“If you make your particular political bent a barrier to entry into (or a litmus test for the veractity of one’s) faith in Jesus, you’ve added something to the gospel that isn’t part of the gospel. You’ve placed a yoke around the neck of a believer they weren’t intended to bear.
This is an issue on the both the political right and the political left.
The gospel is eternal.
Political parties, platforms, and affiliations are temporary.
To layer a temporary structure on top of the eternal gospel is to add something to the beauty, wonder, simplicity, and grace of the gospel that robs it of its beauty, wonder, simplicity, and grace.
Additionally, to make the claim that one needs to believe in Jesus *and* adopt a particular political position is to turn the gospel into a system of works which negates the gospel.
Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone + *anything* = no gospel at all.
The “alones” matter.
They matter greatly.
They make all the difference.
They make grace, grace.
The make the gospel the gospel.
Let’s leave them alone.
We can graciously debate how to work *out* our salvation, but let us not make politics a means of working *for* our salvation.
55 comments:
Yes, I largely agree with this post.
Salvation by grace through faith + "but you can't disagree with us about the gays" is not the gospel of Jesus.
Salvation by grace through faith + "but you must believe in some form of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement... if you're not affirming that God saved us by literal blood from Jesus to "cover" our sins... then you aren't really trusting Jesus..." is not the gospel of Jesus.
I also note that the author takes just two of the "solas" as the crucial parts of the gospel. Left out is the "by scripture alone..." that was the common third sola identified during the Reformation. Given that the Bible does not demand "sola scriptura," and that any demand for that is self defeating (if Scripture alone is required and scripture does not demand it, then it's not really required, is it? It fails under it's own reasoning), I'd say that's a good thing.
I guess noting that in one comment you’ve literally done exactly what the author was suggesting shouldn’t be done. You’ve added agreement on a political issue (complete, uncritical, acceptance of homosexual activity) to the Gospel. But feel free to misrepresent at will.
As to your second bitichy comment, it’s just you assuming that his intent was provide an exhaustive list, as opposed to simply being illustrative.
As is nearly always the case, you read but don't understand. I literally said the opposite of what you understood me to say. I did not say what you concluded I said. I don't guess you understand that, do you?
Do you agree that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, and if you don't understand atonement theories correctly or holds the "right" atonement Theory, you're still saved?
Do you agree that we are saved through faith by grace and if you don't agree on a sin category, like homosexuality, that doesn't mean you're not saved?
Because we both know people who will tell me that I'm wrong on those points and that this points to me not being saved. Literally a salvation through works and not the Gospel of Jesus.
Your default position of “everyone misunderstands me” is getting old and absurd.
I’m pointing out that you’re suggesting that the proper position on those issues is necessary.
Absent actual proof, (quote and link), I find it hard to believe that anyone holds the opinions you claim.
Of course, I suspect that you’re concept of salvation differs from others. You’re the one who’s thrown out gobbledygook about salvation having an economic component.
And I'd really like to see you address this complete and total lack of understanding of what I wrote. In my first comment, I was noting that there are those who say yes salvation by grace through faith, but IF you disagree with me about the gays you are not saved.
Thus they had a partisan political requirement to Salvation. I was agreeing with the author of your quote that this is wrong.
You literally understood me completely wrong, understanding me to say the opposite of what I said. Do you not see that? Or can you see it now?
Craig... "pointing out that you’re suggesting that the proper position on those issues is necessary."
And yet, I'm saying the complete opposite of that. Do you understand that now? Why do you think you so consistently misunderstand my words, even getting them to mean the opposite of what I said?
Craig. . "suspect that you’re concept of salvation differs from others."
Well, yes. I believe in Salvation by God's grace. That is that God loves us and stands willing to forgive us and welcome us by God's grace.
We don't have to be perfect, we don't have to understand everything correctly. This is salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus. And that faith in Jesus doesn't mean merely assenting yes I believe that there was a human named Jesus, that speaks to Jesus actual teachings. That is, an affirmation of Jesus' teachings and Jesus' way.
And again, because of Grace which saves this, we don't have to understand Jesus way perfectly, but it is Jesus way and the faith in it that saves us by God's grace.
Which ultimately, is salvation by God's grace, God's Goodwill, God's kindness.
And yes, many modern evangelicals don't accept this radical Grace. They insist that one must believe in the theory of Penal substitutionary atonement. That is, it's not Grace that saves us, but Jesus blood paying a blood price for a sin debt. One must affirm this Theory to be saved. If one does not affirm this Theory, then one isn't really believing in Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, they say.
Of course, Jesus didn't really teach the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. The point being, many modern evangelicals add that to God's saving Grace thereby adding to and changing the nature of the Gospel.
So, to the degree that many evengelical add to the gospel of God's grace, yes I don't believe as they do.
Craig... "Your default position of “everyone misunderstands me” is getting old and absurd."
Of course, it's not my default position. I will tell someone they've misunderstood me when they have misunderstood me. I do that so they can understand me. Why wouldn't I?
What Is absurd about me pointing out the you actually are misunderstanding me?
It IS absurd how often conservatives - not just you, it happens on Facebook as well - misunderstand the words I say and read things into what I've said that I have not said and indeed have said the opposite.
So, if it helps, it's not just you. It appears to be a conservative problem.
I would say that it's MY problem, but liberals read my words and don't have the same problem. So...
It isn't us. It's your inability to express yourself in a manner that's clear, concise and to the point.
Dan,
You say “those” as if that means anything. Please demonstrate with quotes and links that you’re talking about real people.
Further, you ignore the reality that your disagreement with these anonymous people is simply doing what you claim they’ve done.
