Author: art rogers
Resurrection Essential?
Monday, March 26th, 2007 @ 9:59 am
There is no doubt that belief in the resurrection is essential for cooperation in missions. This is a minimum requirement as it has its roots in the authority of Scripture.
Leading up to Easter, and with the recent James Cameron rush to judgment “documentary,” I have been preaching through 1 Corinthians 15.
My question to you is do you believe that a person can be saved by faith in Christ, if they think Christ was not raised?
For clarity’s sake:
- Person believes Jesus was sinless Son of God.
- Person believes death on the Cross substitutionary.
- Person believes Jesus is still in the grave.
Is this a saving faith?
I have a definite opinion, based in 1 Cor. 15. Members of my church are asked not to tip my hand for me in this discussion. I will offer my conclusions tomorrow.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
March 26th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Hmmmm……
Seems like Paul said that “if Christ be not risen from the dead, then we are of all men most miserable.” A person who actually believes that would not be believing in Jesus as He has been revealed and would, in fact, be placing faith in a situation that Paul says brings misery.
I would vote “no,” this is not saving faith.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Ditto Marty’s comments
March 26th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
David,
Ditto? Really? Nothing more profound?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Art,
Sorry to disappoint
I’ve got an attender who doesn’t believe that Jesus is God. He claims Jesus is his savior, died for his sins, but isn’t God. He also believes in soul sleep.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Wow. Ok, so that’s interesting.
Well, the blog was down most of the day with a glitch in the new subscribe to comments plugin I got from the gregarious Micah Fries. The problem was with my blog, not the plugin. It didn’t transfer well when I uploaded it.
Anyway, I am going to give this some time to get out tomorrow and discussion to bloom and then post my thoughts late tomorrow.
Art
March 26th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
If you’re believing in a Jesus who is dead, you’re not believing in the Jesus who is. I vote no.
Cyle
March 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Dear Brother Art,
Thanks for taking a break from sports blogging to bring up a theological point at long last!
In the book of Acts, as the apostles shared the Gospel, they always preached the resurrection. When they told people, “believe,” the death and resurrection of Christ is what they were saying to believe!
Love in Christ,
Jeff
March 27th, 2007 at 12:44 am
The comment stream gets theological and Art goes for the old “blog maintenance” excuse. Weenie.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Romans 10:9 seems to say that believing that God raised Jesus from the dead, is essential to salvation.
Put another way, the Holy Spirit inspired .. breathed .. those words. If you deny their truth, then you call them a lie. Satan is the father of lies, so you have attributed the Holy Spirit’s work to the devil. I’ve heard that described as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which means to me that if you never gave up that position, God would never pardon that sin.
Me votes no.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Brother Art,
Does your question take into account the thought of a “spiritual” resurrection?
Blessings,
Tim
March 27th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Tim,
Are you asking about “no” bodily resurrection of Christ and only a “spiritual” resurrection? Sounds a bit gnostic to me.
Cyle
March 27th, 2007 at 8:28 am
[warning: hijack ahead]
Art, I believe the resurrection is far more than something rooted in Scripture. It has a meaning beyond the fact that the Bible says it is true. If it is not true then that fact would change a whole lot of things and the “truth” of the Bible would be the very least of those things. Paul didn’t argue in 1 Cor. 15 that we should believe in the resurrection because the Bible says so, nor because of his apostolic authority, nor because Jesus personally told him it happened. He stated that the resurrection happened and the personal/spiritual implications of that reality to our lives is so profound that without it we are worse off than pagans. Worse off not because we have denied a true truth. Worse off because of what it means for us.
You may think the differences between what I am saying and what you have said are minor, but I would disagree. I think it is a matter of the meaning of that greatest event in all human history. Maybe I’m reading too much into that statement of yours. If I am I apologize.
I would highly recommend N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection Of The Son Of God (warning: it is about 740 pages long)
March 27th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Tim,
No, I am not talking about a “ghost Jesus.” This hypothetical person believes, as per 1 Cor. 15, that there is no resurrection of any kind and that when you are dead, it’s over.
Paul,
That’s no hijack, but an on point clarification. My comments weren’t to refer only to a claim from Scripture, but that if one denies the resurrection – at the very minimum they would be denying Scripture. This was in reference to cooperation in missions, just to set some common ground and direction for the discussion.
I agree that there is more than Scriptural evidence for the resurrection and the implications are far, far more than the agreement of Scriptural authority. I am coming to that later today, but I don’t want to get ahead of myself.
On my desk right now are three apologetics, but Wright’s is not among them. The original printing of “Evidence Demands a Verdict” is, though. I inherited it from a retiring minister.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Art,
Thanks for the clarification. However, I must tell you that if your reading list does not include Wright I must mark you down in my super-secret file of theologically questionable people. Hehe. Hahahahah. Muahahahaha!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Et tu, Brute?
March 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I’ll venture an answer based on my pre-Resurgance education at the old, “liberal” SEBTS: NO! The “kerygma” or preaching of the early church, most clearly found in the Lucan texts and Pauline epistles, includes seven points, one of which is that He was raised (physically) from the dead. Examples may be found at Acts 2:24, 3:15, 4:10, 10:40; Romans 8:34 & 1 Cor 15:4, to name just a few texts of this “primitive kerygma.” Certainly Matthew & John’s Gospels clearly proclaim a physical resurrection too. In other words: to deny a physical resurrection is not “just” to deny Scripture, it is to deny part of the IDENTITY of Christ Jesus the Savior; it is to actively deny who He is. Many cults do that, in various ways: Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses to name a couple: their failing is not to deny the existance of Jesus, but to deny who He is as the Bible identifies Him.
Could it be the old SEBTS was not quite as liberal as some claim?
The only caveat I would offer is that God is not bound by my conclusions, my logic, or my exegesis. He is soverign, and has the last word.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Yes; it is essential to the faith.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:00 am
As with the others, I agree that the resurrection is an essential element to the gospel. There can be no Psalm 110 Messiah without it. But, I will go further than that. If it can ever be proven to me that there was no resurrection, I would abandon my post as pastor and walk away from the faith. Like Paul said, I would be pitied more than all other humans on the earth. Without the resurrection, there is no Messiah, there is no atonement, there is no future hope. The entirity of the gospel hinges on the empty grave. And the undeniable historical fact of the resurrection has changed my life forever…and I do mean forever.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Looking over the replies so far, there may be some confusion about the meaning of a writer’s answer. Bart Barber says, “Yes,” and I think he means, “Yes, believing in a physical resurrection is essential.” I said, “No,” but I was answering the original question, “Is this a saving faith?” Sort of like the difference between Paul’s and James’s position on faith and works: it is often asserted they are contradictory, but I believe they are merely coming from two very different angles.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
John,
You are interpreting me by giving me the benefit of the doubt. I recommend that you always read me in whatever light makes me out to be the most heretical.
Actually, you have understood me correctly.
Which of us is James and which is Paul?
March 27th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Brother Art,
In reviewing your comment stream, I must admit it seems to be getting a little edgy. However, allow me to weigh in now that my original question is answered. I will refer back to your original three points of the hypothetical person. Person does not believe Jesus has risen bodily? He does not have salvation. You have quoted the verse in 1 Corinthians 15 about the vanity of our faith if he is not risen, so I will not repeat it. Jesus being raised from the dead is an essential to salvation. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 clearly defines the gospel. Like the sign I saw the other days says; “There is no bones about it, Jesus is not in the tomb.”
Blessings,
Tim
March 27th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I vote for Jesus … every time! God become man, sinless, crucified, resurrected, and alive! Anything short is NOT the Gospel.
Geoff
March 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Bart,
Paul or James? Whichever you are. . . I ain’t either. Actually, I’m more like Thomas, but all I pray for is not to be a Judas.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Not much time. If Christ does not rise He is simply mortal. Simply mortal cannot save. Paul thought the resurrection was an essential part of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15.3-4). If it as essential part of the Gospel belief in it would be necessary for salvation. Christ’s claims of deity are validated by the resurrection.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Art,
I like this discussion.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Time to throw a little wrench into the discussion. Recently Richard Mouw, President at Fuller Seminary, addressed a related issue, even quoting our BFM (suggesting that we don’t really believe it to the letter for the following reason). What of infants who die in infancy or the mentally impaired who know nothing of the resurrection or who do not have the capacity to understand it? Must they believe in the resurrection for salvation? If no, then would the answer not be at least a qualified yes (as in yes, they must believe in the resurrection; or in the case of John Farris, no, one cannot be saved without such a belief. BTW, I’m taking the position of “Paul” on this one
).
March 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Paul,
Now you are hijacking the discussion.
That’s ok. I’ll answer and we can take a turn in the conversation.
I want to point out that I am not saying that the person in the example is not right. Jesus is not still in the grave in the above example. Let us all assume, and all who have joined thus far do so, that the resurrection HAS happened. This person puts their faith in the actual Son of God who has been declared with power to be the Son of God through the resurrection (Rom. 1), but they just don’t believe that He was raised from the grave.
I believe, as many of you do, that this is an empty faith – or as I put it Sunday am – an impotent faith. The person has rewritten Jesus to suit their own convenience, but so much of the Gospel hinges on the resurrection. The disciples thought they were alone until they were not and He stood in their midst. It was the resurrected Jesus who sent them out into the world and the resurrected Christ who appeared to Paul (the apostle to the gentiles, not Paul Littleton) as one “abnormally born,” and changed his life, using him to shape the spiritual journey of western civilization.
