You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
April 14, 2005
Informatio: Faith, Theory and Philosophy
Daily dose of heresy #2 (Salvation)
Is Jesus mandatory?
The other day, as I was reading Isaiah 59, I had one of those, “I don’t know the half of it” moments. In a split second, most of my tidy theology au courant hiccupped…and then continued on as normal — but with a sense of new revelation.
A familiar subject: Our sin separates us from God.
Isaiah 59:1-2 (NKJ):
1 Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; nor His ear heavy, that it cannot hear. 2 But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear.
Throghout the ages God provided many means for His people to repent of their sin and return to Him. But, none of these ever took. The Jewish race continued to take the Creator for granted and live lives of iniquity. In Isaiah 59, verses 9-15, the Jews finally realize this and ask for forgiveness — or, at the very least, they realize that their sin is what is keeping God at a distance.
God has heard this all before, though, and realizes that man alone will never be able to redeem themselves. Therefore He must send a Redeemer (Jesus) to save the people of Zion (verses 16-20).
We know the story: God sends Jesus, who teaches, heals, rebukes, dies, and is resurrected.
And, if we believe this, we are saved, right?
Here are some new questions, though…
What if someone came to the knowledge of their sin and the separation it caused between them and God? What if someone, without any prior knowledge of Jesus, read Isaiah 59 and realized that they needed to repent of their sin and ask God for forgiveness? Couldn’t that person, because of their belief in God, combined with their plea for forgiveness, provide a salvation that — while different from the salvation that the Christian faith has been brought up on — is real and life-giving and everything we have come to understand about our own salvation?
This is what God desired all along, isn’t it? For us to be redeemed of the separation between us and Him? And, just because humankind required a Redeemer to save us, does that mean that every individual does?
One might not agree and ask, “But, the apostle John says in the bible that, ‘Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also,’” (1 John 2:23).
It is true that John said this… But, is the person who comes to a realization of the one true God actually denying the Son? Likewise, since Jesus Christ is God’s physical manifestation of repentance, would not a spiritual sense of repentance be accomplishing exactly what God sent Jesus here to do?
Here is where my “moment” came to fruition:
Isaiah 59:21 (NKJ):
21 “As for Me,” says the LORD, “this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,” says the LORD, “from this time and forevermore.”
At this point, when God declares, “As for Me,” In that one statement, God distinctly separates His role from that of the Redeemer’s. God states that while the people of Zion will require further of assistance, His own response will be a covenant in which His Spirit will be upon them and His words shall never leave their mouths, “from this time and forevermore.”
Because of this, I am led to believe that while Jesus was an eventual necessity, the peoples’ repentance, in Isaiah 59:9-15, was also sufficient for God’s grace.
In this way also, I think that it could be possible for someone to have an understanding of how sin separates them from God as well as possess a willingness to repent of that sin without knowing or understanding who Jesus Christ is. And, because of this, I think it could be possible for that person to enter into salvation without a relationship with Jesus.
I will conclude by saying that I also think that anyone who realizes their sin and their separation from God will probably, one day, be led to an understanding of who Jesus is through the power of the Holy Spirit. I also think that there are inherent benefits that come with a relationship with Jesus. Still, God’s infinite grace is something that I have a hard time believing we have a complete grasp on. There are aspects of salvation that we will never know or understand. My recent reading of the Book of Isaiah proves this to me in more ways than just this simple treatise. I encourage you to sit down with Isaiah sometime. You won’t regret it.
Posted at 11:04 am
Trackbacks (2):Some stuff to keep you busy
I\‘m down in Atlanta for a few days, and when I get back, it\‘s one more week of classes, reading week and then finals. I\‘m going to be ignoring the blog (for REAL this time) until I get my shit
Sent on April 16, 2005 at 11:52 am , via pomomusings
Tim Samoff on Salvation
Tim Samoff has written what he is calling the
Sent on April 14, 2005 at 1:42 pm , via willzhead
Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (59):
i think you can’t seperate the two (isaiah and 1 john)... you can’t pick one over the other. They must be cohesive. There’s room obviously for context and the point being made. I think you might be taking too much liberty with the whole “as for me” part. Jesus can’t “speak for himself” so to speak and not the Father… they are the same. Not to mention the previous scripture refers to “the enemy” and the standard the Lord will raise against him. I think it would be more supportable to say He’s referring to Himself in contrast to the enemy… just a thought. I haven’t made any definite decisions about that yet. but I can say this: knowledge of sin doesn’t do anything more than the general revelation of God that scripture declares that every man has. Certainly, its part of the equation, I would agree there but its what man decides to do with it, right? I think like you said, if someone truly desires to repent based upon thier knowledge of that sin, they will know Jesus by name and deed. no exception. And ultimately, and i am ever so thankful, this is only all the more reason to be thankful that our salvation is in God’s hands. It couldn’t be more secure. but to directly answer your question, what if someone read isaiah 59 without any prior knowledge of Jesus and repented? unless they dropped dead right after that, went blind, etc., that repentance would certainly lead to an education of Christ’s teachings. Even still, if for whatever astronomical reason someone ONLY read that, repented and couldn’t read anymore? Certainly. But Christ would not be absent. Thats my take anyway.
dennisthemenace () - April 14, 2005 at 11:56 am
Tim,
This might be helpful or just me blabbering. Isn’t it interesting that Jesus forgave sinners prior to their repentance, prior to their having done any acts of restitution or reconciliation? I read this from Walter Wink this morning out of his book The Powers That Be.