Your strange penchant of only pointing out the flaws you perceive in “the other”, while you sit silently by and ignore those on your side.
It’s your way of saying you agree, while passive aggressively suggesting that it’s really “the others” that are the problem.
For example, I’d suggest that adding an economic element to the gospel is exactly what’s being discussed here.
Yes, I understand that it can’t be your problem, that it must always be someone else’s problem.
I’d suggest that attitude is suggestive of a problem.
Craig... Your strange penchant of only pointing out the flaws you perceive in “the other”, while you sit silently by and ignore those on your side.
I agreed with this author. I gave an example of people I was familiar with. I'm not familiar with those on the liberal side who assume/say that conservatives aren't saved, I only hear it the other way. I can't give examples I'm not familiar with.
Nonetheless, my example was salvation by grace PLUS "you can't disagree with us about the gays..." isn't claiming one side or the other, is it?
The point remains, you didn't understand my words, taking them to mean THE OPPOSITE of what I said. Do you understand that?
And now, YOU are the one making this political, not me. You do it by your partisan attacks and your false representation of what I said because, again, apparently you have a problem reading for understanding.
Craig... I’d suggest that adding an economic element to the gospel is exactly what’s being discussed here.
I have no idea what you're talking about. The topic is we ought not add things to the gospel beyond saved by grace through faith in Jesus. I have not done that, not about economics nor anything else.
I suspect what's happening is yet another example of you reading my words and reaching false/wrong conclusions about what I'm saying. Perhaps it's just a partisan thing with you.
Craig... "You say “those” as if that means anything. Please demonstrate with quotes and links that you’re talking about real people"
You say THAT (above) as if it means something. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Marshal... "It's your inability to express yourself in a manner that's clear, concise and to the point."
Perhaps. And yet, liberals read my words and don't reach the wrong conclusions. They don't read my words and conclude I'm saying something I didn't say and that is the opposite of what I actually said.
So why is it that liberals and conservatives can read the same text and the liberals understand me and the conservatives so often not only don't understand, they read into my words something that is the OPPOSITE of what I said?
"Nonetheless, my example was salvation by grace PLUS "you can't disagree with us about the gays..." isn't claiming one side or the other, is it?"
Yes.
1. You still haven't given any actual quotes and links to demonstrate that anyone has actually linked some (undefined) position on "the gays" with salvation. In the absence of proof, there's no way to evaluate your point.
2. You are essentially claiming that the position you assert is held by some people is an incorrect position, therefore it logically follows that you believe the contrary position is correct. Therefore, if follows logically that you are (at a minimum) implying that salvation is related to believing in your hunch about "the gays".
Are you really claiming that you've never even hinted that "the gospel" has an economic element?
Yes, since you can't/won't actually provide proof of your claims, then the claims themselves have no meaning.
But, your ferocious insistence on ignoring anything that resembles a question, or that can't be turned back on others is impressive.
1. It's an example that I've heard, but it is just an example. If you need me to cite some sources saying this, of course I can. Do you seriously think that I can't? How unaware are you of what conservative Christians are saying?
Marshal probably will affirm that one can't disagree about gay rights and still be a Christian. How about you? Will you gladly affirm that someone can believe in the Holiness and purity of gay folks getting married and still be Christian? Can you affirm that someone can disagree what's the penal substitutionary theory of atonement and still be a Christian? Why don't we start with you.
2. I'm saying literally that it is adding on to salvation by grace. That is, it's not enough to be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, one must also affirm other positions. If not, they are not a Christian or, at best, it indicates that they may not be a Christian.
3. Am I really claiming that I have not hinted at the gospel having an economic angle? Of course it does. But we're not talking about the gospel having implications. We're talking about the question of must one affirm certain additional beliefs in addition to salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. Never have I hinted at or said then one must be poor or sell all they have in order to be saved. Jesus has, but not me. Never have I said that one must agree with my positions on economics in order to be saved. Never have I even said that one must agree with Jesus position on the economics in order to be saved. We are saved by grace. This has been a constant theme that I have consistently supported. Perhaps you'd missed that?
1. Yes, I think you should be able to prove your claims, why would you think otherwise? If you're going to claim that people are literally saying "You aren't saved unless you hold X position on "the gays"." then it's reasonable to provide proof of that claim.
"Marshal probably will affirm that one can't disagree about gay rights and still be a Christian. How about you?"
Well, ignoring your assumption, sure. Any chance to answer your questions, while pointing out your refusal to answer mine is a bonus.
"Will you gladly affirm that someone can believe in the Holiness and purity of gay folks getting married and still be Christian?"
Sue, I'll affirm that someone can "still be a Christian" and believe that.
"Can you affirm that someone can disagree what's the penal substitutionary theory of atonement and still be a Christian?"
Sure, I can affirm that someone can "disagree what's the penal substitutionary theory of atonement and still be a Christian?"
"Why don't we start with you."
When you say things like this, you imply that you'll be following along and answering questions,
2. I understand what you are saying. I'm simply responding that without proof this is what the legal type folks call "hearsay", which isn't admissible. I also see what you've done here. You've subtly modified your original claim.
3. OK. I see what you've done there. You've sort of (but not really) claimed your positions as Jesus' positions, but you've done it in such a way as to plausibly claim that you haven't.
Unfortunately, what you've done is to advance an argument that it's possible to have "salvation", while still believing things that may or may not be True.
“I'm saying yes, it was a central, pivotal theme. That, indeed, if you miss that central Jesusian way of looking at "salvation" in terms of wealth, poverty, oppression and the marginalized, you are likely to miss the point of the Jesus story."
