Category Archives: Theological Issues

Posts on theological issues not in other categories

Further Comments on Revival Evangelicalism

Posted on by
Reply

Thank you to Sam and Tim for your comments on my posting Am I a Revival Evangelical? I started to respond in a further comment, but decided that this would work best as a new posting.

Sam, the post for which you gave me a link certainly helps me to understand where you are coming from. My own experience has been somewhat different, coming through what you would call fundamentalism, e.g. the Christian Union at the other university ;-). I have not rejected this while seeing it transformed by an understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit which includes some of the kind of mysticism which you have experienced. And then following that I studied theology, worked for ten years on the mission field, and came home spiritually dry. Especially in the last year I have come back towards that close relationship with God which is at the heart of mysticism, although I know that I still have a long way to go. At some time I hope to post more about this here.

I too am deeply suspicious of too much emphasis on decisions. While on the mission field I did some work with a church whose idea of evangelism was to speak to people on the streets about Christ – so far so good – and then to encourage them to make an immediate decision to become a Christian. In that situation, quite a lot of people were prepared to do that, for example to say the prayer they were presented with. They were also invited to the church and attempts were made to follow them up, but these were often fruitless. But it was the teaching of this church that these people were saved eternally because they had once prayed that prayer. I don’t entirely reject that teaching. But I do have serious doubts about this as a proper evangelistic strategy. And for similar reasons I would not support “revival meeting” style evangelism, detached from a local church, without proper follow-up arrangements. But then at least here in Britain that is not common. When I was a counsellor for a Billy Graham mission some years ago we were all taught how important it was to get proper follow up details for anyone who came forward. I am sure that most responsible evangelists continue to do this.

So, Sam, I would agree with the following from your posting on evangelism, even though I would not completely accept the parts of this paragraph which I omit.

I believe that it means allowing God space to work his grace in our lives and in the lives of those whom we care for. There is a particular neurosis attached to Revival evangelicalism whereby the gospel becomes a burden not a liberation – which is odd, for Christ set us free for freedom. … Our calling is to be faithful, to dwell in grace, and to give thanks.

I would also agree with Tim and I think Sam that Sunday worship ought to be for Christians and not turned into an evangelistic event. So I would not endorse the strategies of certain American mega-churches which do just that. However, surely if for one reason or another a significant number of non-Christians turn up to a Sunday worship service, it is surely proper to present them with the basics of the Gospel. And, where much of the congregation is made up of people who consider themselves Christians but do not seem to be making progress in the Christian faith, surely it is a good thing to challenge such people in the context of the service and encourage them to do what they should do as Christians.

But then, if Sunday worship is not to be evangelistic, and the church is to do the work of evangelism, and this is to be a corporate rather than an individual activity, then surely evangelism must take place in some kind of meeting rather like those which Finney pioneered, as described in the article which Sam quoted:

the “evangelistic meeting” that takes place apart from the normal preaching and sacramental ministry of the local church.

So, Sam, if you don’t like evangelism being done in Sunday worship, and you apparently don’t like special evangelistic meetings, how do you think the church ought to reach those who need to hear the Christian message?

I don’t mean here to suggest a normative evangelistic strategy, only to get away from any ideas that certain strategies are invalid. For surely it is for each church to decide its own strategy, within the rather broad limits of what is considered orthodox Christianity as presented in the Bible.

Meanwhile I am glad that Sam is distancing himself from the doctrine of double predestination, which I consider immoral as well as unbiblical. I clearly didn’t understand Sam’s meaning at this point. I agree that human will and decision should not be exalted as a work of righteousness. There is a fine line to be drawn here, but we are not at all far apart.

I would also like to define “revival” in a very different way, not as human evangelistic enterprise but as a move of the Holy Spirit. But that is a subject for another posting, and another time. So I will leave this one for now.

Am I a "Revival Evangelical"?

Posted on by
Reply

I am glad to have found in Rev Sam another Anglican blogger from Essex, and from my own diocese of Chelmsford. I found him because his Free Essex campaign was commented on in Canada.

