Rachel Held Evans

When a theology just doesn’t feel right...

This week’s posts challenge the fundamentalists position of exclusivism-the theology that salvation is available only to those who explicitly confess faith in Jesus Christ, leaving out the billions of people throughout history who either never heard of Jesus or who were raised in religious traditions other than Christianity.

Having been taught my whole life that exclusivism was the only truly biblical position, I nearly gave up on the Christian faith altogether when my moral objections to it became too overwhelming for me to ignore. At the heart of the issue was the fact that exclusivism just didn’t feel right to me, it didn’t fit with my very core sense of right and wrong, of justice and injustice, of good and evil.

I shared the reservations of Elton Trueblood, who wrote of exclusivism: “Such a scheme is neat and simple, but it is morally shocking…A God who would thus play favorites with his children, condemning some to eternal separation from himself while admitting others, and distinguishing them wholly or chiefly on the basis of the accidents of history or geography, over which they had no control, would be more devil than God.”

But whenever I worked up the courage to question exclusivism, someone inevitably fired back, “who are you to question your Creator? If you have a problem with people going to hell, then take it up with Him.” Believing Calvin’s theology to be God’s theology, any moral or emotional reservations are rendered moot. As one of my friends put it in an e-mail recently, “If God says that the moon is made of green cheese, then the moon is made of green cheese despite what the scientists and my own senses might say. Everything God does is right, so if He condemns millions of men, women, and children to eternal torment, then I have to be okay with that. It’s got nothing to do with how I feel.”

If I had a penny for every time I was told that my reservations on this matter were the result of my accommodating to a humanistic culture, I could afford the ACLU membership fees apparently needed to support my habit. Such “sentimentalism,” I’ve been told, comes from the misguided assumption that human beings deserve mercy. The reason I have a problem with the idea of people suffering eternally without the chance to be saved is because my sense of justice is perverted by my sin nature. This is a common argument, and one set forth by David George Moore in his book entitled The Battle for Hell. “It must be stated quite emphatically that our sense of justice is perverted, twisted, and distorted,” he writes. “What we as humans deem to be fair can many times be far removed from what God says.” (p. 29)

I can accept this idea to an extent, but it raises another serious question: If my sin nature perverts my sense of right and wrong to the point that I should not listen to my conscience, should I refrain from making judgment calls altogether? Is it not, dare I say, a bit of an argument in support of moral relativism?

C.S. Lewis describes the sense of right and wrong that exist in every person’s conscience as the Moral Law written on our hearts. Although our hearts and minds are corrupted by our sin nature, this sense of right and wrong, of justice and injustice, of love and hate, remains an important part of who we are and deserves our attention. I believe that, if my conscience tells me it is unjust for someone who never heard the gospel to suffer eternal torture for being born at the wrong place at the wrong time, I should listen to that conscience. If my heart tells me something is wrong, I’m not going to ignore it because Calvin says it isn’t real.

Now, someone will probably post an angry comment saying that the authority of Scripture should supercede any moral objections to exclusivism, that God’s Word trumps those gut feelings that there might be a problem.

But what if Scripture doesn’t necessarily support exclusivism?

While I have a great deal of respect for the many godly people I know who subscribe to the theology of exclusivism, I no longer believe that it is the only biblical view. In fact, I would argue that the Bible actually has more support for an inclusive view of salvation than it has for an exclusive view of salvation. (See the previous post for references.)

Also encouraging is the diversity of scholarship on the subject found within the Christian tradition. Christian history is full of theologians who struggled with the problem of the unevangelized and who posed a wide variety of ideas about it. From Origen’s hope that salvation will eventually be received by all, to Karl Rahner’s assertion that other religions can serve as pointers to Christ, to Clark Pinnock’s biblical case for a more optimistic view of salvation, I’ve found that tucked away in the dusty corners of Christian libraries is a wealth of scholarship on the subject.

All my life I’ve been taught that the Church is at its best when the theology is consistent and everyone agrees with one another, but when my very faith was on the line, it was the diversity of the Christian tradition that offered me so much hope.

