“The greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians. Who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. This is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” -Brennan Manning
This morning I entered the above quote as my Facebook status. There have been many comments made. Below are a few.
“Bob” “how very true, but honostly can we change that? Before I became a christian I called myself a christian. Can you force a non-christian to realize what he is? Realizing the problem is only half the battle. We need to figure out how to counter it.”
Me “I see what your saying. I was the same way. How do you suggest we counter it?”
“Jill” I suggest we conter it with living a Christian lifestyle that seperates us from the “christians” who have an emptiness behind the word. Being the real thing, is the only way to fight the deceit in the world. Be real, and the fakes will notice, the non Christians already notice.
Me “I agree; live like a Christian because….well, you are one. I suppose that is what this quote is talking about more so. I think it would be better suited to replace “Christians” with “Christendom” (which is Christianity as a social group rather than a way of life). I think that fault should also be placed on the preachers. We have went through a … Read More long period of associating salvation with an event (alter-call, sinners prayer) rather than daily faith and repentance (which is what the Bible teaches). We must reexamine the way we preach Biblical faith and repentance. There is also another movement at fault which has always taught that all you have to do is “believe.” Sounds harmless, but in reality there are thousands walking around our country who think that they are okay because they “believed” onetime. As Pastor Mike Glenn (of Brentwood Baptist, Nashville ) once said, “belief without change is not true Biblical belief.” If we believe that God regenerates us, makes us new in spirit, then there is no choice but change.”
So what do you think?
I’m not asking what you think of Brennan Manning (I have my own opinions), I’m asking what you think about his comment and about the comments of those from Facebook. Do you believe that he is correct in saying this? What is your understanding of American Christianity? Do you think that everything is fine? Do you think that things are getting better? Let’s talk about this issue. It is close to my heart.
This is a quote from John Calvin in his book Bondage and Liberation of the Will. I want to know what you think about it. Is this a true statement? Is he a little bit off? Are you Arminian and agree or Calvinist and disagree?
“…we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man’s innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined.” John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70
Yesterday I was approached by a Bible College freshman who told me of a recent encounter with an “evangelical pastor” in his home area.I will call this student Bill.Bill was the guest preacher at a rural church in the Southeastern U.S. when he preached a message from John chapter one (John 1:1-5; 14-18).A typical main point while preaching or teaching on this passage, for any evangelical Christian, would be to explain the divine nature of Jesus Christ and His Trinitarian relationship with the Father (and Holy Spirit).So that is what Bill did.He preached on one of the key fundamentals of the Holy Scripture.
After Bill had finished preaching the message, and the congregation had cleared out, the pastor of the church pulled him aside asking for ten to fifteen minutes of his time.Bill agreed.The pastor proceeded to tell Bill that his message was not Biblical.He told him that Jesus was not God but the Son of God only.There was no human and divine nature, only human.He then continued by giving my friend Bill passage after passage of “proof texts.”He then continued by telling Bill that he shouldn’t listen to his professors at Bible College.“They will lead you astray,” he said.
This view is not new to church history:
This view has never been accepted by the orthodox/conservative/evangelical church, not in 2,000 years! This pastor’s view seems very similar to either the Ebionite (2nd century A.D.) or the Arian view which was denied by the council of Nicea in the year 325 A.D.The Ebionites were Jews who taught that Jesus could not be divine because this “contradicted” their monotheistic theology.Arius taught that Jesus was like substance with the Father rather than same substance; which could, at the most, make him the only begotten Son but not God in the flesh.
Passages which refute this position:
There is no doubt that I believe these views to be Biblically inaccurate, for there are many scripture passages which refute their claims (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; Philippians 2:5-7; 1 Corinthians 4:4; and others).
My Question:
My question is this: what should be done about this pastor?Whether he realizes it or not he is a heretic.Why? Well, because he is preaching and teaching heresy.Not only that but he is inviting Bible College students (mostly freshman and sophomores) to preach at his church with the apparent purpose of making proselytes.Oh, I must also mention that this pastor has told several students that he thinks Bible Colleges teaching false doctrine.So what should be done? Should we allow him to stay inside of this conservative evangelical denomination? Should we approach him with sternis or with a passive attitude?
Like many other Americans, I grew up playing sports from a young age. Baseball, football, basketball, golf, track—you name it—and there is a good chance I’ve given it a try. After becoming a Christian, I had the privilege of playing basketball and baseball for Free Will Baptist Bible College while I was working toward my Bachelor degree; but recently I have noticed a disturbing trend among Christians playing sports, whether it is ping-pong, basketball or even video games. The trend is that for many Christians it seems the sporting activity they play is in reality hurting their walk with the Lord.