Geographically, Sam is from Mersea Island, which is about 20 miles away from my home in Chelmsford. In terms of churchmanship, he as an Anglo-Catholic priest and I might seem to be at opposite ends of the Church of England – although in many ways I feel closer to Anglo-Catholics than I do to middle-of-the-road liberals.

Sam has written some interesting thoughts about evangelism, which set me thinking. Am I in fact an exponent of what he calls revival evangelicalism, for which he shows little sympathy?

Let me first say that I accept the principle of sola gratia, “only by grace”. After all, that is what the Bible clearly teaches:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (TNIV©)

But I do not accept the Augustinian formulation of that principle (also accepted by Calvinists) in terms of God’s grace being irresistible; rather, God gives us free will to accept or reject his calling, for he wants us to make a free decision to follow his ways:

9 Do not be like the horse or the mule,
which have no understanding
but must be controlled by bit and bridle
or they will not come to you.

Psalm 32:9 (TNIV©)

Perhaps in Sam’s eyes saying this is enough to put me into the revival evangelical camp. If so, so be it. But my view is characteristic by no means only of American evangelicalism, but also of the great majority of British Christianity probably right back to the time of Pelagius, Augustine’s British (or Irish) opponent in the 4th-5th centuries (who was probably “semi-Pelagian”, Sam’s Option 2, rather than “Pelagian”, Option 1). My view also seems to have been that of the early church, as argued for example by Roger Forster and Paul Marston in the appendix to God’s Strategy in Human History.

Meanwhile I am puzzled by Sam’s criticism of what he calls decisional regeneration, the teaching that

the decision of the believer is the key step in salvation,

for he also writes

it is the confession that Jesus is Lord which makes someone a Christian.

The only real difference between Sam’s position and the one he rejects seems to be whether it is necessary to express one’s decision with a verbal confession. In fact the Bible clearly teaches that both a decision in the heart and a confession with the mouth are required:

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9 (TNIV©)

In fact Sam’s problem with decisional regeneration seems to be with whether it is right to take any steps which might encourage other people to believe and make a confession of faith. Now I can understand why Sam does not like some of the methods used by modern evangelists to persuade people to make decisions; some of them certainly go beyond Christian propriety. On the other hand, some churches, including Anglo-Catholic ones, must be erring in the opposite direction, in that their activities seem to have the effect of discouraging outsiders from coming to the point where they confess Jesus as Lord. So perhaps the real issue here is what kind of steps are acceptable to encourage people to believe.

At this point Sam makes four criticisms of revival evangelicalism, concerning worship, evangelism, church and world.

On worship, I agree with the “Reformed” position, as expounded by Sam, that preaching and the sacraments should be central to Christian worship, and that pressure for decisions should be not be – which does not imply that it is wrong to invite people to make a decision to believe and a confession of faith.

I also agree with the “Reformed” position that Scripture and the gospel should be central to evangelism, but in addition I would point out Paul the apostle’s example to us of being careful to use means which are effective with our target audiences:

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

I also agree with the “Reformed” position that salvation is not just an individual matter, but the church is a necessary part of the Christian life.

And I am puzzled by Sam’s comments about the world, but agree with the “Reformed” position that

growth in faith is tied in with growth in good works, which are seen as the fruit.

Does this make me a Reformed evangelical, or at least an evangelical who is acceptable to Sam? I hope at least that he can accept that my position does not “fall off the edge of traditional Anglican teaching“; indeed it is probably right at the centre of the traditional teaching at least of what is now the largest group within the Church of England, the evangelicals.

But I do have serious problems with Sam’s teaching that “God is in charge of whether a particular person is saved or not“. This appears to be a summary of the doctrine of double predestination, that some are predestined to be saved and everyone else is predestined to be damned. He can hardly make acceptance of this teaching into a touchstone for Anglican orthodoxy, for it is a position which surely has never been taken by more than a small minority of Anglicans. Indeed, it seems to me that predestination to damnation is explicitly rejected in Article XVII “Of Predestination and Election” of the Thirty Nine Articles:

for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

It is also of course explicitly rejected in Scripture:

3 This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (TNIV©)

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (TNIV©)

Indeed, Sam,

there is a duty placed upon all Christians to seek common ground and affirm those things which bind us together rather than focussing on things which drive us apart.

