Fallen and Flawed

I love their last FAQ; “are Arminians saved?”

Yeah, rock on, right.

“Are Arminians saved?” No, neither are Calvinists. Neither Baptists or Catholics, KJV Onlyists or NIVers, nor Christian Universalists or Pietists. Only those whose sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ are saved. The Word of God alone tells us who God says are “saved”. Doctrines of men, however good they appear to be cannot trump the Word as the final authority on the topic of Salvation. Just my two cents worth.

John,
are you serious? I may have to rethink my whole theological stance now! My whole soteriology was based on God saving Calvinists…

Monergism.com is a beast of a resource hub.

“Beast.” I like that Jonathan.

Oh, hey. I just learned that I’m not an Arminian.

But, I did learn how to spell “Arminian”.

It’s a good day.

Looks like one more fundamentalist resource. It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic how those people always think that their God is bigger than other people’s God, yet can provide absolutely no evidence.

I have to say I have somewhat more of an Synergistic slant myself. At one point, I used to get almost personally offended by some of the implications of Monergism/Calvinism but I’ve come to the conclusion that neither perspective greatly effects the rest of one’s Christian life and outlook and therefore is not something to get too caught up on. It’s ridiculous the people who get so invested in one interpretation that they deem the other heresy. Some aspects of theology are extremely complicated – this is one. There are good arguments and supportive scriptures on both sides, which leads me to the conclusion that neither is probably a “perfect” doctrine – whatever ones preference, our understanding always has it’s limitations. As long as the fundamentals of our faith are compatible, I think this is one area where Christians can afford to agree to disagree

I am glad, Allyssa, that you said that – I mean that there are areas where Christians can afford to disagree, and also that you suggested that the whole of the Bible does not speak in a single, consistent voice. It’s very encouraging, because I have a similar claim and it is rare for more conservatively-minded people to come to the same conclusion. Hope you don’t mind me calling you conservative, and yes, I do realise that our ideas about what we can exactly afford to disagree on will not be the same.

Alyssa, yeah, this is an in-house debate that makes for good fun but not worth dying or dividing over.

Don’t worry I consider myself entirely conservative – even if I may not always agree with other “conservatives”!
However, despite being able to see some (and for me very few) areas where the Bible may appear to give conflicting concepts regarding a topic I tend not to see that as a sign of an un-unified message, so much as signaling our inability to understand everything perfectly at this point in time… Thus I agree with some of the arguments of Calvinism, and some of those of Arminianism, because both are grounded in Biblical principles – but I do not agree with all conclusions of either perspective. I do not therefore concluded that the Biblical concepts are contradictory, but simply that our understanding of them is incomplete. So yes, I’m afraid this is still very conservative of me

Well, there are many concepts in the Bible, quite a few of which have already been abandoned by just about everyone. Remember how Galileo was made to recant for supporiting the Copernican theory, and Copernicus’s book was banned by the pope until the 19 century (even though Copernicus was a Catholic priest!)? The reason the church did that was that the theory contradicted the Bible.

We also no longer believe in the general resurrection that already started with Jesus (Mat 27:52, 1 Cor 15:12-note the present tense in the original text, not always preserved in translations). This belief was abandoned by the end of the 1st century and replaced with a different resurrection, which is to happen at the unspecified “end times”.

I propose that instead we read the Bible to see the evolution of YHWH from a tribal deity into a universalist God, and evolution of the YHWH religion from a xenophobic tribal cult to an all-embracing religion of love and sacrifice.

I live only 30 minutes from the Monergism warehouse here in Portland, Oregon and make a bi-monthly ‘pilgrimage’ to ‘the site’. John and the staff are extremely helpful and knowledgeable.

I walk into the warehouse and sometimes have to wipe the drool from my goatee, as I stand among so many incredibly rich books from a Reformed perspective. If you’re ever in the Portland area, make a trip…your wallet will be a bit lighter when you leave.

Hi again Jag,

I think the crucial difference here is between interpretation/doctrine and reality. What people in the past have believed something to mean, how they have interpreted and understood a part of the Bible, does not automatically make their understanding accurate.

For instance, others would say ‘The reason the church did that was that THEY THOUGHT the theory contradicted the Bible.’ – The Bible does not clearly state either heliocentrism or geocentrism, verses that seem roughly related to this topic should be noted for their context, which is not a discussion of cosmology or scientific theory, and today those interpreted once upon a time as loosely supporting geocentrism are now reexamined and differently understood.

