1

Joe,

I am pleased to see that you have not left this conversation behind. Since you didn't answer my previous questions in the other thread, I thought perhaps we would not hear of it again.

Allow me to stick in my two cents into this conversation.

Joe Writes;

Whenever I reflect on ecclesiology—the study of the nature and function of the church—I’m overcome with deep dread, a sense of eschatological angst brought about by a disturbing sense of doubt: What if, contrary to all that I’ve ever been taught, I get to heaven and find that God has a preference for Methodists?

I think this first sentence is the beginning of confusion. While it is obviously true (Anyone who has read this blog and my comments on it will know this for a fact) that you can write circles around me, I do hope that in this I am clear enough to be understood.

Methodist, Catholic, Baptist, etc, are congregations. There is but one Church. I hope we can agree on that much.

So, no matter what building you go into with any title you have on that building, it does not matter. You can meet in a schoolhouse that is merely titled, "Christian Church in X city." It doesn't matter. There is only one Church and that Church is Christ's.

So, the logical question to follow is, who is a member of that Church? Are Methodists, Catholics, Baptists, etc, members of His Church? Maybe it would make it easier for us to say His Body, instead of Church, to have a seperation here.

I would say it is obvious that some people who attend Methodists congregations are Christian and some people are not. Some people who attend Catholic congregations are Christians, some are not. Some people who attend Baptist congregations are Christians, some are not.

Can anyone doubt this? We are not saved by virtue of the buildings we enter and exit.

So, I disagree strongly with the statement you quoted above;

…in order to assume that a profession of faith is genuine, the person must attach himself to a "true" church. How we define a true and false church has been the source of much dialogue and disagreement in the centuries since the Reformation, but I am inclined to agree with the three marks proposed during the Reformation and which are summarized in the Belgic Confession, Article 29, which says "The marks by with the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preaching therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church."

Not because I do not think we should practice those things, necessarily, but because I have to wonder what sort of nonesense this might lead to.

An individual person should not be judged by the group they are attached to. For example, both I and Arlen Spector are Republicans. You'd never know it though if you spoke to both of us about our political positions on any particular issue.

So, it does not, nor should it, matter to us what congregation any individual is attached to. If we want to know about any individual, we should ask them and not assume they are saved because they are attached to the right congregation and lost because they are attached to the wrong congregation. I wouldn't want anyone to assume anything about the state of my soul based on what building I entered into on Sunday's and Wednesday nights.

But this isn't the case with Andrew Sullivan. My refusal to call Mr. Sullivan a brother in Christ has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

But you knew that already, right?

And besides that, doesn't the Catholic Church reject homosexual sex anyway? So I don't think it would be too far of a stretch to say not only is Andrew Sullivan not my brother in Christ, he's not even a Catholic.

Unless there is something in Catholicism that says you can be both Catholic and at the same time reject Catholicism. However, i'm not schooled in Catholicism, so i'm out of my league in this area.

Andrew Sullivan does not repent of his sin and he even goes so far as to reject his behavior as sinful.

I wonder why we've no examples of that working in the bible, "Sorry Lord, I claim ignorance."

2

The person who reintroduced me to Christianity a decade ago had a very simple creed:
"If you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross for your sins, and was resurected after three days you are a Christian."
That's always been good enough for me. I'm not certain Andrew Sullivan fits that description any more, if he ever did.

Eric & Lisa- Only Arlan Specter knows what lever he pulls in the privacy of the election booth.

3

Terry wrote;

"If you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross for your sins, and was resurected after three days you are a Christian."

This is demonstrably wrong. Even the Demons believe this and they shudder.

4

Joe:

Since it was never my intent to unnerve you (or anyone else), I'll try to clarify a bit more. Hopefully this will help and not make it worse.

I found your initial post uncharacteristically waffle-like (though not syrupy at all). While it is absolutely true about none of us having certainty about another's salvation (I sometimes wonder about my own, as do many who know me - especially my wife), we still have the responsibility to make a decision based on the teachings and behaviors of others. As I said - and we certainly can have differing biblical opinions on this - I would rather error on the side of thinking them lost than assuming (against evidence to the contrary) that they are saved.

The comparison with N.T. Wright, I believe, was fair despite the differences in magnitude. I don't think it was all that dissimilar to your comparison of Sullivan and Phelps: I find Phelps' statements to be much more egregious than Sullivan's, but both are wrong. So I thought you and Wright were both wrong in your assumptions about others, albeit Borg's belief involves the heart of the gospel whereas Sullivan's expresses something about the holiness of God.

What you did not quote from my post (but I hope you noted) was that I thought the attack on Wright was wrong-spirited in many cases; thus, I would feel the same if you were treated in a simiar fashion. If my own post was mean-spirited, I do apologize: I did not intend it to be anything more than a firm rebuke to a friend - a faithful wound rather than a deceitful kiss. But I know I can come across poorly.

BTW, was I correct about your comparison of Sullivan and Phelps? Contra Tim, I didn't find the pairing of the two to be improper or without value. In fact, your coupling - can I say that? - of Sullivan and Phelps was the inspiration for my linking you with Wright.

Well, thanks for reading - and even recommending! - my post. I appreciate your perspectives and value your (cyber)friendship.

5

This is demonstrably wrong. Even the Demons believe this and they shudder.

Demons believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins?

I'm inclined to agree with Joe that even clear evidence that a person is an unrepentant sinner is not enough to conclude that they are a non-Christian. We are all likely to have blind spots about sins to which we are prone, while the sins of others may be blindingly obvious. None of us is free of error. If someone seems clear about the nature of Christ, His sacrifice, His resurrection, and His relationship to the church, that's enough for me. God can separate the wheat from the tares. I'm not a good enough botanist.

But maybe that's just because, by the standards of the Belgic Confession, I hold to a detestable error, not only being a member of a church that baptises adults upon profession of faith, but actually having been re-baptised after infant christening.

6

E&L:

Re "This is demonstrably wrong. Even the Demons believe this and they shudder." Are you sure the demons believe that Christ died for their sins? James, of course, says that the demons believe God is one but I can't think of anywhere in Scripture that it says the demons believe that Christ died for their sins.

I suppose such teaching could be in the apocryphal books (with which I have only a passing, flirtatious relationship) but otherwise I think Christ died only for humans - unless He also became an angel, walked in darkness for years and years, preached salvation and the kingdom to them, was sacrificed and then resumed His position at the right hand of the Father. Then I suppose the demons would know that He died for their sins.

If you feel the need to reject Terry's simple statement, better arguments could be adduced. But proof-texting fails when the text doesn't offer proof or address the issue at hand.

But let's not follow this rabbit trail, eh?

7

One more thing and then I'll go away. I promise.

Re Joe's title, "Erring on the Side of the Tares," I think that my position (stated above) is no less "on the side of the tares." Joe is thinking in terms of fellowship with such individuals while I am thinking about their eternal state.

There is a place for both and both, I suppose, can be on the side of the lost. Thus Wright's statement about Borg was gracious, since the alternative was to publically damn him, and Joe's statement can be an assumption that allows him interaction with such professors as Sullivan.

I don't think my approach means I can't have a relationship with a presumed unbeliever, but only that my long-term goal is different than Joe's would be - although I have no doubt that Joe would share the gospel in a heartbeat if he were to have so much as a whisper of doubt that Sullivan was not saved.

8

The Demons believe that Jesus died for your sins and they shudder.

If you do not accept that as proof that his statement is demonstrably false, let's try another.

Terry wrote;

"If you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross for your sins, and was resurected after three days you are a Christian."

If you believe that its possible for someone to believe the above and yet reject it, then it is demonstrably false. Unless you also believe that rejecting Christ does not in any way influence your salvation.