So, when you say that you've "hinted" and that the "gospel having implications", what you apparently mean is that the "central" way of looking at "salvation" is "in terms of wealth, poverty, oppression and the marginalized". Got it.
What's interesting in that is that the quotation marks around "salvation" are yours from the original quote. That certainly gives the impression that you aren't looking at "salvation" in the sense that most people do.
"Marshal probably will affirm that one can't disagree about gay rights and still be a Christian. How about you?"
1. "gay rights" is a political issue, not a salvation issue. It's also a vague term that means literally anything anyone wants it to mean.
2. Are you equating "salvation" with "being a Christian"?
3. As usual, I can't speak for Art, and the fact that you think I can is bizarre.
"Will you gladly affirm that someone can believe in the Holiness and purity of gay folks getting married and still be Christian?"
Obviously I affirm that it's possible to believe the above and still "be Christian".
1. Much like 2 above, what does "be Christian" mean?
2. In other places you've claimed that "God blesses" gay marriage, are you suggesting that it is an objectively True statement to claim that "Holiness and purity" automatically attach to "gay folks getting married"?
3. Do "Holiness and purity" automatically attach to all marriages, or just when "gay folks get married"?
4. Where in scripture does is there a specific connection between marriage and "Holiness and purity"?
5. Where did Jesus address "gay folks getting married" as having "Holiness and purity"?
I could go on, but won't.
"Can you affirm that someone can disagree what's the penal substitutionary theory of atonement and still be a Christian?"
1. Again, I can quickly and unhesitatingly affirm this.
2. The question shouldn't be about mere belief, but whether or not the belief is reasonable.
3. Can you affirm that someone can believe that the PSA theory is correct, and still "be a Christian"?
3. Can you demonstrate that the PSA is objectively false and contrary to Christian doctrine or to scripture?
The thing you missed in your childish attempt at a trap, is that it's virtually a guarantee that every Christian holds at least one mistaken belief. Simply holding a mistaken belief doesn't negate the reality of "salvation", it's simply acknowledging the reality that we're not perfect, that the Christian life is one of growth, and that our "salvation" doesn't hinge on us getting 100% on a test of beliefs.
For example. It seems reasonable to conclude that someone who actively and vehemently denies the very existence of God could be considered someone who's experienced "salvation" or someone who might "be a Christian".
Jesus taught us that it's reasonable to look at a person's thoughts, words, and deeds, and to reach some conclusions about their spiritual condition. It seems reasonable that one can do exactly that, while also acknowledging God's sovereignty.
But when something is overtly obvious, it doesn't seem necessary to support it. Okay, I cite the Westboro Baptist people who don't believe you can be gay and Christian nor do they believe you can accept homosexuality and be a Christian. They're adding to the gospel of grace. Am I mistaken? Were you not familiar with them?
It is, of course, not limited to them. But they're an obvious example.
Craig .. "The thing you missed in your childish attempt at a trap, is that it's virtually a guarantee that every Christian holds at least one mistaken belief..."
If that's what you believe, then you and I share that belief. It is rather obvious, isn't it? And that is why when Marshal or Stan or Glenn or others have said I'm not a Christian because I'm, in their view, mistaken on the points of homosexuality or atonement, they are stepping beyond a salvation by grace and moving to a Salvation by works, where one can't be mistaken on points. If it's true that Glenn, Marshal and Stan have all said this at some point, do you agree that they move beyond salvation by grace and to salvation based upon works and a "need" to to be "right," at least some points?
I apologize for not being clear and specific enough for you. When I asked the question, I was hoping for someone who's not virtually universally mocked and virtually irrelevant. Of course, bonus points for finding someone who is involved in the discussion who's said those sorts of things. What you've done here is twofold. 1. You haven't really answered my question (certainly not as intended), 2. You've established the precedent that producing any fringe, nutjob to prove a point is now a totally acceptable ploy. Given that, I expect that you'll stop bitching when I give you someone you're not familiar with (but who's at least somewhat well known) to demonstrate a point. I've simply decided that if you choose to do something, it's fair game and completely acceptable to you.
1. I suspect that everyone on your list shares that belief, but that doesn't really seem to matter that much.
2. As I've asked you repeatedly for a while now, if you are going to make claims about what people have said, you'll need to prove your claims with the quote, as well as a link so the context is available. Failure to do so will be assumed to be bearing of false witness.
"If it's true that Glenn, Marshal and Stan have all said this at some point,..."
1. For someone who insists that "multiple truths" exist, it seems problematic for you to insist on a singular truth when it's to your benefit.
2. Why should I assume anything? You have the ability to provide actual proof of you claim and to put the "If" to rest. The fact that you don't/won't/can't provide proof of your claims fall on you not me.
"...do you agree that they move beyond salvation by grace and to salvation based upon works and a "need" to to be "right," at least some points?"
In the absence of any proof, evidence, data, or context, this is foolish speculation and is pointless to engage in. If you'd like to provide specific quotes, with links for context, I'd consider those on an individual basis.
Way to go, you kind of "answered" one whole question out of more than a dozen questions in this thread alone, ignoring previous threads. Well done, I know that took a lot of effort.
Damn Dan, now you've got your groupie making excuses for you.
"So why is it that liberals and conservatives can read the same text and the liberals understand me and the conservatives so often not only don't understand, they read into my words something that is the OPPOSITE of what I said?"
Because, generally speaking, liberals are superficial and anything that hints of something a liberal finds acceptable is good enough.
Conservatives, on the other hand, look more deeply than a superficial level, weigh the entire context and come to the only conclusions that can be reached based on the totality of YOUR own words.
Said another, more accurate way, liberals don't "understand" you at all. They simply agree because you say what they like to hear. Conservatives do understand you quite well, and your own words mirrored back to you do not sit well with you. Boo-freaking-hoo.
