Ecumenical Discussion: Core Beliefs and Salvation

[cpayne]

Just keep praying for the piece of cod that passes understanding.

 

[st_felicity]

Just keep praying for the piece of cod that passes understanding.

I think I had that last night at Denny’s…my stomach is still not quite right:blush:

 

[cpayne]

This, too, shall pass.

 

[cpayne]

Anyway, back on track, here’s a question for you, Felicity: Have these people you are posting with accepted you as a Christian? Based on what? I mean, what’s THEIR core beliefs about salvation? Why would they say you, as a Catholic, are a fellow Christian (or not, as some of them might say).

 

[vern_humphrey]

This, too, shall pass.

As the monkey said, after he swallowed the cue ball.

 

[st_felicity]

This, too, shall pass.

eeeewwwwww

Anyway…back to topic…I just went and checked the PPblog and Dan Wallace has responded with a HUUUUUgggeee post. I haven’t read it yet, but I’m cutting it and pasting it here so you can read along with me. I did read the first paragraph and…it appears to be pretty juicy…

it may take a few posts to have it completely copied…bear with me.

 

[st_felicity]

Dan Wallace Parchment & Pen Blog:

1. Thank you all again for your helpful comments and healthy exchanges. I’m afraid I will have to wind this down because I think that many of our comments are still going past each other. Feel free to add what you want, but this will be my final comment here.
   I’d like to address Felicity especially, since you have made several points that require some response. We have talked about these a bit before, but I think this is the time for a more detailed discussion (from my end, anyway). I’ve tried to organize your thoughts around three specific points: God’s sovereignty, essential core of beliefs, and reasons for evangelism.
   To make sure there is no misunderstanding this time, I will quote you on these points.
2. The sovereignty of God: “God is not a puppet master that CAUSES belief in him—that would deny free-will.” Your interaction with verses in Romans 9 were used to confirm this, including quotations or allusions from vv 20-22, 30-32. You said that in Rom 9.15, where God says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” that this was called “First Grace.’ And you underscored again our free will by quoting Rom 9.17, saying “And why does God do this—allow us to respond according to our OWN FREE WILL? Verse 17 explains….”
   Yet later you said, “I am MOST dogmatic about the sovereignty of God over ALL things and I will not place ‘requirements’ on how He will show His Mercy.”
   When I mentioned John Piper’s book, The Justification of God (which is a detailed exposition of Rom 9), calling it ‘right on target,’ you asked, ‘by who’s [sic] authority?’
   Response: I believe that your understanding of Rom 9 is incorrect, and that your understanding of God’s mercy, human responsibility, and God’s freedom, are incorrect. Now, to be sure, I don’t think that one’s understanding of this text is an essential credo, but I do think that how one understands Rom 9 informs many other issues, such as who is saved and who is not, why we evangelize, and what God’s sovereignty is all about. But what’s most confusing to me is how you can use Rom 9 to argue for human free will, and at the same time say “I am MOST dogmatic about the sovereignty of God over ALL things….” It seems to me that a non-negotiable for many Christians today is human free will. They are simply unwilling to question whether this is what scripture teaches. And yet, the evidence we see every day reveals that human beings do not have an absolutely free will. If we do, then God doesn’t. In essence, to argue for human free will is to deny God’s free will. Let me illustrate with a few points, then discuss Rom 9 again.
   Here are some things that we did not choose: our parents, our height, our eye color, our sex, when or where we would be born, what kind of personality we would have, what nationality we are, etc. Now, all this is obvious, but some might object, “Yes, but once we came into this world, our choices are our own—we have free will after that.” Really? Suppose you walk into a Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Shoppe. Do you have free will to choose any ice cream you want? In a sense, yes. You can spend your money on licorice or pistachio but you might not like what you get. (As for me, if they have licorice, that’s always my first choice, and I never order pistachio.) But when you realize that your choice is related to your desire—and that that desire is not just borne of your volition, you have limited choices. You don’t have an absolutely free choice. The same goes for all sorts of foods. Just study your own family history and you’ll see some genetic patterns that reveal how limited our choices really are. Or consider whether you are a detailed person or a synthetic person, whether you have mechanical inclinations or are all thumbs. We can certainly nurture those predilections that God gave us, but I can’t become a machinist. I have no desire, no inclinations, no skills in that regard. The irony is that my father owned his own gear shop for decades and I worked for him. I never rose above a class C lathe operator. It wasn’t in me. Why? Because those machinist genes must be dormant in me (my boys have them, but they passed right by me!); I have my maternal grandfather’s inclinations toward study and research.