This might be helpful or just me blabbering. Isn’t it interesting that Jesus forgave sinners prior to their repentance, prior to their having done any acts of restitution or reconciliation? I read this from Walter Wink this morning out of his book The Powers That Be.
clark () (URL) - April 14, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Tim,
This is some really good and beautiful theology, bro. Amazing what happens when you open Isaiah. That has been one of the most powerful books in the life of our family.
One follow-up question regarding your last paragraph – what would happen if someone came into fellowship with God but never heard the name of Jesus? I have always wondered where Romans 1 fit in. In that passage Paul talks about the qualities of God being evident in the Universe (see verses 18-20). Could it still be true after the work of Christ that people could see and come to God if no one ever speaks the name of Jesus to them?
Hopefully I haven’t started a firestorm. Thanks for putting these thoughts out there.
This is some really good and beautiful theology, bro. Amazing what happens when you open Isaiah. That has been one of the most powerful books in the life of our family.
One follow-up question regarding your last paragraph – what would happen if someone came into fellowship with God but never heard the name of Jesus? I have always wondered where Romans 1 fit in. In that passage Paul talks about the qualities of God being evident in the Universe (see verses 18-20). Could it still be true after the work of Christ that people could see and come to God if no one ever speaks the name of Jesus to them?
Hopefully I haven’t started a firestorm. Thanks for putting these thoughts out there.
will () (URL) - April 14, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Dennis ~ I might not have been clear enough, but I didn’t mean to separate God and Jesus, but rather their functions. And I’d stand by that statement.
As for reconciling the two scriptural references (Isaiah & 1 John), I don’t think I’m picking one over the other… In my opinion, declaring the existence of God declares the existence of Jesus and vice versa (since they are one in the same). Of course, this is coming from a Christian who believes in both.
What I’m saying is that if someone repents of their sin, they’re basically fulfilling the function of Jesus without Jesus (although since Jesus died for all, I’d say that Jesus’ function is just beinf fulfilled in another way).
But, as always, any of this can be argued.
Clark ~ I don’t know… I think followers of God (at the time, Jews) had had plenty of chances to repent — and even tried every once in a while (as made apparent in Isaiah). So, while Jesus came to forgive us our sins, I don’t know if it was for lack of the Jews trying — just the impossibility that humankind couldn’t do enough to satisfy an ultimate salvation.
Will ~ Great comment! Based on what I just wrote, I think I agree that your scenario is probably played-out every day. Of course, we Christians would never want to believe it, but I think God’s grace is much bigger than we would like to admit!
As for reconciling the two scriptural references (Isaiah & 1 John), I don’t think I’m picking one over the other… In my opinion, declaring the existence of God declares the existence of Jesus and vice versa (since they are one in the same). Of course, this is coming from a Christian who believes in both.
What I’m saying is that if someone repents of their sin, they’re basically fulfilling the function of Jesus without Jesus (although since Jesus died for all, I’d say that Jesus’ function is just beinf fulfilled in another way).
But, as always, any of this can be argued.
Clark ~ I don’t know… I think followers of God (at the time, Jews) had had plenty of chances to repent — and even tried every once in a while (as made apparent in Isaiah). So, while Jesus came to forgive us our sins, I don’t know if it was for lack of the Jews trying — just the impossibility that humankind couldn’t do enough to satisfy an ultimate salvation.
Will ~ Great comment! Based on what I just wrote, I think I agree that your scenario is probably played-out every day. Of course, we Christians would never want to believe it, but I think God’s grace is much bigger than we would like to admit!
timsamoff () (URL) - April 14, 2005 at 1:14 pm
I don’t think you are picking one over the other but there is a context that Dennis mentions very well. I think the 1 John quote to me is the balance. I think that Isaiah was prophesying about a different times after Jesus and at the same time addressing those before Jesus came. To me Jesus saying He is the way…to the Father but through me.” and Jesus saying “if you deny me you have denied the Father” say it all. True saving Faith is in Jesus not to say that it couldn’t lead to Jesus but that is not the saving Faith. There were also other times that the Isrealites were struck down for not repenting, Elijah’s day where some folowed God and others didn’t. Also, the reason for the exile was because they didn’t repent. I think these are things that can be grasped fully.
dh () - April 14, 2005 at 1:33 pm
“In my opinion, declaring the existence of God declares the existence of Jesus and vice versa (since they are one in the same). Of course, this is coming from a Christian who believes in both.” Yeah, i’d go with that to an extent but of course there’s polytheism and false religions. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying but I’m putting it out there… Good talk.
dennisthemenace () - April 14, 2005 at 3:45 pm
DH ~ I’m not necessarily saying that true saving Faith isn’t in Jesus… Just that true saving faith may not require Jesus. Jesus died for all. And, yes, I know, you would argue that salvation is available for all, but only if they take certain steps toward Jesus (i.e., the sinner’s prayer, etc.). But, I’m not so sure that those steps need to involve the name of Jesus if the person in question is realizing all of the things that the acts of Jesus created.
When Jesus says He is the way, is he saying that He (the person) is the way or that what He is manifesting is the way (i.e., repentance of sin and a belief in the Father)?
When Jesus says He is the way, is he saying that He (the person) is the way or that what He is manifesting is the way (i.e., repentance of sin and a belief in the Father)?
timsamoff () (URL) - April 14, 2005 at 3:46 pm
P.S. Sorry if I misunderstood you about the “As for me” reference. I wasn’t attempting to over analyze or be too particular. However, considering the topic, understand my concern.
dennisthemenace () - April 14, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Dennis ~ That’s why I said, “this is coming from a Christian who believes in both.”