"Marshal probably will affirm that one can't disagree about gay rights and still be a Christian."
No. Marshal won't. What Marshall will do is to repeat what he's said over and over again since he first started commenting on this subject on blogs: One can't be Christian and engage in or enable behavior that is clearly, unmistakably and unequivocally forbidden by God in Scripture as an abomination. To pretend one is Christian while doing that which is so clearly contrary to a command of God demonstrates one puts one's self above the Will of God... indeed worshiping one's self over God, which is also contrary to a command of God. Doing this and then trying to cover by saying "we all seek to follow God as best we can" is crap and as it doesn't fool honest people, it certainly doesn't fool God. There's no excuse for such willful rebellion.
As to "rights", as I support Constitutional rights, as well as human rights, I don't pretend homosexuals are denied those rights simply because they're immoral and/or disordered. But what people like YOU want to pretend are "gay" rights are not rights at all, but simply the petulant demands of those who have willfully bastardized the concept of rights and liberty in order to appease their immoral/disordered urges. Said another way, homosexuals have the right to pursue their happiness...as immoral and disordered as that clearly is..., but they have no legitimate right to force the rest of us to provide that happiness or enable it in any way.
That's all I have time to give on this at present. I've got my hands full with my detailed and direct response to your questions at your blog, which you'll no doubt delete because you're a coward and a liar who can't bear the truth.
Apparently, feo's got new posts at his blog. Last I checked, he doesn't allow comments. Until he does, I have no desire to waste my time there.
I could care less about his pathetic attempts to get attention.
Marshal... "One can't be Christian and engage in or enable behavior that is clearly, unmistakably and unequivocally forbidden by God in Scripture as an abomination."
So, if a person is a Christian - saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus - and they sincerely disagree with your hunches about what is and isn't a sin as it relates to gay issues, then that sincere disagreement - that is, their lack of understanding the issue correctly, from your point of view - is sufficient to make them lose their salvation/be NOT saved. Is that what you're saying? (Which is what I'm saying that you're saying.)
If so, then Craig, he's saying that one can be mistaken about some issues and that means they can't be saved. They need God's grace through faith in Jesus AND they can't be mistaken on that issue.
Is that adding to the gospel as the point of your post is talking about? Is Marshal being unchristian or anti-christian in adding to the gospel in this manner?
Step up.
Marshal... "One can't be Christian and engage in or enable behavior that is clearly, unmistakably and unequivocally forbidden by God in Scripture as an abomination."
So tell me, Marshal. I'm a Christian saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and I believe the gay people getting married is a good and beautiful thing. Does this belief of mine means that I'm not saved? If I sincerely believe this, as I do, is being mistaken about that sufficient to mean I'm not saved?
Just a reminder of this conversation. Craig offered this thought from some unknown author...
“If you make your particular political bent
a barrier
to entry into
(or a litmus test for the veractity of one’s)
faith in Jesus,
you’ve added something to the gospel that isn’t part of the gospel.
1. I agreed. Period. Full stop.
Presumably, Craig agrees with the comment (it was "worth listening to") and I agreed with the comment. Period. I was just noting that I agreed.
I don't know that it had to go on much past that. Just some common ground for people like Craig and myself, where we disagree with people like Marshal and the Westboro types.
2. Instead of noting, yes, we have common ground, Craig INSTEAD opted to say that I was DISAGREEING with the author, doing what they said should be done ("you’ve literally done exactly what the author was suggesting shouldn’t be done. ")
Of course, I literally did not do this and Craig was just wrong. I was AGREEING with the point of the post. Craig opted to try to find disagreement by misrepresenting what I'd said/done.
3. When I pointed out that he was just mistaken and I'd done the opposite of what he said, he never apologized for the false claim and just went off on a wide range of red herring chasing, bringing saying "You’re the one who’s thrown out gobbledygook about salvation having an economic component."
4. The point of THIS post was that we ought not put additional requirements beyond saved by grace through faith. I have never said that we are saved by grace through faith PLUS "an economic component." I have never said you had to agree with me (or with Jesus, for that matter, when he said, "in order to be saved, first, go and sell what you have..."). I've consistently argued for salvation by Grace. No matter.
5. Craig then whined that I had a "default position" of “everyone misunderstands me.” This, of course, is another false claim. When people literally have misunderstood me, I will tell them they've misunderstood me. And I'm in a position to know, right?
In this case, when Craig said I'd "done what the author suggested shouldn't be done," I literally did not do that. And I pointed that out to Craig.
As a general rule, I DON'T say, "everyone/anyone misunderstands me" when they don't misunderstand me, because, why would I? And when they HAVE misunderstood me, why wouldn't I point that out?
6. Of course, Craig doesn't and can't support this claim, as it's false and just a bit odd.
Just to summarize things.
Some questions from Craig that don't seem related to the topic at all, but that I'll answer...
2. Are you equating "salvation" with "being a Christian"?
In the context of modern white conservative evangelicals, I recognize that it's what they tend to mean. It is "Christians" (and no one else) who receive "salvation," and so, who gets salvation, according to conservative evangelicals? Christians. To them, they are one in the same.
Do you think I'm mistaken?
For what it's worth, I'll gladly concede there's a reasonable case to be made that there are Christians who are saved who are not "living a Christian life," or living a life like Jesus taught. Is someone who's not consistently living a Christian life still a Christian? Well, as that's all of us, to some degree or another, I'd say so. What do you think?
1. Much like 2 above, what does "be Christian" mean?
In the context of this conversation, I used "be Christian" to be equal to "be saved." Does that answer your question?