As I’ve worked my way through Scripture, I’ve come to realize how horribly I misjudged God when I assumed that certain theological interpretations of Him defined Him. Doubting what I thought was a core tenant of Christianity was an incredibly difficult experience, and I confess that the anger and frustration I felt often led to sinful challenges to God’s authority and insensitive remarks to other people. There’s no excuse for it.

And yet, I’m glad I listened to my conscience and questioned a theology that simply didn’t feel right to me. Doing so has brought me down a path of spiritual exploration that has renewed my sense of awe for God’s love and mercy and for the universal reach of His redemption.

My hope is that, as more people listen to their intuition, the conservative evangelical community will reassess its position on the destiny of the un-evangelized.

Micah

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #1 on : Sat May 03, 2008, 14:56:33

The problem, though, is that intuition can be faulty. There's plenty of stuff in the Bible that goes against my intuition. Left to my intuition, I'll always believe that I'm the most important person in the universe. It feels right!

Rachel, I really think you'd enjoy one of NT Wright's recent books: "Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church." Actually, if you haven't been reading Wright, you should stop everything else, go get half a dozen of his books, and start plowing through. Here's a quote from Wright:

"So my way of describing it is that once this life is over, people who have decided not to worship God cease to bear God’s image. The thought of an ex-human being is something that some people find shocking and horrifying. In a sense, it is shocking and horrifying. Think about people we know! I’m sure most people, unless we live in very enclosed worlds, must know some people (if we truly hold to a theology of hell) who are going there! That should give us pause. That should cause us to pray for them and to weep over them. So I don’t say this with any relish at all."

Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 14:57:03 by Micah

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #2 on : Sat May 03, 2008, 19:08:59

I really appreciated your post, Rachel.

Micah, I do think intuition is wrong--even often wrong. But I also think that we have no choice but to listen to our conscience (which I think is very often the voice of the Holy Spirit within us) when a given doctrine violates our most basic sense of right and wrong--even if that doctrine seems to be supported by scripture.

Listening to one's conscience can be a dangerous matter, but not so dangerous, I argue, as the green-cheese-moon God theory. I'm fully willing to believe (and do, in fact, believe) that God's ways are not always ours--that they are higher and, at times, inexplicable. I am unwilling to believe that the good God whose Spirit speaks within me leaves me bereft of an internal moral compass to the extent that I must accept (human) interpretations of God's word that I find morally repugnant.

This question of exclusivism is what made me begin to doubt Christianity as an adolescent. In the 15+ years since I have wrestled with this issue and many others, most of which had at their roots the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. Eventually, with a lot of off-and-on gutwrenching soulsearching, I came to believe that the Bible is simply not inerrant, neither in its original autographs nor in its present form. Having this belief no longer scares me--I think inerrancy is an idol of sorts for many evangelicals/fundamentalists, and it's an idol whose smashing has done my faith a world of good.

So, am I hopelessly adrift in a sea of relativism? Some would certainly say that I am. Fortunately I am confident of the voice of God leading me in my life, strengthening my faith, reminding me of my sin, and revealing more of him/herself to me and within me.

Thanks again, Rachel.

Micah

When two roads diverge in a yellow wood...
Reply #3 on : Sat May 03, 2008, 22:36:25

Well, that's fair. I'm not saying intuition is _always_ wrong, I'm just saying it can't be our only guide. I think what usually bothers me when hearing your story (and Rachel's, as well) is that you seem to have been presented with a false choice: are these _really_ the only two positions? Is there no middle way?

Personally, I don't hold to exclusivism (as Rachel's described it, at least) but I also see strong inclusivism as pretty difficult to reconcile with the words and actions of Jesus and his closest followers.

I've often used the statement "Jesus provides the only _assurance_ of salvation" in an attempt to go a middle way (that's a long discussion that I won't get into in this post). Ultimately we can all agree that anybody who gets to heaven gets there through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, but whether that is limited to "those that confess with the mouth" (i.e., sinner's prayer) is an unsolved question. I personally don't think so, but then it's hard to deny some of the harder teachings of Jesus (namely, that most people won't get in).