Sure, there are plenty of ways that this will get distorted. It is helpful to point it out, though.
Sure, there are plenty of ways that this will get distorted. It is helpful to point it out, though.
timsamoff () (URL) - April 14, 2005 at 3:49 pm
I read an article recently by a prof at Biblical Seminary talking about something similar. It was an interesting read. Personally, as I don’t subscribe to reformed theology, I didn’t buy all of it, but it was an interesting take on inclusivism from a distinctly different angle than I’ve heard it argued before. The article is here:
http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/47/4..
I’d ask a question though – when you say that repentance was “sufficient for God’s grace,” are you saying that atonement was incidental? I don’t think that’s what you’re saying but I wanted to clarify. I think that, ontologically, something had to happen with Christ’s death and resurrection that changed fundamentally how God and humanity relate. I don’t think that epistemologically one is required to understand how that worked or, perhaps as you say, to know that it happened at all.
http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/47/4..
I’d ask a question though – when you say that repentance was “sufficient for God’s grace,” are you saying that atonement was incidental? I don’t think that’s what you’re saying but I wanted to clarify. I think that, ontologically, something had to happen with Christ’s death and resurrection that changed fundamentally how God and humanity relate. I don’t think that epistemologically one is required to understand how that worked or, perhaps as you say, to know that it happened at all.
ScottB () (URL) - April 15, 2005 at 07:23 am
Scott ~ Thanks for the link! That is a very interesting article and does fall in line with much of what I tried to say here.
Speaking of atonement… It is a tricky subject. I think that the atonement that Jesus Christ provided was crucial (as I am a follower of Christ). But, I think that His atonement was crucial mainly because mankind could in no way — on our own — retrieve the connection with God that was evident in Adam before the Fall. Because of Christ’s death/resurrection, we were given the Holy Spirit — that renewed connection with our Father.
I’m not so sure that the atonement of Christ is utterly necessary for salavation, though. If an individual is able to confess, repent, and believe in God, then God’s grace, in my opinion, may be sufficient.
Even before Christ, God accepted many of His servants as true followers. This doesn’t mean that mankind (as a whole) was atoned, but only that God “saved” people before the atonement took place.
(Of course, I’m not even going to get into the fact that without the limitation of time, Jesus’ atonement has always existed, as has God’s New Kingdom.)
Speaking of atonement… It is a tricky subject. I think that the atonement that Jesus Christ provided was crucial (as I am a follower of Christ). But, I think that His atonement was crucial mainly because mankind could in no way — on our own — retrieve the connection with God that was evident in Adam before the Fall. Because of Christ’s death/resurrection, we were given the Holy Spirit — that renewed connection with our Father.
I’m not so sure that the atonement of Christ is utterly necessary for salavation, though. If an individual is able to confess, repent, and believe in God, then God’s grace, in my opinion, may be sufficient.
Even before Christ, God accepted many of His servants as true followers. This doesn’t mean that mankind (as a whole) was atoned, but only that God “saved” people before the atonement took place.
(Of course, I’m not even going to get into the fact that without the limitation of time, Jesus’ atonement has always existed, as has God’s New Kingdom.)
timsamoff () (URL) - April 15, 2005 at 08:11 am
Hi Tim,
Great post! I do believe that while many may not agree, certainly Moses and Elijah would. They were not present for the Grand Opening of God’s new Salvation, but were faithful and repentant. I even seem to recall that The Father arranged a meeting with the Son.
How desperate would you be to introduce salvation through the son that you allowed to be sacrificed? You might arrange many such ‘meetings’. Sorry for the heresy.
Peace
Great post! I do believe that while many may not agree, certainly Moses and Elijah would. They were not present for the Grand Opening of God’s new Salvation, but were faithful and repentant. I even seem to recall that The Father arranged a meeting with the Son.
How desperate would you be to introduce salvation through the son that you allowed to be sacrificed? You might arrange many such ‘meetings’. Sorry for the heresy.
Peace
chris () (URL) - April 15, 2005 at 09:49 am
I just feel Jesus says it all “if you deny me you have denied the Father.” The acts of Jesus are not the saving Faith. Hence the following scripture: “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God is risen from the dead you shall be saved.” To me it is the belief in the name like this scripture states. The reverse is also true you deny Jesus you have denied God and hence denied Salvation.
dh () - April 16, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Romans 1 and 2 were written to demonstrate then fact that all men are sinners and without excuse. Whether a pagan gentile, or a Jew, all have sinned and transgressed the law. “No one seeks after God “ Paul quoted from Psalms 14 and 53. Of course Jesus forgave before there was repentance. We do not repent to achieve salvation,we repent because we are saved, otherwise salvation would hinge on our effort of repentance. You are esentially agreeing with Luther and the other reformers, there is no salvation outside of Christ. As for all who existed prior to the incarnation, Jesus said “Abraham saw my day and was glad.” We also have 1Peter3:18-20 and 1Peter 4:6
Most folks have problems with the doctrine of unconditional election. These Scriptures shed some light on that subject.
John 14:
5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.[a] From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
John 6:37
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 10:
27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
Most folks have problems with the doctrine of unconditional election. These Scriptures shed some light on that subject.
