A Lutheran Pastor Disagrees With Not Ready

[David Sklansky]

A new poster named "the scalp" identified himself as a Lutheran pastor and has this to say. Since he seemed to be talking in Not Ready's language, I thought I would make yet another attempt to nudge NR just a little bit further from udon'tknowmickey. Let's see how he responds.

"Interestingly, however, Scripture never makes a dogmatic assertion of the theological premise a person must believe to 'be saved'. Modern Christians read passages like Christ's "noone can come to the Father except through me" as if they really say something like "no one can come to the Father unless they _believe_ in me."

No serious Catholic would refute the former -- any salvation worhty of the name -- be it for Christians, Buddhists, or even (slightly quirky, lapsed) Jews could happen apart from Christ. No one can come to the Father except 'through' Christ for Catholics. But when we start assuming that Scripture means more by 'through' than it seems to state, we're interpreting our own beliefs into Scripture.

I certainly believe the Bible is the word of God -- but passages in Galations which make it seems as if Christ's work on the cross benefited all humanity in savlation do seem to contradict the words of Jesus in Matthew (goats and sheep, etc.). Trusting the wisdom and long teaching of the Church on these matters, and not assuming that literary tracts and letters were written to be theological books of dogma would go a long way toward making this impasse between 'liberal' catholics and evangelical Christians less of a struggle."

Finally, it should be noticed that one of the late-modern heroes of evangelical Christianity, C. S. Lewis, seems to believe that some non-believers go to heaven (read "The Great Divorce" or "God in the Dock"). He also seems to think that some outwardly pious 'beleivers' go straight to a Hell of their own making.

[PLOlover]

It says right in the gospels that jesus spoke in parables so that he wouldn't be understood by most people.

So much for his teachings being for everybody I suppose.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly believe the Bible is the word of God -- but passages in Galations which make it seems as if Christ's work on the cross benefited all humanity in savlation do seem to contradict the words of Jesus in Matthew (goats and sheep, etc.). Trusting the wisdom and long teaching of the Church on these matters, and not assuming that literary tracts and letters were written to be theological books of dogma would go a long way toward making this impasse between 'liberal' catholics and evangelical Christians less of a struggle."

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be that settling sectarian disputes ought to take a back seat to seeking the truth. Whether or not the_scalp wishes to regard the Pauline Literature as dogmatic, he must agree that they possess some modicum of authority in establishing doctrine.

Also, it is important that the uninitiated are not confused by what he wrote. The point the_scalp makes is nuanced enough that one might think he was saying that scripture never connects salvation and belief. Romans 10:9, however, proclaims unambiguously that if one believes in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, he shall be saved.

There is, of course, nothing in the text of this verse which mandates that belief is the exclusive path to salvation.

[David Sklansky]

I checked out Romans 10:9 and it was unambiguous. But then the same website said

"Jesus said 'Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.' (Matthew 7:19-21)"

Still unambiguous?

As to your statement

"It may be that settling sectarian disputes ought to take a back seat to seeking the truth"

Does that include meticulous examination of Jewish theology and the theories of athiest-physicists in the search for truth? Or does it assume from the git go that those ideas can't be true? Put another way are you seeking the truth if it doesn't include Jesus?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's see how he responds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is he a universalist?

If not, who is saved, who is lost and what's the Scriptural support?

[David Sklansky]

Obviously I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll see if I can steer him here.

[pokeraz]

Not ambiguos at all - If you believe the Bible is the word of God-

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, <font color="red"> Except a man be born again </font> , he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

[kurto]

I wish I could remember his name. The week before thanksgiving I was listening to NPR. They did a story about a minister who is being shunned. The man in question was a immensely influential black minister. He had one of those megachurches. He was courted by George Bush during his presidential run because of the man's influence.

Anyhoo... this minister is now considered a heretic. He began to preach that ALL people go to heaven. That hell was what man made on Earth and that, of course, Jesus saved all man, not just the Christians. I don't have the memory to quote him but he certainly referenced scripture to support his view.

Needless to say, once he began preaching the idea that salvation came to ALL men he was immediately shunned by his congregation.