 

[st_felicity]

Dan Wallace continuing:

To be sure, someone can point out that within our genetic make-up, we do have freedom. Granted—to a degree. I would say that we have a tethered will. But Rom 3 is very clear that before one is saved, his will is tethered to sin. “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God” (Rom 3.10-11). And that’s the problem with Felicity’s argument: you are saying that we have a free will before we are saved. Yes, we do—we are free to choose sin, but we are not free to choose God. “There is no one who seeks God.”
One more clarification: the opposite of a free will is not no will. It is a bound will. If our will is bound, this in no way makes us puppets. To caricature my view that way is not accurate. I think even a moment’s thought reveals that we all have a bound will to some degree. No one is absolutely free, except God alone.
As for Rom 9, if I were to argue for human free will, this is the last chapter I would go to to do so. For example, v 11 says, “even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling)…” What is the point here? God’s choice of Jacob was not based on merit. God did not look down the annals of time and see that Jacob would believe and on that basis choose him. That would deny God’s freedom, and therefore, diminish his sovereignty. God’s choice was entirely due to his free sovereignty—not by works but by his calling.
Paul then responds to the criticism that is surely to be raised by some when they hear this: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not!” (v 14). Now, he has the opportunity to set the record straight, to tell us that man’s free will is not up for grabs. But instead he says, “For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy” (vv 15-16). Paul thus goes even one step beyond what he said in v 11. God’s sovereign mercy does not depend on what a person does (‘not by works’); it also does not depend on what a person desires.
But perhaps we read Paul wrong here. Perhaps he is really saying that non-Christians have a free will to choose God, to believe without his initiating grace. Let’s see if he clarifies his argument. In the next two verses he says, “For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden” (vv 17-18). This does not sound like ‘first grace’ to me; God does not show mercy to all, but his grace is selective.

 

[st_felicity]

Dan Wallace continuing:

Maybe we still have misunderstood Paul. Let’s see if he clarifies things any better as we go along. In the next three verses he says, “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?” But who indeed are you—a mere human being–to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?” (vv 19-21). If ever there was a place where Paul could have argued for human free will, this would be it. Why? Because Paul did not like being misunderstood on great theological truths. In Rom 5 and Rom 7, he has already shown us that he can backtrack when his thought could be misunderstood. There are important theological points he is making in those chapters. But here he digs in his heels. Rom 5 and 7 show us that Paul knows how to clarify his thought when an important issue is on the line. Since Rom 9 does not backtrack but marches ahead full speed, we have little justification for seeing him argue for human free will in this chapter.
And this brings me to Piper’s book on Rom 9. The accolades for this carefully done work are incredible. For example, Richard Muller of Calvin Theological Seminary said, “I find The Justification of God the most compelling and forceful exposition of Romans 9:1-23 that I have ever seen.” But you’d expect that from a fellow Calvinist. But Leander Keck, former Dean of Yale Divinity School, and an acknowledged world-class New Testament scholar, said, “Piper leads one through complex exegetical issues, engaging important literature fairly….” And David Dunbar of Biblical Theological Seminary noted, “Even for non-Calvinists Piper’s work is too carefully reasoned and stays too close to the text to the ignored.” Felicity, I would simply urge you with this: if you really do embrace God’s sovereignty, then you owe it to yourself to read this book.