John 14:
5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.[a] From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
John 6:37
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 10:
27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
Chris P. () (URL) - April 16, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Interesting… this thread really looks at the heart of Trinity theory from a practical sense… I never though about it this way, but some of my Jewish friends have been talking to be about supersessionism or lack of the same. This seems to me to be an argument against supersessionism.
But as Chris mentions, how do Jesus’ words
John 14:16 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
connect with this idea?
Chris mentions the difference between those before the sacrifice of Christ compared to those after. I see God as existing outside time and space, and therefore not bound by time or space. While Jesus submitted to time as a human, His work (God’s work) exists outside of time, which has some incredible ramifications if you think about it.
Much of what we accept as doctrine should be reclassified theory as much of it is wild guessing, as demonstrated by the number and variety of doctrines.
But as Chris mentions, how do Jesus’ words
John 14:16 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
connect with this idea?
Chris mentions the difference between those before the sacrifice of Christ compared to those after. I see God as existing outside time and space, and therefore not bound by time or space. While Jesus submitted to time as a human, His work (God’s work) exists outside of time, which has some incredible ramifications if you think about it.
Much of what we accept as doctrine should be reclassified theory as much of it is wild guessing, as demonstrated by the number and variety of doctrines.
Vern Hyndman () (URL) - April 16, 2005 at 9:14 pm
A couple of thoughts…
Theology is always easier in the abstract – “what if someone…” But theology is never an abstract practice. It involves actual people, not “someones,” and actual events, not “what if’s.” One of my theology profs would respond to questions like “what about people who’ve never had the chance to hear…” with, “Who are you worried about? I mean, if you’re really worried about them that much, then get out of here and go tell them about Jesus.” Otherwise, it’s theological speculation.
Speculation – “what if’s” and whatnot – can be fine and good. But it’s a way of distancing ourselves from the concrete realities of actual human beings and God’s saving work. Oh sure, it feels very connected and compassionate and hard and struggling and all that. But then comes the question of praxis. Who are you worried about? Who do you care about? I’ll be honest – I’m much more comfortable theologizing on the nature of Christ’s victory over sin and death and how His benefits are applied to those who never have the chance to hear, than I am actually bearing a credible, humble, faithful witness to what God has done in Jesus Christ. But just because I’m more comfortable doing it doesn’t mean it’s all that faithful.
Of course, your mileage may vary. Peace!
Theology is always easier in the abstract – “what if someone…” But theology is never an abstract practice. It involves actual people, not “someones,” and actual events, not “what if’s.” One of my theology profs would respond to questions like “what about people who’ve never had the chance to hear…” with, “Who are you worried about? I mean, if you’re really worried about them that much, then get out of here and go tell them about Jesus.” Otherwise, it’s theological speculation.
Speculation – “what if’s” and whatnot – can be fine and good. But it’s a way of distancing ourselves from the concrete realities of actual human beings and God’s saving work. Oh sure, it feels very connected and compassionate and hard and struggling and all that. But then comes the question of praxis. Who are you worried about? Who do you care about? I’ll be honest – I’m much more comfortable theologizing on the nature of Christ’s victory over sin and death and how His benefits are applied to those who never have the chance to hear, than I am actually bearing a credible, humble, faithful witness to what God has done in Jesus Christ. But just because I’m more comfortable doing it doesn’t mean it’s all that faithful.
Of course, your mileage may vary. Peace!
Evers () (URL) - April 17, 2005 at 5:22 pm
i thihk dh and Evers should post more. i think Chris P. made me shed a tear… i was so happy. Thank goodness. Tim’s “other” reformed friend… where have you guys been!?
dennisthemenace () - April 18, 2005 at 10:03 am
Dennis,
I am glad to hear that those weren’t tears of sadness.
Evers, in some ways it is theological speculation, but it is a valid discussion. What about the ones who are unknown and/or inaccessible i.e. geographically speaking? I guess this is where the God of open theist,
process theology is a complete failure. For me the issue will always be the complete sovreignty of God.
Romans 9. God can do whatever He chooses and who is going to argue with that. The real question is, what is He actually doing? Good and thoughtful discourse here.
I am glad to hear that those weren’t tears of sadness.
Evers, in some ways it is theological speculation, but it is a valid discussion. What about the ones who are unknown and/or inaccessible i.e. geographically speaking? I guess this is where the God of open theist,
process theology is a complete failure. For me the issue will always be the complete sovreignty of God.
Romans 9. God can do whatever He chooses and who is going to argue with that. The real question is, what is He actually doing? Good and thoughtful discourse here.
Chris P. () (URL) - April 18, 2005 at 10:20 am
Evers I liked what you said but I don’t understand your last two sentences. Could you help me understand what you are saying? On repentence, I think repentence is apart of Salvation but it is not Salvation. Salvation is more than just that. It is a matter of what your Faith is in and whether it is faith or Faith, repentence of sin and believing with all your heart that Christ has risen from the dead. Dennis while you and I agree with each other most of the time I tend not to post that much because I want to choose my words carefully and I want the Holy Spirit rather than my spirit to come through if that makes sense. I tend to talk too much. Well I’m out. Love you guys. Tim, Your a good friend. :)
dh () - April 18, 2005 at 10:27 am
I think we all would agree with us doing as much as we can to fulfill the “Great Commission” which includes sharing the message of Christ to the lost and doing all that we can for Christ as well.