The resurrection of Christ is what promises us our future with God (1 Cor 15:20-28). Remember that some in Corinth were teaching that there was no resurrection for anyone and that there was no future with God if you die before Christ’s return (1 Cor. 15:12, 19). By the way, they were not arguing that Christ was not raised in Corinth. They were arguing that everyone else was not. Paul took it back to Christ’s resurrection to show them the fallacy of that thought – “If the dead are not raised, then how is Christ raised?” Clearly they thought that Christ was raised, because there was hope for His return in “this life” (v19). If He was to return, He had to be raised.
Nevertheless, if you deny the resurrection, you deny the very nature of Christ. To say that He is the Son of God, but deny that He is (can be) raised is to deny that God is actually God. This fallacy suggests that God is perhaps a spiritual entity that is more powerful than we, but not Omnipotent; not powerful enough to raise the dead – even Himself. In other words, denying the resurrection denies both the nature of the Son AND the Father (and the Spirit, for that matter).
Now then, as far as the salvation of the mentally handicapped or infants, that is angels dancing on a pin, so to speak. If one is able to express a faith and that faith includes that Jesus, sinless Son of God died as a substitute for one’s sins, then the resurrection is part of that faith, although it may not be understood fully. This stands in contrast to the first example that had someone claiming to believe, but denying the resurrection. Fundamentally, there is a difference between accepting Jesus while not understanding the resurrection and denying the resurrection, no matter what you believe about Christ.
Whatever one may believe about infants or mentally handicapped accepting Christ for salvation, the difference between rejecting the resurrection and accepting Christ can be folded into that.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Art,
Well said.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
[continuing to play the devil's advocate]
So, Art, just to make sure I’m getting you….are you saying that there is a difference between one who rejects the resurrection and one who simply can’t/doesn’t understand it? Because that, to me, is angels dancing on pins. It is making a substantive (salvific) difference between the questions:
Can one deny the resurrection and be saved, and
Must one affirm the resurrection to be saved?
It sounds as if you have not only made that distinction but would answer both of them with a “no.”
Is the difference between the two really as vast as you have stated it, or am I misunderstanding?
[/devil's advocate]
March 27th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Paul,
I see a great difference between the two questions. To deny the resurrection is to comprehend and reject the nature of God. (To deny without comprehension is not a true denial, just by the way) To accept the nature of God and the actual salvation offered, is not to, necessarily, comprehend the minutiae of theology, but a minimum necessary. I never understood the resurrection when I accepted Christ. I don’t know that I really understood that Christ was raised at all, when I accepted Him (I probably did, but I don’t specifically remember it). The resurrection took on its first importance to me about my freshman year in High School, well after I was saved. It took on the major significance it now has in my mind when I was in Seminary.
Not to say that my experience is defining my theology at this point, but it illustrates my theology.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I would add a 4th point…….the virgin birth. Without the virgin birth and the actual physical resurection of Jesus we would be no more than folks that think the Bible is simply a good book with suggestions for living.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Jake,
Agreed.
I wasn’t denying or ignoring the Virgin Birth. I was only focusing on the resurrection due to the Easter Season, the “Lost Tomb” fiasco and my sermon series.
Thanks for the input.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
What Art really means is, “Thank you all so much for helping me write this week’s sermon.”
March 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Ha! Sorry. Last Sunday’s sermon, which is why I was so ready with Scripture references.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:00 am
This has gotten interesting.
First, I doubt that the natural man could comprehend the reality of the resurrection. When you’re saved, I think God enables and/or reveals it. To then reject it would call into question the fact of one’s salvation. So I’d tend to think you cannot reject the resurrection and be saved.
Second, I don’t see clarity in the bible about what happens to people limited by youth or mental deficiency, so my preference is to trust God with that, and not to lean unto my own understanding of scripture. I think there’s a huge clue in Isaiah 7; the fact that there IS a time we are too young to know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. Jesus was, at one time, and there has to be a reason why God put that in there.
But I always have to put in the disclaimer that I can’t really know about anybody but me.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:24 am
art,
you are really hitting the nail on the head with your comments. they’re gooooood.
i would also like to add that the resurrection is an essential part of the gospel….the virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, resurrection from the dead, ascension to heaven. without the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus from the grave, there is no gospel. and, of course, we must believe the gospel to be saved.
babies and people with mental handicaps cant understand a lot of things about the gospel, and a lot of them dont even know who Jesus is. i really dont see how they enter into this discussion at all. personally, i think that they go to heaven due to the story of king david and bathsheeba and thier baby, and some other verses. i believe that God takes them to heaven….they never reach the age of accountability. but, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
david
March 28th, 2007 at 8:58 am
David,
With all due respect, infants and the mentally impaired do have something to do with the topic at hand. You have clearly stated that it is necessary for a person to believe in the resurrection, virgin birth, sinless life, etc. as essential elements of the gospel, yet you turn and say that infants and the mentally impaired can go to heaven even if they know nothing of any of those things. You are either qualifying your beliefs – which is at the heart of my first response: if you can qualify the essentials of the gospel what are the qualifications? Or else you are being self-contradictory.
Are the essentials you’ve mentioned absolute essentials, or are there exceptions (such as infants and the mentally impaired)? If you are not contradicting yourself then you are stating that there are exceptions and I am simply asking what those exceptions are and what is their biblical basis.
I think Art is saying something similar – that one cannot reject the resurrection, but that one does not have to affirm the resurrection to be saved. One can be a resurrectional agnostic, and still be saved – at least in the case of his own experience and in the case of infants, children and others who do not have the capacity to understand the resurrection.
That is a broader view of the gospel than I expected and that is why I have asked – and sort-of pushed – the questions I have.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am
paul,
i see what you’re saying.
david
March 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Art,
As long as we are talking about essentials. . . . I have a growing homeschool group in my church. It looks like that I may become the group’s co-op Bible teacher. I know there is curriculum out there. But I would be curious as to what people thought should be the content of a late elementary – early middle school Bible class. Thank you in advance for whatever help comes my way.
Thank you for your service!
Jim Stratton
March 28th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Jim,
That’s a turn that I never expected, and honestly can’t offer much. I have had several families who homeschooled in my churches, but I can offer nothing concerning curriculum. Frankly, that’s a realm with which I am unfamiliar.
Could people with suggestions email you?
Art
March 28th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Dear Brothers,
Thank you VERY MUCH for bringing up these very, very important points for discussion.
Jake,
Please note that the virgin birth is never mentioned in the Acts, nor in any of the epistles where the Gospel is summarized. It is an important theological point, but certainly nothing that a person must even have heard of in order for him to have saving faith in Christ.
Art, David,
Paul is doing a good job probing you for consistency. Do you really believe that a person who is young or mentally incapable is not guilty of sin? What about the sin he committed in Adam (Rom 5:12)? I challenge you to check your historic Baptist confessions (1742 Philadelphia, 1833 New Hampshire, 1858 Abstract, original BFM) at this point and see what they say.
I hope this doesn’t sound too spooky, but please consider that in our spirits, we are not one year old or two years old or thirty years old or mentally handicapped. We are simply the natural progeny of Adam, in whom we all sinned, and through whom the guilt of sin is imputed to us all.
“You mean you believe God sends little babies to hell?!?” Please save your breath. I challenge you to read the old Baptists and re-learn the doctrine of original sin.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
March 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Jeff,
I don’t believe in “the age of accountability.” I can’t find it, or anything like it, in Scripture. To me, it seems that this particular doctrine is the extrapolation of some presumptions about God – that He is good, loving and kind hearted (all true) – combined with some presumptions about children – that they are sinless and or innocent (not so true).
I believe Scripture teaches that we are all born dead in our sins, that all have sinned and turned away – no one has sought after God, no not one.
Like Bob, and yourself, I believe the Scripture does not clearly address how God deals with infants and their salvation. I can neither say that He sends them to Hell nor Heaven. I do say that salvation of every saint is in His hands from the start.
March 28th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
jeff and art,
king david seemed pretty sure that he would see his infant son that died in 2 samuel 12:23. also, in mark 10:13-16, Jesus blessed the little children and said that the kingdom of God is made of such. these children were far too young to know anything about salvation. i believe that it shows that God is not holding them accountable for thier sin nature…before they reach the age of understanding. some mentally handicapped people never reach an age where they understand….nor will they ever reach an age of understanding about sin and salvation and the gospel. in jeremiah 4…the little children were called the innocents. they were not responsible for thier sin natures. they didnt know any better. now, i know that the bible is not clear about this, but based on the justice of God and His mercy and grace ….i believe that babies and mentally handicapped people will be in heaven.
for you to say otherwise is a little on the cruel side….especially towards those who have had babies to die, and to those who have mentally handicapped children. i believe that the bible gives us a pretty clear picture…not an extremely clear picture….but a pretty clear pic that babies and mentally handicapped go to heaven. that God would not hold them responsible for thier sins.
david
March 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
JRY, Art and others,
The doctrine of virgin birth is as central to salvation as is the belief of Christ’s physical resurection. Mathew’s gospel as well as others gospel writers state unequivocaly that Mary had not carnally known a man. Either you believe it or not…..these are the very basics of salvation. Virgin birth, sinless life, Son of Yaweh (not adopted or promoted as mormons believe, some methodist scholars have postulated on the “radical obediance of Jesus” as the source of his divinity also) and physical resurection. You can more or less pick and choose other doctrines over which to agree/disagree but these are central to the “universal church” or “catholic church” as I prefer to call it. These have been non-negotiables since the earliest church fathers and remain so today.
