article on WHAT IS JUSTIFICATION? on my website. It should be "compulsory" simply on the strength that it is commanded.
YOU WROTE: "People usually quote Mark 16: 16 to state that unless a Christian is baptised the person is not really saved."
I don't know that I would put it that way. However, baptism is the scriptural NORM for believers, and should immediately follow faith. There are some sincere, but deceived, brethren who do not practice baptism (e.g., Quakers, Salvation Army, followers of E.W. Bullinger).
Does Mark 16:16 refer to water baptism? Yes, absolutely! It is Mark's parallel to Matthew 28:19 (well, actually it was probably the other way around). We are to preach the Gospel as well as to 'baptize'. This verse in Mark assumes what virtually the entire NT does - If one is a believer, then they are baptized. It was never seen as 'optional' or 'not important' and it was never put off until another day. Furthermore, we know that the 'baptism' in the Great Commission was water baptism, because this is exactly what we see the early Church doing in Acts.
Water baptism does not save us per se (i.e., I do not believe in 'baptismal regeneration'), but it is an essential step of faith. I can envision scenarios where a believer may not get baptized because of extreme circumstances, but simply because they 'never got around to it'? Or, because THEY didn't feel that it was important? To my mind, such is an unscriptural attitude and should be shunned. If we have faith in the Gospel, then such should be DEMONSTRATED by submitting to the OUTWARD response that the Gospel asks of us - BAPTISM.
Furthermore, when believers preach the Gospel BUT DO NOT BAPTIZE NEW BELIEVERS they are (1) NOT fulfilling their mission from Christ; and (2) ignoring the practice of the early Church in Acts.
<NOTE: For some excellent material on water baptism, I highly recommend the detailed study "Baptism - A Closer Look" by Edward Fudge.>
ALBERT DONAHUE ASKS :
Are you aware of the teachings of emanuel swedenborg? What are your thoughts of his teaching?
Swedenborg was a man, I believe a contemporary of Wesley & Whitefield, who basically took what he liked of Biblical Christianity and mixed it with what he claimed were "revelations" from the "spirit world." He claimed to have conversed with everyone from Jesus to angels to famous persons in "the spirit world." He also believed in astral travel, and other 'New Age' precursors. His revelations were treated as Scripture by his followers. Basically your garden-variety spiritist/occultist.
VARIOUS COMMENTS ON THINKMAIL #17 :
Lois, webmistress of the SPIRITUAL ABUSE website, writes:
Enjoyed your latest e-mail.
Especially the section on whether or not a person is/can be saved who may not believe or understand fundamentals of Christianity. I agree. Were every Christian to be required to fully know and understand every teaching, none of us would make it!
Just wanted to send a quick reply!
Prof. Anthony Buzzard writes:
William,
Thanks for the good information on Mary and Jesus. The text of Matthew speaks of the Messiah being begotten by the Father in Mary's womb (1:20), and I have to register a protest that "the mother of my Lord" means the Mother of God. My lord is the messianic title from Ps. 110:1, which no first century Jew thought meant God. Adoni in that Psalm does not mean God, but the Lord Messiah.
Anthony
Anthony,
Thank you for your comments, as always. However, within the trinitarian context, you can see how Elizabeth's words in Luke would be taken as an equivelent title. Also, I am trinitarian (as you know) and do not consider every use of "Lord" in reference to Christ as being directly linked to Psalm 110:1. At least, such a connection is not at all clear in every instance.
One Reader wrote:
Thanks for an insightful message. In regards to Mary, sometimes we do indeed throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some Roman Catholics go to the extreme and make Mary into some kind of idol and in response we tend to go to the opposite extreme and not want to speak of Mary that much. Mary, in her proper context as the Lord's servant (and yes, mother), is a great demonstration of faith in the face of adversity. The information on Nestorius was also enlightening.
Your "salvation by correct doctrine" also got me thinking. You're absolutely right when you say that when we first come to the Lord, we may not be in a position to know all the "essentials." I know much more now about the Orthodoxy of my beliefs, but when I first came to Christ I had NO idea how involved it really could get.
You hit the BIG key - discipleship. Not knowing the "essentials" certainly doesn't impede us being led to Christ and saved by Him. The church I attend tries very hard to disciple with mentor programs, Adult Bible Fellowship classes, home studies and the like. I certainly wonder the same thing as you do when I see a big thing like Promise Keepers (and that kind of thing) - Ok, they've been called to Christ - now will they GROW in Him? I'd really be interested in the numbers at these events/altar calls - how many of those folks actually produce fruit? How many, due to no discipleship, fall back into the wayside or into cults?
One thing though: at some point in time, I'd expect a believer to begin to grasp the "fundamentals." To your question of can one be in error and still be saved? I'd say - yes, but again - after a time of discipleship I'd expect them to grasp these concepts. And the second thought is: it depends upon which "fundamental" you are speaking of. Why is that? Well, if you don't believe that Jesus atoned for our sins - then I'd really have a problem with the thought that you are one of His.
Sure, a heterodox Christian can exist, but if the church is functioning as it should there must be someone who can correct and teach. I understand your thought and concern here, but I am also a bit concerned that a little bit of error on the fundamentals can go a long way. I could see where someone might think, "well, I'm saved - so why do I need to worry about what scripture teaches, etc." THAT kind of thought WOULD make me wonder about their commitment to the Lord. And it begs the question: How much of a heterodox can one be before they completely deny the faith in their stands?
I'd say that the functional church should have those who can "gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 2) I agree with you though - let's make it as simple as possible to be led to Christ; and then disciple. And, as I said, be prepared to instruct in Love those who oppose what the scriptures say.
Have a good day and thanks for adding me to your thinkmail list! I enjoy reading them (and it gets me to think).
Thank you for your comments.
I would agree that at some point in time, a believer should begin to grasp the "fundamentals," with one clarification. I don't think that we finite humans are in much of a position to judge precisely when one understands a particular matter - this we should leave to the Spirit of God. Thus, we must be wary of putting too much emphasis on *our* time-tables. For instance, I may encounter a JW today who professes trust in Christ alone for salvation who is deceived by their Arian Christology. Let's say she argues strongly for her position and walks away unconvinced of Christ's Deity. Should I then judge her "lost" because she didn't immediately accept the truth? What if, over the next year, God's Spirit illuminates her mind on the Scriptures I presented to her and - IN GOD'S TIMING - she embraces orthodoxy?
I'll get even more "real" - this is not hypothetical. Look at the great reformation in the WWCG in recent years. Did Hank Hanegraff kick the door down with several CRI staff and break out a list of "the fundamentals"? No. Instead, the WWCG leadership was discipled in orthodoxy gently, and it took some time. Likewise, there are right now large groups of ex-JWs and CofC folk who are embracing certain tenants of orthodoxy, but they haven't embraced them all *yet*. Now, many hard-line 'fundamentals' believers would immediately brush them off as "unsaved" simply because they haven't been convinced yet of the Trinity, or "original sin," or whatever. To me, such an attitude entirely misses the point! God is leading these believers into truth ON HIS OWN TIMETABLE. See what I mean?