dh () - April 18, 2005 at 10:31 am
and we all agree that tim is a killer bud….. awwwww
dennisthemenace () - April 18, 2005 at 11:10 am
Tim sure knows how to get everyone talking… I wasn’t going to say anything, as I’m not always so good at these sorts of discussions, but then I reread and changed my mind. Forgive me if someone covered this already, but what jumped out at me today from the 1 John verse is that is says, “Whoever DENIES the son” which implies an action or frame of mind that would require knowing about the son already. If, as Tim has suggested, a person is reading and responding to Isaiah 59 without ever hearing of or knowing Jesus, then they are not denying Him, they are in ignorance, and therefore the 1 John verse would not necessarily apply to them. God could very well honor the steps of repentance someone would take after reading His word, whether or not they know yet the full extent of His provision for their sins in the form of a Savior. There is no way to redeem ourselves, but each of us has come into reedemption by way of responding to God, which is what this theoretical person has done after reading Isaiah 59. He calls; we respond; he redeems.
Jesus says, “Seek and ye shall find,” so it would also make sense to me that it would not be long before the one seeking God by reading Isaiah 59 would come to a fuller knowledge of Who he is responding to.
Jesus says, “Seek and ye shall find,” so it would also make sense to me that it would not be long before the one seeking God by reading Isaiah 59 would come to a fuller knowledge of Who he is responding to.
Mary () (URL) - April 18, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Here’s another one, “He that hath the son hath life he that hath not the son hath not life.” I also don’t believe that denial requires a knowledge already.
dh () - April 18, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Dh, so you’re saying if I don’t know that chocolate exists, I am denying its existence? I’d say that I just haven’t experienced the pleasure of that knowledge yet. There are a lot of things out there that I don’t know about, but I’m not denying they are there simply by not knowing about them.
Can you give me the reference on that verse, please? I don’t have a bible here that allows me to look things up easily.
Can you give me the reference on that verse, please? I don’t have a bible here that allows me to look things up easily.
Mary () (URL) - April 18, 2005 at 4:44 pm
Well, Mary, dh can respond for himself but also scripture testifies that no man is without excuse and that every man is accountable, also every man knows that there is a God with whom to reconcile. however in light of dh’s comment, i am curious too. i dont think you can deny something that you’re not aware of. i just don’t think this is possible with God (at least this is what i am getting from scripture). Romans 1:20 reads “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (King James Version). also God has revealed himself not only externally in creation, but also internally. All men have the witness of God in their conscience, having “the work of the law written in their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). Thus, we have a dual witness in general revelation to God: in nature around us and in our hearts within us. again, this is how i’m reading these. i think i’m being considerate to context and central point as well…
dennisthemenace () - April 18, 2005 at 6:39 pm
Dennis, I think the real question that arises for me is what it truly means to deny and also what it means to have the Son. Can a person have the redemption of Jesus without knowing His name? Can they live in the light He has brought even if they’re not sure where it came from? For instance, if they are responding to the revelation of God in creation and also internally to the conscience, but don’t know the name or the story of Jesus, do you think it is possible that they can be redeemed and that their hearts can be changed by Him? Say they read Isaiah 59, and it rings true for them, and they think, “I want to honor God in repentance and follow Him,” and so they respond to God. If we believe that God is inseparable from Jesus (and from the Holy Spirit, too, for that matter), wouldn’t the person be responding to Jesus even though they do not realize it? Thus redemption is still coming through Jesus, the necessary channel. I am not disputing that Jesus is necessary for redemption, but I am thinking that His redemption could extend to someone who does not know His name.
I guess I’m just wary of saying that anyone who hasn’t experienced Jesus in the same privileged way that I have, who has not said a sinner’s prayer or gone forward at an altar call, is condemned. He came “not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” Can we say with certainty who He will redeem and in what way He will reach them? I would guess that the answer is no.
I guess I’m just wary of saying that anyone who hasn’t experienced Jesus in the same privileged way that I have, who has not said a sinner’s prayer or gone forward at an altar call, is condemned. He came “not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” Can we say with certainty who He will redeem and in what way He will reach them? I would guess that the answer is no.
Mary () (URL) - April 18, 2005 at 11:23 pm
Dennis thanks for a little clarity anytime we post we can “overstate”. In the a nature of not “overstating”. I do believe that it is Jesus. “...no one comes to the Father except through Me.” I believe this passage is refering to true Faith. I believe strongly that there must be a belief in Jesus. I do believe that many can come to a knowledge later as a process but ultimate true saving Faith is a Faith in Jesus. Also, you have to take the OT in context with NT. If you read one and not the other or without the others background you can (I’m not saying you are) take the passages out of context. I still think repentence is only part of Salvation as I stated in my original post. Also, God doesn’t condemn people, people condemn themselves just like Dennis said with Rom 1:20.
DH () - April 19, 2005 at 08:32 am
Mary and DH both have insightful points. I’m no expert. I know a few though, haha. First, I could do without altar calls OR the Sinner’s prayer. The former being manipulative and the latter being more dangerous if the reciting individual puts faith in his/her citation rather than God. I’ve seen this so many times and thankful my conversion avoided them. But please, no offense. and this issue (our topic) may seem minute but i think we are discussing something worthy or our thoughts. honestly, my best response without relying on speculation is this: Faith is provided by God. and only He will know if that conversion is true or not because ultimately, it was His choice to begin with. Thats my best response. To answer Mary’s question, we definitely don’t know WHO he will redeem but how He reaches them, I think scripture gives insight to that (witnessing, preaching, Law, Gospel). I won’t make any absolute resignations to the idea He might reach those He chooses by way of another route but… I think any formal, public statements or doctrines based on it would be shakey at best. I wouldn’t preach it.
dennisthemenace () - April 19, 2005 at 10:46 am
dh, I understand where you’re coming from. From what you’ve written, I don’t know that you and I see exactly eye to eye, but who ever does completely? Thanks for offering your insights.