As to “an age of accountability” there is nothing mentioned in the Scriptures to document that but…does the God you serve have the mind of mercy or does your God send a person who cannot reason or understand salvation to a place of eternal seperation (hell)? I dare you to tell me to my face that my deceased 28 day old grandaughter went to hell…..I will guarantee you that the brawls documented in the earliest church synods will look like a minor tussle compared to what our’s will be
David….for once I find something in your posts that we agree on……will wonders never cease
March 28th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Jake,
This is where I don’t understand the inconsistency. On the one hand you state that a person must believe in the virgin birth, sinless life and physical resurrection for salvation, and on the other hand you contend that, because of God’s mercy there are those, like your granddaughter, who knew nothing about the virgin birth, sinless life or physical resurrection of Jesus who are in heaven nonetheless.
This really is no different from the argument some make that those in the world who have never heard the name of Jesus may be saved apart from faith in Christ. Yet something tells me you would disagree with that.
Art,
It’s interesting to hear that one can be saved apart from an affirmation in the resurrection. How do you handle Romans 10:9 (and 4:25, if indeed, as many believe, that is an early formulaic statement of faith) in light of that?
March 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Jake and Paul (and David),
I, as Bob did earlier, have not said children are saved nor condemned, but that Scripture does not definitively answer the question, therefore, I can not.
I do hope, pray and anticipate seeing my nephew, who was a toddler when he drowned, in Heaven. The ins and outs are speculation.
More clearly: Anyone who says they are in Hell speculates and has nothing to base it on other than their own extrapolation. So does the one who says that they are definitively in Heaven.
If it puts your mind at ease, I have no problem saying that I speculate that children are in Heaven. It makes me feel better and it seems to be the way God is – to me.
I have no Scripture to tell me this definitively. It is my own speculation.
On the other hand, E. Earl Ellis, in the class on the apostle Paul that I took in Seminary, used 1 Cor. 7:14 to say that children who had at least one saved parent were sanctified. Those who did not were condemned along with their parents.
That raised an eyebrow. What do you think of that?
March 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Dear David,
Please check the Old Testament understanding of heaven and hell. In David’s time, they believe in Sheol, the place of the dead, but did not have a clear concept of paradise for the saved and hell for the damned. David simply meant that he would go to join his son in death, but he could not get his son to come back and join him in life.
Dear Jake,
Yes, I believe that God is merciful. But mercy is not for God to see that a young human being has not yet reached an age of moral capability and admit him to heaven on the basis of his innocence. Mercy is for God to see that a young human being has sinned in Adam, has had Adam’s sin imputed to him, has inherited Adam’s sinful nature, and to save that young human being’s soul anyway by sending His Son to die in His place.
You would do well to read the pertinent sections in J.P. Boyce’s Abstract of Systematic Theology or other works from Baptists of previous centuries.
http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch24.html
I find your position that we must have a fistfight over the state of your granddaughter’s soul uncompelling. Certainly the willingness to go to fisticuffs does not prove a theological point.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
March 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Art,
I have not played my cards
so I have not stated what I believe happens to a child who dies in infancy. So if I have a problem it could very well be the same one I’ve proposed to you. I’m asking how you resolve it with some clear passages of Scripture. I believe in mystery. I’m the emergent guy, remember? But Romans 10:9 seems pretty clear, along with 4:25. I’m not trying to get you to say infants go to heaven or that they go to hell. I’m trying to get clarification on whether or not all people must affirm the resurrection for salvation and if not how do you explain Romans 10:9 and then would you object to someone who said that “the heathen” do not need to affirm the resurrection of Christ in order to be saved and if they do what makes the difference?
March 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Oh…and it appears to me that you have already stated that all people do not have to affirm the resurrection based upon your own salvation experience. If that is the case what, really, is the difference between being agnostic toward the resurrection and rejecting it? Either way it is not positively affirmed. Would your salvation experience have been any different had you rejected the resurrection when you later came to hear about it? Would that mean that you would have lost your salvation? Would that mean that you didn’t have it to begin with? If that is the case how do you know you had it to begin with now? Does affirmation of the resurrection somehow ratify a person’s salvation? Can that be supported Biblically (that a person can affirm resurrection years after their salvation)?
March 28th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
the heathen who have never heard will go to hell. they have light of nature and the light of aa conscience shed on them. they have reached the age of understanding. they are responsible for thier unbelief and sins.
david
March 28th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Art,
suggestion for the next one:
“Is the Trinity essential?”
March 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Ooohhh, Colin. Nice one.
Paul,
First allow me to clarify that I base nothing on my experience but only use it as an illustration of my belief.
I do not think it is a requirement to specifically assent verbally to the resurrection in order to receive salvation. You are correct in understanding me that way. I only say that one can not deny the resurrection and belong to the Lord. I draw that mostly from my pneumatology – the Holy Spirit is our instructor and is in residence within us. He convicts us of truth, if we belong to Him, hence, if we have Him, we will be convinced of the resurrection.
I use as examples of this several members of my church. They went home to watch the Cameron film and turned it off within 20 mins. They weren’t able to poke holes in the theory presented – they never really heard the theory. They were simply convinced of the TRUTH and couldn’t stomach the lie. Again, an example of how the theology is worked out, not the base of my theology.
I would like to point out that no other Christian I have ever met believes that verbal assent to the resurrection essential to salvation. Have you ever heard any version of the “sinners prayer” that addressed the resurrection? I haven’t. It was never addressed in my personal evangelism nor church growth evangelism classes. No one I know, educated, educator, peer nor layman, has ever addressed this in any evangelistic discussion of any kind. If they thought it were essential, they would include it in every witnessing venture.
Not that everyone else’s agreement validates the position. That would be a logical fallacy – argument from popularity. Not healthy.
Ok. So what do I do with Romans 10:9, and, to a lesser extent, 4:22-25. First, I obviously don’t read them as prescriptive. I don’t think that Paul is saying: “You must pray a prayer that affirms the resurrection or you will not receive salvation.” In 4:25, it seems clear to me that he is affirming that the resurrection is part and parcel of saving theology, but this is not new. He does this throughout his writings.
10:9 is essentially the same thing. Confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, believe in your heart that He is raised by God. I think 10:9 doesn’t even call for specific verbal affirmation of the resurrection – only belief that it is true. The real question is, “does 10:9 require specific assent prior to salvation?” Taken in context with every other call for acceptance of Christ as savior within Scripture that doesn’t specifically mention the resurrection, I would have to say it is not specifically prescriptive, but descriptive of a saving faith.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
First of all, thanks for the response. Again, I’m not saying I disagree with you overall, though I might on some of the finer points. I’ll not press this any further, but I do have to say, Oh Art…you didn’t. You pulled out “the sinners prayer.”
Not to hijack this thread any further, but I do not find any version of “the sinners prayer” in my Bible as a means of salvation. I am very un-at-ease with a gospel that culminates in a “sinners prayer,” principally because I don’t find Scriptural support for any such creature. Believing/trusting in Christ may have nothing to do with a prayer whatsoever. Prayer is not what activates trust within me or anyone else. It may aid it and I have no doubt that a great number of people have been saved while praying a prayer, but the end of the gospel is not a prayer. It matters little if the affirmation is verbal or internal. The effect is the same. Well…enough of that.
And having said that, nearly every witnessing “program” that I am familiar with draws heavily on Romans 10:9-10, so yes, contrary to your own experience, nearly every evangelistic tool I’ve ever seen, every evangelism professor I’ve ever had, nearly every pastor and layman that I know, clearly declares the resurrection as a part of what one believes unto salvation. It seldom, if ever, includes less than that and when it does it is a suspect gospel, IMO. It is, at the very least, implicit, if not explicit, in every gospel presentation that I’m aware of. I’ve never heard anyone called upon to believe in or follow after a dead Jesus. Unless people are believing in a ghost then the Jesus they are believing in is a resurrected one. That, or as the liberals tend to do, he remains a Jesus of the past and we are following the example of a great man, perhaps the greatest to ever live, but dead nonetheless. If, however, our faith is in the living Christ, then we are, by definition, affirming the resurrection. IMO, if that can wait to be affirmed later on then it isn’t the Christ of the Bible that we are believing in, it isn’t the living Christ we are believing in, in which case it is some other Christ who is a false Christ that cannot save us. And I believe that every version of the gospel in the Scriptures assume as much, which is why it isn’t necessary for every formulation to state the fact explicitly. There. Have I expressed that forcefully enough?
Am I wrong?
March 29th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Paul,
I put the “sinners prayer” in quotes for a reason. I, too, think it is not defined as such in Scripture – just as the “age of accountability” is absent.
Also, I didn’t mean to say that the resurrection is not implicit in the gospel presentations that I have observed and given in my life. Just that it has been implicit only, and not explicit. Of course, Jesus is referred to as being alive today, but specifics about the resurrection are never proffered, from my observation.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:42 am
In my earlier comment, I mentioned the New Testament “kerygma” which seems to have been at the heart of the earliest preaching. The seminal points were most clearly enumerated by C.H. Dodd, an English Baptist (who, if memory serves me correctly, was an inerrantist). Those points, as given in his book, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (first published in 1936), are:
1) Prophecies are fulfilled & the New Age is inaugurated by the coming of Christ;
2) He was born of the seed of David;
3) He died according to Scriptures, to deliver us out of the present evil age;
4) He was buried;
5) He rose on the third day according to Scriptures;
6) He is exalted at the right hand of God, as Son of God and Lord of the quick and the dead;
7) He will come again as Judge and Saviour of men.