 

[st_felicity]

Dan Wallace continuing:

1. Minimal core of beliefs needed for salvation: When I said that “It seems that both Felicity and Vance say that there is NO minimal core) please correct me if I’ve read you wrong!),” you said, “You are wrong!” Your answer then went on to say “Jesus—the God-man is the core of Christianity—However—God has sovereignty over every soul and does He Wills. God is beyond religion—not a slave to it.”
   Response: This is where I am really confused. I am arguing about beliefs; you are arguing about the realities behind those beliefs yet seem to be saying that whether one actually has such beliefs is not crucial. We are agreed that Jesus is the core of Christianity. But your “However” suggests that belief in him is not crucial. And your statement that “God is beyond religion” sounds again as if there is no minimal core that one must believe to be saved. That sounds good on one level, and seems to speak well of God’s sovereignty. But I would argue that God does not contradict what his Word teaches. Is God sovereign? Absolutely! But to suggest that he ‘goes beyond’ his revealed will (in the sense I think you mean) actually contradicts his sovereignty because it makes him an imperfect deity. So, again, how am I wrong in my assessment of what you’ve said?

 

[st_felicity]

Dan Wallace continuing:

1. The need for evangelism: You criticized my argument about the need for evangelism as “one of reconciliation, love, offering of the great gift of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of sinners” to approach that was man-centered: “That’s a position where one’s worship of God is world-focused rather than God-focused.”
   You criticized me for saying, “I think it is the height of cruelty to tell a person, ‘I wouldn’t worry about your eternal destiny if you don’t think that Christ was raised from the dead. Many early Christians believed the same thing. And God will show mercy on whom he shows mercy.’ That’s cruel because the apostolic testimony is crystal clear that those who do not embrace this truth are in a world full of hurt.”
   You responded, “I have to be honest here—I have no idea how you could come up with that as something I might suggest is okay to say. I repeatedly referenced that we are to teach according to what has been handed on to us and I even referenced Scripture that said if one is obstinate in refusing to accept the Gift of Christ’s Salvation, we are to leave them in their obstinacy. To confirm a person in error is extraordinarily sinful and scandalous. I ask that you please not generalize a comment about deference to the sovereignty of God to be the equivalent of confirming erroneous beliefs as appropriate. It is an unfair characterization of what I have stated.”
   I responded to this by saying, “What I still don’t get is why you think that we can’t possibly know any criteria for whether is person is saved.” You responded: “I don’t think other’s personal salvation is any of our business—It’s presuming upon God. Salvation is between the individual and God—Jesus died for MY sins, He paid the debt for ME, He is MY PERSONAL Savior.”

 

[st_felicity]

Last one I think…
Dan Wallace continuing:

You continued with this point by arguing that 1 Cor 2 means that what one must believe to be saved is one of those mysteries. I said that to argue this way was to take 1 Cor 2 way out of context. You said, “I do not think it is out of context one iota—it is exactly the point I am trying to make.”
Response: There are two issues here. First, what should motivate us in evangelism; second, whether there is a core of essential beliefs that one must embrace to be saved.
As for the first issue, you thought that to be motivated to share one’s faith by reconciliation, love, offering of the great gift of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of sinners is to be man-centered (or, in your words, ‘world-focused’) in our worship. Felicity, with all due respect, that’s a bit silly. Let’s assume (as I think you do) that Paul had a high view of God’s sovereignty. We already talked about Rom 9. But in the beginning of that very chapter—a chapter that many acknowledge as one of the most exalting statements of the sovereignty of God ever written—Paul begins by expressing his deep pains for his fellow Jews: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed—cut off from Christ—for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen….” (vv 2-3). How is this statement not borne out of love, even anguished love, for other human beings? Would you call it world-focused? We also see this as Christ’s motive himself. In Mark 10.45 he says that he came “not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many.” Would you call that a world-centered approach? Elsewhere, he says, “I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do” (John 17.4). In your view, it seems that we have to choose between loving the world and glorifying God. But this is hardly Paul’s take on things, nor is it Jesus’. I do not think there is any contradiction whatsoever in being motivated to glorify God while also being motivated to see human beings come to know Christ for their sake.
As for the second issue (which really is what got you started in your comments on this blog), I again must admit my confusion. I have looked over the scripture references you listed, and not one of them says what you claim they say. There is not one verse that you cited that says “if one is obstinate in refusing to accept the Gift of Christ’s Salvation, we are to leave them in their obstinacy.” Now, if you really believe that, then I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. But your later responses seem to contradict your own view, for you went on to say that (1) it is none of our business whether someone else is saved, and (2) only God knows whether they are. On one level, I can agree with you: only God knows who is saved. However, you seem to be saying that scripture only gives personal truth, not propositional truth; I think it offers both. There is a content that we must believe to be saved; but there is a person whom we must trust to be saved. Your response to my repeated question about the content is that ‘it’s a mystery,’ citing 1 Cor 2 in your defense. Again, I must say that your treatment of this passage is wholly out of context. Paul is not talking about the content that we must believe to be saved as a mystery. Indeed, if he were, why would he make explicit what that content is later in the same letter (1 Cor 15.1-8)? And here Paul makes very clear that this gospel is that “by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you” (v 1). If 1 Cor 2 means that the content of the gospel is a mystery, then it contradicts 1 Cor 15.

 

[st_felicity]

Nope…one more…
Dan Wallace continuing:

Now, to be fair, let me try to parse what I think you might have meant to say all along. I think you meant that human beings cannot know whether another person is truly saved because only God knows the heart. On one level, I completely agree with that. If you mean by this that God knows whether someone has truly put his faith in Christ, I agree. But if you mean that whether a person believes in Christ or not is not essential, since God knows the heart, I disagree. Further, the reverse of this is not the same thing: scripture gives us clear guidelines for knowing whether a person is not saved. At bottom, the way we can tell is by what they believe—and that is seen in their confession. Otherwise, 1 Cor 5.10-11 has no meaning. And that brings us back to the issue we started with: What are the essential beliefs that one must have for life?

Felicity, I don’t in any sense mean to pick on you. But you’ve said some things that seem contradictory, and you’ve criticized me for significantly misunderstanding your views. I have quoted you at length to show why I have understood you the way I have. But I must admit that I’m still bewildered by what you’re saying. I do hope that my own views on these matters are a bit clearer.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this comment (which is significantly longer than the original blog!), this will be my last comment on this issue.

 

[st_felicity]

WOW

6, 306 words…now I’m gonna read it i’m printing it off to do it justice

 

[st_felicity]

WOW

6, 306 words…now I’m gonna read it I’m printing it off to do it justice

Whew…That wasn’t so bad…It was really only 3,153 words…I pasted it twice in Word by accident.

Anyway…I can see where he misunderstands–hopefully I can succinctly and clearly express it. I’m off to work on it. I must admit, I’m a bit put off by some of the condescension and what I would consider prideful assumptions…but…I’ll be charitable.

 

[st_felicity]

Alrighty then…My response is also a long one…but about 800 words or so shorter. I REALLY would appreciate some feedback since Dr. Wallace has pre-emptively declined to respond.

Felicity on 28 Jul 2007 at 11:47 pm #

Dr. Wallace,
I appreciate your lengthy response—mine’s a little shorter, but not much. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif I will try again to express the concepts I find troubling in the pursuit of determining a minimal set of beliefs that are required for salvation that is accurate for all mankind because I do believe you have erroneous conclusions concerning the points I have made. As I said, I do believe that Christians are held to particular creedal beliefs that are clearly indicated Biblically, but also Biblically, it is clear that we humans have no business declaring the state of the soul of another individual. While the journey toward Salvation is one we Christians share, our Salvation itself is a personal matter between the individual and God.