9

I am getting pretty sick-and-tired of people that do not think Catholics are Christians.
Obviously, there are two extremes here. One is to assume that all Catholics are Christians. To believe this, you'd have to believe that receiving the sacraments, or some other ubiquitous Catholic practice is salvific. This is clearly at odds with Protestantism, and presumably, with the bible also. If a Catholic wants me to buy into this logic, he is sadly mistaken.

Of course, the other extreme is to assume that NO Catholics are Christian. Protestants never say this - what they do say is that one has to hold to a biblical, albeit Protestant view of salvation, which many Catholics actually do. I'm not sure where the official soteriology of the RCC is written down, but I bet it has something to say about believing in the substitutionary death of Jesus and his resurrection. The only real difference is that Catholics emphasize works nearly to a fault, confusing people in to thinking that works are part of earning salvation, as opposed to the persistent fruit of faith that in some way leads to the "completion" of faith. Protestants emphasize Jesus and Peter's emphasis on being born anew spiritually.

But if Catholics are really tired of being accused of not being Christians, they ought to teach their people the gospel instead of such confusing and probably unbiblical doctrines such as praying to the saints, and the salvific power of the sacraments. These things cause many Catholics to not believe the actual gospel, but instead, a false gospel of works and ritual-based salvation that almost certainly means that they are not being saved by faith in the work of Christ. Sure, you could do the gymnastics necessary to try to prove that they might be Christian, but having known many former Catholics who are now Christians, I can tell you for sure that a good many Catholics are not really believers, mostly because they just don't understand the gospel. To the RCCs shame, they have probably led millions to hell by their close but inaccurate and obfuscated presentation of the gospel.

10

N.T. Wright never said Marcus Borg is a genuine believer. What he said is that he really loves Jesus.

11

Eric & Lisa,

It is that sort of we're right and your wrong attitude that turns off Christians and non-Christians alike. You two are like the zealots that attend military funerals carrying the "God hates fags" posters, you claim to be Christian, but offend all around you.

You can't know what is in someones heart, only God can see that. Judge not lest ye be judged sort of thing. Who are you to tell Terry he is wrong.

12

Joe, I love you man...

...but (as one Southern Baptist to another) I think you are way off base. (I do not agree with Challies either however.)

I will try to be succinct as possible.

1.) I agree with Mike’s salient point. You do a grave disservice to Sullivan by welcoming him as a brother. We are instructed to treat disobedient, carnal people professing to be Christians as unbelievers, meaning we are to witness to them as we would an unbeliever. We are not to fellowship with them. This treatment is designed to hopefully lead them to repentance and possibly to salvation. One who lives his or her life in blatant rebellion and disregard for the plain teachings of scripture should not be considered “in the fold.” To consider Sullivan a Christian is to perhaps give him a false hope, and make him more comfortable in his sin. Sullivan should examine himself to see if he is in the faith. You may argue with me that this practice only applies to the local church body, but I insist that the principle is the same here, and applies equally to the universal church. Sullivan should not enjoy the approval or fellowship of Christians in the blogoshpere.

1 Cor 5:9-13 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." NIV

Commentary by John MacArthur:

In a previous letter Paul had commanded the Corinthian Christians not to associate with immoral people. Associate with translates sunanamignumi, which literally means "to mix up with." In this compound form it is more intense and means "to keep intimate, close company with."

Faithful believers are not to keep close company with any fellow believers who persistently practice serious sins such as those mentioned here. If the offenders will not listen to the counsel and warning of two or three other believers and not even of the whole church, they are to be put out of the fellowship. They should not be allowed to participate in any activities of the church--worship services, Sunday school, Bible studies, or even social events. Obviously, and most importantly, they should not be allowed to have any leadership role. They should be totally cut off both from individual and corporate fellowship with other Christians, including that of eating together (v. 11; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15).

No exceptions are made. Even if the unrepentant person is a close friend or family member, he is to be put out. If he is a true believer he will not lose his salvation because of the sin (v. 5), but he is to lose contact with fellow believers, in order not to corrupt them with his wickedness and to suffer the consequences of his sin. The pain of such isolation may drive the person to repentance. (from The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (c) Moody Press and John MacArthur, Jr., 1983-2002)

2.) Sullivan is not bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. If Sullivan were to confess his homosexuality as a sin that he continues to struggle with, that would be one thing. Many of us have behaviors that we know are wrong, but feel powerless to overcome. Sanctification is a daily struggle. When this kind of sin occurs in our life, as Christians it makes us sorrowful, not “proud.” Unfortunately, Sullivan not only denies that his homosexuality is sin to be dealt with in the power of the Holy Spirit, he is proud of it by his own admission and he encourages others to commit the same sin(s) and feel equally proud and secure in doing so.

Rom 1:32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. NIV

3.) I disagree with your characterization of Sullivan, or those like him (who continue in blatant sin devoid of repentance) as tares. Tares by nature are virtually impossible to distinguish from the wheat in the early stages. I take that to mean that we will likely one day be shocked to find that many whom we fellowship with and consider to be Christians are not Christians at all. Their behavior or doctrine does not single them out or give them away. Sullivan does not fit this pattern; he is easily distinguishable from the “wheat.”

4.) If the paragraph you posted in your other Sullivan topic is his best “confession of faith,” I must say it is rather weak. He says that since he is marginalized because of his homosexuality, this “strengthens his faith.” Thus he actually argues that sin in his life serves to strengthen his faith and bring him closer to Jesus! While it is true that Jesus hung out with tax gatherers, prostitutes, sinners, rough-necked fishermen, etc., it is hardly these characteristics that made them spiritual, or “closer to Jesus.” Jesus hung out with them to let them know that He loves them, and the gospel is for everyone, including them. A proper response to the gospel includes faith and repentance, even if imperfect repentance. Jesus always confronted people with their sin, and told them to go their way and sin no more. He called them out of this world, as He calls us all. I suggest to you that Sullivan does not want to follow Jesus, he wants Jesus to follow him.

13

Mike …we still have the responsibility to make a decision based on the teachings and behaviors of others.

I agree. That is why my entire post was saying that as a Christian Sullivan should teach and behave differently.

As I said - and we certainly can have differing biblical opinions on this - I would rather error on the side of thinking them lost than assuming (against evidence to the contrary) that they are saved.

Maybe it’s the Calvinist in me, but I don’t think I’m called to assume that someone is or is not saved. My job is to share the Gospel with them. I should do that regardless of the status of their salvation.

BTW, was I correct about your comparison of Sullivan and Phelps?Jeremy N.T. Wright never said Marcus Borg is a genuine believer. What he said is that he really loves Jesus.

Here is the quote from the interview with NT Wright:

"I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection," he says carefully, citing another eminent scholar, American theologian Marcus Borg, co-author with Wright of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.

"But the view I take of them - and they know this - is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment.

"Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection.

"I actually think that's a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don't want to say he isn't a Christian.

14

Eric & Lisa-
My statement wasn't meant to be controversial, especially it was not meant to be a serious examination of how a theologian should define what a Christian is and isn't. It is really just the reader's digest condensed version of the Apostles' Creed. An Arian would pass my test, but not a Gnostic.

I wanted my statement to show that even with Christianity reduced to only its fundamental tenets Andrew Sullivan doesn't qualify as a Christian. Sullivan has been cagey or inconsistent in describing just what he does and does not believe, but in general the more recent his remarks on Christ the more he praises Him as an exemplary role model, not as transcendent redeemer. I don't think you can call yourself Christian if you think of Christ as only a Jewish version of Ghandi.

You write "If you believe that its possible for someone to believe the above and yet reject it, then it is demonstrably false. Unless you also believe that rejecting Christ does not in any way influence your salvation."

I had long response to this statement but I've cut it out when I realized that I assumed that by 'rejecting Christ' you meant 'embracing a life of sin'. Could you define what you mean by 'rejecting Christ' please? Or maybe that wouldn't help. I have a feeling that by denomination and by personal belief I am more universalist than you are.

please understand that nothing I've written here is intended as an insult or to imply that your understanding of Christianity is inferior to my own.