These points are found, in varying completeness, in Acts 2: 14-39, 3: 13-26, 4: 10-12, 5: 30-32, 10: 36-43, and 13: 17-41; and in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-7, and Romans 1: 1-3, 2:16, 8:34, and 10: 8-9.
Notice that the virgin birth is not specificially one of these points, although I suppose it “fits” in under the first, as one of many fulfilled prophesies about Him. (Please note: this is not a denial of the doctrine, but simply a statement about its relative importance. Some things are true and also crucial; other things are true, yet not of primary importance. Since only two of the Gospels even mention it, and it is not stated in either the sermons recorded in Acts or in Paul’s writings, that suggests to me that the Virgin Birth is not by itself a key point in the identity of Jesus as He was preached in Apostolic era. Obviously, this is not the Fundamentalist take on doctrine, where “everything” is crucial, and to miss any “rung on the ladder” is to fall off the ladder. If anyone can show me from Scripture that the Virgin Birth was part of the Apostolic proclamation of Jesus’ identity, I will reconsider my position on its importance.) These seven points are what I consider the “identity” of Jesus necessary as the basis for a saving faith.
Does that mean one has to intellectually grasp each and every point in its fullness in order to be saved? To answer an unqualified “yes” presupposes that being a Christian is matter of assenting to propositional truth. I do not buy into that, because based on my reading of the Scriptures, Christianity is a matter of relational truth–in other words, Christianity isn’t what you know, but Who you know. And again, at the presuppositional level, I would argue that the ability to make an informed decision to trust Jesus requires a certain level of maturity–at least the ability to comprehend the difference between reality and imagination. Young children do not possess that: to them, the cartoons they see on TV are as real as Mom and Dad. As long as a one does not grasp the reality of Jesus, that person is incapable of making an informed decision. If this is wrong, what is wrong with baptizing infacts?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
john,
if someone denies the virgin birth, then they are lost….unregenerate. to deny the virgin birth is to deny the diety of Jesus. if Jesus came from a man, then He is only a man. He’s not God. the virgin birth is absolutely critical and essential. and, it’s one of those essential doctrines that would need to be believed in order to be a true believer.
david
March 29th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
David,
I don’t deny the virgin birth. However, a comment and a question occur to me: first, the comment: there is a difference between denying something and stating it is not of critical or first level importance. Second, the question: would you show me from Scripture where it says, to quote your words, that “if someone denies the virgin birth, then they are lost. . . .unregenerate”? Neither you nor I saying something is so, makes it so. I think this is a deduction you are making based on your subsequent statements as the major and minor premises. This goes back to one of two sets of presuppositions (which are probably related). The first is the presupposition of Fundamentalist theology, wherein salvation has a “ladder” approach, and every rung is crucial. To miss one rung is to fail to reach the end of the ladder. Using Dr. Moehler’s terminology’s, there are no first, second, or third tier doctrines; there is only one level, and either you agree on every (or every related) doctrine or you are not saved. The second possible source of the presupposition is our shared western culture, especially as filtered through the lens of the Victorian era, of which you and I are both heirs. This seems to have elevated the importance of virginity (as applied to Jesus’ birth) beyond its Biblical moorings. That this is a cultural presupposition hit me pretty hard about 22 years ago, when I was working on my doctorate. For some reason, several of us (students) were discussing the Virgin Birth and its importance–mind you, we were affirming that importance, not arguing about it or belittling it, much less denying it. One of our professors came up and listened for a moment. This professor was a Christian and a native of India; when we finished, he said, “In my country, some 75% of the people are born out of wedlock. When they hear that Jesus’ mother was not married when Jesus was born (or at least concieved), they think, ‘Just like me!’ They begin to identify with Jesus, as opposed to the ‘gods’ of Hinduism, and do not care at all about the ‘virgin birth’.” All of us have all sorts of presuppositions; I suggest that the elevated importance of the virgin birth in conservative 20th & 21st Century western Christianity has more to do with presuppositions than with the Biblical account.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Correction: I was working on my doctorate 12 years ago, not 22. Time flies when you’re having fun!
March 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
john,
i would say that the virgin birth is a first level tier doctrine….an essential doctrine. btw, the gospels do talk about it…everyone one of them but mark’s gospel. also, there are many, many verses that talk about the virgin birth…and one of the main prophecies about the messiah coming is about Him being born of a virgin. to deny the virgin birth is to deny Jesus. it’s that serious.
if someone denies the virgin birth, then they are lost and on thier way to hell. this is not a doctrine that’s recently been elevated to importance…..it’s essential to the christian faith…period.
david
March 29th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
David,
Again, I am not denying the virgin birth. But you say, “many, many verses” talk about it. Please! According to several concordances I checked, in the Old Testament, the word “virgin” is used 32 times; but only in one verse, I believe, is it used prophetically to refer to the birth of the messiah (Isaiah 7:14); and there the use is somewhat questionable, since the Hebrew word literally means “young woman.” Mind you, I have no problem with the assumption that a “young woman” would be a virgin, but even that suggests my point, that it is emphasized less in the Bible than in modern western Christianity. In the New Testament, the word “virgin” is used in 9 verses, and six of them have nothing to do with Jesus or his birth. (The three being Matthew 1:23, and Luke 1:27 & 34.) It is not found in the Book of Acts, even though there are several apostolic era sermons quoted. Paul never mentions it. And by the way, neither Mark nor John mention it (and that includes John’s Epistles as well as his Gospel), nor do Peter, James, Jude, or Hebrews.
Again David, asserting something does not make it so, regardless of whether you or I do the asserting. I have quoted chapter and verse. I have counted uses. I have read the Bible (as I am sure you have). Show me where the Scripture says that if a person does not believe it, they are bound for hell. Show me something to support your position other than that you say it is so, and let us have a serious, realistic discussion about it.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
John,
*disclaimer* – I am not advocating creedalism. I am not suggesting by the following statement that we should rely on creeds for our authority in doctrine. Nevertheless…
It may be that the early creeds, certainly the Apostle’s creed, has influenced our prioritizing the virgin birth at least as much as the Victorian era, in that Christianity (and the theology derived from creeds) is also a part of our Western Culture. Your professor from India grew up in a culture that was influenced by Hinduism’s tenets and I don’t understand virginity to be the same high priority in that spiritual mindset. As much as Hinduism has influence on the culture there, the esteem for virginity there would stem from that, somewhat.
In contrast, western culture has been undeniably “Christianized” since Constantine and the creeds and confessions that are a part of Christian influence have certainly impacted our culture and therefore perception of value.
I think it is a mistake to attribute the high esteem for the virgin birth to the Victorian era. The Virgin Birth has been held up for many centuries prior to that time within the sphere of Christianity. All of that would lead me to say that the Scriptures that we do have relating to the Virgin Birth were taken very seriously by our forebears and that should say something.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
If Jesus was not rise from the dead then there is no Christianity as I view it. We’ve been living a lie.
I’ve always believed that to be saved one had to believe in the virgin birth, death and resurrection.
We accept this path for our salvation on faith. Jesus takes into his fold those who have not reached the age of accountability or knowledge to make this decision.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Let me put it another way … belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection is evidence of, not a necessity for, salvation. I was about 8 when I got saved and had no idea about the resurrection. Nor did I know what a virgin was, well maybe except for some olive oil cans I’d read at the Royal Blue on Wentworth Avenue.
Hey that sounds self-contradicting. I can live with that.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Dear Brother Hagaman,
If one has to believe in the virgin birth to be saved, then why did the apostles never mention it in their sermons, as recorded in Acts, or their teachings about Christ, as recorded in the epistles?
I submit that if you DENY the virgin birth of Christ, you are denying the identity of the true Jesus, but if you simply have not heard anything about it, you can be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ—his death and resurrection.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
March 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
i am talking about someone who would deny the virgin birth.
also, how many times does something have to be mentioned in the bible before its considered true?
and, matthew and luke sure do put a lot of emphasis on the virgin birth in thier gospels….as does john in his unique way.
john, if someone denies the virgin birth, then they are denying the very person of Jesus…they are denying His diety. can someone be saved if they deny the diety of Jesus. no.
david
March 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Dear Brother David,
I think we’re all finally getting together here. John is talking about not UNDERSTANDING OR KNOWING ABOUT the virgin birth not being a necessary part of saving faith. You are talking about not DENYING the virgin birth.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
March 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Hmmm,
I like Bob’s comment on this. I became a Christian in a more innocent time of the world, when I was 11.
I did not know what a virgin was.
When I was older, I accepted the truth of the virgin birth. However, I really was a Christian from the age of 11.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
karen,
the point is that you accepted the virgin birth as true. you didnt deny it. you believed it when you got older.
jeff, no, i think that john is carrying the discussion a step farther than that…. a few steps past where it ought to be going. the virgin birth was and is and forever shall be of the utmost importance. it is vital to the christian faith. it is essential.
david
March 30th, 2007 at 7:19 am
David: I’m with you, bro. But if someone denies the virgin birth or the resurrection, my tendency would be to address their salvation, not those two events. To me, it’d be a hint that they weren’t saved, so I’d start with that angle.