In the opening of your post, you said the following: “You said that in Rom 9.15, where God says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” that this was called “First Grace.’

This is not correct. Perhaps you misunderstood to what I was referring, but I was not saying God having Mercy on whom he will is the first grace. I cited a verse that expresses that no one can turn from their sinfulness without that first bestowal of grace by God. The verse I cited was “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.”(1 Cor. 12:3.).
Later in your lengthy post, in reference to something else, you site another source that bolsters the idea that God’s Grace is the impetus of our journey toward Salvation. You said,
“But Rom 3 is very clear that before one is saved, his will is tethered to sin. “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God” (Rom 3.10-11). “

In you post, you also cite something that you termed “initiating grace”—you used that term while suggesting I believed that man could turn to God “without his initiating grace.”
It appears that you also share the belief that “first” before anyone can turn to God, God “initiates” within his creature a desire to know Him, and this is by the “Grace” of God alone. I don’t see a distinction in our beliefs on that as you apparently do.
I seems we both are claiming that Salvation can only occur by the Grace of God’s call.

Where our agreement apparently breaks down is at the question of WHO is called. You seem to indicate that this initial grace is only for a certain group—the elect. I contend that God calls ALL men, because Christ died for all—2Cor5:
14 For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died.
15 He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

You go on to explain in detail how Romans 9 affirms your position specifically calling into question the notion of free will. You go so far as to make the following bold statement in reference to verses 19-21: ““Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?” (vv 19-21). If ever there was a place where Paul could have argued for human free will, this would be it."

 

[st_felicity]

CONTINUING…

I can see from where you draw your conclusions—IF—you only look at Romans 9 in isolation, or in a limited scope of reference. You do refer back to Romans 5 and Romans 7, but I suggest that you should rather go FORWARD in Romans to get to Paul’s COMPLETE message rather than try to impose your own personal prose techniques on to the Apostle.

Paul is building an argument and each of the Chapters within Romans does not stand separate from another as I’m sure you are aware. If you read further on in Romans, through Chapter 11 at least, you get a better picture of the full message that Paul is preaching.

In Romans 11:11-24 he brings his message to a culminating point—to iron out the confusion of grace and works and justification and the elect and man’s free response to God’s grace. He says in 11-14 that The Jews stumbled so that Gentiles might be saved and that through the Jews rejection, a greater number was added onto God. Then in 15-20 he says their rejection of God was a “grace” to the world in that through their rejection, reconciliation occurred. He states that the Jews were “broken off” due to their unbelief so that the Gentiles could be “grafted in” due to their faith.

21-24 is where the culmination occurs in regard to the notion of salvation and free will. In those verses, Paul states that branches that have been grafted in can indeed be broken off, “For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.” He also states that those who were once broken off, “if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”

This continuation of his explanation clearly points to a better understanding of what Paul says concerning Pharaoh back in Romans 9, and agrees with the way I interpreted the hardening of Pharaoh for the purpose of calling men to Himself with which you took issue.

 

[st_felicity]

CONTINUING…

The Jews were hardened (Rom 11:7) so that more could be grafted in, and they, in turn, could also change and begin to believe though they had been broken off and be grafted back in (Rom. 11:23)—Likewise, Pharaoh was “raised up” (like the Jews were the chosen people) so that God could demonstrate his power and more could respond to the grace given them by God. This implies that Pharaoh had a role to play and perhaps, as the Jews who played a role in Salvation history, Pharaoh could repent and believe if he had chosen to.

When it comes to choosing God, some do so, and some do not—but they do so of their own volition “if they do not remain in unbelief” (Rom. 11:24).

Because God moves in our lives in differing ways as evidenced in Pharaoh’s life and the experience of many of God’s chosen people, it is clear that he also judges us according to what he knows of us (which is everything). In an earlier post, I gave you a list of verses on how God’s personal particular judgment is demonstrated in the Bible. Since you did not address those, I am not sure whether to assume you accept the point I was making that our individuality is so in order that God’s “name may be proclaimed in all the earth” (Rom 9) through our unique differences and our responses to Him and as such, our particular judgment differs, or not. I think you do not considering the bulk of your post appears to disagree, but I cannot tell what you make of those verses.