Dennis, I wasn’t expecting any formal, public statements or doctrines based on my questions. : ) Thank you for answering honestly. This last bit you wrote makes good sense to me. I don’t really like debate-y kinds of things (I’d rather we all sit around a campfire singing kumbayah and eating s’mores together), which is why I was wary to post, but I agree that this topic is worthy of thought and I appreciate your response.
Dennis, I wasn’t expecting any formal, public statements or doctrines based on my questions. : ) Thank you for answering honestly. This last bit you wrote makes good sense to me. I don’t really like debate-y kinds of things (I’d rather we all sit around a campfire singing kumbayah and eating s’mores together), which is why I was wary to post, but I agree that this topic is worthy of thought and I appreciate your response.
Mary () (URL) - April 19, 2005 at 10:57 am
group hug, everyone! We’re good people, we’re good people.
dennisthemenace () - April 19, 2005 at 11:41 am
Mary your great. Dennis your great too. The only thing is the “another route”. I have a problem with that in light of “I am the Way…” which I feel is Faith. I foundationally don’t have a problem with “alter or sinner’s prayer” as long as it is done without the manipulation or the lack of Faith in Christ like you said. I think there is a balance and either extreme is wrong. I think we can all agree it is a matter of the heart. My grandma said it best eternity is decided by 12 inches from the head to the heart. I think we can all agree that many say they believe and it in their head but true Salvation is whether we believe with All our hearts not just in our heads. Only God knows the hearts of people. All together now “Kumbyah my Lord….” :)
dh () - April 19, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Hey, everyone… I sure appreciate the comments! I don’t have time to read or respond to them right now, but I will as soon as I get home.
Peace!
Peace!
timsamoff () (URL) - April 19, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Tim? what are you doing here? do you post here too? wow, cool…
dennisthemenace () - April 19, 2005 at 5:28 pm
Tim, I can really relate to what you’ve written here because that was my salvation experience. I became aware of the one true God in a personal relationship before I ever knew that Jesus was the way to salvation. Like you suggested might happen, I was drawn by the Holy Spirit to learn about Jesus, unless it had more to do with our particular culture than being drawn. I could never leave Jesus out of my faith now, but I think what He did for us isn’t necessarily dependent on us knowing about it.
Laura () (URL) - April 20, 2005 at 08:14 am
Laura that is great. It is so wonderful that Christ revealed Himself to you by the Holy Spirit. Many people come to Christ in different ways and it is great to see that Christ is the center of this and that it is not a “cultural thing” but a Holy Spirit thing. GWG your friend :)
dh () - April 20, 2005 at 11:54 am
And what if you really didn’t need the Bible at all…
... and maybe you could come to God other ways
... and maybe even the muslims are going to heaven too… I mean we can’t discredit them. They do believe in one god, right?
... and maybe Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross. What would we need that for? I mean people don’t actually have to believe in that. They don’t even have to know about Him.
... and maybe even the Buddhists are on their way to heaven too. Why not. Haven’t they found an inner peace.
Heck, why am I even reading my Bible? If Jesus isn’t necessary, why would I even do this?
Unless, it is about knowledge… Yeah, since I already know about it, I am responsible for it. But then, I better stop telling others about it, because that only makes them responsible for the knowledge. All of those native people are better off without us. They should be alright believing in that carved rock to save them.
If I tell them about Jesus, they might “feel bad” and others will label me as intolerant and trying to force my opinions on them. Why would I think that Jesus is the only way to the father.
It isn’t like he ever called himself the way, the truth and the life. And I sure hope that he didn’t say that nobody could come to the father except through him… That might mean that some people are going to hell.
Thankyou for enlightening me. I am a changed man.
... and maybe you could come to God other ways
... and maybe even the muslims are going to heaven too… I mean we can’t discredit them. They do believe in one god, right?
... and maybe Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross. What would we need that for? I mean people don’t actually have to believe in that. They don’t even have to know about Him.
... and maybe even the Buddhists are on their way to heaven too. Why not. Haven’t they found an inner peace.
Heck, why am I even reading my Bible? If Jesus isn’t necessary, why would I even do this?
Unless, it is about knowledge… Yeah, since I already know about it, I am responsible for it. But then, I better stop telling others about it, because that only makes them responsible for the knowledge. All of those native people are better off without us. They should be alright believing in that carved rock to save them.
If I tell them about Jesus, they might “feel bad” and others will label me as intolerant and trying to force my opinions on them. Why would I think that Jesus is the only way to the father.
It isn’t like he ever called himself the way, the truth and the life. And I sure hope that he didn’t say that nobody could come to the father except through him… That might mean that some people are going to hell.
Thankyou for enlightening me. I am a changed man.
mattharmless () (URL) - April 21, 2005 at 07:53 am
Matt, I think you and I would agree that the botton line is Faith in Jesus.