Incidentally, are you aware of the deal with the contributions from the now-bankrupt businessman in Milan? If so, what’s your take on it? How about emailing me at mighty(at)charter(dot)net if you know anything about it.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:37 am
David,
Why not ask John where John is carrying the discussion? Perhaps my comments were too oblique, and I apologize for that; it is a failure of mine to be more convoluted than is necessary sometimes. But frankly, you just do not move into a good debate, you just keep repeating what (IMHO) means, “It’s so because I say it’s so.” And if you would share with me how John the Apostle “emphasizes the virgin birth in his unique way” I’d appreciate it; I have never ran across that, and would really like to hear your take on it. Anyway, this is not the only thing I was bringing up: the seven points of the apostolic preaching per Dodd, whether anyone else sees that, and what going into those seven points are major and what are minor. As Jeff Richard says, my question revolves around what is “a necessary part of a saving faith,” not what is correct theology.
Art, thanks for the reasoned response. Very good. Jeff Richard, Bob, & Karen: thanks–you all saw the difference in denying something verses comprehending/understanding/even being aware of something, which thus is (what I consider) a matter of emphasis.
Although I was unchurched and unsaved until in my mid-20’s, I read my Bible (occasionally) as a kid. When I was, I don’t know, 10 or so, I asked my mother what a virgin was. She stuttered and stammered and finaly said it was just someone who was not married, but that we shouldn’t talk about it or use that word in everyday conversation. And that was the misapprehension I carried for several years. I guarantee I was not the only kid of that age who was equally misinformed, and many of them were churched and (presumably) had a relationship with Jesus Christ–and not a clue what “the virgin birth” meant.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:26 am
When Peter delivered his 2-minute sermon at Pentecost, thousands were saved then and there. There’s no mention of the virgin birth there, and when they asked how they might be saved, he told them to repent and be baptized. He mentioned the resurrection during the 2 minutes, almost in passing, but didn’t subsequently mention it as part of how to be saved.
I have never heard a 2-minute sermon in a church, nor have I seen thousands saved in one meeting.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Bob,
Did Peter not mention it? See 2:11,22-23, 36 for the following points.
The apostles were exclaiming the mighty works and wonders of God in context of this sermon. Much more was said. Morevoer, there is continual attestation that these men who were saved knew of the works, wonders, and miracles that were being preached. This first miraclous act in salvation history regarding the Word made flesh certainly would not have escaped notice or exclamation. To say these men did not know of the virgin birth is way beyond what the text says. In fact, it doesn’t even hint to that.
These discussions I find intriguing, as if salvation can exist outside the virgin birth and resurrection. One cannot deny either. In fact, the nature of the gospel should make all who accept it assume both even if they are not told. There is no philosophical or theological grounding for a salvation or a Christ outside of these two important and necessary facts of the gospel. That a person can accept a man saved them- a mere man- would lend credibility to a false gospel. That there exists any gospel presentation that does not mention the resurrection is completely foreign. Moreover, the very word “gospel” is rendered meaningless outside its context of the resurrection. The true gospel has God as the savior, God made flesh- and how did that happen? Certainly no one was saved thinking they were saved by a mere man…
March 30th, 2007 at 11:24 am
It seems to me that the apostle Paul stated pretty clearly what is of “first importance” in 1 Cor. 15:
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
I simply don’t see how resurrection can be an optional add-on at a later date. If one doesn’t know of the resurrection then which Jesus is he/she believing in? One that may possibly still be dead? One who lived 2000 years ago who met an untimely death on a Roman cross, but who’s fate beyond that I am personally uncertain? Paul says that apart from the resurrection our faith is futile. Sure, he’s talking about the reality of the resurrection and not simply our affirmation of it, but I don’t see how a person’s failure to positively affirm it is a faith in a positively risen Christ. It’s like saying that a person can believe in Jesus without positively believing in his death on the cross and still be saved. After all, there are passages where it simply says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved,” with no specific mention of a cross. And please don’t tell me that the cross is assumed and then imply that the resurrection is not.
If I wasn’t believing in the resurrected Christ when I was seven then I was not saved, no matter what that prayer was that I prayed or whatever else I might have been saying or “believing.” I don’t mean any offense by this, but I truly shudder at a gospel where the resurrection is an add-on at a later date.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am
And how could I forget John 3:16 – whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. No cross there (explicitly). No resurrection there (explicitly). But the same argument that is being used for a resurrection-less gospel could equally be used for a cross-less gospel, could it not?
March 30th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Colin:
1) I did not say the apostles didn’t know it. I said Peter didn’t say it in his sermon and thus the folks there didn’t hear it. It wasn’t Peter’s salvation I was referring to, but rather the 3,000 listeners. And I wouldn’t imagine they knew all the background and in any event I won’t build a whole theology on what the bible doesn’t say.
2) I did not say the virgin birth or resurrection was not necessary for man’s salvation. I said that knowing about it wasn’t explicit in the 3,000 getting saved.
3) I knew nothing of either the resurrection or the virgin birth when I got saved. All I know is that I’d been told that Jesus was the only Savior, when I was in VBS, and later, when I feared death and my dad reminded me what I’d heard in VBS, that those who believe in Jesus go to heaven when they die, I trusted Him. And He wonderfully saved me and after about 18 years of letting me run, He reeled me in and put me to work.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Colin,
Certainly “no one was saved thinking they were saved by a mere man”. Different than understanding every bit of theology about it.
Are you saying that no one should be considered to have salvation unless they seem to understand the Virgin Birth? If so, the SBC needs to stop presenting the gospel to gradeschool children in VBS.
And if so, then every pastor I have had in my 50 some years has presented the Gospel in a very deficient manner.
I do not believe in trying to trump the Bible with my personal experiences. Salvation is based in fact and historical reality. Yet an 8 yearold truly can come to Christ without understanding very much.
This in my opinion is quite different than a sixty-year-old seminary professor writing a book that denies the Virgin Birth.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Bob,
I am not saying the apostles knew it either. I am saying it was probably testified to the whole 3000 and more throught the works and wonders spoken about in the verses I mentioned. To think it (either the virgin birth or the resurrection) was in the background of what was spoken about among the people, the disciples, and the apostles is hard for me to believe, especially since His mother was counted among them. Further, to argue that those 3000 did not know of the virgin birth and resurrection is far beyond what the text says, and adds to it what is not there.
It is not about understanding the virgin birth or the resurrection, but belief absent of the totality of the gospel begs the question of what is the object of faith? What were you saved from? Who saved you?
March 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Colin: Your last questions are simple, and the answer will be my last on the matter.
. The object of my faith was Jesus. He’s the one who saved me.
The Man. The Person. The God-Man. The Savior. I ran to Him.
Him.
-30-
March 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Colin,
Arguments from silence are very difficult. They can result in a theological system which is a house of cards, or to use more New Testament immagery, a house built on sand. I think perhaps this is part of what Bob is saying.
Perhaps the issue comes down to this: where is the boundary between understanding New Testament theology correctly, and having a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? Is a saving faith propositional or relational? Can it be both? Is it some of each? If so, how much of one and how much of the other? Where is the boundary?
A child psychologist once told me that the way to measure a young child’s intelligence–when that child is too young for standard IQ tests–was to ask them what are the similarities between a person and an ant. The differences are numerous and obvious, and anyone (regardless of age, 3 or 4 and up at least) can enumerate many. But the real mark of intelligence was to be able to see similarities. SO: can we be intelligent children and find similarities, common ground that is, between the various answers which have been given?
This has been a good discussion!
March 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
bob,
i know about the man from milan. i have heard about this. he was a professed christian and a member of a baptist church. a lot of people lost a lot of money. and, he’s in a lot of trouble with the law. that’s really all i know about that situation. i live very close to milan.
john f.,
john 1:14…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
also, john, i have given you verses about the virgin birth….matthew….luke…the prophecy in isaiah….john…..galatians 4:4…
i would say that the doctrine of the virgin birth was very important to the apostles. also, i have given you very sound, biblically based logic and reason about the virgin birth being necessary…..if Jesus was not born of a virgin, then He was not a savior who could die for our sins and could not rise from the dead. if there was no virgin birth, then Jesus was just a man….only a man….and all the rest of the gospel would not even matter.
john f., i believe that your pre-cr sebts degree may be bleeding thru in this discussion.
david
March 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
John,
The argument from silence is what I addressed- that the knowledge of the virgin birth was unknown (or the resurrection inconsequential b/c of its “brief mention”) to the 3000 who were saved.
My argument simply is this- without the resurrection, the gospel is incomplete. Without the resurrection, there is no salvation. Without knowing the resurrection, how do you know you are saved? You don’t.
What was a saving knowledge according to the gospel presentations by Paul, Peter? Fully biblical, incorporating OT texts and fulfilled prophecy- the promised savior is here, and he has defeated death. Lay out the redemptive plan, then “this is what it is- do you believe it” was how it went. Not, “Jesus is your best friend, now do you believe in Him with all your heart?” Is it possible we have grown a generation of churchgoers who believed what they heard, but yet still do not know the gospel?