And I am sure that there is a lot of common ground between you and me, which fits well within the “very broad boundaries” of the Church of England. So let us not get sidetracked into disagreements about predestination, nor about methods of evangelism as long as these do not compromise basic Christian principles. Let us instead focus on fighting our real enemies, which are not within the church but are matters of the world, the flesh and the devil.

"We should not let our disappointment be the father of our theology"

Posted on by
Reply

The words of this entry’s title are from a talk by Rob Rufus at a New Frontiers conference, as reported by Adrian Warnock. Indeed,

We should ask God to lift our lack of experience to the level of the Bible rather than bend the Bible to our experience.

Do read the rest of this short report, and let your faith be encouraged!

This reminds me that the disagreements I have with some New Frontiers teachings are very small compared with the great things which we share, such as our salvation and fellowship with Christ, the gospel message, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the assurance of living with God for ever. So in this blog when I discuss other Christian traditions I will try to focus on the positive things I find in them.

I will finish for now with some more of Adrian’s words about Rob’s talk:

We must have a heart for the lost. God loves the lost. We have to ask ourselves as Rob said God asked him – “Why do you want My power to be manifested?” Bring the hopeless cases to church and expect God to act!


The Anabaptist Spiritual Path

Posted on by
Reply

Tim Chesterton has just posted on the Anabaptist spiritual path. This path is not so well known here in England, where we have few Anabaptists. Our Baptists can in fact partly trace their heritage to the Anabaptists, but whereas they have retained believers’ baptism and separation from the state, they do not teach other Anabaptist distinctives, especially non-violence. But I have really appreciated the few Anabaptists I have met, and have been struck especially by their Christlike gentleness. So it is good to be reminded of their distinctive tradition, with its emphasis on worship and practical discipleship. I am sure that there is a lot here for other Christians to learn from.

Casper's Reprieve: a Model of the Atonement

Posted on by
Reply

The idea that God as a just judge sentences sinners to eternal death is a difficult one for us who live in countries which have abolished the death penalty for even the most serious crimes. But a recent case in my home town, Chelmsford, has reminded me that here in Britain we still have the death penalty – for animals! And we probably need it – for, despite this posting, I am not an animal lover.

The story, reported in the local newspaper Chelmsford Weekly News (29th June), is about Casper, a beautiful Weimaraner German hunting dog. Casper had bitten boys on three occasions, and his owner had failed to muzzle him after the first incident. The owner was fined and banned from keeping a dog. But, because there was no other home for Casper, his sentence was to be death – until at the last minute a court officer personally offered him a home, and the judge accepted this.

This is perhaps a model of the Atonement, or at least a picture of how it works. We, all humans, had a bad master or owner, Satan, as Casper had, and are guilty of wrongdoing, as Casper was. The penalty which the Law prescribes for us, as for Casper, is death, and our Judge would be just to apply this penalty. Casper was saved by a last minute personal intervention by a court officer; we are saved by the personal intervention of the Judge himself, not at the last minute but as part of his eternal plan. Casper was taken from his old owner and given to a new master, the court officer; we have been set free from slavery to Satan by our Judge, who has himself become our new master or Lord. Casper received a new home with his new owner; we have been promised a new home where God himself will care for us for ever.

Of course this model is not complete; there is no sign that Casper repented (although the problem may have been more with his old owner), and the court officer did not have to die (let’s hope Casper doesn’t draw his blood!), whereas Jesus had to die for us to be saved, and we are expected to repent. Nevertheless, this is an interesting case as a real example of how a life was saved by a personal intervention in a court, in a parallel with how we have been saved through Jesus Christ.

Tithing: a law for Christians?

Posted on by
Reply

Last Sunday my vicar (pastor), Rev Mones Farah, preached on generosity, including giving and tithing; his sermon notes are online. This is a subject which he touches on rather rarely, because he doesn’t want anyone to think that he is money-grabbing. Unusually, this sermon was somewhat controversial among church members – or perhaps just among the people I talked to this week. The controversial points were that he implied that Christians are required to tithe, and to give that tithe to the local church.