I would also agree with you that some doctrines are indeed "essential." However, even here I would be careful. For instance, CofC put more stock in baptism than Evangelicals. Some automatically declare them "unsaved," saying that they are "trusting in works." But what if some of them are not? What if they simply are putting all of their trust in Christ, and see their obedience to baptism as a part of their responsibility? Must every believer fully understand the *exact* mechanism behind their salvation to be truly saved? Likewise, of course one must believe THE GOSPEL, which includes the fact that Christ died for them. But must they understand all of the details concerning 'substitutionary atonement'? I don't think so.
I'm glad to see that you agree that we *must* start taking more QUALITY 'discipling' time with new believers. You're right - this is the KEY.
YOU WROTE: "I could see where someone might think, 'well, I'm saved - so why do I need to worry about what scripture teaches, etc.' THAT kind of thought WOULD make me wonder about their commitment to the Lord."
And it should! Such complacency should be a red flag.
YOU WROTE: "And it begs the question: How much of a heterodox can one be before they completely deny the faith in their stands?"
First, we do have some clear Scriptures that pinpoint very basic doctrines - confessing that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" in 1 John, for instance.
Second, I'd make the point that my comments apply to everyday "Joe and Jane Christian." FALSE TEACHERS are another matter. Jesus was clear that such must be dealt with swiftly by a strict procedure of discipline. We correct them. If that doesn't shut them up, we excommunicate them. Does this mean that they are 'unsaved'? Not always, but it doesn't really matter insofar as the assembly goes at that point - we treat them as enemies of the truth.
For instance, I don't think we should let a JW into the pulpit simply because thay *might* be an erring believer! No way! Nor should the 'conservatives' in the SBC simply sing "We Are the World" with the modernists just because they might be erring Christians.
Certainly there is a balance to be maintained here. Thank you again for your comments.
Mark McNeil, a Roman-Catholic friend, comments:
Thanks for your latest "thinkmail." Just wanted to make a couple of comments on your treatment of "theotokos."
First, I think you are right to say that Nestorius probably did not explicitly affirm the ideas that were associated with his doctrine. On the other hand, he did obviously tend in that direction. His tendency to emphasize the distinction of natures in the person of Christ as well as his reluctance to use certain titles of Christ between the natures was an indication of a deeper problem. It is the same problem I noticed strongly present among Oneness Pentecostals. My guess is that Oneness people, if they have even thought about it, would say that Jesus was one person. The way in which they express their faith, however, leaves one with the idea that they really, functionally, affirm dual personality. If Mary is not the Mother of God, or, she is not the mother of a Person Who was in fact fully God, then this tends towards what is historically called, Nestorianism. History records the fact that there were people who so used the basic ideas of Nestorius.
In fact, glancing at J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 311, Nestorius himself clearly said things that appear to have been calculated to inflame his opponents, including Theodore and Cyril. "But in delivering himself on the sujbect Nestorius used intemperate language which was calculated to inflame people whose approach differed from his own. God cannot have a mother, he argued, and no creature could have engendered the Godhead; Mary bore a man, the vehicle of divinity but not God." Etc., etc. Whatever the finer details of his position, the condemnation of the Council applies only to the view intended to be condemned. Insofar as Nestorius' view tends in that direction, even if it is not precisely portrayed in the Council, it is also condemned. There is no question, in my mind at least, that Nestorius was on the wrong track and was appropriately rejected in his argumentation.
On the emphasis of "theotokos" being Christological, that is certainly the case. I would want to further argue, however, that all the Church's Marian teachings are founded on Christological truths. Just as we could not claim that our hope of resurrection, purification from sin, reigning in heaven as kings and priests, etc., finds it "end" or true foundation in ourselves, so we cannot say the same for Mary. Mary is what she is by grace. She is most to be honored, however, because of her unique privilege. This is the difference between classical Catholic theology and modern Evangelical/Fundamentalist theology. In Catholicism we seem to have a greater balance between recognizing the grace of Christ as the source of all our "goodness" and yet also recognizing that God does not by-pass the cooperation of the individual in the "increase" and growth in grace that the Bible speaks of. We can then truly give honor to whom honor is due but also see God's grace at work producing such a basis of honor. It is not either/or but both/and. Mary's role as Mother of God gave way in the thought of the early Church to further reflection on her own person as an "instrument" of grace, in this case the highest act of grace. This, acc. to the very Council Fathers you mention, was considered grounds for reflecting on what this may imply with respect to Mary herself. Also remember, the Church condemned those extremists who for various reasons tried to elevate Mary to a status of deity. The Church has always stood against these tendencies.
Somehow I knew you'd have some comments on this one ; ) I did try to not be 'anti-catholic' in my presentation, though.
I acknowledge that others did use the emphasis of Nestorius to teh extreme. However, isn't there even now ecumenical dialogue between Catholic/Orthodox/"Nestorians" that has resulted in recent statements suggesting the possibility of a debate over "mere semantics"?
Nestorius himself, actually affirmed the proper use of 'theotokos', but was concerned about what he considered probable abuses. I do acknowledge, however, that there is some indication that Nestorius was overly stubborn and reactionary - factors which I am sure hastened his (what I consider to be) unjust banishment.
Concerning the Marian doctrines of the RCC, I'm sure you realize that I disagree as an Evangelical. However, I am aware of the Catholic perspective on this. Further, I would also say that while the RCC no doubt condemns any all-out effort to "deify" Mary per se, it also tolerates extreme behaviour from "Marian devotees" that I would consider implicit evidence of *treating* Mary "as if divine." Of course, I realize these are 'fighting words,' but have no wish to get into any sort of debate on the subject. I do understand that the RCC does not *officially* endorse such a doctrine.
ERIC WROTE IN JUNE, 1999:
Eric initially wrote and asked about Proverbs 16:4 as quoted in a paper I have written concerning God's sovereignty. He quoted the passage on a discussion list, getting the following response:
"My Proverbs 16:4 says 'Everything the lord has made has its destiny: and the destiny of the wicked is destruction.'"
I have no idea what translation this is! The word 'destiny' never appears in the original languages, and no textual variant exists to my knowledge. The closest one is the old ASV: "Jehovah hath made everything for its own end; Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Here are some versions:
NIV - The LORD works out everything for his own ends-- even the wicked for a day of disaster.
RSV - The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.
KJV - The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
NKJV - The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
DBY - Jehovah hath wrought everything on his own account, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
YLT - All things hath Jehovah wrought for Himself, And also the wicked [worketh] for a day of evil.
Even the Roman-Catholic DOUAY-RHEIMS BIBLE reads: "The Lord hath made all things for himself: the wicked also for the evil day."
As you can see, the majority of English translations supports the KJV. Even in YOUNG'S (YLT), the word 'worketh' is *added* (shown by the brackets). Your friend's translation must be some sort of paraphrase. It is definitely doing some 'interpreting' along with the 'translating'!
JOE, A ROMAN-CATHOLIC FRIEND, WRITES:
In as much as you seem to believe that much of the Catholic Church is built on sand, I'm wondering, by your definition, is the Catholic Church a 'Christian' Church?