I won’t even get started on the type of general resurrection you seem to mean (as WOW are those verses out of context to support that idea) except to say that yes Christians (in general) do still believe in resurrection of the dead, would not deny that Mat 27:52 happened, and would entirely agree with the point being argued in 1 Cor 15 (the whole chapter rather the a single verse) that it has happened, does happen, and will happen. In fact, some would go as far to argue that the “final” resurrection is both future and present (to do with relativity of time and all that, but we won’t get into that). A final general resurrection has always been spoken of in the Bible, so if anything the church went “back to it” (though I would seriously question whether most ever left ). Again, changes in interpretation and understanding, not abandonment of the Biblical witness.

I’m sure you could come up with more, and I could refute more, but it would be futile as your last point makes clear, we have quite different starting positions… It makes for interesting discussions nonetheless, I just doubt the constructiveness?

Alyssa,

I totally agree that no-one’s understanding of the Bible can be considered accurate and definitive. Including yours and mine. That’s why we have the field of knowledge called biblical scholarship. Unfortunately most church-goers are blissfully unaware of it.

You are also correct that the Bible does not clearly establish geocentrism or heliocentrism. Yet you would be amazed how many webpages there are where people try to show that the Bible is scientifically accurate!

As to the final general resurrection, despite your claims that it “has always been spoken of in the Bible”, it is only mentioned in the NT. The idea was unknown to the Jews in the OT times, and was borrowed from other religions and introduced gradually to Judaism just before the dawn of the common era. In the OT you can find not a single texts about general resurrection.

To clarify, what I meant was that the Bible (and yes, most overtly the NT) contains reference to a resurrection of the dead and thus even if it were a “replacement” belief at the end of the 1st Century as you suggest, it was a Biblical concept before that (hence, all that changed was the interpretation/focus). And yes, though some definitely argue that there are allusions to belief in life after death in the OT, this was a concept only fully developed in the NT through the teaching of Jesus and later Paul etc. I too see the Bible as “developing” but the main difference is that I see it as a progressive revelation, rather than a solely human product.

I will (cautiously) agree with you, Alyssa.
But how about progressive revelation over the last 2,000 years or so, since the last NT books were completed? Would you say that nothing happened since Jesus and Paul? How can we call a collection of books nearly 2,000 old our “New” Testament?

(Sorry in advance, this is a bit of an essay…)

To explain that, we’d have to get into the “closed canon” and criteria for canonicity etc., which (given that entire books are written on the subject) might be a bit much for a blog reply…

However, an important distinction is that the “New Testament”, doesn’t mean ‘recent’ – it refers to the New Covenant that was brought about in Jesus, the covenant (or testament, or promise) that we are still under and which is still relevant, despite having been inaugurated 2,000 years ago.

Without getting into technicalities, I’ll just say that my personal opinion is that Jesus was basically the “climax” of the story. The revelation that had occurred previously led to him, to the new covenant that came through him, and the establishment of his church based upon that covenant.

The New Testament records the establishment of this new promise between God and humanity (Romans 3:21-24). The New Testament is the work of those who had encountered the life, resurrection and teaching of Jesus directly – of those who took part in this climatic period and who, through the strength of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, spread this message and established the Church. It is thus seen as “unique” and it’s message has maintained and increased the church for nearly 2,000 years.

To have an open canon would require that either we see the NT as insufficient and therefore presume that we know more about Jesus than it’s writers, or that Jesus was not the “climax” (i.e. that he will be surpassed, which would imply the next belief); or that we do not believe in absolute truth and non-contradiction – i.e. believe that what WAS true in the Bible, namely the importance and implications of Jesus, can be abandoned in favour of some new incompatible truth or held as true whilst also believing contradictory “truths” (Relativism).

Traditional Christianity does not say that no one can receive revelation from God today, or that modern Christian writings are invaluable. Rather, it says that because Jesus was the ultimate revelation of God and this revelation is passed on to us in the NT, nothing else can compare in authority or importance.
Really, it comes down to who we believe Jesus was – if we believe the Biblical witness of him, then that is the greatest of all revelations.

Thanks, Alyssa, I now understand a bit better where you are coming from.

However, are you suggesting that the whole Bible is just about Jesus, not about God? Because if it is about God, then I wouldn’t want to miss on the last 2,000 of revelation.

Plus, the books of the Bible were written by pre-modern people for pre-modern people, so it’s not easy for us to identify with them, as we are simply missing a lot of the socio-historical context here, and as a result the more literal your approach, the more you misunderstand Jesus. And also, the “biblical witness” to Jesus is not really an eyewitness, all the NT books are a much later theological interpretation of Jesus (1-3 generations later), and there is nothing in the NT that was written by an eyewitness who actually met the living Jesus (rather than in vision, like Paul did).