Beyond/outside this conversation, I'd say being Christian means walking in Jesus steps/living a life in accordance with Jesus' teachings of grace, justice and love.
2. In other places you've claimed that "God blesses" gay marriage, are you suggesting that it is an objectively True statement to claim that "Holiness and purity" automatically attach to "gay folks getting married"?
It IS either objectively true or objectively false. I'd say it is reasonable think that it objectively true, but that neither of us can prove that claim one way or another authoritatively. As I've noted before.
Do you agree?
3. Do "Holiness and purity" automatically attach to all marriages, or just when "gay folks get married"?
All good, true marriages. I of course recognize that there are some fatally flawed marriages (abusive, forced, unwanted marriages, for instance) and I of course would not call those holy and pure.
Would you?
4. Where in scripture does is there a specific connection between marriage and "Holiness and purity"?
"Whatsoever things are good, pure, noble, holy, loving, etc... think on these things." The point of the passage (Philippians 4) is that we ought to hold on to those things that are self evidently good and lovely. A good and lovely marriage IS one of those whatsoever things, I'd say. This is true rationally, as well as going alone with this teaching from Paul.
Would you disagree?
5. Where did Jesus address "gay folks getting married" as having "Holiness and purity"?
No where. Of course, as gay folks getting married is never discussed in the Bible in either a positive or negative manner.
But Jesus consistently advocated for loving, wholesome relationships and good marriages are this, I think this is a reasonable conclusion.
Do you disagree?
Finally, Craig said this, something that he has alluded to oftentimes, for unknown reasons...
1. For someone who insists that "multiple truths" exist, it seems problematic for you to insist on a singular truth when it's to your benefit.
Multiple truths just factually DO exist. I don't know why you keep bringing this up. It is TRUE that my wife's car is blue and it is TRUE that my car is silver (silverish. dirty gray. whatever.) There alone are multiple truths. I have NO idea why you keep bringing this up, nor what point you think you're making with me supposedly "insisting on a singular truth...". Feel free to clarify.
The question that caused you to say this was me asking
IF Glenn, Marshal, Stan, etc have insisted that one can't be mistaken about some points and still be saved, would you call them mistaken and speaking beyond the notion of salvation by grace alone?
Feel free to actually answer the question being asked of you.
Dan,
While I appreciate your grudging answers (pretending like I haven’t answered you and that you haven’t been avoiding questions from multiple threads), it’s amusing that you can’t just answer a question.
I’ll dig deeper later, but I’ll suggest that when I ask you a question, that your guess about what someone else’s answer might be isn’t that helpful. It’s almost like a defense mechanism to allow you to appear to be answering a question, but in reality you’re trying to conjure up someone else’s answer.
For the record, I think that Art is either wrong, or that he’s expressed himself poorly. I’ll address it when I have time and a computer.
Craig... it’s amusing that you can’t just answer a question.
You know, I have long suspected that part of the problem in communication between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives just have a difficult time with nuance, with art and with allegory/figurative writing. Now, that may sound like a dig/jab... like a harsh comment about conservative thinking, but honestly, it's not intended to be.
When I was in conservative land and in the Contemporary Christian Music field, it eventually dawned on me how bad CCM music - MY music - was. I decided eventually it was because I was not doing art for art's sake, I was doing it to get a message across. And that when you do that, it often results in bad art AND a bad message. I decided that I/we just had a hard time with the art of it all, embracing mystery and figurative language, dance and allegory.
It's like that. Your comment here makes me think that, in a similar vein, you're having difficulty understanding me because my answers are nuanced, not black and white. But I answer that way out of necessity, because the question asked was nuanced and required a nuanced answer to give an accurate answer.
When you ask, for instance, about am I equating salvation with being a Christian. What I was doing IN THIS POST is not necessarily the same thing I'm doing generally. I'm talking to a particular audience about a particular topic here, and that requires nuance. I think you all see nuance and think, instead, it's me "just not answering a question," when, of course, it was a direct and clear answer, from my point of view.
But the nuance of that point of view makes you see "not answering a question."
Do you think?
"So tell me, Marshal. I'm a Christian saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and I believe the gay people getting married is a good and beautiful thing. Does this belief of mine means that I'm not saved? If I sincerely believe this, as I do, is being mistaken about that sufficient to mean I'm not saved?"
There's no "mistaken" about it, Dan. God has forbidden homosexual behavior. Full Stop! There's nothing, absolutely nothing, in Scripture that provides so much as a hint that there is any context or scenario in which homosexual practice is acceptable. There is no ambiguity about it whatsoever. Your insistence that you actually believe homosexuals marrying each other is a good and beautiful thing is a lie you tell yourself and others. But you can't support it with Scripture, and you never have. EVERYTHING you've ever put forth as an attempt to do so fails to get past that initial point regarding Lev 18:22, which in no way provides any possibility that it was referring to "some form" of homosexuality. You're a liar, plainly and simply, and as I said, you fool no honest person and beyond any doubt you do not fool God. Rather, you mock Him with your crap.
So, one like you is definitely NOT saved if you enable, celebrate and support homosexual practice in any way, including so-called "gay" marriages, because it is clearly and unequivocally without ambiguity or mystery an abomination. It's no different than saying you are saved while being a hit man, or a thief. It isn't a case of some Christians "sometimes" living an unChristian life. It's absolutely two people (as well as you as an enabler) purposely rejecting the clear teaching and will of God to appease their own urges and desires. It's a willful act of rebellion.
Thus again, you do not "sincerely believe this". You ignore that which you have never truly provided anything to support your chosen opinion beyond your own sick desire that it be true. You lie to yourself, and you lie to those who you'd better serve by being honest with them about what Scripture teaches.