I do not ask this provoke, I'm really curious.
Talk about a "loaded" question! ; )
At this time, I believe the RCC to:
(1) derive from the historic early Christian Church;
(2) to be an apostate system that, while preserving the faith in her earliest years, nevertheless failed to heed the warnings of the Apostles and allowed herself to be inundated with false practices and teachings.
To this I would add that I take any Catholic professing to base their hope for eternal life on Christ and His work alone at their profession; so I do recognize RC brothers and sisters. Of course, I obviously believe them to be in serious error.
I do not shut RCC sources out of my 'research loop', but enjoy reading some of them. I have in my library several RC works, although I haven't been buying the "best" until very recently.
A VISITOR TO THE WEBSITE WRITES:
One thing I've run into was that some will use the one or two scriptural references (one in Romans, and one in 1 Peter, and I think one in Acts - if I recall correctly) about being forgiven of "past sins" which breeds the thought that we are only forgiven the sins up to the point of Baptism and afterwards we have to make sure and confess each sin we do to have it forgiven. If this were true, I certainly wouldn't be saved because I may not recognize every single sin that I commit (especially sins of ommission).
One of my friends put a good perspective on the use of "past sins" terminology in the NT by asking, "Okay, what will be your FUTURE sins?" i.e. 1 Peter's comments about remembering that we were washed from our past sins - those would be the only ones we remembered or knew about.
One question though: In light of the "past sins" remarks, what verses indicate that our future sins are washed? From the way it's stated in Romans, I certainly believe they are - but yet 1 John says to confess our sins, etc. I would have to agree with what some have suggested, and that is: that this is for relational purposes with the Father. But, this is not as complete of an answer as I would like.
This is where my rather "Calvinistic" understanding of Christ's work comes in ;) Jesus already *accomplished* my redemption 2,000 years ago - indeed, in God's 'eternity' frame of reference before the creation! Everything I do - believe, get baptized, confess my sins, and so forth - all of this is at best a *response* to what He has ALREADY accomplished "once for all." Now, with this in mind, we should remember that ALL of our sins were "future" when atonement was made - think about it. Our "receiving" Christ's work on our behalf doesn't "make it work" - if this were true, then our faith would be the *ground* of salvation, and it's not - GRACE is; "faith" is the means. In other words, Christ has already *accomplished* salvation for His sheep.
In Scripture, we see that our future sins are covered in Romans 8:38-39.
A VISITOR TO THE WEBSITE WRITES:
Good Afternoon, I'm a big fan of your site and of the many useful links that your site contains. I've been looking over Matthew 25: 31-46 and I had some questions about the chapter. Just so you know, I've looked over the text in various translations (KJV, NKJV, NIV, Young's literal) and I've run the gamut of commentaries - and yet found nothing that I found to satisfactory answer the questions I have. They are:
1)This parable of "The sheep and the goats" seems to indicate a judgement from the Lord based upon our works. This bothers me due to Pauls assertion, especially in Ephesians, where he says "For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." If we're justified before God by our Faith before we do any works, then how are we then judged in finality by our works?
I've seen some answers, but none of them really complete the passage in my mind, they include:
a)Some say that we have only "gained access" to Christ through faith and that we must do good works to actually stay within God's grace and God will judge us on the basis of our works. >My problem with this is that it tends to be a "works" faith that seems very like the Jewish Law. What of Grace? Paul says in Romans that if salvation was by works, then it would not be by Grace. b)Some attempt to say that this is speaking of persons OTHER than Christians in their treatment of Christians. >Two problems: it advocates good works earning salvation AND I don't believe the text supports the notion of it NOT including Christians. c)Even others say that this passage is referring to those who believe in "faith alone" are the sheep, and those who believe in "works saving" are the "goats." This is demonstrated by the idea that those who were told of their good deeds didn't seem to know what the Lord was speaking of; but those condemned by their lack of good deeds immediately asked "when didn't we do this?" and had a list of their own works of righteousness "ready for inspection." >I see merits in the second part of this notion, that is, about the "sheeps" not keeping record of their deeds. The idea of NOT keeping a list is very consistent with a follower of Christ. However, the demarcation of "faith alone" folks and "works saving" rings false. d)Others still say that while the judgement may APPEAR to be by works, it is truly a "faith" judgement because a follower WILL have good works. >My only misgiving here is that it specifically mentions works.
What are MY impressions?
I'd have to say a combination of C and D. Why? Because it's no doubt that one who really loves Christ will produce works (or fruit as John calls it). Also, this person will have an attitude similiar to what the commentator in C describes, i.e. they won't keep a record of their righteousness to recite upon command. In my thinking, it seems inconsistent for Paul to speak of Justification by Faith as saving us and then of Christ mentioning works as our justification for entry to Life - thus the attempt at harmonizing it by saying that it only APPEARS to be by works.
One commentator says that the judgement is based upon our unconscious response to a request for help rather than our thought out response - this really shakes me because it seems to me that my "gut" responses are usually not the best.
One thing that I was thinking - and it seems WAY out - is that since our sins are wiped away by His blood, the "good" works are the only ones that the Lord would choose to see at judgement. Whereas, someone not under the blood would have BOTH "good" and "bad" works, but with the Lord's requirements for perfect righteousness even one "bad" work (in this case, an ommission) is enough for condemnation.
I realize that you do not have all the answers here, but I'd appreciate your thoughts about it. I apologize for the length.
I'm not sure that my answer will totally satisfy you, but I'll give you my understanding.
First, I would completely diagree with theories a) thru c). Theory d) would come closest to mine, except I wouldn't say that the Judgment merely "appears" to be this way.
I believe that there is only ONE Final Judgment. Many interpreters set forth two, three, or more simply based on different descriptions. I don't see any reason for this at all. I see ONE Judgment where all are judged - believers and unbelievers. Now, different things happen at the Judgment. Believers are identified as such based not on works, but on the fact that their names are written in the Book of Life by God's sovereign decree (Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:12-15; 21:27). The wicked are judged unbelievers based on the fact that their names do NOT appear there.
>From here, the remainder of the Judgment is concerned with works. The unbelievers, who will suffer in Gehenna according to their works, are each judged accordingly. The believers are also judged according to their works - which are the inevitable expression of true saving faith (cf. James 2). Paul writes of this judgment of believers in 1 Cor. 3.
So then, I believe that if we realize that there is only ONE Final Judgment where all of this takes place, it will minimize the difficulties.
Concerning your comments on what the Lord "sees" in regards to believers, this isn't "WAY out" at all. Believers are clothed in CHRIST'S righteousness, and "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord WILL NOT IMPUTE SIN" (Romans 4). However, based on Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 3, I think it is clear that believers will "suffer loss" for the "bad works," although it is equally clear that such is not in relation to their salvation (1 Cor. 3:15).
I would also point out that unbelievers have no truly "good" works, because they have no *knowledge* of the will of God - and thus cannot do it for its own sake.
