Francis Chan deciding who goes to heaven?

[Nabooru]

I recently bought Francis Chan’s book “Crazy Love”. I thought it would be a lot different. My purposes in buying it had to do with the fact that I’m in the midst of a TERRIBLE depressive episode right now, my mind just isn’t working correctly, and I wanted some reassurance that God loved me even though I feel like a massive failure.

Boy was I ever wrong. It turns out, Chan says, most people who call themselves Christians aren’t going to heaven. He comes right out and says we won’t see them there because they don’t do enough good things. We’d know they were really saved if they gave all they have away and never kept anything for themselves. He absolutely believes in salvation through grace but seems to think that extreme self-denial is “proof” of being saved.

Well I’m certainly not feeling any better. In fact I feel even worse since I know that if given the opportunity, God would probably find me lacking. I give a lot but I don’t live in a cardboard box. And that, I suppose, would be held against me.

What do you think? Is Chan thinking pharisaically?

 

[TRH1292]

Having read the book, I think you may have overreacted a little bit. Francis Chan is a guy who takes our Lord’s teaching on poverty and total commitment very seriously. As he is a Protestant, he subscribes to Sola Fide, but he also believes those that have been regenerated will live very changed lives. That can be a very dangerous view, but his concern for radical living is good.

If it bothers you so much, stick to Catholic writers on this subject. For instance, read something by Mother Teresea.

 

[Catholic1954]

I recently bought Francis Chan’s book “Crazy Love”. I thought it would be a lot different. My purposes in buying it had to do with the fact that I’m in the midst of a TERRIBLE depressive episode right now, my mind just isn’t working correctly, and I wanted some reassurance that God loved me even though I feel like a massive failure.

Boy was I ever wrong. It turns out, Chan says, most people who call themselves Christians aren’t going to heaven. He comes right out and says we won’t see them there because they don’t do enough good things. We’d know they were really saved if they gave all they have away and never kept anything for themselves. He absolutely believes in salvation through grace but seems to think that extreme self-denial is “proof” of being saved.

Well I’m certainly not feeling any better. In fact I feel even worse since I know that if given the opportunity, God would probably find me lacking. I give a lot but I don’t live in a cardboard box. And that, I suppose, would be held against me.

What do you think? Is Chan thinking pharisaically?

I think you should get rid of that book and read “Divine Mercy in My Soul” by Sister Faustina instead. Then, find the nearest Eucharistic Adoration chapel and spend some time with our Lord; He is the only one who decides who goes to heaven, not self-interpreting, human authors.

 

[RPRPsych]

I recently bought Francis Chan’s book “Crazy Love”. I thought it would be a lot different. My purposes in buying it had to do with the fact that I’m in the midst of a TERRIBLE depressive episode right now, my mind just isn’t working correctly, and I wanted some reassurance that God loved me even though I feel like a massive failure.

Boy was I ever wrong. It turns out, Chan says, most people who call themselves Christians aren’t going to heaven. He comes right out and says we won’t see them there because they don’t do enough good things. We’d know they were really saved if they gave all they have away and never kept anything for themselves. He absolutely believes in salvation through grace but seems to think that extreme self-denial is “proof” of being saved.

Well I’m certainly not feeling any better. In fact I feel even worse since I know that if given the opportunity, God would probably find me lacking. I give a lot but I don’t live in a cardboard box. And that, I suppose, would be held against me.

What do you think? Is Chan thinking pharisaically?

Sounds like a self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian to me.

I wouldn’t waste sleep or tears over this faulty soteriology. If extreme self-denial = saved, then how did St. Louis (a King of France) or St. Pope Pius V (a Pope of the Counter-Reformation) become Saints? And wouldn’t that automatically mean that Hindu sadhus or Buddhist monks were saved?

Salvation by works alone - which is what this position amounts to - is Pelagianism. Ignore it.

 

[bluerose]

Read “Mother Angelica’s Answers, Not Promises” by the founder of EWTN herself. It’s a great pick-me-up whenever I’m feeling like nothing I do is ever enough!

 

[Pat_Payne]

Read “Mother Angelica’s Answers, Not Promises” by the founder of EWTN herself. It’s a great pick-me-up whenever I’m feeling like nothing I do is ever enough!

Completely, totally agree with this recommendation.