15

"I wonder why we've no examples of that working in the bible, "Sorry Lord, I claim ignorance."

Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.

Eric and Lisa, He was speaking about you.

16

Re "This is demonstrably wrong. Even the Demons believe this and they shudder." Are you sure the demons believe that Christ died for their sins? James, of course, says that the demons believe God is one but I can't think of anywhere in Scripture that it says the demons believe that Christ died for their sins.

Raises an interesting question, could a demon repent of his sins and be forgiven by God? I believe the theology around Jesus says yes he died for our sins but specifically for 'original sin' (aka Adam & Eve)...a sin specific to the human condition and independent of the choices any particular human makes (in other words even the best human is still born under original sin).

Anyway, here's another question. Jesus, to my knowledge, said nothing about gays directly but he did say that a man who divorces his wife and remarries committs the sin of bigamy. Should Joe, being a divorced person who has remarried, therefore not be considered a Christian despite his claims to the contrary?

Perhaps you don't believe that Jesus meant remarried divorcees are living in a state of sin. That's fine but how do you know for sure? It's pretty clear Catholic doctrine and Catholics have plenty of Bible scholars. Are you sure you're smarter than they are?

And besides that, doesn't the Catholic Church reject homosexual sex anyway? So I don't think it would be too far of a stretch to say not only is Andrew Sullivan not my brother in Christ, he's not even a Catholic

Unless there is something in Catholicism that says you can be both Catholic and at the same time reject Catholicism. However, i'm not schooled in Catholicism, so i'm out of my league in this area.

Indeed you are but that never stopped you before so why now?

Seriously, I think it might be worth it for you to explore how the Catholic Church views of sin and determining whether or not someone is outside the Catholic Church. First sin is both an act and an intentional state of mind. God can only truely judge a person guilty of a particular sin because while you may be able to observe their acts you cannot know their mind. Second, all humans sin and sin often. If you want a Biblical reference I'll note that Peter despite being a good follower of Christ nevertheless denied him three times and only after he had done so did he realize what he had done.

So if your standard for not considering someone a Christian is that they are an unrepentant sinner then all Christians must blink on and off like Christmas lights since they commit sins and until they actually realize them and repent they are technically unrepentant.

Now the Catholic Church does have its limits, excommunication basically means the person has gone too far. This is similiar to Joe's stand on Marcus Borg (whoever he was). There are only a few essential core doctrines of Christianity. I would say they are that Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus was both human and devine. The doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus's death was atonement for our sins. Jesus rose from the dead. Through Jesus, our sins can be forgiven. Joe is correct in saying that if you're going to deny a core doctrine then you're going to put yourself outside of Christianity. Granted for sociological purposes we may include certain offshoots of Christianity such as Mormonism or Jahovias Witnesses as Christian but if you're going to take the issue seriously then you have to draw serious lines.

17

Boonton wrote: "Jesus, to my knowledge, said nothing about gays directly but he did say that a man who divorces his wife and remarries committs the sin of bigamy."
I think a common response to the Jesus & homosexuality issue from conservative Christians is that where Christ himself, or the Apostles, did not specifically renounce a doctrine of the Old Covenant it should at least tentatively be considered still in force. Hence the Gospels record that Christ spoke against divorce, which the old law accepted, and in Acts one of the desciples (I forget which one) receives a vision that specifically frees the followers of Christ from Jewish dietary laws. The relaxation of the requirement for circumcision was, I believe, more controversial.

As far as demonic salvation goes, I think the final disposition of such creatures is beyond the scope of what Christianity requires us to know and believe. The death of Christ, endured in perfect obedience to God, was meant, as you touch on, to heal the rift between Man & God caused by Adam's sin of willfull disobedience to God. But I could be wrong. I'm just an amateur at this sort of analysis.

18

Terry wrote;

I had long response to this statement but I've cut it out when I realized that I assumed that by 'rejecting Christ' you meant 'embracing a life of sin'. Could you define what you mean by 'rejecting Christ' please? Or maybe that wouldn't help. I have a feeling that by denomination and by personal belief I am more universalist than you are.

Maybe you are Universalist, I don't even know what that means.

Let's remember what you wrote;

"If you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross for your sins, and was resurected after three days you are a Christian."

Let's take this one at a time. The first requirement is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

Isn't it possible that a Satanist believes that also? We know for a certain that the demons believe that Jesus is the Son of God, right? So that is not sufficient.

The next step is to believe that he died for your sins. I know a guy on another message board, a gaming board (We play video games as a Guild) who believes that Jesus died for his sin, but he thinks God and Christ are too egotistical and that his way is better than the Lord's way.

Yet by your reckoning, since he believes what the demons believe, and since he believes that Jesus died for his sins, that it doesn't matter that he chooses to mock the Lord and call him arrogant and evil (A loving God wouldn't create this world we live in, is his argument) that we should still consider him a Christian.

Finally, you state that you have to believe in the diety of Christ. Again, we already know that the Demons are perfectly aware that Christ rose from the grave, right?

So I just don't see how that statement you made could possibly be accurate. Why don't we just follow the Word of God in cases like this?

After convincing his audience in Acts that Jesus Christ was the risen savior they asked him, "What should we do then?" At this point, it would have been redundant for Peter to tell them to believe, because they wouldn't have asked him what to do if they didn't believe. His reply was,

38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Repent. You'll find that word a lot in the New Testament.

I cannot see how we can consider any person to be our brothers or sisters in Christ if they themselves admit to being unrepentant. The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. Do you remember Naaman, who had leprosy? He went to Elisha and Elisha told him the commandment of the Lord was

"Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed."

And Naaman's response was

But Naaman went away angry and said, "I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than any of the waters of Israel? Couldn't I wash in them and be cleansed?" So he turned and went off in a rage.

Did Naaman have his leprosy cured? Obviously he believed that the Lord could cure him of his Leprosy, but he wanted it done his way, not the Lord's way. It wasn't until Naaman humbled himself and dipped in the river Jordan 7 times (Not 6 times, or 5 times, etc, but 7 times) that he was finally healed of his leprosy.

Was it the work of going into the water that saved Naaman from his leprosy? Of course not! It was the Lord that saved Naaman. Thus it is the same with us. If the Lord commands us to repent, we must repent. Anything short of that leaves us with our leprosy.

Is that what it means to be universalist, that you do not have to repent in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

19

Eric & Lisa,

It seems to me that you are utterly confident that you can impute from Andrew Sullivan's behavior a lack of repentance. Why is this so? It must be because you either

1.) Deny the possibility of ignorant sin. In other words, you believe that repentance means forever eliminating ignorant sin from one's life.
2.) Allow the possibility of ignorant sin but have come to the conclusion that Andrew Sullivan's heart is nevertheless unrepentant.

2 can't be the case because that would require you to know Andrew's heart, and I'd be surprised if you claimed some special knowledge.

So you must deny the possibility of ignorant sin. But Jesus in Luke 12 47-48 states that:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."

Does this passage not demonstrate that God's mercy is extended to sins committed in ignorance? That God takes into account the fact that our conscience has erred? Or is there no mercy for an erring conscience?

What about the fact that there is TREMENDOUS controversy over Christian morality in the 21st century?:

Movies
Alcohol
Dancing
Sexual matters (Homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, contraception, etc.)
Music
Interaction with the World
Language (vulgarity, profanity, replacing "darnit" for "damnit" etc.)
The Sabbath
Money
Christian Vocation
Divorce

The mere fact that we disagree over all these issues means that there surely is great sin in many Christians' hearts. Someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong, after all. Does that mean we're all doomed? Or is it simply that you have all the right answers?