DAN WRITES IN JUNE, 1999 CONCERNING MY ARTICLE "REALIZED MILLENNIALISM":
William: Just finished your article on "realized millenialism." Very thought-provoking. Like you, I was raised a premillenialist (and even taught that amillenialism was very near to heresy). Your article is making me rethink my position. Actually, I always wondered what the purpose of a literal thousand-year reign was. If the ultimate goal was the eternal kingdom, why bother with an earthly reign for a thousand years?
One question comes to mind: There are NT references indicating that no one can know the time of Christ's return. (He will come as a thief in the night, etc.) Wouldn't it be fairly easy for people to recognize when He is about to return if Satan is loosed and the antichrist appears on the scene before His coming? The significance of this is that it would allow many to become complacent now - thinking that they have nothing to fear because they can still "get their act together" when things start to look bad (indicating Christ's return is on the horizon). While I have many problems with historical premillenialism, the one thing that it did do for me is to make me live like Christ might return today (stressing the belief in the imminent return of Christ).
Thanks for the well-written article and the many references. I will be tracking down some of the additional reading you cite.
I'm glad you found the article stimulating :) If I can make my fellow believers *think* - well, that's enough for me!
Concerning your question - from the world's perspective - we're looking at THE LIE, "the great delusion." As for the believers, I'm not so sure we'll be able to identify these things as easily as we think. The Scriptures present the world getting to that stage rather gradually, and - after all - sincere believers have been attempting to "point out the Antichrist" for the last 1500 years or so! This being said, I have no doubt that the final generation of believers will probably be aware - in the midst of much persecution - that their Redeemer "draweth nigh." We just won't know the day nor the hour.
I've always thought that it is better to look at the whole eschatological scenario as a whole - "the Day of the Lord." The "little season" could be a *very* little season. My point here is that I see all of this happening so rapidly. I will agree that the fact that He *is* coming *should* motivate us to live right (cf. 2 Peter 3:12-15) - and I don't think that my position totally destroys the imminence of His coming. If someone wants to procrastinate holiness, there's always a demonized dictator around, and there's always a 'peaceful' false prophet. I don't really see how believers in general could ever know with certainty that one is or is not the prophesied "Man of sin."
"BLESSINGS" ASKS IN MAY OF 1999:
Can you explain what Paul meant in 1 Cor 3: 13-14? How does one's work get burned up? Why did Paul mention a person will be saved but only as if going through fire? Paul mentioned different crowns to be received at the end such as the crowns of life and righteousness. Do all Christians receive these? Going through the Scriptures, I noticed that the crown of righteousness (2 Tim 4:8) will be given "unto all them also that love his appearing" In James 1:12, the crown of life will be given "to them that love him". I know there is another crown for matrys (I couldn't find where it is in the bible). Is this the only crown that is not given to all Christians? Lastly, I've some doubts whether the 'crowns' are just not symbolic, what do you think?
I believe that Paul is speaking about the simple fact that Christians produce varying levels of fruit in their sanctification. The 'lower end' will "suffer loss" because they have little that they did for the Lord during their life, but such will not effect the free gift of eternal life. This is one of the more difficult passages for those teaching that you can lose your salvation - in light of the clear declaration of verse 15.
Concerning the "crowns" of "righteousness" and of "life," I believe that these speak of our common salvation as believers - all true Christians "love Him" and "love His appearing." This principle is expanded on in the parable of Matt. 20:1-16 - all receive their "wages" though some wrought more service than others.
I'm quite sure that there are many "rewards" awaiting those who performed different types of service :) I think the important thing here is to realize that - in the end - we'll all acknowledge GOD ALONE as the FIRST CAUSE & SOURCE of all such "works," most probably reacting with our crowns much like the 24 Elders do with their's (Rev. 4:10-11).
Are the "crowns" symbolic? I think in some sense *all* such revelations of eternity are "symbolic" - but I would argue that the reality behind the "crowns" is far more precious and infinitely beyond our understanding here and now.
PROFESSOR ANTHONY BUZZARD WRITES CONCERNING THINKMAIL #16:
William,
Thanks for your recent piece and there is much of great interest. Is it really true to say, however, that the heroic young lady was a martyr for her faith? Surely she was not being killed for any reason different from the others who were killed. She was gunned down with the others. Had she not expressed any confidence in God, she would still have died. Not wanting in anyway to detract from her courage in the face of death and the great tragedy, it still seems to me odd to be linking this with say the death of Servetus who died only because of his convictions about the truth of Scripture. Persecution and martyrdom go together. Littleton had nothing to do with Christian persecution, I would have thought.
Anthony
Cassie? No, Cassie was specifically questioned about her faith. Furthermore, the very reason (apparently, from witnesses) that Cassie was approached was because she was reading the Scriptures.
YOU WROTE: "Had she not expressed any confidence in God, she would still have died."
Maybe ... maybe not. Another victim was asked if she wanted to die. When she emotionally responded in the negative, the gunman shot the person next to her - but not her. If Cassie has said, "no - I don't believe" - she very well might have lived.
Now, I do make some distinction - which is one of the points in my article. Those martyred every day in other countries are often living in daily persecution from their govt. or some group which their own govt. won't cross.
"BLESSINGS" ASKS IN MAY OF 1999:
I want to talk to you about 1 Corinthians 11: 1-16. It's about women and covering of their head. It is a controversial issue I frequently find myself in the middle of, more than I would like.
First, what really was Paul saying in this passage? Personally, I think Paul statements are confusing. He mentioned a woman should cover her head, then said she doesn't need to because she has long hair, and finally he said she should because of the angels.
Second, What does Paul mean for a woman to cover her head because of the angels?
What does Paul mean in 1 Cor. 11:2-16? This is a very controversial and much-debated passage, as you seem to realize. All I can do is give you my thoughts.
At this point in my understanding, I see Paul addressing a local tradition in a particular church (note that nowhere else do we see this custom in the NT, not even hinted at). First, he affirms the *principle* behind the teaching (vv. 3-12), then he shows them that an actual artificial 'covering' is not really necessary (vv. 13-15), and finally, the key verse is verse 16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM, NEITHER (DO) THE CHURCHES OF GOD."
Concerning Paul's statement in verse 10, there are two major interpretations. The first just generally says that Paul is simply making reference to the presence of angels in the church service. However, I incline more toward the second: that this is a cryptic reference to the events of Genesis 6:1-4, where a group of angels fell in mating with human women. There are further references in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude, which basically confirm the details given in the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch.
The custom was a visible, *symbolic* expression of submission to authority. But, as I wrote above, I believe that it was an *unecessary*, *local* custom. Paul affirms the truth of the *principle* behind the custom without condoning -OR- condemning it.
DAN ASKS IN APRIL OF 1999:
Not that I disagree with your view of prayer, but it does raise a significant question which I have struggled with for a long time: Does prayer change things? I understand that prayer changes ME, but do my prayers move God to act? If I pray for peace in Kosovo, does God hear this and act upon this? If I pray for the salvation of my sister, does this influence whether He will draw her to Himself?
Does prayer "change things"? Yes and no :) <I realize that was probably not the great reconciling answer you were looking for.>
The guiding principle for *all* prayer is the same, and emphasizes God's absolute sovereignty: GOD GRANTS EVERY REQUEST WHICH IS ACCORDING TO HIS WILL. This, Dan, is the "bottom line."