Sports Can Be Beneficial
Like so many things, sports are not inherently good or evil. For instance, sex is a wonderful gift from God when practiced in the confines of marriage, but it is a horrible sin outside of marriage. Likewise, sports when played in a God-honoring way are good, but not when played as a means to hurt, to intimidate, or promote selfish gratification.
The Scriptures tell us to do all for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31) and without doubt this means sports as well. Again, the Scriptures tell us that bodily discipline is only of little profit when compared to godliness (1 Tim. 4:8). We readily acknowledge this. But it is still true that bodily exercise still profits some.
As Christians, when we play sports our actions should glorify God. Sports should be a time of relaxation, a time of enjoyment, a time for physical satisfaction, and even at times fellowship. Our attitude when playing should always be Christ-honoring.
If we participate in sports with unbelievers, they should be able to tell there is something different about us. We don’t get furious or use foul language when things don’t go our way. We show good sportsmanship and are gracious as winners as well as losers. It’s okay to joke, to have a good time, to poke fun at someone, if it is done in a playful spirit. There is also nothing wrong with showing desire, competitiveness, and joy when playing. That’s only natural and normal. Sports can and should be God-honoring and enjoyable to us.
Sports Can Hurt Our Christian Walk
But for many Christians, this is not how sports are being played. Sports often bring out the very sins we should be trying to eliminate—pride, anger, boasting, envy, bitterness, and idolatry are often associated with our activities. The golfer who misses an easy putt and lashes out in anger; the basketball player who curses under his breath at a call he felt was wrong; the person who watches so much sports that it becomes an idol to him. These are a few examples that many of us know all to well. And the sad fact is that many Christians say nothing about it, and some even promote these actions to an extent.
A former basketball player reminisces about how practice was slow until a fight broke out between two players, and now even encourages it to motivate the team. Is this the Christian way? A player thinks he is unbeatable and carries a swagger that reminds everyone of this fact. He says it is confidence, but often it is nothing more than selfish pride.
We must be careful, lest we promote attitudes and actions that the Scripture forbids. Once again, it is okay to try hard in sports and be competitive, but there is a point where playing hard stops, where competitiveness stops, and sin begins.
Parents may say that their children will play sports no matter what, because sports build character. But if that was always true, then our professional athletes should be the most well respected citizens in our country because of their behavior. We know that is not always the case. How many of us can bring up from memory the latest stat, score, and sports update, but are unable to quote and explain some of the most well known teachings of the Bible? How many parents are teaching their children the sports they love, while never thinking of their children’s souls that could be heading for Hell?
A Better Way
Sports can and should be enjoyed. They should be played for the glory of God, and in a Christ-like spirit. But if we cannot play sports in a way that would please God, then we must not play. The questions we should ask ourselves about the sports we play, as well as everything we do in life, are these: Is God glorified and pleased with the way I play? Is this hurting my spiritual life?
If we cannot participate in sports in a way that glorifies and honors God, then we must stop playing, at least until we can play in the right way. Someone when reading this may say, “But sports will never be the same if we play them in this way.” Exactly.
What does it mean to be an Evangelical? You may think that you know, just as at one time I thought that I knew. We can no longer separate ourselves by simply saying, “I am an Evangelical.” Rather we must have a greater clarification of the term. There are several evangelical leaders today who are believing and teaching what is in no doubt a false doctrine. This doctrine is Inclusivism.
What Inclusivism should Mean
to an
Evangelical Exclusivist
Most people understand the meaning of “a wolf in sheep clothing,” when it is mentioned. This is an analogy of something that appears to be harmless and ordinary on the outside, but on the inside is dangerous and primed to devour all prey that is in site. In respect to the Christian church there is nothing else that could fit this description any better than what theologians call inclusivism. Inclusivism teaches that “[T]he un-evangelized are saved or lost on the basis of their commitment, or lack thereof, to the God who saves through the work of Jesus… appropriation of salvific grace is mediated through general revelation and God’s providential working in human history… Inclusivists affirm the particularity and finality of salvation only in Christ but deny that knowledge of his work is necessary for salvation (no one would be saved without it) but not epistemologically necessary (one need not be aware of the work in order to benefit from it).” Though inclusivism is not a popular subject with the average laymen, nor even among pastors, for that matter, it does not change how dangerous this belief is. It is certain that one of the reasons why inclusivism proves dangerous is because it is not being talked about among pastors nor laypeople.