Honestly, the only sin in the Bible that I see as a sin leading to apostasy (or indicating a lack of saving faith from the beginning) is in Hebrews 10:26

"For if we go on sinning wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgement."

The sin here is defiant or presumptuous sin. It's shaking your fist at God and sinning for the sake of sinning. Is this what you accuse Andrew Sullivan of?

So you need to clarify your beliefs.

And another recommendation: In grad school, the first thing I was taught was the virtue of being a "charitable reader." I find that you lack this virtue. Every comment you make seems to confuse and misconstrue what people believe. I have found it to be helpful to assume that people are smarter than I might want to give them credit for and wiser than I might be inclined to believe.

Marco

20

Marco,

Thanks for the comments. Here is what you wrote;

1.) Deny the possibility of ignorant sin. In other words, you believe that repentance means forever eliminating ignorant sin from one's life.
2.) Allow the possibility of ignorant sin but have come to the conclusion that Andrew Sullivan's heart is nevertheless unrepentant.

My answer would be neither.

So you must deny the possibility of ignorant sin. But Jesus in Luke 12 47-48 states that:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."

I do not deny the possibility of ignorant sin. If Ive stated something in my preceeding postings that indicated that I do then I take it back, if that is possible.

"For if we go on sinning wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgement."

This is where I disagree with you over the ignorant sin issue. In order for Andrew Sullivan to be ignorant of his sin, he would have to say that either

A: He has not bothered to read the Bible

or

B: No Christian has ever told him Homosexual relations are wrong.

What you seem to be saying (And please correct me if i'm wrong on this) is the opposite of the passage of the Bible you've quoted. You seem to be saying that even though the Master has told his servant what to do, somehow that servant is still ignorant of the Masters will.

The sin here is defiant or presumptuous sin. It's shaking your fist at God and sinning for the sake of sinning. Is this what you accuse Andrew Sullivan of?

Yes, exactly. There is no confusion about God's position on homosexual behavior. It doesn't seem likely to me that Andrew Sullivan is unaware of the biblical passages on Homosexuality, so the alternative isn't ignorance of his sin, but rather defiance.

And another recommendation: In grad school, the first thing I was taught was the virtue of being a "charitable reader." I find that you lack this virtue. Every comment you make seems to confuse and misconstrue what people believe. I have found it to be helpful to assume that people are smarter than I might want to give them credit for and wiser than I might be inclined to believe.

I've found this to be the case with my postings on many websites. I suppose I have not yet learned the knack to being a charitable writer.

I'll work harder on getting it right.

21

"I've found this to be the case with my postings on many websites. I suppose I have not yet learned the knack to being a charitable writer."

Peopel have been pointoig out your extreme lack of charity on a number of sites? You don't seem to be doing much about it. And the next time you lack charity in apost, and there will be a next time, can we presume, as you do about Sullivan, that you are unrepentant in your lack of charity and are shaking your fist at God?

22

Joe McFaul wrote;

Peopel have been pointoig out your extreme lack of charity on a number of sites?

No.

You don't seem to be doing much about it.

I am.

And the next time you lack charity in apost, and there will be a next time, can we presume, as you do about Sullivan, that you are unrepentant in your lack of charity and are shaking your fist at God?

If I were claiming that i'm uncharitable but do not need to change, then your comparison to Andrew Sullivan might be appropriate.

But that's not what i'm claiming and therefore, you comparison to Andrew Sullivan is inappropriate.

I'll take Andrew Sullivan at his word and you can take me at mine.

23

Eric & Lisa-
By being 'more universalist than you are' I mean more likely to populate heavan & depopulate Hell. I might be wrong about that of course.

Perhaps we're in one of those dreaded sectarian conflicts. I am a Lutheran, I believe that salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone; that faith is the first marker of a Christian, not repentance.

You did bring up two interesting exceptions, as you saw it, to "Terry's Creed". Let's call them the Demon & the Gamer:

You can add a fourth clause to my creed, "I believe I am a human being" if you wish, but since the Demon would be comfortable believing in not only my creed but the Apostles' and Nicene creeds as well, I'd be happiest to lodge my creed with such fine company unaltered.

If the Gamer could accept "Terry's creed" as a statement of his faith I would describe him as brother or sister in Christ, though one lost in that hall of mirrors known as pride, first and deadliest of sins. If he's not a Christian, what else could he be? Certainly not atheist, or agnostic, or buddist, or muslim, or pagan.

24

Terry wrote;

If he's not a Christian, what else could he be?

The wolf who puts on the clothing of sheep.

I believe that salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone; that faith is the first marker of a Christian, not repentance.

Ive never heard of markers before. By first marker do you mean only marker? Or would you say repentance is a marker, just not the first? I think we could agree on that.

I wonder what you think of Naaman. Could he have had his leprosy cured by the Lord if he had refused to dip in the Jordan 7 times?

Does the bible tell us that we have no way to know who is among us and who is our enemy?

Let me ask you what I asked Joe in another thread. Would your congregation allow Prostitutes and Porn Stars to be members of your congregation and continue to work in their given professions and long as they proclaimed Terry's Creed?

25

Gordon shared a rather apropos verse in the other thread.

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

RO 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity . . . 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them . . . .

If this doesn't sound exactly like Andrew Sullivan, I do not know what would.

He knows God, he has exchanged the natural relations with a woman for unnatural relations with men and, in Andrew Sullivan's case, he has recieved in himself the due penalty for his perversion.

If this verse doesn't fit Andrew Sullivan, then it fits no one at all.

We should pray for him as we are commanded to pray for all of our enemies and ask God to take mercy on him.

26

Eric & Lisa-
Glad I'm not the only one up this late at night.

When I read your questions I become convinced that we are denominationally very far apart.

When I say that salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone I mean just that. Faith enters us as a gift of God (technically through the offices of the Holy Ghost, I believe). by faith we enter a state of grace by grace we are saved. We can be saved by no willfull act originating in our fallen selves, even our repentence from sin is a gift from God. Perhasp that explains why Lutherans place more emphasis on faith than on repentence.

"I wonder what you think of Naaman. Could he have had his leprosy cured by the Lord if he had refused to dip in the Jordan 7 times?"

The answer, of course, is that God could have cured him of leprosy anytime He wanted. He could have had Naaman walk around circles backward quacking like a duck if he thought it would best serve his plan for man's redemption.

"Let me ask you what I asked Joe in another thread. Would your congregation allow Prostitutes and Porn Stars to be members of your congregation and continue to work in their given professions and long as they proclaimed Terry's Creed?"

Of course. They probably need God's Church more than I do. Their sin cannot contaminate me, or rather, their sin does not effect the relationship that I and the others in the congregation have with God. If they claimed it was God's will that they were prostitutes or porn stars I'd have a problem with that.

27

Terry wrote;

Glad I'm not the only one up this late at night.

Yeah, slow night tonight. :)

The answer, of course, is that God could have cured him of leprosy anytime He wanted.

Of course He could have. But isn't it clear from the story that God wanted Naaman to dip in the river Jordan 7 times?

He could have had Naaman walk around circles backward quacking like a duck if he thought it would best serve his plan for man's redemption.

Exactly right. God could demand of Naaman anything He wanted. It isn't the water of the river Jordan that would cure Naaman, it is God.

So, given what we know, that God wanted Naaman to dip into the river Jordan 7 times to cure him of Leprosy, I have to ask. Could he have had his leprosy cured by the Lord if he had refused to dip in the Jordan 7 times?

The same is true for our salvation. God has told us what we need to do in order to receive it. Is there any use in our arguing or complaining about it?

I'm not saying that you are, only making the point that God makes the rules, we can choose to follow those rules or we can go our own way. My point is that if we choose to go our own way we decieve ourselves and/or others if we pretend to be Christians.

Of course. They probably need God's Church more than I do. Their sin cannot contaminate me, or rather, their sin does not effect the relationship that I and the others in the congregation have with God.