Daniel 12: 1-4 (Old testament)
But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

Also all of the books of the NT were written by direct eywitnesses – those who knew Jesus Christ. The 1-3 generations later group you refer to are gnostic texts, not found in the NT.

The Bible is all about God. Jesus is all about God. Because I believe the Biblical testimony about Jesus – when I say that Jesus was the climax of the story, this is because he was the ultimate revelation of God. He not only revealed God in his own person, but made it possible for humanity to enter relationship with Him in a way never before possible. He brought about restoration to and acceptance by God. The Bible reveals Jesus, and Jesus reveals God – so the story of Jesus is about God. Jesus is the only way to the Father – God brought his salvation, forgiveness, redemption and eternal life in Jesus – which is why the ultimate revelation of God is in Jesus Christ.
(Now obviously if you don’t believe in the accuracy of the Bible at all you’ll disagree with all of the above, but I’m explaining my point of view rather than defending it because as I’ve said before, that requires common ground to begin from).

In terms of context – yes that can make understanding some things difficult (though some parts more than others) and sometimes can lead to misunderstandings – this is why I have great appreciation for the fields of Theology, Biblical Exegesis, and general Biblical Scholarship. Some of the socio-historical context may be different, but it is not impossible to rediscover and take into consideration. I think maybe you underappreciate the time Theologians spend (and have spent) on establishing the social and historical contexts of individual passages, including historical meanings of words, cultural references etc. when trying to understand and apply Biblical passages. Personally, I spent the last year studying that very method. Yes there are those who read the Bible without such knowledge and who may at times come to some bizarre conclusions, but I firmly believe the key to authentic interpretation is context – only then can we understand the truly “literal” meaning of the Bible. It is that literal meaning that I believe points to the above.

Part 2….

The final point is a massive and ongoing debate on dating and authorship – generally between those who already see the Bible as inauthentic and errant, and those who already believe in its authority and inspiration. Sadly a truly unbiased approach is therefore virtually non-existent, as bias is the reason for such study in the first place.

My personal belief is obviously different to yours. I know the arguments, I’ve read the books, I’ve heard the debates and I firmly believe that the NT books were written by the apostles or their associates (for instance, Luke), most likely all before AD70 with most much earlier (~50’s), and the earliest no more than about 15 years after Jesus. Very few even secular scholars today date the majority of the NT later than 95AD as (among other reasons) several books are quoted by early Church fathers of that time (Clement of Rome, Polycarp) thus had to be in circulation before then. Thus even later dating really leaves no more than a generation. I could go on but we really don’t need to rehash the whole debate here…

I’m sure you entirely disagree with me, and feel you too have good reason for the beliefs you do. Which is when we come to the point in the argument where is starts to become little more than “I’m right because I say so”. Thus I think we may have to respectfully conclude that it’s impossible to persuade someone of something they have no inclination to be persuaded of.

I am convinced of my beliefs, not because I haven’t thought about the details or considered the evidence – but because I have, and have only found my faith supported. You feel the same way I am certain, and thus knowing how firm my own opinions are, I am not arrogant enough to think that my mere arguing can change that

[For some reason, I can't help my responses turning into essays... Sorry kids.]

John H,

I am assuming you are quoting Daniel to show that the Hebrew Bible mentions resurrection? OK, Daniel, being one of the latest OT books, is the ONLY book of the Hebrew Bible that does indeed mention resurrection. Before then there was only hope to live in a myriades of descendants, like in the Pentateuch. There is one more thing – your text mentions “MANY of those who sleep”. This suggests 2 things – First, the dead “sleep”, therefore no consciousness after death (or immortal soul). Second, it is mentioned specifically that “many shall awake”. That’s MANY – not ALL!!! Therefore it cannot be a general resurrection but, at best, a partial resurrection. Don’t take my word for it – it’s what the Bible says.

The oldest NT books are Pauline letters (the authentic ones, not the pseudoepigraphs). Virtually all Bible scholars agree on this – including the conservatives. They were written 20-30 years after Jesus, so that’s at least a generation. All the other books are even later, with the gospel of John and Revelation dated to the turn of the second century. Note also, that all gospels are anonymous – the traditional titles, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are only tradition. And where did you find the information that any NT books were written by eyewitnesses? I’d be interested to know your sources and check how reliable they are.

Alyssa,

I appreciate your viewpoint, however I am also aware that the reason there are thousands of Christian denominations is (mainly) that they differ in the way they interpret the Bible. Therefore it seems problematic whose approach I should adopt – do it like the Catholics do, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or perhaps the Pentecostals?