However, I believe that our prayers are also *ordained* of God. I've said it and I'll keep saying it: GOD ORDAINS THE *MEANS* AS WELL AS THE END. Why does He do things in such a way? Why does God ordain not just crops, but seedtime, rain, and harvest? Why does He ordain things such as vitamins and minerals in order for our bodies to develop? I don't know, Dan :) That's certainly not *my* way. Heck, I'd just *POOF* do it all at once, you know ;) But then, His ways are *not* our ways, are they?
Thus, I don't think it would scriptural nor correct to say something like: "God is going to act the way He wants to whether I pray or not." It is more correct to hold that GOD IS PLEASED TO ACT THE WAY HE SOVEREIGNLY PURPOSES IN RESPONSE TO THE PRAYERS OF HIS PEOPLE. Prayer is *ordained* as well. In fact, prayer is basically PRIVELEGED INVOLVEMENT, I guess you could say. Does it "move God to act"? Certainly - ACCORDING TO HIS IMMUTABLE WILL. Does it "change things"? Certainly - WHEN GOD'S PURPOSE IS TO CHANGE THINGS.
In this connection, I *highly* recommend that you get your hands on a copy of The God Who Hears by W. Bingham Hunter (publ. by InterVarsity Press). I cannot tell you how much this book opened my eyes to what prayer *really* is and how it *really* works. Your questions are tailor-made for the answers in this book!
William
<NOTE: the book mentioned above is reviewed in THINKMAIL #16. Dan wrote back in June: "Oh, by the way. I got the book on prayer by Hunter you recommended. I am about halfway into it and it is excellent. It addresses many of the questions I have wrestled with for a long time. Thanks for the recommendation.">
DANIEL COMMENTS ON THINKMAIL #15 :
Thinkman: I was encouraged to read your thoughts about "God in Popular Media" in Thinkmail #15. While I generally find little to endorse in the popular media, I occasionally marvel at how glimpses of a Christian worldview can be seen in popular fiction from time to time. I too really enjoyed reading Stephen King's Desperation. I found it truly inspiring that he portrayed God moving and working through the "weak" (a little boy) who seek to know and obey Him. I also appreciated an earlier work of King's, The Stand, which also portrays people of faith who are used by God to defeat the forces of Satan. Not to say that all of King's books are good - many of them are outright demonic. But these two stand out in bright contrast.
In regards to your thoughts about the movie, The Apostle, I thought it did give a real picture of faith. The preacher, Sonny, certainly struggled with the flesh - as we all do. But he was also a man of great faith who God used to touch people's lives. The scene in which Sonny confronts the character portrayed by Billy Bob Thorton and ultimately leads him to Christ brought tears to my eyes, reminding me of how my own hard heart melted under the firm yet loving rebuke of a man of faith years ago. Finally, the movie portrays the consequences of sin as Sonny is confronted by his past.
I just found your website and am encouraged by it. Keep up the good work!
Daniel
ROBERT ASKS ABOUT TITHING:
How do you feel about present day tithing? I am so confused on whether or not I should tithe.....got any info for me? Thanks Robert
Robert,
Thanks for writing. The key verse here is 2 Cor. 9:7 - "Every man according as he purposes in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loves a cheerful giver."
I believe that if we take this at face value, it speaks against a "tithe". This does not mean that you shouldn't give! Scripture plainly teaches that we should provide for the needs of others, and also that your pastor is providing a service to you and is worth his wages. However, some are able to give more than others (Rom. 12:8). The "tithe" dictated a certain percentage of income in the Old Testament. I don't find any NT passages that would support a legalistic continuation of this practice, and I do find much in the NT against it.
I know that's brief, but I've still got 175 e-mails to answer! Feel free to write w/ any further questions.
In Christ,
William
QUESTIONS FROM ALEX ON "KJV-ONLY" & INFANT BAPTISM :
Hi, I have been visiting your site now for awhile and I must complement you on the completeness and insight of your information. I have a couple of questions for you though:
1. What is your view on KJV-Onlyism? I happen to not believe in the KJV is Gods inspired version but do believe that the Scripture is the infallible Word of God. I have been looking through your site and either missed it or couldn't find it. There are a lot of KJV-only sites out there and it disturbs me the division this issue is creating (and label for that matter).
2. I was wondering if you could help me with the Calvinistic concept of infant baptism. I tend to hold the other view (adult baptism) but was wondering the scriptural justification (or interpretation).
Thanks for reading my request.
Alex
Alex,
Thanks for writing.
1. I am not "KJV only" and am equally disturbed by the division this controversy is causing. I do use the KJV and NKJV by preference because I don't buy into the modern theories either. Basically, I support the MAJORITY readings whenever there is a descrepancy. For this reason, I consider the KJV & NKJV to be the best English translations available at this time. This doesn't mean that I won't consult the NAS or NIV or others, just that wherever there is a disagreement I'll tend to go with the KJV. But I do not believe in "inspired translations."
2. I definitely believe in "believer's baptism" -- upon faith in Christ. I would also tend toward immersion, but have recently realized that "baptizo" could also allow for a pouring mode (and God never specifically told us, did He?). The "infant baptism" position is a carry-over from Catholicism, and I have never heard a very good scriptural argument for it. The Protestant churches that practice this however are different from the RCC in this respect: such Protestants would still insist on an actual conversion irrespective of such a baptism. In contrast, the RCC teaches that infant baptism IS conversion, beginning a lifelong process of works-salvation.
I am glad you are getting something from my website. Please pray for it. Also, I will be posting a new article detailing my position on prophecy soon (amillennialism).
In Christ,
William Kilgore
COMMENTS ON THINKMAIL #15 & ESCHATOLOGY FROM ED :
Haven't had opportunities to look over your bibliographies as I only have e.mail. As to books read recently. One everyone should read is: In Two Minds by Os Guinness. Really great. I have had it in my library for years, just read it recently. He says things like, "Find out how seriously a believer takes his doubts and you have the index of how seriously he takes his faith."(p. 31) And ends with Martin Luther's doubter's prayer, "Dear Lord, Although I am sure of my position, I am unable to sustain it without Thee. Help Thou me, or I am lost." (Luther p. 479). You say you are doing an article on a-mil. Where and how did you arrive? I started out typical dispensational, read the word and slowly evolved to a-mil. However in the past few years have been more to the preterist position as that position seems to answer my basic questions regarding hermeneutics and little questions with scripture that we otherwise try to explain away. Got to run. Enjoy your THINK MAIL. ED
Ed,
I'm glad you enjoy THINKMAIL. If you will tell me with which issue you began receiving it, I can e-mail you the others, if you'd like.
I'm almost done with the amill. article. I am partially "preterist" in my interpretation, but have already investigated & rejected the "full-blown" preterist position being promoted today by teachers like Max King. Like you, I started out typical "dispensational premill." However, once challenged -- I realized that I was simply believing what I had been taught and imposing that "grid" on passages bearing no internal evidence of having anything to do w/ what they were being applied to by dispensationalists. Of course, the key example being the many OT passages SUPPOSEDLY speaking of a "millennial reign" & "restored" Jewish sacrificial system.