To address the supposed “contradictions” you perceive, I can only respond that I do not see the gift of free will and God’s ultimate Sovereignty at odds—precisely because God is Just. Your contention that we do not have “free will” because, as you state, “to argue for human free will is to deny God’s free will” is a bogus fallacy supported by the fallacious belief that the elect are CHOSEN by God rather than merely KNOWN by God.

I call this belief bogus and fallacious partially because of the evidence I have already supplied and because it is most certainly not beyond the abilities of the Omnipotent Immortal One to allow his creations the freedom to choose or not choose Him while at the same time know the choice we will make. God is not bound by time as we are. Further, to broaden “free will” to an absolute limitless concept akin to raising man’s will to the level of God’s is also a fallacious argument in that free will has never meant an absolute will as Gods’ Will is.

So in summary so far:

1. God’s “first grace” or if you’d rather, His “initial grace” calls all to Him so that we might live.
2. Christ’s death on the cross was for all—he is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (not just the sins of the elect)(John 1:29)—”God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). To deny that all men have an opportunity to turn to God is to limit the Gift of Christ’s Sacrifice and calls into question the Justice of the Almighty.
3. God made us as he did and judges us according to His knowledge of our being per numerous biblical passages: Romans 2:13-16, James 3:1, Matt.7:2-5, Luke 7:40-43, etc…
4. What we are responsible for, and free to choose or deny, is to live the call of God to our utmost ability—and He will determine whether our effort justifies our faith, or falls short.

That is how we can have free will and God can be sovereign over all things. For Christians—and especially Western Christians, more is expected since we live in an environment where we can freely exercise our religions. However, there are others in repressive societies that do not have the same opportunities and therefore God will judge them accordingly because He is Just. That is only one example—I already referred to the severely handicapped and how by the Divine Election Principle (I don’t know what else to call it) those poor people must be assumed destined for Hell. Is that really what a just and loving God does? What evidence is there that that is so? I would argue that the Beatitudes deny that concept.

 

[st_felicity]

CONTINUING…

As a side note: When looking for access to the book you referred me to, I came across a YouTube video of John Piper on the Prosperity Doctrine. It was wonderful—and I agree wholeheartedly with everything he said. His argument against the Prosperity Doctrine is applicable to the argument that God can, and will in His Mercy, save souls with imperfect understanding of the Revelation He gave mankind.

As for the final issue, when you take issue with my statement that “God is beyond religion,” I think you again assume a meaning that is not intended.

As many have pointed out, the verse “we see through a glass darkly” evidences our limited human ability to grasp the limitless Godhead. When I say “God is beyond religion,” I mean exactly that—God revealed Himself to us so that we may know him to the best of our ability and religion is the repository of what he revealed so that we might come to know Him and worship Him. However, religion is NOT God Himself. It would be idolatrous to claim religion and God were one and the same– It is contrary to the first commandment and I reject that.

Likewise, I do not limit God’s sovereignty in matters of the salvation of souls—in or out of religion. Since God knows the individuals he created better than we know ourselves, He calls all men to salvation Since Christ died for the whole world, and he judges our salvation according to the graces he has bestowed upon us as I evidenced above, the “core beliefs” for salvation of a particular individual are known only to God. Therefore, we CANNOT determine the eternal repose of another’s soul. We know what He has revealed to us, and we strive constantly in that race that Paul references, but only God knows the depth and breadth of understanding and acceptance of his revelation by which we will be finally judged. And THAT is why we work out our own salvation in fear and trembling until we stand alone before him to render our account.

Again, thank you for the exchange—it is unfortunate that you believe we are speaking past each other and therefore have decided not to post further. I enjoyed the opportunity nonetheless.

Sincerely,
Felicity