DH () - April 21, 2005 at 08:29 am
I read today a wonderful verse that puts what Dennis, Matt (reverse psychology) and I are trying to say into perspective. John 1:12 that entire chapter is great. :)
By the way, everyone have a wonderful day in the Lord. :)
By the way, everyone have a wonderful day in the Lord. :)
dh () - April 21, 2005 at 10:07 am
matt’s friggin’ hilarious. okay, who wants to push this thing to post 40!? woo hoo! raise the roof, raise the roof!...
did i really just say “raise the roof?”
did i really just say “raise the roof?”
dennisthemenace () - April 21, 2005 at 10:22 am
Okay, I’ll be the scapegoat and put it past 40. Matt I checked out your blog and it is great. I really enjoyed your conversations and postings there. Keep up the wonderful ministry you have. May God richly bless you. :)
dh () - April 21, 2005 at 3:59 pm
nice. I turn 33 this saturday… that sucks!
dennisthemenace () - April 21, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Matt, I liked yer blog as well!
Laura () (URL) - April 21, 2005 at 8:46 pm
I’m back!
Wow, it is amazing how a simple (ok, it’s not so simple) thought from one chapter of the Old Testament can be a catalyst for such a thoughtful discussion. Bless you all for participating.
Mary, I’m glad you commented… Laura, you always seem to bless me with your words — thanks for joining in.
Everyone else… What I set out to do with this original entry was flesh out an idea. You all have helped turn it into a living, breathing organism that didn’t even need my participation! Thank you.
Dennis, I still have another month and a few days before I’m as old as you are. Wow.
Wow, it is amazing how a simple (ok, it’s not so simple) thought from one chapter of the Old Testament can be a catalyst for such a thoughtful discussion. Bless you all for participating.
Mary, I’m glad you commented… Laura, you always seem to bless me with your words — thanks for joining in.
Everyone else… What I set out to do with this original entry was flesh out an idea. You all have helped turn it into a living, breathing organism that didn’t even need my participation! Thank you.
Dennis, I still have another month and a few days before I’m as old as you are. Wow.
timsamoff () (URL) - April 22, 2005 at 07:55 am
Did Jesus death cover all sin?
If so that means the sin of unbelief was covered at the Cross. If not then Jesus sacrifice was incomplete.
Peace
Geo
If so that means the sin of unbelief was covered at the Cross. If not then Jesus sacrifice was incomplete.
Peace
Geo
geo () (URL) - April 24, 2005 at 04:50 am
I am so glad that God gave us Human Logic to clear up all of the mistakes found in the words of Jesus. Surely when Jesus said, “he that believes in me is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already…” he didn’t mean it.
I mean, c’mon… how could the God of Love ever actually mean that people would be condemned?!?
I mean, c’mon… how could the God of Love ever actually mean that people would be condemned?!?
mattharmless () (URL) - April 25, 2005 at 07:07 am
Matt, I think that is a wonderful passage that should put things in perspective.
DH () - April 25, 2005 at 08:27 am
On the same hand, Matt, by what other logic are we to discern the validity of Jesus’ truth?
I just bought Greg Graffin’s (singer for Bad Religion) thesis on Athiesm, Monism and the Materialist view. Pretty heavy stuff. I intend to use logic when we invite him on our apologetics show. And God’s love. that might help, huh? we’ll see.
I just bought Greg Graffin’s (singer for Bad Religion) thesis on Athiesm, Monism and the Materialist view. Pretty heavy stuff. I intend to use logic when we invite him on our apologetics show. And God’s love. that might help, huh? we’ll see.
dennisthemenace () - April 25, 2005 at 10:19 am
I am not saying not to use logic. (wait, let me read what I wrote again…) Nope, that isn’t what I said.
I am a geometry teacher. I specialize in logic. In fact, I have been using a form of logical proof in all of these comments.
Besides, there has got to be some old out-dated stuff in the Bible. We need our logic to clear that out. It must be impossible for the Bible to actually make any sense! (trying to stay with my original sarcastic approach…)
I am a geometry teacher. I specialize in logic. In fact, I have been using a form of logical proof in all of these comments.
Besides, there has got to be some old out-dated stuff in the Bible. We need our logic to clear that out. It must be impossible for the Bible to actually make any sense! (trying to stay with my original sarcastic approach…)
mattharmless () (URL) - April 25, 2005 at 10:29 am
Dennis ~ I am sooooo jealous that you get to meet Greg Graffin! Man. (I used to have an ongoing e-mail dialog with Brett Gurewitz, but we’ve long since lost touch.)
Matt ~ I have more thoughts on all of this, but it may call for a new entry — the comments here are getting a bit unwieldy!
One of the things I was really struck by last week at WALP ( http://sense-datum.org/tim/pivot/entry.p.. ) was a sense that we (as modern Christians) place far too little emphasis on the fact that the bible — in its entirety — is the complete story of Jesus (i.e., when we read Genesis 1:1, we are reading about Jesus and when we are reading Revelation 22:21, we are reading about Jesus). While Jesus’ life and words are vastly important to our lives as followers of him, his life and words don’t end in the New Testament — they permeate the bible in ever character, allegory, and nuance.
Likewise, God’s word does not end in the bible — would Paul (to use one exampole) have been able to write what he did without his experience of Jesus through the Holy Spirit? In Paul’s time, the word of God was complete (in a physical sense). Who gave Paul the authority to add to scripture?
Therefore, I must believe that the Holy Spirit still moves us to interpret our experiences with Jesus Christ in ways that we have never imagined.
Matt ~ I have more thoughts on all of this, but it may call for a new entry — the comments here are getting a bit unwieldy!