The final straw was when I was motivated to actually look at all these alleged "futurist" prophecies in the OT -- nearly ALL of them have corresponding NT passages where they are fulfilled. The realization that the dispensational "literal" hermaneutic is fatally flawed was also a major turning point.
If you are pondering embracing FULL BLOWN "preterism," I would encourage you to examine the many works AGAINST the position as well. I came to the conclusion long ago that such a position opens up a doctrinal "Pandora's box" -- containing far more problems than solutions. However, I equally believe that some of the dispensationalists' favorite NT prophecies have, in fact, been already fulfilled. But not all of them!
In Christ,
William Kilgore
A QUESTION FROM MATT :
This issue of thinkmail was good.
Here is a challenge for you. I would like your help in understanding Romans 13:8: "Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."
The whole context of Scripture makes it impossible for "Owe nothing to anyone" to mean that we can never take out loans, use credit cards, etc. However, doing such things does seem to make us "owe" the other person money until it is paid back, which on the face of it appears to be contrary to this verse. So how are we to understand this verse? What does Paul mean when he says, "Owe nothing to anyone?"
Let me know your insight.
Matt
Matt,
Good to hear from you again. I trust that all things are working together for your good as God sovereignly moves in your life and in the lives of those around you.
Romans 13:8. It seems to me that the immediate context refers specifically to that which is owed the govt. authorities. However, I would also think that the broad nature of verse 8 would, by strong implication, refer to all debts.
I would clarify, though. Some well-meaning teachers (e.g., Bill Gothard, Larry Burkett, etc.) use such verses to say that Christians should never "take out a loan," etc. But the way I read it, "loans" are actually PRESUPPOSED by this particular passage! Paul's point is not that we shouldn't borrow, but rather that we should pay what we owe in a timely fashion - i.e., that we shouldn't become delinquent in payment (cf. vv. 6-7). Of course this verse does have much to say to the typical modern American! We shouldn't live our lives in debt to others - I think that is the basic point.
I am even now trying to "get out of debt." This is a worthy goal, and I would certainly encourage all believers to do the same. God bless.
In Christ,
William Kilgore
TOM WARNER COMMENTS ON THINKMAIL #14 :
Hi Bill,
<< How did you like THINKMAIL #14? >>
Very good. I enjoyed it. Your piece on Prov 17:16 was something I'd never thought about, but I feel you're onto something.
You made some good arguments for eternal Sonship. For some years I've puzzled over the difference between eternal Sonship and incarnational Sonship, tending to argue for the latter. But, I've had some second thoughts recently. One interesting thing I ran across last week brought it back to mind. Novatian's treatise on The Trinity (c.A.D.235), written before he created a schism, was about 100 years ahead of others who wrote about that. Parts of it are included in a collection of quotes from the Church Fathers which I have (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol 1, by William A Jurgens, pp.247-248).
Novation's argument for the diety of Christ is based on Sonship meaning that he shared the very nature of the Father. But, he seems to believe that Christ (or the Logos) had a beginning in eternity.
"God the Father, founder and creator of all things, who alone knows no beginning, who is invisible, immeasurable, immortal, and eternal, is one God... From HIm, when He willed it, the Word was born, His Son... And the latter, since He was born of the Father, is always in the Father... He that exists before all time cannot be spoken of in relation to time. And always must He be in the Father, otherwise the Father were not always the Father. And yet the Father even precedes Him, because it is necessary for the Father to be prior, in order to be the Father. It is necessary for Him who knows no origin to be antecedant to Him who has an origin... He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father.... He proceeded from the Father--that divine substance, I mean, whose name is Word, and through whom all things were made, and without whom was made nothing.... assuredly, He is God proceeding from God, causing, as Son, a second Person after the Father, but not taking away from the Father the fact that God is one."
If the preexistent Christ is called "the only begotten Son," it does SEEM to imply that he was begotten at some point in eternity. I think that is why Walter Martin, etc., argued that Sonship applies to the incarnation. He was afraid that the traditional view wouldn't work quite as well against JW's, I think.
I know that the orthodox understanding is eternal generation, i.e., that Christ's begetting had no beginnning. I don't know that Psalm 2:7 refers to that, but that's the verse that some have used, saying the "TODAY I have begotten you..." refers to an eternal today. I think Athansius argued that way. It seems doubtful to me.
The idea that God could "project" part of his eternal nature that would become the Logos, possessing the same divine nature as the Father (in contrast to Arius's view), doesn't bother me. And, I wonder if it was actually believed by some of the Church Fathers, etc., because it may even show up in the Nicene Creed (A.D.325, with additions in 382, and 589).
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father...."
Thank you, Tom, for your comments. God has been dealing with me on what He said through James - not just hearing, but DOING the Word. Passages like the one in Proverbs are really speaking to me like never before right now. I definitely think the early Anabaptists were on to something with their "hermaneutic of obedience" - i.e., if we are to accurately INTERPRET the Word of God then an essential step is a commitment to OBEY that Word.
The Sonship of Christ is a hard issue, as I can see the point that teachers like the late Walter Martin and also John MacArthur are making. But there are good points for the orthodox view as well. I think your friend, David Dean, expresses these points beautifully in the quotes I offered in THINKMAIL. I (at this point in my understanding) find it impossible to dismiss these points in good conscience. At the very least, the often-used idea that "eternal Sonship" is "Origenian philosophy" with no scriptural support is just plain false.
Your comments on the Trinity are interesting, and I can confirm that indeed it seems some of the early Church Fathers believed in a similar way (the "economic trinity" I believe). I personally believe that there is room for liniency within orthodoxy on the details of the Trinity. My understanding is a bit different, but I can certainly see the reasoning in what you believe as well.
A FEW COMMENTS ON THE Y2K ARTICLE IN THINKMAIL #13 :
Lambert Dolphin writes:
Dear William,
I, too, have been following Y2K with keen interest.
I learned a lot that I was totally unaware of from my good friend Glenn Miller who is a Silicon Valley hi-tech VP. A couple of weeks ago we taped a 3+ hour briefing by Glenn that I know you will find helpful and encouraging.
Your comments and reactions are most welcome.
sincerely,
Lambert
NOTE: The link provided by Mr. Dolphin is a must see on the Y2K issue. Also, if you haven't yet visited Lambert's website, you must - you are cheating yourself! His is one of the most comprehensive and well-organized sites I've seen.
Steve Van Nattan writes:
Very good stuff in the Lord.
Used 1. and 2. in the Journal. I agree 100% re: the Y2K thing. I have been telling friends the same thing. I believe our way of merchandising and marketing is much like the surfer riding the wave. If he never falls off, the ride is great. We are living way out on the edge of things. I think some reality would acutally be useful.
Thanks.
In Christ,
Steve Van Nattan
Chuck writes:
I have been in the computer field for some 15 years, as a computer programer on many different type machines. At this time I am employed by the 2nd largest carpet manufacturer in the world (Mohawk Industries, listed on Nasdec under MHK).