Terry, I have to say you are a better person than I am. Having a prostitute or a porn star sitting near me in Church would be an impossible situation for me. If they were attractive and unashamed of their choice (As is Andrew Sullivan let's not forget) then i'd have a difficult time concentrating on the worship service instead of my lusts.

If they claimed it was God's will that they were prostitutes or porn stars I'd have a problem with that.

I'm not sure I understand this in light of everything else you've stated.

Faith enters us as a gift of God (technically through the offices of the Holy Ghost, I believe). by faith we enter a state of grace by grace we are saved. We can be saved by no willfull act originating in our fallen selves, even our repentence from sin is a gift from God. Perhasp that explains why Lutherans place more emphasis on faith than on repentence.

I think this goes a long way to highlight our differences.

My position is that we have free will to choose to love God or to reject God. So I can see why we cannot agree on Andrew Sullivan.

It is a bit confusing to me though why you added in that one line;

If they claimed it was God's will that they were prostitutes or porn stars I'd have a problem with that.

Maybe it is God's will that they are prostitutes or porn stars. Coming from your perspective, I don't really know how you can say it's not.

I guess I mean to say that to be logically consistent if it is true one way, it must be true the other way also, right? So, if the following is true...

We can be saved by no willfull act originating in our fallen selves, even our repentence from sin is a gift from God.

Then it would also be true that we can be damned by no willfull act originating in our fallen selves.

Perhaps that is why I do not understand your last line about the porn stars and prostitutes.

28

Eric & Lisa-
Ah! Now we're getting down to the hard bits of lutheranism! I mean hard even for Lutherans to understand. I am not a theologian, but I believe that Luther taught that passively accepting the Holy Ghost was not a willfull act. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but I believe he used the metaphor of the sex act, with the soul playing the part of the woman and the Holy Ghost playing the part of the man. Luther was earthy that way.
I do remember reading a story once that a religious student, beset by depression at the thought that he could do nothing to ensure his own salvation, wrote Luther asking for advice. Luther responded to the young man that he should simply love God with all his heart and rejoice that he was saved. Sounds like good advice to me.

I do not think we are that far apart on the hookers in the congregation bit or about Sullivan. God loves us and does not want us to do anything to harm our souls. If by experience, knowledge, and prayer we believe that someone is harming their soul we should not approve of it. How far we should go to stop them is another matter.

In Sullivan's case I doubt that he would accept the truth of "Terry's creed". I think he would have once, but as time passed he despaired of a Catholic church that will call his sin a sacrament. So now he seeks to remove the divine origins of the Christian Church by refering to Christ as a role model and a capital fellow rather than as the Redeemer.

29

B: No Christian has ever told him Homosexual relations are wrong.

What you seem to be saying (And please correct me if i'm wrong on this) is the opposite of the passage of the Bible you've quoted. You seem to be saying that even though the Master has told his servant what to do, somehow that servant is still ignorant of the Masters will.

I'm assuming B is referring to me here. You are indeed wrong, no need to thank me for correcting you. Read what I wrote:

Anyway, here's another question. Jesus, to my knowledge, said nothing about gays directly but he did say that a man who divorces his wife and remarries committs the sin of bigamy. Should Joe, being a divorced person who has remarried, therefore not be considered a Christian despite his claims to the contrary?

1. I didn't state that no Christian had ever told me that homosexuality was wrong. Clearly there are plenty of Christians that say this and all you need is to have seen at least a few old Phil Donohue shows to have heard this at least once.

2. I did not state that the Bible does not say anything negative about homosexuality OR even that Jesus did not endorse such statements. I pointed out that Jesus didn't say anything directly about it. However he did say something directly about divorce.

3. As you may recall, this argument began over Joe calling Andrew Sullivan a fellow Christian. I asked a pointed question as to whether it is fit to call remarried divorced people Christians if they claim to be (such as Joe). By the Eric & Lisa standard Joe too should be denied such an indulgence since he hasn't given us any indication that he plans to leave his current 'wife' and return to his first one or live a life of chastity if that is not possible.

The wolf who puts on the clothing of sheep.

Even though this wasn't directed at Sullivan the important thing to remember about this idea is that the wolf knows exactly who he is and what he is trying to fool the sheep into thinking he is. I don't see how the gamer friend you are talking about is trying to fool anyone into thinking he is an orthodox Christian. Likewise, I don't see Sullivan trying to get people to believe that his beliefs about homosexuality are the same as orthodox Christians.

If this doesn't sound exactly like Andrew Sullivan, I do not know what would.

Well what's this? RO 1:21 says 'they' (wicked people) knew God but didn't glorify him or give thanks, and "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles"

Then "RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. "

Note how Eric & Lisa have been cutting and pasting this passage so much that they probably have forgotten what it actually says?

1. First wicked men worshipped images "made to look like mortal man and birds and animals..." instead of worshipping God.

2. As punishment God 'gave them over' to 'shameful lusts'. Even the women exchanged 'natural relations for unnatural ones'.

In other words, the author is talking about pagan worship here. While gloifying images of birds, animals and reptiles may seem offbeat to us two thousand years ago it was the majority culture. Are Eric & Lisa trying to tell us that Andrew Sullivan worshipped pagan images and then as a result or punishment God had him become gay?

Terry
I wanted my statement to show that even with Christianity reduced to only its fundamental tenets Andrew Sullivan doesn't qualify as a Christian. Sullivan has been cagey or inconsistent in describing just what he does and does not believe, but in general the more recent his remarks on Christ the more he praises Him as an exemplary role model, not as transcendent redeemer. I don't think you can call yourself Christian if you think of Christ as only a Jewish version of Ghandi.

This is a bit of an odd statement. Do you really read Sullivan that often? First you have to grant his primary profession is a writer on politics so much of his commentary on religion involves issues of public policy, politics etc. When he does talk about Christ he usually is talking about a supernatural beign...not simply a really nice guy.

Many of us who are Christians and not supportive of the religious right are not on the left either. In fact, we are opposed to any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?"

True he doesn't dealve directly into his beliefs all that much. Do a search on Jesus or Christ on his site and you'll find numerous entries that are emails or quotes from other people (and he doesn't always quote to endorse). Sullivan, over the years, has written far too much on the topic of theology and homosexuality to simply believe that Jesus was just some really wise man 2,000 years ago. I will grant you that I suspect he has big doubts about all aspects of religion but as Chesterton once pointed out big doubts always come with faith.

30

I would like to put a question to this group.

I an a born-again follower of Jesus Christ, fallen, but washed in the Blood.

I am married, and sworn to faithfulness to my wife.

I am also bisexual, i.e. I have to deal with temptation not only to other women, but men as well.

If I fell into temptation with another man, it would be sin, just as with a woman. However, I think I would find it much easier to be accepted back into the fold, upon repentance, were it with a woman.

So does this mean that I cannot be a "true believer?"

Thanks for the consideration,

Neil

31

Dear E & L,
Since the Bible quotes are flying around here's one for you to consider: 1Co 15:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures While we might discuss whether belief involves more than simple ascent to these statements being true and I personally believe that it takes a response to that knowledge beyond simply accepting it's veracity, Paul's statement seem clear.
Neil.
Drop all the window dressing from your question and it comes down to you're dealing with lust. Though I can identify more easily with St. Augustine, who said he still had trouble with lust regarding women in his eighties and you're probably right that most Christians would have more trouble dealing with your adultery if it was with a man rather than a women. You recognize that both are sin and with God you have the power to resist both and the promise of forgiveness if you fail. Paul set the standard for the church, If he refuses correction break fellowship and if he repents gently restore him.

32

Y'know, I read stuff like this thread, and I find myself falling to my knees and giving profound and heartfelt thanks to God that I am not a Christian.

All this dogma! "Demons believe in God..."