Any suggestion that Christians are obliged to tithe is rightly controversial. Every mention in the Bible of tithing, as a specific amount, is in the context of the old covenant. The detailed laws on tithing (in fact multiple tithes, but only on agricultural produce) relate to providing for the Levites and for the temple in Jerusalem. Thus tithing, like sacrifices, must be understood as part of the ceremonial law which is no longer binding on Christians. I won’t go now into the complex issue about whether any part of Old Testament law is binding on Christians. The implication of this is that tithing is not a law for Christians. But I don’t think my vicar actually said that it was.

This view of tithing is supported by Justin Taylor, who refers to excellent articles by Köstenberger and Croteau. These articles, unlike some others I have seen on the Internet on this subject, are based on top quality scholarship. I have serious disagreements with Taylor and Köstenberger on some other issues, but not on this one.

My vicar rightly said that God instituted the tithe. He did so as a law for the people of Israel. But the law, while not binding on Christians, is part of the Christian Bible and shows us the general principles by which Christians are expected to live. The details of tithing to Levites and to the Jerusalem temple are not binding on us, and cannot be because the temple no longer exists. But the general principle remains, that God’s people should give a portion of their income, depending on how much they earn, to support their fellow believers who are in need, either from poverty or because they are engaged full time in God’s work. This principle is reaffirmed in the New Testament:

 

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

1 Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

 

The New Testament does not specify a proportion, as the Old Testament does, but (as my vicar quoted) specifies that:

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

2 Corinthians 9:7 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

 

But the Old Testament law, and the examples of Abraham (Genesis 14:18-20) and Jacob (Genesis 28:20-22), suggest 10% as a suitable starting point for our giving, as a basic minimum to be expected of any Christian – although not as a law to be imposed on everyone. But many of us will be able to give more than this, as God provides for us and calls us to give. For example, God has provided so abundantly for Rick Warren, through sales of his Purpose Driven books, that he is able to give away 90% of his income and live on 10%.

As for who we should give to, surely our first responsibility is to ensure that the local church fellowship of which we are a part, and those who serve there, are not in need. For the principle is clear: “those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel”. Some preachers, like Paul and Rick Warren, are able to dispense with this support, but most of them depend on it.

While I appreciate the dangers of appealing to Malachi, the Old Testament prophet, in this matter, surely the general principle he put forward still applies to Christians. I am not sure in what translation my vicar found “So that my house might be full.” (The word טֶרֶף teref which he seems to render “full” in fact normally means “prey”, but here and in a few other places is usually understood as “food”.) A better translation seems to be:

“…Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. …”

Malachi 3:10 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

The principle here is that we should give the whole of what God tells us to give so that his house is abundantly provided for. In Malachi’s time God’s house was the temple. For us, his house is the church, not so much a building although that also needs to be provided for, more the community whose every need should be met abundantly from its members’ giving. As for God’s promise of abundant blessing for those who give generously, this is reaffirmed in the New Testament:

10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. 11 You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.

2 Corinthians 9:10-11 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

I will close with some words from my vicar’s sermon:

There is no greater insult to God than to keep his house in poverty. I wholeheartedly believe that if we keep God’s house well supplied and well stocked up great things will be achieved not only in the individual church but all over the world.

Update (2nd July): My vicar’s sermon from last Sunday is now available for download. While he and I don’t entirely agree on this matter, we agree that we must not throw away the principle of tithing because the details of the Old Testament laws cannot be applied in our society today.

Redeemed and set free!

Posted on by
Reply

What does it mean for us Christians to say that we have been “redeemed”, that Jesus has provided “redemption” for us? There is an ongoing discussion of this on the Better Bibles Blog. I have made some comments there. Now I want to write something a bit less technical about it, so I am doing so here.

Eugene Nida, the pioneer of “dynamic equivalence” Bible translations like the Good News Bible (which was the main Bible in my church until last year), wrote in his 1977 book Good News for Everyone (p.74, as quoted on Better Bibles Blog):

The fact of the matter is that the terms “redeem” and “redeemer” have lost very much of their earlier significance in English. For many people “redeem” is associated more with trading stamps than with the biblical theme of deliverance and salvation.