Before discussing what inclusivism is, it is necessary to discuss what it is not. Inclusivism is not pluralism nor is it universalism. Pluralism teaches that all religious faiths lead to the same God; each religion has its own unique means of getting to God. All religions are equal or “all roads lead to Rome.” Universalism teaches that all people of earth from all of history are saved because they are under the atoning work of Jesus Christ. His blood has covered the sins of the world, or to say, all of humanity will be saved because of his sacrifice. There of course are many variances within pluralism and universalism, but those religious views are not the main focus of this article. Inclusivists are more like a hybrid between exclusivism and pluralism “…that preserves the most important insights of the other two views. Inclusivists agree with pluralists that God’s salvation is not restricted to the relatively few people who hear the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ. Inclusivists agree with exclusivists that God’s universally accessible salvation is nonetheless grounded on the person of Jesus Christ and his redemptive work.” While the first part of that quote is an easy “red-flag” the second part seems rather orthodox, but is it?
The foundation for all inclusivist theology is what they call “the two axioms,” meaning the two accepted propositions. The first of these is “the particularity axiom.” This “axiom” insists that it is of absolute importance that Christians hold fast on the finality of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation. “This belief about the finality of Jesus must not be watered down,” inclusivists insist. The second of these is “the universality axiom.” This “axiom” insists that God intends his salvation to be available to all humans (1Tim. 2:4; Titus 2:11). The “universality axiom” “does entail the inclusivist’s belief that ‘There is a wonderful broadness in the apparent narrowness of the Christian confession.”’ In summery: “The ‘universality axiom’ expresses their belief that God must make salvation available to all human beings, including everyone who lived before Christ outside the sphere of Jewish influence, and everyone since Christ who has lived without hearing about the gospel.” From an Arminian these two axioms seem to be fundamental and scripturally accurate; however, just like a wolf in sheep’s clothing things are not always as they seem. What should be seen as a “red-flag” within these axioms is the phrase “broadness in the apparent narrowness of the Christian confession.” When an inclusivist says broadness or wideness in God’s grace or mercy what they are truly speaking of is God’s willingness to except non-believers as “believers”, merely because of their good intentions. There is no better description of this than the one given by the highly influential Roman Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner (1904-1984). Rahner is probably most well known for the term “anonymous Christian.” Rainer believed that God’s offer of grace is mediated through the non-Christian religions. ‘Christianity,’ Rahner argues, ‘does not simply confront the member of an extra-Christian religion as a mere non-Christian but as someone who can and must already be regarded in this or that respect as an anonymous Christian. It would be wrong to regard the pagan as someone who has not yet been touched in any way by God’s grace and truth.” This doctrine of the “anonymous Christian” is what is being spoken of when Billy Graham made the claim that sincere Hindus, Buddhist, and Muslims “will be in heaven with us.” One inclusivist by the name of Clark Pinnock makes a statement regarding Buddhism, “We must not conclude, just because we know a person to be a Buddhist, that his or her heart is not seeking God… What God really cares about is faith and not theology, trust and not orthodoxy.” These comments are the true meaning behind the two axioms. Once a person has a decent understanding of inclusivism it is easy to read past the jargon of the sheep clothing only to reveal a wolf.
A large part of inclusivism’s charm is how it responds to the problem of dealing with the billions of people who have died over thousands of years of human history without ever hearing the Gospel. Inclusivists insist that all people must have a chance to be saved. Inclusivist John Hick comments, “God’s forgiveness and acceptance of humanity have been made possible by Christ’s death, but… the benefits of this sacrifice are not confined to those who respond to it with an explicit act of faith.”
One might wonder, “how is it possible for a person to be saved if they have never heard the Gospel?” The inclusivists have an answer for that as well: The inclusivists’ theology on salvation is that salvation need not be obtained through special revelation only, but salvation can also come through general revelation. The widely admired evangelical theologian John Stott made this statement about general revelation,
What we do not know, however, is exactly how much knowledge and understanding of the gospel people need before they can cry to God for mercy and be saved. In the Old Testament, people were certainly ‘justified by grace through faith,’ even though they had little knowledge or expectation of Christ. Perhaps there are others today in a somewhat similar position. They know they are sinful and guilty before God, and that they cannot do anything to win his favor, so in self-despair they call upon the God they dimly perceive to save them. If God does save such, as many evangelicals tentatively believe, their salvation is still only by grace, only through Christ, only by faith.