"Is that adding to the gospel as the point of your post is talking about?"
I don't think he is. But I also don't agree with his position. As a practical matter, Christians do engage in sin, and Christians do "enable" others to engage in sin. The difference is that Christians will/should acknowledge and repent from their sins. It's possible that what Art is saying is that someone who is a Christian, will not try to minimize, or excuse sin, but rather take it as seriously as it deserves to be taken and repent.
"Is Marshal being unchristian or anti-christian in adding to the gospel in this manner?"
I don't think so.
"Do you think I'm mistaken?"
I don't think it matters. I think that answering the question with your version of what you believe that other people think, isn't really answering the question.
"For what it's worth, I'll gladly concede there's a reasonable case to be made that there are Christians who are saved who are not "living a Christian life," or living a life like Jesus taught. Is someone who's not consistently living a Christian life still a Christian?"
I'd suggest that it all depends on how they respond to their sin. If they embrace their sin, are proud of their sin, flaunt their sin, attempt to claim that it's not sin, then I'd think not. If they treat sin as something to repent from, humbly acknowledge their failures and ask forgiveness, I'd think so.
"Well, as that's all of us, to some degree or another, I'd say so. What do you think?"
As it says, "All have sinned.". I've never claimed that I'm sinless, nor that anyone is sinless.
"Do you agree?"
I'd agree that your answer is an attempt to claim that your hunch is objectively True, but with enough weasel room to avoid having to prove your claim is True. The problem you have is that you can't/won't/haven't provided any specific, unequivocal biblical support for your claim about God. Given your inability to do so, I'd say that it's not reasonable to believe that something (specifically that "God blesses") is objectively True absent any evidence.
"Would you?"
No. As you point out, your initial claim, (Holiness and purity of gay folks getting married ), is false.
"Would you disagree?"
I'd disagree that you answered the question as asked. I clearly asked for a "specific" example, you trotted out your default non specific answer.
Craig... "I'd suggest that it all depends on how they respond to their sin."
And what about the case where they don't know it's sin? For instance, Marshal and others condemning gay marriage, I believe that's a sin, I believe that one day they will find out from God but they were wrong to do that. And yet, they were unrepentant in it because, in their ignorance, they continued to do that sin.
Are they rejecting God because of their ignorance? Or are they just ignorant?
The same holds true for gay folks who get married. By and large, I don't believe most of them believe that it is a sin. Should they turn out to be wrong, are they wrong for having never repented for something they didn't know was a sin?
Dan,
A break for a clarification.
Are you saying that you believe that people who “disagree” with you about “the gays”, or who are convinced that PSA is the best explanation of the atonement have “salvation”? Obviously this hinges on what “salvation” means to you, something you’ve not addressed as yet.
I believe we are saved by grace. Period. Thus, the conservative who is cruel to gay folks in ways that I think are wrong because, in their ignorance, they've chosen cruelty, they are not unsaved because they're mistaken. Why? Because we are saved by grace. Grace covers being mistaken.
So, yes, those who disagree with me about gay issues who are saved by God's grace, ARE saved by God's grace, in spite of their ignorance and mistakes. I've been pretty consistently clear on all this.
I'm not saying that those who disagree with me about PSA or biblical interpretation or gay rights are not saved because they're mistaken or because they disagree with me. We are saved by God's grace. Not our perfect knowledge. Not even a perfect knowledge only on some issues.
I believe this is one area where Marshal and Glenn, at least, disagree with me and, I think, you.
It’ll take me a day or two to sort out that convoluted answer. Have you ever considered erring on the side of clarity, directness and simplicity?
Yes Dan, it absolutely couldn’t be your fault that your answers are obtuse and convoluted.
The problem isn’t that I don’t understand your answers, it’s that you’ve confused answering questions for yourself with trying to answer for others. Trying to come up with an answer from your version of someone else’s point of view isn’t “nuanced”, it’s diversionary.
It’s pretty simple, if a question is asked of you, give your answer. Don’t try to give your perversion of someone else’s.
Let's take it step-by-step then.
1. I believe we are saved by grace. Period.
Is that confusing to you? Do I need to clarify that in some way? What about that is confusing to you?
2. You asked if I believed those who disagreed with me are saved? My direct response is as I said...
"I'm not saying that those who disagree with me about PSA or biblical interpretation or gay rights are not saved because they're mistaken or because they disagree with me."
Is that not clear to you? What about it is not clear? I know I put a double negative in there, but it was in response to how you phrased your question.
I don't know if those who disagree with me are saved. I don't know them that way.
But IF they are saved by grace, then that is not undone because they are mistaken on some points. Why? Grace, that's why.
3. "We are saved by God's grace. Not our perfect knowledge"
That's just me restating my point and expanding on it to help you understand. We don't HAVE to have perfect knowledge. We can be mistaken.
Why? Because we are saved by grace.
Is that confusing to you? What about it is confusing or hard to understand?
This is more equivocation, distortion, pretending on Dan's part. It's not about "perfect" knowledge. It's about obvious knowledge and honesty with regards to the teachings of the faith. There's no "cruelty" in promoting what is obvious and true. There's no "cruelty" in pointing out how salvation is compromised by engaging in what God clearly and unmistakably forbids.
As such, there can be no "gay" marriage if the underlying behavior...homosexual behavior...is the basis for that union. Erotic attraction to one of the same sex is simple sinful desire. Desire doesn't overcome Christ's saving grace. Willfully indulging that sinful desire does as Scripture clearly warns. There's no being "mistaken" about something so perfectly clear and unambiguous about the abomination of homosexual behavior, for which there is no hint of context or scenario in which it can take place without still being the abomination God says it is.