March 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Guys,
While this has been a good discussion for us…..it is mostly beyond the average SBC pew sitter. The question begs to be asked……what can we do to make a better disciple of SBC’ers? In many of the churches I have been involved with there has been no instruction in the theology of our beliefs. Most folks know only what their present pastor says and then they can’t remember it for 15 minutes after services are dismissed (yes there are exceptions). Coming from a creedal church background I find great satisfaction in knowing, even though I wasn’t saved at the time, I knew more about orthodox theology at the age of 13 than do most pew sitters after gracing the church’s pews after 60 or more years. I have a difficult time understanding why the SBC is so dead set against using the historic, theologicaly correct creeds in discipling our members. Can someone please give me a good reason that we don’t use the Apostles or Nicine creeds? So far the best anyone has given me is “we aren’t catholic”. I try to explain that one and get the blank stare…..similar to windows blue screen of death
March 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Jake:
When I first joined FBC Pelham, I asked the preacher if he had a copy of the Baptist version of the Westminster Confession (I’d been a Presbyterian). He said “Baptists always say “No creed but Christ and no book but the Bible”". He then turned around and handed me the BF&M and said “Of course … here’s the creed we don’t have…”, then gave me a copy of Herschel Hobbs’ book about it, and said “…and here’s the book we don’t have.”
I’m meeting with two young men from my SS class on Monday nights now. One has been in an SBC church literally since he was born, and neither of them had ever read the BF&M. We’re going through it. That’s a plenty fine substitute for a creed. Apparently it isn’t much used, either.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Sorry I haven’t been able to comment for a while. I really can’t catch up with everything, but I want to address this from Paul’s comments.
Paul,
No one has said that the resurrection is an “add-on” or “optional.” You have pressed statements that said that complete comprehension – including the details and the ramifications – is not necessarily a prerequisite to acceptance of Christ as Lord and turned them into something that they never were.
For clarity’s sake, Jesus’ resurrection is vital and essential to the faith of every Christian. It is the bare minimum for salvation. I have said this repeatedly and I am not denying it.
It is not the same, though, as saying someone has to have high end comprehension of this before they can be saved.
I will say that I do think we present a resurrected Jesus in our evangelism. It is part and parcel of all that we believe and therefore what we share.
art
March 31st, 2007 at 7:16 am
Bob,
I too had been a “southern” Presbyterian…pcus….before they merged into the pcusa and became a liberal, apostate quasi-church institution. Before I could join I had to study and pass a test on the Westminister Confession. Then later after salvation I became a methodist…..then they went apostate…..although there are areas of the country where local congregations remain faithful to orthodox Christianity. I have read and studied BF&M 2000 and 1963…..I have a few minor disagreements but on the whole nothing I can’t be reconcilled to. But and this is a big but……the BF&M lacks the historical, catholic perspective on the orthodox beliefs that the church has had since the begining. In other words it lacks apostolic authority. IMO the needs of the SBC would be better served if the congregations were taught word for word what the Apostles and Nicene creeds contained then practiced by recitation at every Sunday service. But then again maybe that is like asking some local members to switch from the KJV…..”well if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it is good enough for me”.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:38 am
John Fariss said,
“Perhaps the issue comes down to this: where is the boundary between understanding New Testament theology correctly, and having a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? Is a saving faith propositional or relational? Can it be both? Is it some of each? If so, how much of one and how much of the other? Where is the boundary?”
Please elaborate on this.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:05 am
David,
This thread went a long way focusing on the questions–then you changed to bring up your perception of my education “bleeding through.” Was that a suggestion of a “bleeding heart liberal”? Well, if you and your relationship with Jesus can live with that, so can I. “Sticks and stones,” you know. Sticks and stones.
But let’s think about this a minute. For one thing, you didn’t bring up Isaiah 7:14, I did, when all you said was that many, many texts emphasized the virgin birth, not that I ever denied it. Yes, you finally brought up two others–John 1:14 and Galatians 4:4. For the life of me, I do not see how John 1:14 relates to the virgin birth. Can you share with me any authority who says it does? I’d really like to see it. Likewise, Galatians 4:4, which addresses Jesus’ humanity, but I see no reference to the virgin birth there. Again, can you share any published scholars/patristic works/early Christian references that it does? I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the logic of your position. And that’s OK: if we were all the same, it would be a rather boring place. I believe it is Biblical to say “iron sharpens iron.”
My question is simply this: the virgin birth is Biblical and true; but is it necessary to “check off” as something one believes (or affirms, or fails to deny–I recognize differences in these, but am lumping them altogather for convenience) before salvation is possible? You say, “yes,” but I’m not so sure. My reasons are, first, that I do not see it as being particularly emphasized in the text, especially in the examples of apostolic sermons and theological writings we have in the Word itself; and second, because I see saving faith as being primarily relational rather than propositional. I understand “faith” as being a matter of trust more than than intellectual affirmation. Perhaps you understand it differently; I can live with that, but I would like to hear you expand on it. And people can disagree without being disagreeable. Can’t we?
Colin,
If I misunderstood your position, please accept my appologies. I thought it was you who implied that “signs and wonders” (or some similar phrase) surely included an exposition of the virgin birth. I have looked back through the thread, and cannot find that under your name or anyone else’s. Consequently if that was not you, I am sorry. It was that comment to which I referred as an argument from silence.
Anyone and everyone,
I never denied the virgin birth. I not only never denied the Resurrection, but I specificially (in at least two seperate comments) stated that it IS part of the Biblical identification of Jesus, such that it IS a necessary part of a saving faith. I specificially said that to identify Jesus other than as the Bible identifies Him is what cults do, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons; and that by misidentifying Him, their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible, which logically means they are not saved. The question is: what is a necessary identification of the Biblical Jesus, and what is correct theologically but not a critical part of that identification? I suggested that our presuppositions may color our perception of what we think is necessary–historical presuppositions, cultural preconceptions, and theological preconceptions. I still believe that, and I believe that to explore those sources may actually help us get down (or back) to what the Bible actually says, rather than what we understand it to say.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:54 am
John,
You couldn’t find it because you read it wrong. It was in my comment, but that wasn’t its implication.
I curious as to what “those sources” are in your post.
Btw, the virgin birth was particularly emphasized in the gospel of Matthew and Luke. In addition, the propositional nature of John and the method of Peter and Paul and others to reason in the synagogues and among the God-fearers was to testify that the things told- in the OT and in the life and miracles of Jesus- were true, so believe these things. Like I said before, it is not a matter of propositional versus relational truth when it comes to these facts of the gospel, for even if one was to come to Jesus “relationally”, then he would assume the truthfulness of these facts without prompt. To “not know” of them is to not know the gospel.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:18 am
Art,
It may be that I have misunderstood you and if that is the case then I apologize if I’ve misrepresented you. I read this: “I never understood the resurrection when I accepted Christ. I don’t know that I really understood that Christ was raised at all, when I accepted Him (I probably did, but I don’t specifically remember it),” and did not think that you were talking about “complete comprehension – including the details and the ramifications.” I mean, there is a vast difference in “never understood the resurrection,” “I don’t know that I really understood that Christ was raised at all,” AND “complete comprehension including the details and ramifications.” I’ve never pressed so far that I believe one must have complete comprehension including the details and ramifications, but I do think that there must be something more substantive than “I don’t know that I really understood that Christ was raised at all.”
That, to me, sounded like one could have saving faith apart from affirming the resurrection (making the resurrection optional, at least until understanding came at a later time. I mean, I am assuming you were saying that you were saved in the initial event you have described which sounds as if there was at least the very real possibility that it did not include any understanding of the resurrection at all. Then the resurrection was “added-on” at a later time, perhaps when you first heard of it or began to understand it).
I also got these impressions from this statement: “I do not think it is a requirement to specifically assent verbally to the resurrection in order to receive salvation,” and that no one you knew of required any such thing. Perhaps you meant that one had to assent to the resurrection non-verbally, but if it is non-verbal then how would anyone know they were assenting to it? Perhaps you were emphasizing the verbal nature of the assent more than I read out of it. If you were saying that “believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead” is somehow de facto implied in the confession that “Jesus is Lord,” then I truly misunderstood and for that I apologize, though that would raise other questions in my mind.
Art, I’m not pressing you to try to “catch” you or “trick” you. I’m not pressing so that I can find some minor, intricate theological point and say, “Ah Ha!!” It truly sounded to me as if you were saying that a person could be saved apart from a positive affirmation of the resurrection. Re-reading my comments in this thread I noted that I suggested several times that that was how I was understanding you and until your most recent comment I never heard you clearly say, “Jesus’ resurrection is vital and essential to the faith of every Christian. It is the bare minimum for salvation.” You say that you have said so repeatedly here and I must have missed it. It sounds like the problem may be more of a communication one than an agreement one.
Maybe we should do lunch.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:46 am
john,
i was not trying to be mean about your pre-cr sebts degree bleeding thru. i just meant that you pre-cr sebts degree may be showing in your thinking about this subject.
john, i have shown you many verses that show the importance of the virgin birth to the writers of the gospels, and it was me who brought up the prophecy in isaiah first. your comment back to me was that it could just mean a young woman, which i totally disagree with. also, john 1:14 shows that God is the Father of Jesus….He came from heaven. how can you not see the virgin birth in this, unless you believe like the mormons that God the Father actually came down in a human body and had sex with mary? the same with galatians 4:4. how can you see that it would not imply the virgin birth?
i have a question for you. in your view, can someone be saved and deny the virgin birth?
david
March 31st, 2007 at 11:57 am
This is probably far too simplistic, but an answer to the question might be found in looking at the answers Jesus and the Apostles gave to those who asked to be saved. What did they say was necessary to saving faith?