One of the things I was really struck by last week at WALP ( http://sense-datum.org/tim/pivot/entry.p.. ) was a sense that we (as modern Christians) place far too little emphasis on the fact that the bible — in its entirety — is the complete story of Jesus (i.e., when we read Genesis 1:1, we are reading about Jesus and when we are reading Revelation 22:21, we are reading about Jesus). While Jesus’ life and words are vastly important to our lives as followers of him, his life and words don’t end in the New Testament — they permeate the bible in ever character, allegory, and nuance.
Likewise, God’s word does not end in the bible — would Paul (to use one exampole) have been able to write what he did without his experience of Jesus through the Holy Spirit? In Paul’s time, the word of God was complete (in a physical sense). Who gave Paul the authority to add to scripture?
Therefore, I must believe that the Holy Spirit still moves us to interpret our experiences with Jesus Christ in ways that we have never imagined.
timsamoff () (URL) - April 25, 2005 at 11:03 am
I don’t believe that the word of God was complete in Pauls time. Hence Paul was able to by the power of the Holy Spirit (although triune). John (written after Paul) gives a direction of the finality of the Bible in the last passage of Revelation. Revelation from the Holy Spirit? I agree with you totally. Consistancy with the Bible? I agree with equally as well. Personal experiences in light of the Bible? I agree with also. All three equally.
dh () - April 25, 2005 at 12:22 pm
I think one thing, that has been missed in all this is this fact: Jesus and God are one. In a sense if you believe in God, you are also acknowledging Jesus. But out side of this complicated theology, the fact alone stands that Jesus is the only way to heaven. It is clearly stated within scripture (John 14:6). If there wasn’t just one way to heaven, then there’d be no point. Christianity and the concept of having any type of spiritual influence would be wrong. If there wasn’t just one way there’d be no valditity to Christianity. By having one way it makes things exclusive, it gives birth to the fact that there is morality and there are consequences. But the frightening fact is that there is a truth, and Jesus is that truth. God is sovereign and will reveal his son to whomever is in need and want of him.
sunshine (URL) - April 25, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Thanks for giving us some “sunshine” to all of us. I’m hoping that it also gives some “Son-shine” as well. Pun-intended. LOL in the Lord :) Liked your post sunshine, it encouraged me very much. :)
dh () - April 25, 2005 at 1:41 pm
dh, you’re a CHEEZBALL! nice. post number fifty friggin three!!!??? haha….
dennisthemenace () - April 25, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Um.
“But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear.” (Isaiah 59:2, as stated in the post) If our sins have hidden God’s face from us, so that He will not hear, how will He hear us when we repent and ask for forgiveness, if we don’t have Jesus to cover our sins for us?
The way I see it, the moment we ask Jesus into our heart, God sees Jesus, not us and our sins, so then our iniquities aren’t separating us from Him anymore. THEN we can repent and ask for forgiveness. We can’t really repent when God can’t — or won’t — hear us.
And that didn’t make any sense at all. Ah well.
//~Jessie
“But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear.” (Isaiah 59:2, as stated in the post) If our sins have hidden God’s face from us, so that He will not hear, how will He hear us when we repent and ask for forgiveness, if we don’t have Jesus to cover our sins for us?
The way I see it, the moment we ask Jesus into our heart, God sees Jesus, not us and our sins, so then our iniquities aren’t separating us from Him anymore. THEN we can repent and ask for forgiveness. We can’t really repent when God can’t — or won’t — hear us.
And that didn’t make any sense at all. Ah well.
//~Jessie
Jessie () - April 26, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Whoops, forgot to hit the notify button…ignore this…
Jessie () - April 26, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Good point, Jessie. Personally, I’m still wrestling with this concept, but that did make sense.
timsamoff () (URL) - April 27, 2005 at 06:15 am
okay, now Jessie’s friggin hilarious! post number… what now?!
dennisthemenace () - April 27, 2005 at 10:39 am
Thank you, Tim.
DennistheMenace — I learned it from my old math teacher, Mr. Matt Harmless.
This should be 58, I believe…
DennistheMenace — I learned it from my old math teacher, Mr. Matt Harmless.
This should be 58, I believe…
Jessie - April 27, 2005 at 5:39 pm
We’re you trying to create a debate with that post? : )
There’s one way to salvation.
The Lord brought me to a realization of my sin, I repented and cried out to Him for forgiveness, He helped me to turn from my sin and is now dwelling in me.
We as Christians have a tendency to like to complicate things, and know about things that we don’t have the ability to understand.
I rest in the fact that I’m a sinner saved by grace and that God gives me opportunities to suffer for his name, or share his name with others.
What about the Ethiopian reading the book of Isaiah?
He did not know Christ, but Christ was drawing him by giving him a desire to know what it was exactly that he was reading and what exactly Jesus’ death on the cross meant.
There’s one way to salvation.
The Lord brought me to a realization of my sin, I repented and cried out to Him for forgiveness, He helped me to turn from my sin and is now dwelling in me.
We as Christians have a tendency to like to complicate things, and know about things that we don’t have the ability to understand.
I rest in the fact that I’m a sinner saved by grace and that God gives me opportunities to suffer for his name, or share his name with others.
What about the Ethiopian reading the book of Isaiah?
He did not know Christ, but Christ was drawing him by giving him a desire to know what it was exactly that he was reading and what exactly Jesus’ death on the cross meant.
esther () (URL) - April 29, 2005 at 11:46 am