While I do know that the Y2K problem is one that is requiring a lot of time and money to correct, I do not find that it is a problem that will not be overcome by the year 2000. Our company is already 2000 compliant and has been for about 2 years now. Most major software companies that we deal with (IBM, Microsoft, etc) have sent upgrades to there systems in order to correct the problem. I think overall you will find the larger companies that have computer systems are indeed taking steps to be compliant in time to prevent any major problems in 2000.
I suspect that the ones that will possibly lag behind is the small companies, like the mom and pop stores. I have contracted to convert some of those smaller companies to be 2000 compliant. How many of those that will make an attempt to upgrade prior to 2000 is anyones guess. I suspect that many of them will be taken advantage of by fly by nite programmers that are just out to make a buck. With all the fear going around about this, I am sure that will be the one thing that people should be most concerned about.
I would tend to agree with Dave Hunt in regards to this matter. It seems that a lot of preachers are talking gloom and doom about this whole thing, I suspect that many of them have never even seen a computer much less programmed one.
In regards to Scripture, I prefer to keep my eyes on Israel... Israel seems to be the focal point in regards to most of the Scripture about end times, and the signs of those times.
It is my view that the year 2000 will come and go as did the last new year we experianced, after that the news media will find some other topic to keep people watching there broadcasts, and the preachers that preached the gloom and doom will fade into the distance like a hay stack set ablaze for a brief period time of glory. The only problem with a hay stack, is that when it burns very little remains to indicate that it was ever around to begin with.
Chuck
While we would most likely disagree on Israel somewhat (I am amill.), I hope you're right about Y2K!
A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON CLINTON'S CONFESSION, COMMENTED ON IN THINKMAIL #12 :
"Merf" writes:
Really enjoy your writing. It is always interesting and educational. This one in particular helped me to put the Clinton saga into perspective and I think will help me stay away from inappropiate discussion/reactions at work. Thanks!
Frank writes:
I was reading your thoughts about the Clinton situation. I too am bothered by the public attitude that his "personal" life has no bearing on his public one. I heard a great example that refutes people who think this.
Just last week, when Clinton ordered the bombing of terrorist camps, people questioned the timing of his attack. They even compared it to the movie "Wag The Dog". So on the one hand, while the majority of people don't think the "Monica" situation matters, many of those same people now distrust his intentions and his actions. They contradict their own view by their own cynicism.
Keep up the good work!
Frank
NOTE: For more on the Biblical response to the Clinton Administration, see my comments in THINKMAIL #1.
CHUCK COMMENTS ON THE APOLOGETICS PIECE IN THINKMAIL #12 :
I enjoyed reading this letter you sent. There was some really good points made in regards to the validity of Christanity. While we both know that it can't be proven to the degree that many would want, we also know that there are some very valid proofs that support it as being much more than a simple blind faith or myth as some would lead us to believe.
I feel that a different standard of proof is used by non-christians in regards to Scripture. Many will accept almost without question those books that are historical in context, with far less evidence than one can obtain in regards to the Bible. In that light it tells me that the heart comes into play when non-christians read the Bible. We are often accused of being biased in our outlook, when at the same time there is bias in there outlook. Man has always rebeled against God, and it should not be strange that man would continue that rebellion in his reading of Scripture. Often it is better (or so it seems) to ignore the evidence than to accept that there is indeed some possibility of it being true.
When we are faced with the possibility of Scripture being true, then we must also face those things that are contained within, (Sin, accountability to God, etc). This one factor in my view causes many to ignore those things that support Scripture as being much more than the dreams of some group of men. I say the bias is not from the Christian standpoint, it is from the stand point of those who continue in rebellion against the very Creator that made man to begin with.
After all the evidence that we can offer (and it is very compelling as you pointed out), the one thing we as Christians need to keep in mind is that we are dealing with hearts of rebellion. We must bring them to an understanding that Christ is the only answer, it is not in ignoring or denying. When we ignore reality, we simply postpone what at some point in time must be faced. I think reality is that there is a Christ who is both judge and Savior. Depending on what we do with that Christ will determine the outcome of eternity for every man.
I spoke with a man who serves as a missonary in Houduras Central America. He told me of some 1500 people last year that came to confess Christ in there lives. Yet he also said that was a small minority in comparison to the number that rejected Christ. He spoke of having preached to over 20,000 people during that year. 1500 is indeed a minority that came to Christ. The 18.500 that rejected Christ are really no different than thee person that you are conversing with. They may not be able to express as this person does the reasons for there rejection, they may not be as educated, or even as rich in regards to this worlds goods as the man you speak with. Yet they each have in common the very thing that Adam and Eve had in common with men today. They simply rebelled against the very God that created them.
What can we do to resolve these things? I have no magic formula, other than what Christ said, "Preach the Word". If the word does not reach them then nothing will ever reach the heart of stone. Yet when we see one person come out of the multitude and accept Christ, we find that it is worth all the time we spend in study, and prayer.
May God bless you and yours,
Chuck
SEVERAL COMMENTS CAME FROM SUBSCRIBERS ON THE MUSIC ARTICLE IN THINKMAIL #11 :
Frank writes:
Many Christians who see music simply as "Christian" or "unchristian" often have no discernment about whether or not so-called "Christian" songs have Biblically correct lyrics. A lot of false doctrines and attitudes can be spread within a catchy or beautiful tune. Just because a musically talented born-again believer sings something about Jesus or God or heaven doesn't mean it's true. We need to keep in mind that musicians do not usually have the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher, so even well-intentioned lyrics can have Biblical error in them.
Frank
Professor Anthony Buzzard writes:
William,
Thank you for your thoughts on music. I agree that seminars pointing out one particular form of evil are limited. More important would be the reestablishment of basic truths of the Bible. The evil music would then become even more obvious. I was formerly a professional musician and I am appalled at the slop which is fed to the Christian public.
Anthony
Sebastian Mendler writes:
Hey, William -- thanks for the thoughts on music. I've been struggling with this one myself -- mostly because so much of the music that I hear on Christian stations is difficult if not impossible for me to listen to. (I've heard Jars of Clay and like them a lot, to let you know where I am...) So much of it is either Muzak or Wagner, know what I mean? Either treacly sentimentality or bombastic triumphalism... so I appreciate your discussion. Nothing worse than hearing a wonderful message and then having your sensibilities assaulted by some quavering pseudo-operatic singer...
NOTE: For some different ideas on music within a Christian context, see my discussion with Jeff Nesbitt on Music & Christianity.
PASTOR MYRON J. PETERSEN OF CALVARY CROSSROADS COMMENTS ON THE WEBSITE :
Mr. Kilgore,
Just saw your site for the first time. Fantastic !!!! A lot of people need to receive the information that you have written there. Keep up the good work in His name. "When most people say that they are thinking, they are often just rearranging their own prejudices." I was very encouraged to see your Web Site.