Dan wants to pretend I'm mistaken about this. He wants to pretend that speaking this truth can somehow be cruel to anyone...that there is something somehow "ignorant" about something so clearly taught us in Scripture.
"Grace" doesn't save us from willfully living in rebellion to God. There is no repentance without resolving to never again engage in the forbidden behavior, which Dan clearly and intentionally ignores under the guise of "being mistaken"...when in fact he does far worse by pretending the forbidden behavior isn't sinful in the first place. He's a liar.
Further, he's a liar to dare suggest that those of us who do NOT lie about what Scripture says and teaches on the subject of sexual behavior are somehow "mistaken" and by that he thinks he's being "gracious" by "allowing" that grace covers us. What an arrogant, fraudulent and evil bit of pretentious crap!
Craig... "Have you ever considered erring on the side of clarity, directness and simplicity?"
You see, the problem is, you asked me to affirm whether someone I only know from the internet is saved or not. I don't KNOW them other than their words on the internet. I can't say for them if they are saved or not.
BUT anyone who is saved by grace, IS saved by grace, not by having perfect knowledge. That is as direct an answer as is possible given what I know.
How could I possibly give a more direct answer than that?
Here it is one more time. Read it slowly and comprehend.
IF someone is saved by grace, then they are saved by grace. Not by having perfect knowledge on some topics.
If it requires having perfect knowledge on certain topics, then it is no longer Grace.
That IS a direct and clear answer.
Craig... "The problem isn’t that I don’t understand your answers, it’s that you’ve confused answering questions for yourself with trying to answer for others."
No. As this answer itself demonstrates, the problem is you don't understand my answers. So the question is, why do you think that is?
Ok, now that I’ve demonstrated your last comment false(quote below), you’ve taken to repeating yourself instead of answering the questions, and you’ve decided to answer questions you’d like me to have asked, it seems safe to conclude that you’re not interested in substance.
“In the context of modern white conservative evangelicals, I recognize that it's what they tend to mean. It is "Christians" (and no one else) who receive "salvation," and so, who gets salvation, according to conservative evangelicals? Christians. To them, they are one in the same.”
Craig... "now that I’ve demonstrated your last comment false..."
And yet, as always, you have not demonstrated my comment to be false. You've demonstrated, again, that you are not understanding what I'm saying.
If you don't understand, why don't you ask?
Yes Dan, the quote I provided was filled with hidden meaning indecipherable by using standard English language comprehension.
Of course, it’s just you repeating the same old crap instead of clarifying,
Just wondering....who else BUT Christians are saved? Did Christ not tell us He's the way to salvation...that no one comes to the Father but through Him? Do not modern black Evangelicals not accept this clearly taught doctrine?
Back to Dan's questions.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, because making an argument from silence is an absurd thing to do. Further, taking your hunch about Jesus' views on relationships (ignoring His clear words on marriage) and extrapolating that into "God blesses", just has no logical basis. Finally, this entire notion is predicated on what YOU perceive to be "good" marriage.
"Multiple truths just factually DO exist."
I'll simply note that this is an unproven assertion.
"I have NO idea why you keep bringing this up, nor what point you think you're making with me supposedly "insisting on a singular truth...". Feel free to clarify."
One reason I keep bringing this up, is when you complain about someone "lying". If there is not a singular Truth, then the very concept of a lie is meaningless.
In this context, you have a problem with the "claims" of certain people regarding certain doctrines. If, as you claim, there are "multiple" truths why do you get so worked up when others express one of these "multiple truths"? Why not simply write it off to others believing in a different one of the "multiple truths" than you do and live and let live?
"IF Glenn, Marshal, Stan, etc have insisted that one can't be mistaken about some points and still be saved, would you call them mistaken and speaking beyond the notion of salvation by grace alone?"
The key word here is IF. IF you are correctly representing what they have said, then you could be correct. The problem is that you are asking a hypothetical, based on your biased hunches about what people have said at some point in the past. Perhaps the better option would be to point out specific instances where they've actually said what you claim they've said (quoted and linked) and ask for my response to that?
"Do you think?"
No.
The question I asked was, "Are you equating "salvation" with "being a Christian"?". It's a pretty straightforward, simple, unnuanced question. It's clear and unambiguous that I was asking "you", not for your hunch about someone else.
The fact that you provide a response that doesn't answer the question as asked, then try to justify that non answer as being "nuanced", seems much more like obfuscation than an attempt to answer the question. The fact that you're still trying to avoid answering the question as asked, seems to indicate an unwillingness to answer the question.
"And what about the case where they don't know it's sin?"
If it is genuinely a case where someone is ignorant about some specific thing, I'm inclined to look to God's mercy and that He would judge justly.
"For instance, Marshal and others condemning gay marriage, I believe that's a sin, I believe that one day they will find out from God but they were wrong to do that. And yet, they were unrepentant in it because, in their ignorance, they continued to do that sin."
Actually, the above statement is not completely accurate. What Art and others are doing is simply pointing out what Scripture has said about homosexual sexual acts. They are pointing out something that you've acknowledged to be true, that the only references to homosexual sexual acts in scripture are negative, and that "gay marriage" is never mentioned.
So, you are making several leaps in logic without any actual proof.
1. That their actions (taking Scripture at face value) are "a sin". This is clearly a hunch on your part and not supported by anything in Scripture.
2. That your hunch about the truth of this question is singularly true, while theirs is not singularly true. If there are "multiple truths", by what standard do you determine that your truth is more true than anyone else's?
3. You repeatedly base your hunch in "I believe", while you are welcome to your beliefs, by what standard do you impose your "belief" on others? Why would you judge people based on your "belief", which is (at best) one of "multiple truths"?