So, by my count, to be a Christian in good standing with all the rights and privileges according thereto, you have to believe in:

a. A divine Jesus
b. The enternal corruption of the human soul
c. Jesus' father, Yahweh
d. No mother figure, but a Holy Ghost
e. The infallacy of the Bible as literal truth
f. Miracles
g. Heaven
h. Hell
i. Angels
j. Demons
k. Sin
l. Resurrection

And that's just for starters. And you sound like some kind of high-school club in your chatter about Sully. Look, I personally cannot stand Andrew, not because he's gay, but because he is a poor writer and a shallow thinker. I am not interested in anything he has to say about anything. Remember, he used to be a huge fan of the Bush administration and was a real Iraq war hawk. Then he changed his mind. Sully shilly shallies.

That's reason enough to consider him roadkill. Who gives a damn what he "believes" about a. through l. above? That's all God-talk: unknowable, unprovable, untestable, hence by definition meaningless.

33

Eric & Lisa:

Well maybe some of those demons really ARE Christians.

What do you think about the possibility of a "Demons for Jesus" movement?

34

How to know one is a Christian? I can't believe these verses haven't been consulted in this thread (unless I missed it.) The Bible is fairly clear about this.
I know this would need to be fleshed out a bit, but here's a start.

1John2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

John13:34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Matthew 7:
20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who DOES THE WILL of my Father who is in heaven.

James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
(even if a faith alone adherent rejects the Catholic understanding of this verse, since in this discussion we're talking about how one knows someone is a Christian, then this verse must certainly apply for both Cath. and Prot. interpretations.)

And Matthew 25:31-46 the sheep and the goats.
As Keith Green says at the end of his song about the sheep and goats, "the only difference between the sheep and the goats, is what they did and didn't do."

Challies was talking about the 3 marks of a true church, preaching gospel, sacraments, and discipline, and then by extension applying those marks to a genuine believer if they attach themselves to such a church. The above is just a start, but those biblical markers above do not match up very well with Challies' list.

Unless you are a once-saved/always-saved adherent, then there is the possibility of different signs for final salvation than for "being a Christian", but I'll leave that for a later post.

35

Terry:
"If you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross for your sins, and was resurected after three days you are a Christian."

Eric & Lisa
This is demonstrably wrong. Even the Demons believe this and they shudder.

Seems like we can square this circle by adding two implied conditions:

1. The person who believes this is a human beign.
2. The person accepts this (meaning not only believes it but also sincerely believes its a good thing to be thankful for). Hence no Satan worshipper who believes the above but would rather be dammed anyway would be included.

Do that and you have a perfectly acceptable definition that works without a lot of complicated testing of dogma & doesn't let demons accidently slip into your brotherhood! Of course if we ever discover intelligent life off the earth I'm not sure if #1 will need to be expanded or not.

36

Neil wrote;

I am also bisexual, i.e. I have to deal with temptation not only to other women, but men as well.

If I fell into temptation with another man, it would be sin, just as with a woman. However, I think I would find it much easier to be accepted back into the fold, upon repentance, were it with a woman.

So does this mean that I cannot be a "true believer?"

We all struggle with sin and temptation.

If the above excluded you from being a true believer, then I think we would all be excluded from being true believers.

37

Boonton wrote;

I'm assuming B is referring to me here.

It was referring to Andrew Sullivan.

38

On the “believing demons”:

I believe what Eric & Lisa are (is? Is Eric and Lisa one or two people?) referring to is that which many Christians call head knowledge a.k.a. intellectual assent versus heart knowledge a.k.a. true saving faith.

It is one thing to know facts intellectually, and quite another to embrace those same facts and submit to them in one’s heart. Another way of saying it is “orthodoxy does not save.”

Look at the context of the verses in James:

James 2:18-20 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

James is talking about the difference in intellectual assent to facts and genuine saving faith. He says that if a person has saving faith, this is naturally going to result in righteous acts. A changed life is evidence of saving faith. That is not to say that we are saved by our works, but that works (righteous acts) flow from true faith in Christ. Obedience accompanies true faith.

Jewish orthodoxy was always centered in belief in the one true God, stated succinctly in the Shema: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" (Deut 6:4). Where most Jews fell short was in not obeying the following verse, which commands, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (v. 5).

James's point, as it were, is that belief in the truth of Deut 6:4 without obedience to 6:5 is a worthless kind of belief like that possessed by demons. As far as factual doctrine is concerned, demons are monotheists, all of whom know and believe there is one true God. They also are very much aware that Scripture is God's Word, that Jesus Christ is God's Son, that salvation is by grace through faith, that Jesus died, was buried, and raised to atone for the sins of the world, and that He ascended to heaven and is now seated at His Father's right hand. They know quite well that there is a literal heaven and a literal hell. They doubtless have a clearer knowledge of the millennium and its related truths than does even the most devoted Bible scholar. But all of that orthodox knowledge, divinely and eternally significant as it is, cannot save them. They know the truth about God, Christ, and the Spirit, but hate it and them.

Orthodox doctrine is immeasurably better than heresy, of course, for it is true and points toward God and the way of salvation. But mere assent to it as true cannot bring a person to God and to salvation. (from The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (c) Moody Press and John MacArthur, Jr., 1983-2002)

Why demons can never be saved (my opinion):

Demons are fallen angels who have been cast down from heaven after warring with God. Unlike humans, angels are in the presence of God in heaven and behold His full glory for the whole of their existence (unless of course, they are cast from God’s presence, or are on a mission). Angels do not need to be saved from hell, because they are already in heaven. At some point, however, the angel Satan led a rebellion of apostate angels against Michael the Archangel and the faithful angels.

The bottom line is, since the fallen angels (a.k.a. demons) beheld the full glory of God and heaven yet chose to rebel against the Lord, their choice has already been made. They can never return to the glory from whence they came. They are cast down forever.

Find more on this here: http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer19.htm

Saving faith is a miracle in one's heart. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reduce to a "formula." Basically though, it consists of the realization of the following:

1. That one is a sinner (we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God).

2. That our sin seperates us from God, and requires forgiveness.

3. We can never hope to measure up to God's standard, which is perfection.

4. Therefore we need the Saviour, Jesus Christ, to take our sin upon Himself (which He did upon the cross. He is the perfect sacrifice.).

5. Forgiveness of sin, and salvation lies in repentance, trusting Christ, and asking Him to save you. You can fall on your knees at any time, and ask Christ to save you. One does not have to be "in Church" to be saved.

There are other doctrinal elements that are important, but the first step is humbling oneself before the Lord, and asking for forgiveness and salvation. The doctrinal elements are revealed and embraced over time as one is discipled.

Remember, all the thief in the cross said was, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Heart knowledge trumps head knowledge.

39

"The bottom line is, since the fallen angels (a.k.a. demons) beheld the full glory of God and heaven yet chose to rebel against the Lord, their choice has already been made. They can never return to the glory from whence they came. They are cast down forever."

Why can't they change their mind? Why wouldn't God forgive his wayward creation, if they asked his forgiveness?

Before we get into this, we are operating on different premises. I believe that if God exist He (or She, or They, or It) is a Benevolent God. And a Benevolent God would not send anyone to Hell for Eternity for flunking his theology exam, that indeed he wouldn't send anyone to Hell for Eternity period (not even Hitler). Because all of man's sins are finite. And eternal punishment for finite sins is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime.

I have an fervent atheist friend, by the way, a prominent figure in gay rights activism (indeed, arguably father of gay rights activism), who chides me for this premise (thus, in a perverse way, gives support to your intellectual case).

He says, who are we to presumes God's benevolence? What proof is there for a benevolent as opposed to a malevolent God? And yes, He certainly thinks the God of the Bible (well, God in the Old Testament) is a malevolent God indeed.