In theory only: -- If on the first day of the month you disciple only 2 people, on the second day each of those 2 disciple only 2 more, and on the third day each of those 4 disciple only 2 more, -- on the first day of the very next month after only 31 days, how many people would have been discipled if all were Christians? note: Don't forget to include the people that were already discipled from the first day on. I hope the answer to this question will encourage you. In theory, It's the entire world in only 31 days.
Keep up the good work. You're making a difference for the glory of God.
Myron
Thank you for the encouragement, Pastor Petersen. NOTE: visit Petersen's site, A LOVE LETTER.
ROBERT MAYER WRITES CONCERNING THINKMAIL #10 :
Just finished scanning your most recent Thinkmail and agree wholeheartedly that poor interpretation probably does more damage to Christian orthodoxy than all of the heterodoxy combined.
A good book on biblical interpretation that you might want to look at is "How to Read the Bible for All its Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart (Zondervan). Both are excellent scholars (one of whom is connected with the school where I work) and they've written a top-notch guide for understanding and interpreting the Bible. It's pretty inexpensive and if you haven't seen it, I know you'll profit from it.
God bless,
Robert J. Mayer, Library Services Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
NOTE: I acquired this book on Mr. Mayer's recommendation while vacationing in San Antonio this past Summer. He is absolutely right. The book is perhaps the best I have read on that subject. I would encourage everyone to look for it.
PAT ASKS:
"Why don't you consider yourself a 'fundamentalist'?"
PAT,
As with most labels, the term "fundamentalist" as applied to Christians has changed its popular meaning somewhat over time - it doesn't matter WHO changed it, only that it HAS changed.
Theologically speaking, I do agree that there is a core of "fundamental" truths that are clear in Scripture and have marked orthodox Christianity throughout history. However, two problems arise here:
1. WHAT are these doctrines? The list varies from "fundie" to "fundie." I personally would consider the "fundamental" orthodox doctrines to be the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the unity and plurality of the Godhead, the Deity and Humanity of Christ, Christ's death and bodily resurrection for our salvation, salvation by grace through faith, Christ's literal coming again, and the Final Judgment of both saved and lost. Beyond this, we become sectarian.
2. These doctrines are "fundamental," but "fundamental" to what? Many "fundamentalists" maintain that the above (and more) are essential to SALVATION. But this is not Biblical - the Gospel itself is amazingly SIMPLE. I certainly did not know anything about the Trinity when I came to Christ - did you? Let's say that Jane Doe comes to a place in her life where she realizes her need and trusts in God's promise of justification based on the work of Christ alone. The next day two JWs or LDS knock on her door. She's hungry for the Word and doesn't know any better; she hasn't read KINGDOM OF THE CULTS yet. She becomes JW (or LDS), and not knowing any better, believes what they teach her. Is Jane Doe any less saved? Do you see my point? When we start maintaining that TO BE SAVED a person must understand and believe this or that, we construct a "gospel" that is really "SALVATION BY CORRECT DOCTRINE" - and I honestly cannot see that this is any better than SALVATION BY WORKS. Your thoughts?
Based on my two comments above, then, I would say that the few doctrines above are essential TO ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. However, I would also say that they are not THE GOSPEL ITSELF - the Gospel is far simpler in nature. New believers are not infallible and may certainly be led astray on "fundamental" doctrine as well as any other.
Second, the term "fundamentalist" has taken on a MORAL dimension in America that is more CULTURAL than Biblical. For instance, everyone knows that "fundamentalists" are against use of tobacco and alcohol, right? WRONG. No fundamentalist would deny that C.H. Spurgeon was a "fundamentalist" in spirit - yet Spurgeon enjoyed a good cigar. G. Campbell Morgan was actually among the original "fundamentalists" - and he would put out his cigar in an ashtray as he walked into the pulpit to deliver his Sunday sermon! The point is that American fundamentalism has erected UNBIBLICAL moral standards - nowhere in Scripture are we forbidden to use tobacco - further, contrary to popular teaching, the Bible does NOT teach abstinence from alcohol. These are cultural norms, and fall under the Christian's liberty in Christ.
These are the reasons that, instead of "fundamentalist," I prefer "evangelical."
In Christ,
William Kilgore
CECIL HOOK, WEBMASTER AT FREEDOM'S RING, COMMENTS ON THINKMAIL #5:
To: thinkman@flash.net
Hello,
William, Your call for a broader perspective and less prejudicial judgment is in order. We will never all understand things alike (an oxymoronish expression!), but we must learn to accept across our narrowed lines. Great change is working in the Churches of Christ, yet there is much resistance yet. At my age and circumstance, I cannot possibly read all that comes along. And I grow weary of the unending efforts of us all to set everybody else straight. I also fear that the move from legalism has bred an extreme Pollyana sort of happy religion where everyone is right who feels right. Oh well, there I go again.
God bless, Cecil Hook
Mr. Hook,
Thank you for your comments. I have corresponded much with Edward Fudge, both via snail-mail and most often e-mail. I am greatly encouraged by your ministry and his both within and without the CofC. You are one of a handful of individuals that God has used to greatly broaden by previously narrow perspective. Sadly, it is often true in Church history that EXTREME error requires EXTREME correction, correction which in time may become the next extreme error. Nevertheless, the proclamation of God's GRACE and the FREE GIFT of salvation occupied a prominent place in the New Testament. Therefore, I truly believe that you are on the right track. As the light of the truth of salvation by God's GRACE dawns within your particular group (CofC), this light will both confirm and convert. However, it will also expose many who refuse that light and the revelation it brings. Many will seem to embrace that light only because they see opportunity for their carnal desires - these will abuse the LIBERTY you proclaim. Does that render the liberty itself FALSE or INVALID? NO WAY! Don't get discouraged, brother. Rest in Christ and ask God daily for HIS strength. You are engaged in well-doing ... don't get weary.
In Christ,
William Kilgore
EVANGELIST JOSEPH NALLY COMMENTS ON THE SITE:
Great Site. Just came by for a visit. May God bless.
Soli Deo Gloria,
The Staff JRN Evangelistic Ministries
P.O. Box 1977 Dawsonville, Georgia 30534
http://www.stc.net/~nally
Thank you so much for your kind words. I have visited your site and appreciate the link. I will be adding many new links to my site soon and your's will certainly be among them. While you may find that I am not quite as "separatist" as others (i.e., I am open to discussion with anybody, many of them Arminian, Charismatic, and even of the more heterodox sects), I am most definitely a proponent of the doctrines of grace, "sola Scriptura," and other Reformed distinctives. I hope you will revisit my page in a few weeks, as I have yet to post some of the linked materials.
In Christ,
William Kilgore
Thank you for including us at your site. Yes, we will visit your site often. We always like to see when sites are updated. We to have many discussions with individuals with what we call, opposing faiths, trying to win them to Christ, His way, His faith, and His truth. Just last week we had a great time of fellowship with a person in Rome who of course was Catholic. Though we do our best to listen to others, we do so to win them for Christ and His truth, as we are sure you do.
May God bless.
Soli Deo Gloria,
The Staff JRN Evangelistic Ministries
P.O. Box 1977 Dawsonville, Georgia 30534
ANY FEEDBACK FOR THINKMAN?