March 31st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Colin,
When I said “sources,” I did not mean an authoritative citation, which seems to be how you took it, but simply a presupposition as the source of one’s conclusions. I meant it the same as an axiom in geometry, something one assumes to be true without proof as foundational to the logic he or she follows. When I say “I believe the Bible literally,” my presupposition is that certain things in the Bible were meant exactly as they are written, while other things were meant figuratively, and to be literal is to accept them whichever way they were meant. For instance, in the New Testament, many people read “Greeks came to see Jesus” amd take it in the same sense we might say “Americans,” “English,” or “Germans.” The presupposition is that New Testament writers meant it ethnically or nationalistically–which they did not; they meant “non-Jews,” because Greek was the closest thing in the ancient world to a universal language, and the non-Jews most Biblical writers met spoke Greek, whether they were from Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Turkey, or where ever. That is all I meant by the “sources.” I still say that we should examine ourselves, articulate those presuppositions which tend to be unspoken, and in fact, concealed in our culture, and evaluate them. It may well make a difference in how we interpret a text. That is why I have kept hoping someone would join in the discussion who has experience with people not of a European (especially western European) background, to get their take on the whole presupposition issue. What “emphasis” do Asian, Asian Indian, Polynesian, African, or Native American Christians see in the text? And I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes an “emphasis” on the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke; to me, it being stated in the early chapters and never again is not an emphasis. And please note I did not say that faith was entirely relational, but rather that it is primarily relational. I began my entire comments with seven points from the apostolic preaching (Acts & Paul’s letters) which are propositional.
David,
It came off to me as mean, or at least a cheap shot, regardless of how you meant it. I don’t know what the aim of post-cr education is, and I would not attempt to say. But the aim of pre-cr education, at least at SEBTS, was to give students the tools and familarize them with the possibilities so we, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, could come to a theology which we “owned” as our own. This is based on the classic definition of education, in which a bachelor’s degree meant one had learned how to learn, a master’s meant the person had learned enough to teach under supervision, and a doctorate meant the person was qualified to teach. By the way, if you will recall, the only author I cited in this thread was an inerrantist, one whom we used extensively in several New Testament classes. For that matter, I would affirm that the Bible, in its original autographs, is inerrant in matters of faith and practice. And sure, I’ll answer your question straight out: the answer is, “I don’t know!” We get, it seems to me, into some fine distinctions here, especially between “denying” and “not affirming.” I don’t know if someone can deny the virgin birth and still be saved, although I would lean more toward answering “no” to that and “yes” or at least “maybe” to not affirming/not understanding/not comprehending the virgin birth. It still bugs me that if it were absolutely crucial, why didn’t Peter say, “Repent AND believe the virgin birth,” and why did Paul not say “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead AND that he was born of a virgin, you will be saved.” Maybe that is part of the “mystery of the faith.” I am glad to say, I don’t know it all, I don’t understand it all, and God is both the final authority on that and the ultimate judge. He gets to make those decisions, not you or I. I will certainly affirm, as I have several times in this thread, that I accept the virgin birth as true; and I still lean toward this being a issue of correct theology which is not a necessary “ingredient” in a saving faith. Now that I answered your question, will you answer mine? There are several I posed to you in the course of this thread, to which you have not responded. Would you now?
Chris,
Thanks for the question. I wrote, “Perhaps the issue comes down to this: where is the boundary between understanding New Testament theology correctly, and having a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? Is a saving faith propositional or relational? Can it be both? Is it some of each? If so, how much of one and how much of the other? Where is the boundary?” It seems to me that we are saved through a relationship with Jesus Christ; but which Jesus? It certainly must be Jesus as He is identified in the Bible, not as identified in the Book of Mormon, or the writings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, or for that matter as a Hare Krishna priest once told me, that Jesus was “a” manifestation of God, but not the primary one, which he thought was Krishna (he even had a Christmas tree, with at least one picture of Jesus on it). Are there theological issues one can either be incorrect about, or be ignorant of, and still be saved? If the answer is “no,” that seems to make faith entirely a matter of intellectual assent, and that seems foreign to the New Testament to me, as well as to much of our Baptist heritage (i.e., Jesus as “personal savior”). My question is essentially what (I think) Art was asking: what must one believe (propositionally) in order to be saved (relationally)? I don’t have all the answers, but I would like to explore them.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Dear Colin and David,
A while back, I finally understood that there is a difference between what the apostles preached to sinners for them to believe and be saved, and what they taught to the church for them to be edified.
This difference is most clearly seen by comparing the sermons from Acts with the epistles.
In the Acts sermons, there is no mention whatsoever of:
1. God loves you.
2. Jesus is God’s Son.
3. Jesus was born of a virgin.
4. God is a Trinity.
These points are true, of course, but are not recorded as part of the kerygma, the preaching of the Gospel.
These points are strongly emphasized in the more full teachings of the gospels and the epistles.
So, then, apparently the apostles and deacons of Jerusalem understood that many things are true of Jesus that are not necessary (or maybe even appropriate) for inclusion in the gospel presentation to unbelievers.
The resurrection, however, appears to be essential to the Gospel message. They mention it over and over and over. Actually, one time, in Acts 17, Jesus’ resurrection is preached even when his DEATH is not!
I submit, then, that when one “believes,” he is believing in a Jesus who has died and risen again. He will learn later that Jesus loves him, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus is God’s eternal Son, etc.
Please understand how to separate Gospel presentation from fully-developed Christian understanding.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
March 31st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Paul,
First things first – lunch is always an option.
Secondly, I thought I had made it clear in my first declarative comment here, which was a response to you, by the way, that I believe the resurrection to be essential to the faith of every Christian.
Thirdly, I understand the miscommunication from my own story. To say that I didn’t understand the resurrection “at all” is not really accurate. It was certainly in the fabric of my understanding Jesus as God’s Son, who lived a sinless life, substituted His righteousness for my sin by His death on the Cross – who was then buried and rose again, commissioned and ascended. What I should have said was that the resurrection was not the focus of my understanding of Jesus and what He has done. My focus was on the substitution – which was the key for me. It all made sense after that clicked into place. Also, I never articulated a prayer of confession or commitment where I declared to God a belief that He was raised from the dead. I do believe it. As I said, I think it was a part of who I understood Jesus to be – but just not the focus of my early belief. By the way, it is now. That Jesus was raised is a big deal for me and I frequently point to the resurrection in my preaching.
For some background on this, feel free to check out an article I wrote last year, “Easter is my favorite.”
I remember the day when the resurrection took center stage in my understanding of Christ. My Youth Minister came in on Easter Sunday – and he was bouncing of the walls. He was electric. When we started Sunday School, he couldn’t help it. He told us about the meaning of Easter – that Jesus’ resurrection holds promise, that it declares He is who He said He was, and that His death meant what He said it meant. I got it. Right then, I got it and have never moved away from it.
Now, before that moment, did I believe in a resurrected Christ? Yes. Did I REALLY understand what that meant for me and what it was all about? Not really.
I think the resurrection is a part of the confession that Jesus is Lord, and I do think that it must be a part of saving faith. Like many things, though, the depth of it may be a long time coming for many Christians.
That’s what I was trying to say.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:40 pm
When I was saved, I only knew I was going to Hell and Jesus would save me. I did ask Jesus to forgive me of my sin and save my soul. That was all I knew to do. I had never read the Bible before I was saved. I was reading 2Timothy 4:6-7 for the first time in my life. The only thing I knew was I had never fought a good fight in my life. I had always made sure I had the advantage of skill. I lived by the code of a sub-culture. I literally thought Revelation was the name of a brand of shotguns sold by Western Auto Stores. I had taken a Gideon Bible from a motel. Six months later I read the passage mentioned above. I was struck by my “lostness”, hopelessness, hard heart, and sinful life-style. The only gospel I knew was what Leon Westerhouse had been singing on the Country Boy Eddie Show when I turned the TV on in the morning to hear the news and smoke my first cig of the day. I thought Leon Westerhouse was some old nut singing about God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell and Love because he was a weak guy that needed a crutch to get through life.
The one redeeming quality in my life was that I constantly read books when not “working.” I was reading “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” by Dee Brown. I got to the story of Sitting Bull. It made me sick at how cowardly he was treated. I thought of how I would have liked to have been there for him. I could have changed the odds greatly. For whatever reason I noticed the Gideon Bible that I had taken 6 months before. I picked it up and opened it to the passage I mentioned. In reading those two verses I was “flooded” with conviction of my way of life and the things I had done. I remembered one of the songs Westerhouse would sing on the Country Boy Eddie Show. With what I understood I prayed to Jesus to save me. He did. I walked out of the life that morning at 3:30a.m. on a cold December day. My life has not been the same from that day.
Due to being an avid reader, I read that Gideon Bible through about 30-40 time within the next few months. I learned about the Deity of Jesus and the truth of the gospel in those readings. It was a new world for me. I believed everything about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus as I read it over and over. I doubted nor questioned anything I read in the Bible except one thing. It was hard for me to believe Sampson killed all those guys with the jaw bone of an ass. Those guys were really stupid in my thinking. I would have climbed up on a hill behind a rock and drilled “ole” Sampson through the throat with an arrow. Forget that hand-to-hand mess with someone that well trained in martial arts. I learned later that Sampson could not be killed until God was finished with him. Thusly, I believe Sampson killed all those guys and probably could have killed more if they had engaged him.