40

"And eternal punishment for finite sins is a case of the punishment not fitting the crime."

Fruit once rotten can never make itself fresh. How long should a piece of spoiled fruit be kept out of the pantry? For eternity. Since the fruit can not comprehend its wretchedness, then the fruit will not comprehend how fitting the eternal separation is.

41

Why can't they change their mind? Why wouldn't God forgive his wayward creation, if they asked his forgiveness?

Perhaps their minds do not work like our minds do. Perhaps once they decide that's it, they don't go back and forth like humans. Perhaps they exist outside of time so their state as fallen or not represents a decision they already made covering all eternity.

42

Well written Jeff.

43

Y'know, it's amazing. Here you are, rational, intelligent adult human beings, yammering about demons and angels - beings you imagine in your minds and talk about as if they were real.

When your kids do that, you smile, and indulge their fantasies of make-believe friends. But when an adult does it, you phone a psychiatrist.

44

Hi, great site

45

Raven,

If you ask Americans whether they believe in heaven and hell, demons and angels, or God and Satan, you will get a "yes" answer on the order of 50%. Thus, by your analysis, roughly half of all Americans are delusional or mentally ill and require "treatment." And you people think the Right is dangerous?

Barna Research Group, October 8, 2002

(Ventura, CA) - Nine out of ten adults own at least one Bible and eight out of ten consider themselves to be Christian, but you'd never know it from the smorgasbord of religious beliefs professed by most people. A new nationwide survey conducted by the Barna Research Group indicates that a large share of the people who attend Protestant or Catholic churches have adopted beliefs that conflict with the teachings of the Bible and their church.

Adopting the Classics

There are some fundamental Christian precepts that most Americans have held on to. The new survey reveals that more than three-quarters of all adults adopt each of three classic Christian beliefs. For instance, the concept of the trinity - "God is one being in three separate and equal persons - God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit" - is deemed to be a reality by 79% of adults. Women are considerably more likely than men to accept the Trinity as real, by an 85% to 72% margin, but few members of either gender doubt its existence.

The idea that "every person has a soul that will live forever, either in God's presence or absence," is also embraced by 79% of American adults. Again, women are more likely than men to hold this view (82% of women compared to 72% of men).

The third perspective is that "the Bible can only be correctly interpreted by people who have years of intense training in theology." This argument, which goes back to the Protestant Reformation of several hundred years ago, was rejected by 76% of adults. The segments most likely to agree with this idea were African-Americans and Hispanics (24% of each group) and Catholics (22%). Even among those segments, however, less than one-quarter believes that accurate comprehension of the Bible is beyond the capacity of the average person.

Straying From the Text

In response to most of the other nine theological statements evaluated, a majority or large minority of Americans expressed points of view that conflict with the Bible. Three of those matters dealt with the nature of spiritual beings.

Six out of ten Americans (59%) reject the existence of Satan, indicating that the devil, or Satan, is merely a symbol of evil. Catholics are much more likely than Protestants to hold this view - 75% compared to 55% - although a majority of both groups concur that Satan is symbolic.

The rejection of Satan's existence seems to conflict with the fact that a slight majority (54%) also contends that, "a human being can be under the control or the influence of spiritual forces such as demons." People 57 or older were the group most likely to doubt Satan's existence (64%) and also emerged as those least likely to accept the notion of demonic influence (39%, compared to 55% among Baby Busters and 62% of Baby Boomers).

46

Hi, very interesting site

47

Neil, temptation is not sin. If it were we all are lost. Just because some people are more or less willing to accept repentance from certain sins doesn't make those sins more or less sinful, or ones repentance more or less efficacious.

Terry, the one problem I have with "Terry's creed" is that is vague on the definition of "believe". I find that belief is not just an intellectual exercise. If one's life is not affected in any way by believing something, or not, then I question the belief. God's word contains both James 2:14-26 and John 3:16-21. If one accepts a deeper definition of "believe" than just intellectual knowledge then I agree with your statement.

As an example, it seems to me that Eric&Lisa's gamer friend is kind of agnostic. He accepts that God (and Christ) exists but not that He has or should have any effect upon his life. Like the demons he knows, but does not believe.

God Bless.

48

Jon Rowe,

I believe that if God exist He (or She, or They, or It) is a Benevolent God.

Jon, I am going to focus on what I perceive to be a glaring error in your theology. God’s character consists of many traits. It is wrongheaded to focus on one trait to the exclusion of others.

First, we need to define terms. “Benevolence” is kind of broad and means different things to different people. The dictionary definition of benevolent is “Characterized by or suggestive of doing good.” On that score, I wholeheartedly agree with you that God is certainly characterized by doing good. But then, there is vast disagreement as to what constitutes “good” isn’t there? What you are really asserting is that God cannot be “good” and punish people for eternity at the same time. To some people the word benevolent might mean “showing love” or “kindness.”

Then there is the word “malevolent,” which may be defined as “showing ill will.”

To answer the questions about the character of God, scripture is the authoritative source. If you do not recognize scripture as authoritative and prefer instead to adhere to your own subjective opinions, then we will never agree and I do not see what good it is going to do to have a debate. For those who do consider scripture authoritative, however, I write on.

I ask you; Why may God not be both benevolent and malevolent? Does not the justness of God’s character depend on who or what He is benevolent or malevolent towards?

I could write pages on the character of God but space and time does not allow it, and you probably would not read it. In brief, God is said in scripture to have, or show the following characteristics:

Goodness, love, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, patience

These characteristics are what many people would describe as “benevolent.”

However, God also has, or shows the following characteristics, which some would describe as “malevolent”:

Justice, wrath, vengefulness, hatred, jealousy, holiness, designates some as enemies

Please note that our modern understanding of them taints some of these terms and requires additional study by referring to the original languages and context. My points in general, though, are accurate. Perhaps your friend has very good reason to believe that God is malevolent towards him. Why should your friend expect to nullify God’s commands with impunity? Despite your friend’s denials of the existence of God, he is actually at war with God.

Rom 8:7-8 Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. NASU

James 4:4
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. NIV

Luke 12:4-5
"I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! NASU

I stress that this is not the end of the story. It does not have to be this way. God’s wrath is there to lead us to repentance. Your friend may end his designation as “enemy combatant” at any time by “laying down his arms” and surrendering to the lordship of Christ.

On the justness of eternal punishment:

Jon, the objection you raise is a pat one. It suggests to me that you have been down this road before. My response will likely be different from most however, so here we go.

Why can't they [demons] change their mind? Why wouldn't God forgive his wayward creation, if they asked his forgiveness?

Your argument is based on a pure hypothetical, which does us no good. It is rather like the question, “What if a bullfrog had wings?” A bullfrog does not and never will have wings so to argue the premise is ridiculous. I turn the question around:

“If demons are eternally unrepentant and rebellious towards God, is He not just in subjecting them to eternal punishment?”

We have every reason to assume that is the case. Satan and his demons are evil. Every act that they commit has the goal of the destruction of God or his people.

Moreover, the Bible suggests that the same is true of the wicked people who will inherit hell:

Rev 9:20-21 20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood — idols that cannot see or hear or walk. 21 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts. NIV

Rev 16:9
9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him. NIV

Rev 16:10-11
10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony
11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done. NIV

John 3:19-21
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
20 Everyone who does evil hates the light , and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light , so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
NIV

The above scriptures refer to the wrath of God poured out on the earth as prophesied in the book of Revelation. The people in the text are not in hell yet, but how much more will they curse God once they are? They will refuse to repent for eternity, thus it is completely just to sentence them for eternity.

Bottom line: Those who reject God in this life are beyond persuasion in the next.

Note that many people today reject God on the basis of “proof.” They must have absolute proof of His existence (or his character, etc.) they say, or they will never worship him. This is a straw man. When God finally does choose to physically appear these same people will still curse Him and refuse to repent.