It seems Stott is implying that general revelation may be sufficient to bring people to salvation. How could a person say such a thing? Where in scripture is this backed? Where is it refuted? It is wise to first look at the definitions of general and special revelation. Ronald Nash’ definition of special revelation is: “the unique disclosures that God made to such people as Abraham, Moses, and Paul. This kind of revelation is ‘special’ because God gave it to particular people at particular times and places. This revelation also has a special function, namely, to bring human beings to a saving relationship with the triune God… Special revelation that is accessible has been preserved, recorded, and inscripturated in the Bible… our access to that important information is limited to what has been preserved in Scripture.” His definition of general revelation is, “revelation that God makes available to all human beings. Psalm 19 tells that ‘the heavens declare the glory of God.’ The last half of Romans 1 reports that humans can come to know certain things about the Creator God through his creation. General revelation also gives humans general moral understanding so that certain kinds of conduct are known to be wrong.”
Often times an inclusivist will refer to Abraham when speaking of the “wideness in God’s mercy.” Why is that? It is because Abraham was one who was in a land of idol worship. There was not a human messenger who was sent to Abraham. There was not a Bible for him to read. But the Bible still says that “Abraham had faith and it was counted to him as righteousness.” There is one very big difference between Abraham and the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and the pagan “anonymous Christian.” We know for certain that after (if not before) Abraham received the revelation from God he did not worship idols. Abraham had to have understood the serious consequences of idol worship. He had to have known that there was only one true God who had a plan of redemption set in place for humanity. The scripture makes it clear that general revelation is that which has the ability to reveal God’s sovereignty and holiness but not his plan of redemption; general revelation is what reveals to man that there is a God in Heaven and that He does have moral expectations of us and that those under the law are condemned by it. This is what Romans chapters one through three say about it. Chapter one verse 18-20, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. Since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Chapter 2:14-16, “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”
It seems that inclusivism suffers a lack of mans understanding that he cannot understand the ways of God. For example, Clark Pinnock summarizes: “If God really loves the whole world and desires everyone to be saved, it follows logically that everyone must have access to salvation.” Lutheran Theologian Marc Mueller has described Pinnock’s inclusivism as a “romantic project” that fails to reflect “a truly biblical understanding of the awesomeness of God’s sovereignty over history, the nations and the world of men.” J.I. Packer believes “inclusivists are more influenced by the ‘American idea of fairness’ than by anything they have learned in Scripture.”
The single most important defense for what I call “the consciously exclusive position” for salvation is every passage of Scripture that speaks of faith coming by hearing, and that it is necessary for the new Christian to confess the name of Jesus. Beginning even in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:16-18) Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12) Also, if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’…Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ (Romans 10:9-15, 17). It is obvious through these passages that we must make a conscience commitment when following Christ. One cannot make a commitment only to return to worshiping idols.
John Sanders, an inclusivist, “cites statistics from a 1975 InterVarsity conference at the University of Illinois at Urbana that suggests that as many as 25 percent of people active in Christian service at that time held to some variant of inclusivism.” On the subject of the number of inclusivists in evangelicalism Ronald Nash says, “My own observation of evangelical leaders in places of denominational or missions leadership, along with professors at mainstream evangelical colleges and seminaries points to a number higher than 50 percent. Among college and seminary professors in my own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, the number would be even higher.” If you think that inclusivism is a trend that is passing away, you must think again. Instead of it passing away it is gaining momentum. Just like in the enlightenment period, portions of the Christian church are running scared because they think Christianity is becoming obsolete. During the enlightenment period it was modernism, now it is post-modernism. The church is once again running scared because a good number do not trust that God is sovereign. Inclusivist thinking is invading our churches right under our noses. It is no longer enough to say that we believe Jesus is the exclusive way to heaven; but we must clarify by saying, “one must consciously believe that Jesus is the exclusive way to heaven.” This is the message that must be proclaimed in this new era of doctrinal babble.
Bibliography
Edwards, David L. and John Stott. Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1988.
Graham, Billy and Robert Schuler, Video, multimedia, Youtube.com. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE; accessed 1st of December 2008; Internet.
Hick, John. “A Philosophy of Religious Pluralism,” in The Worlds Religious Traditions: Current Prespectives in Religious Studies. Essays in Honour of Wilfred Cantwell Smith, ed. F. Whaling. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984.
Morgan, Christopher and Robert Peterson, Faith Comes by Hearing. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.
Nash, Ronald. Is Jesus the Only Savior?. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Pinnock, Clark. A Wideness in God’s Mercy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Sanders, John No Other Name. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
salvation (no one would be saved without it) but not epistemologically necessary (one need not be aware of the work in order to benefit from it).” Though inclusivism is not a popular subject with the average laymen, nor even among pastors, for that matter, it does not change how dangerous this belief is. It is certain that one of the reasons why inclusivism proves dangerous is because it is not being talked about among pastors nor laypeople.