Perhaps someone out there knows the name of the minister I refer to? I'm certain we could find his teachings and scriptural support that non-christians can go to heaven as well.

[Smasharoo]

Not ambiguos at all - If you believe the Bible is the word of God-


Not ambiguous at all - if you also believe that Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus is to be taken out of context and applied universally. The point of the conversation isn't that you or I not believing that Jesus was the son of God is a bar to entering Heaven (or the kingdom of god, or whatever semantic term you chose) it was that NICODEMUS when presented with direct evidence by Jesus and his followers still chose not to believe and was thus embracing the darkness over the light.

There is absolutely nothing in John 3 that indicates it was meant to apply universally to people who were not contemporaries of Jesus. To assume otherwise is to add to the written Gospel, which if you're going to do, you may as well throw in a few flying spaghetti monsters.

[pokeraz]

Smasharoo,

Even though he is talking with Nicodemus, it seems clear that He is not saying that Nicodemus must be born again, but man must be born again. I feel that this is an honest interpretation.

However, I must admit that I get nervous when nitpicking individual words in the many different translations. Without studying Greek (in the case of the New Testament) and translating the text myself, how can I be sure that something is not being lost?

So, while I think it is clear in this translation that Jesus is addressing all man while speaking to Nicodemus, you may in the grand scheme be correct. Though I doubt it.

[Smasharoo]

However, I must admit that I get nervous when nitpicking individual words in the many different translations. Without studying Greek (in the case of the New Testament) and translating the text myself, how can I be sure that something is not being lost?


You can't. Accepting that, though, would seem to beg the question of how anyone could accept a clearly modified translation of the original text as "the word of God".


So, while I think it is clear in this translation that Jesus is addressing all man while speaking to Nicodemus, you may in the grand scheme be correct. Though I doubt it.

I find it difficult to see how arbitrarily adding connotation to something can be clear, particularly when it's a grand absolute regarding the fate of mens souls. Believing whatever you like is fine, shoehorning that personal belief into Scripture where it clearly is not explicitly stated destroys the entire point of using said Scripture as a source.

If, on the other hand, you choose to accept a certain translation of the New Testament as "reasonably close" to the word of God (as we seem to agree that barring learning Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew along with any idioms or linguistic and literary devices of the day it's impossible to view an accurate 'first edition' if you will) and then apply your own personal, or probably more likely in this case, largely someone else's set of interpretations above and beyond the actual source document, you're essentially engaging in a personal religious experience and choosing to live your life as you think Christ intended.

There is a vast difference between that, and projecting that personal interpretation onto others, however. The arrogance and judgment in such an act, essentially stating that others will be *denied* eternal reward would seem to me to, unambiguously, bring the soul of the man making such a claim into question far more so than that of the man living his life essentially without sin but uncertain as to the divinity of Christ.

[the_scalp]

"It may be that settling sectarian disputes ought to take a back seat to seeking the truth. Whether or not the_scalp wishes to regard the Pauline Literature as dogmatic, he must agree that they possess some modicum of authority in establishing doctrine."

True -- truth is certainly the arbiter through which all disputes (religious and sectarian) should be rightfully settled. Also true is the claim that Pauline letters do attempt to teach authoritatively and dogmatically -- I'm only saying that it is important, in reading them, to remember that Paul was setting out to write letters instructing particular communities in response to particular conflicts and issues. If I wrote you a letter telling you to learn Greek because it would help you understand these issues better, and that letter was canonized by The_Scalpians, I'm quite sure that 1000 years later everyone would assume that I meant all my followers should learn Greek. That would be an incorrect assumption.

Also, it is important that the uninitiated are not confused by what he wrote. The point the_scalp makes is nuanced enough that one might think he was saying that scripture never connects salvation and belief. Romans 10:9, however, proclaims unambiguously that if one believes in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, he shall be saved.

That's the other side of this -- for Scripture belief cerainly seems to be a sufficient condition for salvation. That does not mean, however that it is a necessary one. That is, belief implies salvation, but not-belief does not imply not-salvation necessarily (you may wish to cite other passages which better make the case that not-belief implies not-salvation, but this one doesn't cut it.)