As you said, a truly unbiased approach to the Bible is hard to find. I am trying not to assume anything, just study it and then decide if I should adopt any of what it says, or perhaps reject all of it. So far, I have found a lot to prove that the Bible is neither inerrant or infallible. On the other hand, I also found it powerfully spiritual. I am therefore forced to adopt, at least for now, a middle ground. That’s why can be neither a literalist/fundamentalist nor an atheist. The metaphorical approach to the Bible seems to work better than any other.

I agree with you that the oldest NT books were written a couple of decades after Jesus, and only a few as late as the turn of the first century or early the second. The point is that there is no evidence they were written by eyewitnesses. Most of the authors don’t even claim such a thing. Luke never does, for instance. But when you compare what Paul says with what Luke says about Paul, it is clear that Luke’s point was to re-write and re-interpret history, as the two don’t agree. In 2 Cor 11:32-33 (written around 57 CE) Paul describes how in Damascus the royal authorities were trying to arrest him. “Luke”, on the other hand, wrote Acts around 80-100 CE, after Christianity split up from Judaism and Jerusalem was destroyed as a result of the Jewish uprising. “Luke” is cautious not to offend the Roman authorities on the one hand, and to distance himself and his sect from the hated Jews, so in Acts 9:23-25 he re-tells the same story. With one significant difference, however – now it is not the authorities but “the Jews” who were trying to catch Paul!!! This simple example shows how important it is to understand the socio-historical contexts of the books, and that despite what we think about their inspiration, they are not disinterested accounts – their authors had their own agenda, and it is not always easy to know what it was.

I do not claim that I am right, and certainly that I am “because I say so”. I have so much admiration for you that I am sure you are not too different. To me, it’s not about that, but about who presents more convincing arguments. The reason we disagree on some points is no doubt because we find different arguments more convincing.

Jag,

Thanks for the comments – I have to agree mostly with the last one – “The reason we disagree on some points is no doubt because we find different arguments more convincing.”

A good example of this is “”Luke”, on the other hand, wrote Acts around 80-100 CE.” which I would actually disagree with based on many other arguments which we won’t bother getting into here – the point is simply: a debate always has more than one side.

Also, I should mention that I never said Luke was an eyewitness – he was intended to be an example of what I meant by “associates” as there are many convincing (in my opinion of course) arguments that he was present with Paul on many of his travels, and that he compiled his gospel through “interviewing” eye witnesses and compiling their accounts. His agenda, at least in part, is revealed at the very beginning – Luke 1:1-4.

I don’t think you should judge Christianity by its denominations. Denominations are about not only people’s interpretational preferences, but their traditional and ritualistic preferences.
You’ve agreed that no one’s understanding can be considered “accurate and definitive” – I wouldn’t go necessarily that far, as to say that no one can truly understand anything at all, but rather that our understanding is limited – it can be true, but is often incomplete.
There is no reason to not attempt the best understanding that we can, and I do believe that the role of the Holy Spirit is to assist in this. The limits of humanity in this life however mean that we will always have room for improvement.

Within what is referred to as ‘main stream’ Christianity – free of ’sects’ such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism – there is probably more agreement than you realise as to what comprises “Orthodox Christian Belief”. Despite whatever differences lead denominations to express things a different way, adopt their own practices, and even differ on the less crucial doctrines – Christianity is bound by a basic, shared belief system. Central to this Christian core are beliefs about who Jesus is, and what God has accomplished in him. Because the majority of denominations agree on these beliefs, the differences are often seen as acceptable diversity rather than true opposition.

Thus, you don’t have to “do it” the way any denomination does. I don’t affiliate with any denomination nor am I “anti” denominational. I agree with Baptists, Charismatics, Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc. on many points. All are founded on common ground – they then branch out in the less crucial areas. Some of the reasons for their “branching” I disagree with, but because of the common ground, I don’t caught up on that. The reason such denominations ‘get along’ with each other in a way they don’t with Jehovah’s Witnesses etc. is because of the lack of that core consensus.

Hence when I (and most Christians) speak of the “Church” this is both denominationally inclusive and exclusive – not all people who belong to a particular denomination necessarily belong to Christ, and not all of a particular denomination are necessarily not true Christians.

Alyssa,

Thanks for your comments. It is not my intention to “judge” Christian denominations, but at the same time, if I want to find a community I am comfortable with, I do have to go through some elimination process. And it’s not easy to conclude that Christianity has largely failed Jesus – though there have always been some great Christians around. But naturally, my decision to be a Christian has nothing to do with how I assess Christianity, but what i think and how i feel about Jesus. And, like you, at the moment I an a non-denominational Christian.