Well, trading stamps have gone out of fashion since the 1970’s, at least here in the UK (it shows my age that I remember Green Shield stamps), but we still have all kinds of vouchers which we can redeem, which even have a “redemption value” (usually 0.001p!) printed on them.

But how does this relate to the Christian idea of “redemption”? In Ephesians 1:7 (TNIV) we read:

In [Christ] we have redemption through his blood…

Does this mean that the blood of Christ is like a voucher paid to someone as a purchase price for us? And if so, to who? This is indeed one line of Christian thinking on this subject, but the conclusion had to be the unsatisfactory one that Jesus’ blood was paid to Satan. Yes, we were slaves to Satan and we are no longer, but God did this not by making a business arrangement with Satan, but by defeating him and destroying his power.

But we are on the right track with the idea of Christians being set free from slavery. For the Greek word translated “redemption”, apolutrōsis, was commonly used in relation to the setting free of slaves. Sometimes a slave was freed because someone paid a price to buy the slave, and the Greek word for this price was lutron or antilutron, accurately translated “ransom” in Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:6 (TNIV and many other translations). In other cases slaves were set free by their masters without any payment being made, for example as a reward for faithful service, but the process was still known as apolutrōsis. And the same word was used for release of a prisoner, as in Hebrews 11:35, where there is no suggestion of any payment being made. So, although apolutrōsis is derived from lutron, it does not necessarily carry the idea of payment or redemption; it can just mean “freedom” or “release”.

So what should we make of this? The Bible certainly speaks of Jesus giving his life as a ransom (lutron or antilutron), Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:6. There is a similar picture in 1 Peter 1:18-19 (TNIV):

18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

Here “redeemed” represents the Greek verb lutroomai, derived from lutron, and a better translation might be “ransomed” or “set free by a ransom”, something for which silver or gold might be used. But this cannot be understood as in any way literal, for Christ’s blood was not paid to anyone, nor did he become Satan’s slave taking the place of others – that would be a rather inadequate view of the Atonement. So, the idea of a ransom must be taken as a model of the underlying spiritual reality, and one which like all models of the Atonement should not be pressed beyond the rather limited scope given to it in the Bible.

Thus it is better to take the word apolutrōsis as meaning not “redemption” but “release” or “freedom”. This works well every one of the ten times that the word is used in the New Testament. I offer my own translation, modified from TNIV, of these ten occurrences in their context:

…because your liberation is drawing near (Luke 21:28).

…through the freedom that came by Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24).

…as we wait eagerly for our adoption, the release of our bodies (Romans 8:23).

…our righteousness, holiness and freedom (1 Corinthians 1:30).

In him we have freedom through his blood… (Ephesians 1:7).

…until the release of those who are God’s possession… (Ephesians 1:14).

…with whom you were sealed for the day of release (Ephesians 4:30).

…in whom we have freedom, the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:14).

…now that he has died to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:15).

…refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection (Hebrews 11:35, TNIV unchanged).

And similarly for some related words:

…because he has come to his people and set them free (Luke 1:68, lutrōsis).

…looking forward to the liberation of Jerusalem (Luke 2:38, lutrōsis).

…but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to liberate Israel… (Luke 24:21, lutroomai).

…who gave himself for us to set us free from all wickedness (Titus 2:14, lutroomai).

…but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal liberation (Hebrews 9:12, lutrōsis).

The only other occurrences of “redeem” and “redemption” in the TNIV New Testament are in Galatians 3:13,14, 4:5 and Revelation 14:3. In these places “redeem” represents a quite different Greek word group, agorazō and exagorazō, which mean “buy, purchase”. These words are also used of Christian “redemption” in 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23, 2 Peter 2:1, Revelation 5:9, 14:4, where TNIV translates “buy” or “purchase”; also arguably Ephesians 5:16 where TNIV correctly interprets “making the most of”.

If “purchase” is acceptable in Revelation 14:4, it should also be used in 14:3 where it would be much clearer. This leaves Galatians 3:13,14 (the Greek word in v.13 is translated twice for clarity) and 4:5. In the latter case the reference is to freedom from slavery, but the Greek word has clear connotations of purchase. In 3:13 the point is that we were cursed and have now been set free from the curse. So I would suggest the following, modified from TNIV:

Christ set us free from the curse of the law… He set us free in order that… (Galatians 3:13-14).