Well, that’s my story. I knew basically nothing when I was saved by the grace of God the Father through the atonement of God the Son in the power of God the Spirit. If you say I am not saved because I did not understand the whole of the gospel, that is OK. I will not fight you over it with hand, gun or knife, nor will I blow you up, which actually gives credibility to the truth of my testimony about being born-again and knowing Christ as my Savior:-) Now, if you bother my wife, kids or dogs that is another issue:-)
cb
March 31st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
John Fariss wrote:
“It seems to me that we are saved through a relationship with Jesus Christ…..Are there theological issues one can either be incorrect about, or be ignorant of, and still be saved? If the answer is “no,” that seems to make faith entirely a matter of intellectual assent, and that seems foreign to the New Testament to me, as well as to much of our Baptist heritage (i.e., Jesus as “personal savior”). My question is essentially what (I think) Art was asking: what must one believe (propositionally) in order to be saved (relationally)?”
John’s last question is exactly where I desire more clarification from anyone who feels led to respond; I am trying to witness to an “intellectual assenter.”
Can you understand the dilemma I’m having if I would quote John 3:16 and then say there is nothing there that would lead an unbeliever or an “intellectual assenter” to a concept of a “personal savior?” As John has said above, we Baptists believe we are saved (relationally), but my “intellectual assenter” above wasn’t taught that and thinks having the belief is being saved and that the personal relationship concept is just a Baptist “thing.” What Scriptures lead a person to understand the concept of a “personal savior?” (Consider that “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord” could be construed as believing that Jesus is God [another word for Lord to some] – not necessarily Lord of your personal life.) Or is it the Holy Spirit’s convicting that leads a believer to this understanding as part of their sanctification? If that conviction never seems apparent, is the “intellectual assenter” saved? If not, what went wrong?
Thank you, gentlemen, for your kind consideration.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
john,
i would say to you that belief in the virgin birth is essential to someone calling themselves a christian. if someone denies the virgin birth, then the Jesus they worship is not the Jesus of the bible. to deny the virgin birth is to say that Jesus is not God, but that He is the bastard child of mary and joseph…which is blasphemy. i would say that that would make it very essential to the christian faith.
john, again, you seem to dismiss every answer i do give you, and you dismiss all the verses i give you. so, i am thinking that discussing this with you is futile. also, sebts in the pre-cr era was known far and wide as a liberal school. i heard many, many people talk about how liberal it was, and how bad of an influence it was on the churches in n.c. i’m thinking that maybe thats why you are looking at the virgin birth in the light that you are. the influence you had at sebts. because, frankly, john, i cant believe that we’re actually having this discussion about the virgin birth. this is absolutely an essential doctrine. to deny the virgin birth means that someone is not saved. it’s really that important.
david
March 31st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Chris,
I once was an intellectual assenter. I used to have great, long arguments with my then-girlfriend, now wife, about it. Now, I was not not raised in church, so the only “religion” I had was the common pop-religion, or civil religion, of the deep South. I believed in the existance of God–as an intellectual proposition, I even accepted that there was a man named Jesus, that he was. . . Lord, savior, maybe even son of God?–not that I had an inkling what that meant. That didn’t even change after I made a profession of faith at a Billy Graham crusade, especially after the counselor who talked with me there never followed up with me. It was not argument that showed me I was wrong (or at least that my understanding was inadequate)–it was lifestyle. First there was my girlfriend–she lived out the faith she professed. After we got married, she looked for a new church home (she moved some 100 miles or so to be with me), and occasionally I would attend with her. And there I met a whole group of people who lived out the faith they professed; in other words, I could tell there was something genuine and real about them. I came closer to Jesus, and even made a second profession of faith, was baptized, and starting getting more active in the church. Then, my mother died; and at the funeral itself, I had a personal experience of Christ, one which was repeated (or vividly remembered) in another grief situation a few months later. Christ met me in a very real way in my grief, and that changed me from an intellectual assenter to a believer whose had a changed life as a result of the personal encounter. (I used to say I was like an old Alabama mule: I’d do anything God said after He got my attention–He just had to hit me upside the head with a 2 X 4 a few times to get my attention.) After the second encounter, I went into the house and tearfully told my wife that I had experienced a catharsis (I didn’t know what else to call it). I don’t know how to universalize the experience for the fellow you are witnessing to; except to say keep making a relationship with him, let him see that your Christian walk is more than just words, and challenge him to discover that there is more to life than his own intellect. And if he remains open (and maybe if he doesn’t), sooner or later, God will happen in his life too.
David,
Sorry you don’t want to talk anymore. I was enjoying the challenge, and thought you were. By the way: what is the difference in what “many, many people” told you and gossip?
March 31st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
john,
again, is someone a christian who denies the virgin birth?
jeff richard,
i’m not talking about sharing the gospel with someone who’s lost…i’m talking about someone who denies the virgin birth….or someone who denies the resurrection for that matter. if they deny the virgin birth, then they are not christian…..because they deny an essential of the faith….a first tier doctrine.
david
March 31st, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I’m 100! Great Thread!
March 31st, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Kevin,
Congrats. You and Colin are the only two to ever be 100 on my thread.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Vol,
I believe you are right. If a person states he or she has had an experience of grace in ignorance of the wholeness of the gospel he or she may have had a valid experience of grace. Yet, if afterwards, in learning the wholeness of the gospel from Scripture and proper theological training, one can still deny the essentials of the Deity of Christ it is highly probable that one’s “experience” of grace was not a true experience of being sealed by the Holy Spirit as one of God’s children. The Spirit within us would not let us deny the essentials of the gospel once revealed to us by His presence in our lives. I am talking about the very essentials of the gospel, not secondary issues of faith.
cb
March 31st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
John,
I understand presuppositions and know we all have them. It is not a bad thing. I presuppose the Bible is the inerrant Word of God every time I open its pages. I presuppose the canon is inspired, and that the Bible teaches about Jesus from Genesis to Revelation. I am also presupposing we are talking around each other.
Jeff,
I think I am being misunderstood. I do not think anyone has to “understand” much. Affirmation of these doctrines would be “common sense” to those who have heard the gospel, even without understanding how they could be- such as the Lord being a man and dying, or the Lord indwelling men by His own Spirit, or the Lord being born without the stain of Adam, etc. It is clear, just as Jesus walked through the Scriptures testifying to himself as he walked to Emmaus with the two, and as Peter expounded the text of the OT declaring that this man is that man- both Lord and Christ! The one who David called Lord, the one who can forgive sins, the one who was heralded from the beginning as the Son of the Most High. For it was the exposition of the OT texts as to Jesus’ identity that pierced the men to the heart.
Therefore, it would be wrong, I think, to argue that since there is no mention of certain things that they weren’t mentioned. I believe the text itself rightly places the emphasis on the things we need to know, but given the genre of Acts, I would say that all narratives should not be considered prescriptive in themselves, given the epistles and gospels that round out the revelation.
Denial is a different ballgame than understanding.
The only thing I knew intimately upon my conversion was the depth of my own sin.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Colin,
It may be of no consequence to you, but I think your comment is a “Ten Ring” of comments on this post. You have most definitly hit the target. The guys on the Emmaus Road would never be the same again. They surely would never deny any of the Deity of Christ as revealed in Scripture. Surely none of us that have been thusly “warmed in our hearts” by the very presence of the Holy Spirit could ever deny the essentials of the gospel message once we are brought to an understanding of its truth.
cb
March 31st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
cb,
Thank you. It is of consequence. I like to think I am never affected by what others think. then I remember I am human.
I wish you were grading my papers.
April 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am
David,
I answered you openly, honestly, and transparently, to the best of my ability. Does this mean you think if you ask the question again I will answer dishonestly or obtusely, that you just did not bother to read my answer, or what? Besides, I thought discussing this with me was futile. And when will you answer my questions?
April 1st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Your question 2 in the opening was if a person must believe in the substitutionary death of Christ.
There seems to be quite a controversy about imputed righteousness these days. Is that an essential part of the substitutionary death of Christ?
Many Calvinists in the SBC and out of it say that N.T. Wright’s view is heresy. Paul L’s blog in January said that Bishop Wright is merely misunderstood, that he is an incredible theologian.
Is it possible to be completely unorthodox on substitution while completely orthodox on the resurrection?
April 1st, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Wright does not deny substitution. He does say that the apostle Paul’s view of justification is not primarily a matter of imputed righteousness. He doesn’t even deny that justification may get around to imputed righteousness, but that that isn’t what Paul primarily had in mind. Wright’s controversial thoughts have to do with his theory of justification, not his theory of the atonement. Imputed righteousness and substitutionary atonement, while related, are not dependent upon one another.
Historically, substitution has been a minority position regarding atonement. I believe it is historically and theologically shortsighted to say that anything other than substitutionary atonement is heresy. The church as a whole has never held that view until perhaps recently among certain Calvinists. Oddly enough Wright considers himself squarely within the Reformed tradition himself.
He is a brilliant theologian, by the way.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Correction: I think it is shortsighted to say that anything other than substitution is unorthodox. For hundreds of years the “orthodox” position on the atonement was Anselm’s ransom theory. I’ve even read some recent Southern Baptist scholars who indicate that, while substitution is the dominant theme of the atonement in the Scriptures that the other theories of atonement are not, therefore wrong or that we have nothing to learn from them. They simply are not primary.