Jesus himself addresses this very issue:

Luke 16:27-31 "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him [Lazarus] to my father's house — for I have five brothers — in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

"But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'

"But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'

"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'" NASU

All punishment is not the same

On a side note, I think many have the mistaken belief that the punishment in hell is “one size fits all.” I do not believe that is the case. The punishment in hell will fit the crime(s) and even then will (I believe) be tempered with mercy because that is God’ character. Nonetheless, hell will be a place of suffering and separation from God for all.

Luke 12:47-48
47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. NIV

49

Jeff B:

It is very telling that you would assert the correctness of your ideas by citing survey results. Y'know, the fact that 59% of Americans believe that angels exist or whatnot is all very interesting, but it only tells me something about my fellow Americans - it tells me nothing of angels or demons or the trinity. It does very strongly indicate that, as I've long suspected, most people are idiots.

But OK, let's buy into this a second and go even further: Let's say that 99% of people believe in something they call a "God." That wouldn't turn me into a believer. There is no argument from numbers when:

a. There is no deep booming voice in my head - this God fellow (or Jesus) doesn't talk to me.

b. Plants and animals don't suddenly wink out of existence, nor do they appear spontaneously in front of me.

c. The laws of physics, the findings of scientific disciplines like biology and chemistry, and the personal observations I've made as a result of studying various religions, particularly Eastern doctrines, uniformly indicate that this universe is exactly identical with and behaves in every respect like one in which there is no such thing as God.

So I've got both evidence, of a direct and experiential nature, and the carefully tested and replicable observations of others for believing what I believe. Then I look at your side of the picture. No evidence, nothing verifiable, no possible reason to believe you are correct other than the assertion that you make.

To be fair, I've made an assertion above; to whit: I don't hear voices in my head telling me things like, "Don't cheat on your wife or "That sock you're missing is under the bed." (The last one, especially, I'd find rather convincing.)

So I'm asking you to believe me when I say that the voice of a divine being has never manifested itself to me. Yet that's the kind of claim that is reasonable, much as if you told me that you own a Dodge Durango. I have no reason to disbelieve you, and your statement is not exceptional - it accords with what is probable. That's different from this:

"For instance, the concept of the trinity - 'God is one being in three separate and equal persons - God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit' - is deemed to be a reality by 79% of adults."

First, to be meaningful, the term "God" as used above should be clarified. Do you think all 79% mean the same thing when they say "God"? I doubt any two people on this Website agree on that. But let's say there is a God. Why should we think it tripartite? A Transcendentalist approach, for example, would suggest I go for a long walk in the woods and experience the oneness of everything - all life, interconnected - and try to perceive the existence of God in a direct and visceral manner. And let's suppose that I do, in fact, have such an experience and perceive the presence of God in me and throughout me and throughout all of creation. Why should I also believe that this spirit is tripartite?

The only reason that comes to me is that people like you simply assert that this is so. There is no personal or objective experience you can relate to me to clarify this. You can only say, "Because I claim this is so." This is very weak reasoning, and of a par with "I believe in faeries," and "I believe in UFOs." These are supernatural claims, held in spite of all reason and evidence to the contrary, because the emotional attachment to the belief surpasses your requirement for logic and falsifiability. My requirements are far more rigorous, so I can only lend your ideas the credence I extend to those who make similar, unsupportable claims.

I'm not dumbfounded, however, because I can speculate reasonably on what must be happening for this to occur. First, according to the statistics you posted above, somebody was taking religious surveys. I haven't the slightest doubt that if I were to run around my local mall with a clipboard and come up to people and ask them flat-out, "Do you believe in God"? that most of them - a huge majority - would say "yes." That's culturally expected.

And if you then asked them, "What is God?" you'd get a zillion different answers. But if you asked, "Do you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?" then they'd still likely nod their heads - and why not? They've heard this a million times in their lives. But that doesn't get us very far if you then ask these people, "And what, in your opinion, is the Holy Ghost?" Betcha you'd get lots of different ideas there.

No, I don't think most people think about religion very much.

Second, I claim that most people argue with their spouse, get dressed, go to church, sit in the pew and think about gassing up the SUV and what to do about Bob being late with his invoices and... oh! Sermon's over. Time to get lunch. I claim most people take religion exactly that seriously because they are expected to do it and because it affords for easier social networking. Easier to get a loan when you go to the same freaking stupid Baptist church that the president of AmSouth goes attends. Islam is probably similar.

Is your Holy Man - whether priest or pastor or minister - truly holy? Does he appear to possess an understanding of reality that you lack and that you hope he will impart to you? Or is he just another poor dumb schmuck thrashing his way from guilt to sex to a few quiet moments of relief from the strains of being a mortal creature?

I have met such people I believe to be highly spiritual, but they're never Christians, and so I am forced to assume that 50% of Americans are gullible enough to force themselves through the pantomime of acting as if they believe in a deity figure. Given an easy spot to bail out, I bet most of 'em would gladly stop going to church and start really meditating and living lives of reason and rationality. And that leaves the hardcore bunch who really get off on the Jesus thing. Them, I put in the same camp with the Moonies and the Mormons and the other crazed cultists.

50

Raven,

It is very telling that you would assert the correctness of your ideas by citing survey results.

That a patently false assertion. Survey results have nothing to do with "the correctness of my ideas", and I did not use said survey results to bolster anything I have said. I simply pointed out that many "rational people" can, and do, talk about God, angels and demons and should not be considered in need of a psychiatrist.

Your rant wouldn’t be so disturbing if leftists didn’t take such ideas so literally.

The point of the citing the quote has nothing whatsoever to do with “proving the existence of God.” The topic of this thread is not about whether or not God exists and I do not intend to get into an extended discussion with you about it; you have obviously made up your mind. This is an evangelical Christian blog, so it should hardly be surprising that we discuss such things here. Sorry if you find our discussions so offensive. Why punish yourself so?

51

Jeff,

I'm not going to get into the whole fairness issue further, even though I could debate this for days. You are right -- at bottom -- we share different premises and I don't hold Scripture to be authoritative.

Rather, let me make a passing aside on your stats, particularly, this passage:

There are some fundamental Christian precepts that most Americans have held on to. The new survey reveals that more than three-quarters of all adults adopt each of three classic Christian beliefs.

Your figures are interesting, but don't tell the whole story. (An aside to the aside, this is something I've noticed as I've meticulously researched the Founders' religious beliefs. Each side loves to tell one side of the story and ignore the facts of the other side. For instance, religious conservatives who try to debunk the notion that our Founders were "Deists" will point to the so called "Deists" like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Washington invoking an interventionist God, or will reference their Church membership. But they then ignore their utterances which absolutely contradict orthodox Christianity, or other relevant facts which point in that direction.)

In fact, I would argue that based on statistics, the dominant creed in America, or at least among younger Americans, is not only not orthodox Christian, but much closer to the position for which I argue. Note that this study looks at younger people. I haven't studied the stats in detail; is it true that as people age they tend to become more orthodox in their beliefs?

What I will reproduce seems to be a much simpler creed than orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, which, to me seems rather convoluted in its doctrines.

Perhaps this creed is wrong; but perhaps it is right. Remember what Jesus said about becoming like a little child.

See this article noted on many Christian cites, which describes the dominant American religious creed.

When Christian Smith and his fellow researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took a close look at the religious beliefs held by American teenagers, they found that the faith held and described by most adolescents came down to something the researchers identified as "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."

As described by Smith and his team, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these: 1. "A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth." 2. "God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions." 3. "The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself." 4. "God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem." 5. "Good people go to heaven when they die."

52

"The point of the citing the quote has nothing whatsoever to do with “proving the existence of God.”

Hey, if you're busy 'n' stuff, totally understandable. Talk when you have time. I'm just sayin,' you go on about demons and stuff, people are going to question your sanity.