There is, of course, nothing in the text of this verse which mandates that belief is the exclusive path to salvation.

Exactly.

To respond to a few more of the issues being raised here, let me just say that I am not a universalist. Part of the section that Slansky quoted makes that clear. I simply have become convinced that Scripture offers no easy formula for us to determine who is saved and who isn't. The primary Paul texts (Galatians, Romans, Collossians) which were the earliest Christian texts, along with some of Jesus' saying seem to imply that all enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Other Pauline texts, along with much of Jesus' saying in Matthew seem to assert that Heaven is predicated upon how sinful you are. Other texts seem to assert that Heaven is a reward for belief (or, in John 3, baptism+belief). God's unsearchable wisdom is just that, unsearchable. Someone above accurately noted that Jesus spoke in parables for a reason -- he clearly did not want us to be able to say specifically who is saved and who is not. We can hold out final hope for everybody.

Finally, note that a Baal worshipping king who does God's work in the Old Testament is called "The Lord's Annointed" -- a title reserved only for David, Samual, Solomon, and Jesus (Christ means annointed) &lt;/b&gt;. This word "Messiak" would not have been used lightly by any Scriptural author. This, more than any other point in Scripture, seems to make it clear that God's favor falls upon the most unexpected people once in a while. It is not for us to exclude Gandhi, Slansky, or Descartes -- it may be for God to do so.

[Smasharoo]

It is not for us to exclude Gandhi, Slansky, or Descartes

That Sklansky guy, though, no shot.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotReady]

Very well written, thanks for the comments. You should join our Bible study coming up.

I've been telling DS for years that I can't pronounce judgment on any individual as to their eternal state. I think you are basically saying the same thing.

My primary concern is to tell people that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. I don't think there's any real issue among Christians concerning that. Past that the details become difficult to determine, nor are we required to do so. If I tell you about Christ and you genuinely believe, you will be saved. If you genuinely reject I see no hope according to Scripture. But I can't determine whether you have genuinely believed or not, or whether you will do so in the future. And what happens to others is outside my control. I trust God will do the right thing, in love and justice.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
A new poster named "the scalp" identified himself as a Lutheran pastor and has this to say. Since he seemed to be talking in Not Ready's language, I thought I would make yet another attempt to nudge NR just a little bit further from udon'tknowmickey. Let's see how he responds.

"Interestingly, however, Scripture never makes a dogmatic assertion of the theological premise a person must believe to 'be saved'. Modern Christians read passages like Christ's "noone can come to the Father except through me" as if they really say something like "no one can come to the Father unless they _believe_ in me."

No serious Catholic would refute the former -- any salvation worhty of the name -- be it for Christians, Buddhists, or even (slightly quirky, lapsed) Jews could happen apart from Christ. No one can come to the Father except 'through' Christ for Catholics. But when we start assuming that Scripture means more by 'through' than it seems to state, we're interpreting our own beliefs into Scripture.

I certainly believe the Bible is the word of God -- but passages in Galations which make it seems as if Christ's work on the cross benefited all humanity in savlation do seem to contradict the words of Jesus in Matthew (goats and sheep, etc.). Trusting the wisdom and long teaching of the Church on these matters, and not assuming that literary tracts and letters were written to be theological books of dogma would go a long way toward making this impasse between 'liberal' catholics and evangelical Christians less of a struggle."

Finally, it should be noticed that one of the late-modern heroes of evangelical Christianity, C. S. Lewis, seems to believe that some non-believers go to heaven (read "The Great Divorce" or "God in the Dock"). He also seems to think that some outwardly pious 'beleivers' go straight to a Hell of their own making.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with the pastor.

one point of clarity:

focusing on the reference to the parable of "goats and sheep" here; the apparent conflict is resolvable if you allow the interpretation of the parable to be about "nations" and "cultures" as opposed to individual human beings. the passage does seem to indicate that entire civilizations are being sorted and not individuals.

the rules and principles that govern the long term health and well being of a nation might be the central point of the parable - i.e. sheep like nations have evolutionary promise; goat like nations are going to get deselected.

ray