"Are they rejecting God because of their ignorance? Or are they just ignorant?"
Neither. The fact that you "believe" something imposes absolutely zero constraints on either God or other people. Why would you conclude that others are "ignorant" simply because that don't share something that you "believe"? If you can't provide proof that supports what you "believe", why would you expect others to adopt or agree with your beliefs?
"The same holds true for gay folks who get married. By and large, I don't believe most of them believe that it is a sin."
I'm going to suspect that there are all sorts of folks who engage in all sorts of sins who don't "believe" that what they are doing is a sin. Is the test of what is sinful or not, what people "believe"?
"Should they turn out to be wrong, are they wrong for having never repented for something they didn't know was a sin?"
In the abstract, hypothetical world your question assumes, one would think that a Just and Merciful God would judge accordingly.
But, let's look at the other side.
What if Scripture is accurate in what it says about homosexual sexual acts?
what if it's not a matter of "not knowing", but of knowing and willfully choosing to ignore?
What if someone who does know that homosexual sexual behavior is a sin, yet leads others to believe that it isn't a sin and encourages others to engage in homosexual sexual behavior?
What you appear to be doing is assuming that what you "believe" is singularly true, attacking those who don't agree with what you "believe", and basing your hypotheticals on the assumption that you aren't wrong.
"of course, it was a direct and clear answer, from my point of view."
1. This assumes that your "point of view" aligns with reality.
2. This ignores the literally question that was literally asked.
3. This is simply a self serving rationalization for not answering the question as asked.
"I believe this is one area where Marshal and Glenn, at least, disagree with me and, I think, you."
I'm pretty confident that your belief doesn't align with reality. Since you haven't provided anything to support your belief (quotes and links), there's no way to evaluate your claim.
"Let's take it step-by-step then."
Let's do! It'll be so much more exciting that you answering the questions you've been asked.
"1. I believe we are saved by grace. Period."
"Is that confusing to you?" The statement, no.
"Do I need to clarify that in some way?" I've don't know that you've ever defined "grace" or how the process works, or if it's all inclusive, so that'd be helpful.
"What about that is confusing to you?" Not much.
"2. You asked if I believed those who disagreed with me are saved? My direct response is as I said..."
Actually, I asked something slightly different...
"Is that not clear to you? What about it is not clear?" It's probably as close to clear as you'll get.
"But IF they are saved by grace, then that is not undone because they are mistaken on some points. Why? Grace, that's why." OK.
The rest wasn't worth responding to in detail.
"You see, the problem is, you asked me to affirm whether someone I only know from the internet is saved or not. I don't KNOW them other than their words on the internet. I can't say for them if they are saved or not."
Actually, that's not exactly what I asked. I asked a "hypothetical" question about a non specific person who believed in a particular doctrine.
It was clearly easier for you to state the obvious, that we don't know who's saved or not, instead of responding to the hypothetical.
"How could I possibly give a more direct answer than that?"
Strangely enough, after bitching and justifying your less than direct and clear answer, then concluding with the question above, you proceed to give a "more clear direct answer than that". So the answer to your question is... just use fewer words and less obfuscation.
As I've referred back through this, I've noticed that not only are some of the questions you responded to not answered, there are more than I thought that were simply ignored.
Just to make sure.
"I don't guess you understand that, do you?" No, I understand.
"Do you agree that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, and if you don't understand atonement theories correctly or holds the "right" atonement Theory, you're still saved?"
In general, yes.
"Do you agree that we are saved through faith by grace and if you don't agree on a sin category, like homosexuality, that doesn't mean you're not saved?"
in general, yes.
"I also note that the author takes just two of the "solas" as the crucial parts of the gospel. Left out is the "by scripture alone..." that was the common third sola identified during the Reformation."
To reiterate what I said earlier. This particular nit that you've chosen to pick is based on your assumptions about the author's intent.
Also, there are 5 sola statements, not three. If you're going to bitch, at least get your facts straight.
"And I'd really like to see you address this complete and total lack of understanding of what I wrote. In my first comment, I was noting that there are those who say yes salvation by grace through faith, but IF you disagree with me about the gays you are not saved."
Yet, you're basing your bitching about something that you haven't demonstrated is actually a thing. I think you are confusing people saying something like, "If you're saved, then you won't engage in, encourage others to engage in, or try to justify engaging in any sin." with "If you don't agree, you're not saved.".
"You literally understood me completely wrong, understanding me to say the opposite of what I said. Do you not see that? Or can you see it now?"
This statement implies the existence of a singular truth, something you deny exists.
To be fair, I won't repeat my earlier response to this point.
"What Is absurd about me pointing out the you actually are misunderstanding me?"
You repeating this constantly without actually explaining why in most cases. Or, your making this claim, when it's clear that I not only understand you, but understand the logical conclusion of your hunches.
"Do you seriously think that I can't?" I think that it's highly unlikely that you can provide examples of mainstream "conservatives" that as saying the things you claim are being said. I think that the fact that you chose to get defensive, rather than provide evidence supports that conclusion.
"How unaware are you of what conservative Christians are saying?"
Not very. Unlike you, I've read, heard, and paid attention to the writings and teachings of conservatives for the past 15 years. Since you've been quite clear that you haven't read, heard, or studied and "conservative" theology in the past 15 years, I'm not sure why I'd simply accept your assertions as true, without evidence.
To be clear. I'm sure there are "conservatives" who are mistaken, express themselves poorly, or who just say bizarre random things without thinking. Why would those people be put forth as representative of "conservatives" in general?
I'm sure this isn't exhaustive, but it's enough.
Post a Comment