…to purchase those under the law… (Galatians 4:5).

…the 144,000 who had been purchased from the earth (Revelation 14:3).

So we are left with a modified TNIV New Testament without the poorly understood words “redeem” and “redemption”, which to me would be great improvement. Similar changes to the Old Testament might also be beneficial, but I won’t go into that now.

As noted on the Better Bibles Blog, the Good News Bible (Today’s English Version), the Jerusalem Bible, the Contemporary English Version, the New Living Translation and The Message have mostly avoided the words “redeem” and “redemption”. But other recent versions like TNIV have, sadly, kept to a traditional wording which is poorly understood and misleading. As Christians we can claim to be redeemed, but how much clearer is this wonderful truth when we express it as “Jesus has set us free!”

The Duck Quacks Back

Posted on by
Reply

While I was away (and I still intend to report on that) the Daily Duck posted some interesting reflections on the God blog wars. It is sad that he felt left out of what seemed to be an in-house argument among Christians. I am not sure whether Christians should completely avoid disagreeing in public, which includes anywhere in the “blogosphere”, but if we do we must remember to do so in Christian love, and to remember that what we say needs to be helpful for non-believing readers like Duck. It was sad in a way that Duck could complain

There I was, in their midst for a whole week, and nobody tried to save me.

But I am glad that in response to my comment he wrote

Yes, you were.

But, sadly, he didn’t really want to be saved. Here is the comment (reformatted) which that was a response to:

Duck, thank you for this. But I must say I am surprised that you say that

nobody tried to save you.

I did! At least that was a major purpose of what I was writing. I was trying to show you that there is a way round the the artificial theological barriers which some people have erected. Such barriers cannot stand when they are not in the same place that the Bible has erected barriers, and especially when they are built across the door which God has opened into his kingdom. For, however much these people may rant in the pulpit or in the blogosphere, God has

placed before you an open door that no-one can shut

(Revelation 3:8 TNIV©),

or to change the door metaphor within the same chapter to one which is probably a bit more exgetically sound, he says

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me

(Revelation 3:20 TNIV©).

Meanwhile I am taking Duck’s advice (although I won’t be using the results in the way he suggests!) by adding a page view counter to my blog. In fact I am adding a cool system called ClustrMaps, which I found on Eddie Arthur’s blog, which shows not only how many hits I am getting but also where they are in the world. It will be interesting to see where they do come from.

Can a good Jew or Hindu be saved?

Posted on by
Reply

Duck asked in a comment on my posting Models of the Atonement:

But what does it say about your theology that a good Jew or Hindu will be damned to eternal suffering but a bad Christian will be saved?

Well, I have not quite said this. First, I have not mentioned “eternal suffering”, and there is an ongoing debate among Christians over whether those who are not saved suffer for ever or are simply annihilated. I don’t intend to get into that debate now. But more importantly, by God’s standards there is no such thing as a good Jew (except for Jesus), or a good Hindu, or for that matter a good Christian. All people have done wrong things and fall short of God’s standards. As a result none deserve to be saved or receive anything good from God. It is God’s free gift, his “grace”, to offer salvation although it is not deserved. And this is his offer to everyone, including Jews and Hindus. But God doesn’t force anyone to accept this gift, and many people don’t. They are not saved because they reject the offer of salvation. That is not God’s problem but theirs – and yours, Duck.

I accept that there is an issue here about those of other religions, or none, who have never heard the Christian message. Just as Abraham was saved for responding in faith to what he had heard of God’s message, so also I believe that many who do not profess Christianity now will be saved because they have responded to the light about God which they have received, through God’s general revelation and to some extent through other religions. They are not saved by their other religions, but only through the death of Jesus Christ. But I believe they can be saved without explicitly calling on Jesus Christ, and certainly without changing their outward religious identity to become Christians. However, this is no excuse for those who do clearly hear the good news about Jesus and reject it.

This is a very brief summary of a very difficult issue!