 

[TRH1292]

I would recommend some of us would tone down a little on the condemnations, seeing as some haven’t actually read what the author said.

 

[tabycat]

Read “Mother Angelica’s Answers, Not Promises” by the founder of EWTN herself. It’s a great pick-me-up whenever I’m feeling like nothing I do is ever enough!

Maybe because she did not have an easy life makes her book a great pick-me-up.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I recently bought Francis Chan’s book “Crazy Love”. I thought it would be a lot different. My purposes in buying it had to do with the fact that I’m in the midst of a TERRIBLE depressive episode right now, my mind just isn’t working correctly, and I wanted some reassurance that God loved me even though I feel like a massive failure.

Boy was I ever wrong. It turns out, Chan says, most people who call themselves Christians aren’t going to heaven. He comes right out and says we won’t see them there because they don’t do enough good things. We’d know they were really saved if they gave all they have away and never kept anything for themselves. He absolutely believes in salvation through grace but seems to think that extreme self-denial is “proof” of being saved.

Well I’m certainly not feeling any better. In fact I feel even worse since I know that if given the opportunity, God would probably find me lacking. I give a lot but I don’t live in a cardboard box. And that, I suppose, would be held against me.

What do you think? Is Chan thinking pharisaically?

I don’t remember a thou shalt live in a cardboard box commandment. We do have to help the poor, but if you are concerned whether or not you are doing your bit for that, it’s probably best to talk that over with a spiritual director or similar.

But more importantly, it is not a good idea to equate “God would find us lacking” with “God doesn’t love us.” Only two humans ever managed to be completely sinless that I am aware of, and one of them was also God and the other received very special grace from God. Rather, just remember that despite our faults (real or imagined) God loved us so much that He sent His only Son to die for us.

 

[RPRPsych]

I would recommend some of us would tone down a little on the condemnations, seeing as some haven’t actually read what the author said.

Okay, in all fairness, I’ve checked out the book’s website.

Here’s some of the material I found problematic - and this is just the authors’ quotes and sample chapter:

crazylovebook.com/CrazyLove-ChapterSample.pdf

**
“The God of the universe — the Creator of nitrogen and pine needles, galaxies and e-minor…”**

E-minor? Really? God Most High, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, and we want to drag pine needles and “e-minor” into this? Just a whiff of New Age here.

"The conviction I felt through the teachings of Scripture, coupled with several experiences in third-world countries…"

Sounds like an emotional experience to me. Besides, the teachings of Scripture lead directly to the Catholic faith, not to “Cornerstone Church”.

"The result is that I’ve never felt more alive…"

The point of following Jesus isn’t to make us feel alive; it’s to know Him, love Him, and aim to be with Him in Heaven. If “making me feel alive” is the point of an authentic Christian experience, how is this different from, say, using drugs or getting caught up in the ecstasies of an Eastern or tribal religion?

"This book…is for those who are bored with what American Christianity offers."

Straw man. There is no unitary “American Christianity” for Americans to get bored with.

Encouraging people to “stop praying” and look at videos of galaxies and caterpillars instead.

Then was St. Paul just kidding us when he said “Pray without ceasing?” Was Jesus joking when he said “watch and pray?” I’m sorry, this is starting to look more and more like New Age “Creation Spirituality”.

Fanciful exegesis informed by Calvinists like R.C. Sproul.

Fortunately, the sample chapter ended there.

As for me - I’ll stick to Saint Francis (of Assisi, de Sales, Xavier) and Pope Francis over this New Age Calvinism.

 

[Nabooru]

But wouldn’t Calvinism be opposed to the kind of salvation by works seen here? You can say you’re not positing salvation by works all you want, but if you are, you are.

 

[RPRPsych]

But wouldn’t Calvinism be opposed to the kind of salvation by works seen here? You can say you’re not positing salvation by works all you want, but if you are, you are.

To answer this question would mean going into something called the “Lordship Controversy” within Calvinism. Briefly, the “Lordship” position is a circular argument:

1. If X is saved, he is sanctified.
2. If sanctified, he should produce good works, though these do not save him.
3. If he does not, he is not sanctified, therefore he is not saved.

Chan is, simply, someone who’s turned the “Lordship” position up to eleven. He’s trying to square the circle of faith vs works that Calvinism created 500 years ago.