It looks like Bryan has really beefed up its Bible/theology department since Rachel and I graduated, which is a really good thing. What passed for a theological education there while we were there was pretty abysmal. If what you were presented with is anywhere close to what we got there, it's not hard to see why you rejected it.

But that's a whole different discussion. I guess my only real point is to always beware of people who peddle two extremes (with nothing in between) as the only possible choices. They're usually selling something.

Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 22:40:03 by Micah

Jason Ingolfsland

Interesting
Reply #4 on : Sun May 04, 2008, 00:44:21

You definitely have made your defense against Exculsivist arguments, but how can you explain your own side?

If I am to agree with you this raises interesting questions.

1.) What then is the standard or process to which people are saved? If not exclusively through Christ Jesus.

2.) What urgency is there (if at all) to evangelize if those who have not heard are going to heaven?

3.) Who will go to hell? Those that only hear and reject Christ?

While I understand your frustration with those who stick by a "no questioning God" argument. It would seem that Paul makes the same case in Romans 9.

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

Is there a time when we have to just let go?

To a degree I believe that going full on exclusivist can be rather drastic, and not allowing God's judgment to have mercy, grace, and forgiveness. At the same time, as we are commanded in the scriptures, we need to be zealous to proclaim the gospel. As Paul contends in Romans 10:

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? [3] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

I don't agree with everything Calvinist theology proclaims, but at the same time I tend to wonder if you are giving them a bit too much of a negative rap. I have learned a ton from Reformed Theology and think they have a strong Biblical interpretation. Calvin's interpretations on the scriptures are one of the most solid and ground breaking that we have had and basically every scholar today that does commentaries goes to Calvin's commentaries. Every commentary I have read on the New Testament cites Calvin. And Calvin likes to cite Augustine and Augustine the Church Fathers. There is a long line of Biblical interpretation agreement on certain theological ideas and I suppose I find it a tad bit naive to argue against it with "feelings".

One last thought:

Anonymous up there questioned exclusivism as morally repugnant. Aren't we morally repugnant to God? Is that not why we are condemned? Is that not why Christ died? Or, are we all beloved sons and daughters who will all go to heaven no matter what? I suppose the Spirit in me is saying that God is just. That I am to have faith in Christ. And that those who don't are condemned. Or are we getting mixed signals from the same Spirit?

Thanks for the post,
Jason

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #5 on : Sun May 04, 2008, 08:47:51

Micah, I think you're right about the necessity to avoid extremes. I wanted to clarify, however, that I'm not necessarily an inclusivist. I certainly don't consider myself a radical exclusivist (and find that position, as I mentioned earlier, morally inacceptable), and I have a lot of respect for people navigating a middle ground.

To be honest, the whole inclusivist/exclusivist issue is a bit of a moot point for me right now, even though, as I mentioned, it was exclusivism that first caused me to question the conservative Christianity in which I was raised. These days I don't worry/think much about the issue, because I don't know what I think about heaven, hell, the afterlife, and what salvation is. I will need a good bit more clarity on those points before tackling the issue of_who_is saved.

Just wanted to clarify my position a bit.

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #6 on : Sun May 04, 2008, 10:51:02

Hi Jason,

Interpretive tradition is informative and worth consideration, but does not necessarily equal truth. And your use of "feelings" suggests whimsey, while I would argue that it is both reason and the voice of my conscience that prompt me to reject tradition in this, and other, instances. While neither my reason nor my moral compass is infallible, they are not, I believe, lightweight and worthy of disregarding.

It is possible, I suppose, that the Spirit is sending us mixed signals. More likely is that one of us is wrong. But even if we were coming from the same point of view (that Scripture is inerrant/reliable), we would still struggle with the fact that you believe/interpret one thing, while I do another, if not on soteriology, than on other crucial doctrines. This is nothing new (reference church splits down through the ages in which each side claimed to have both Scripture and theological tradition on its side) and it is something that we will always, always have to wrestle with.

As I said before, when it comes down to it, I rely more on my conscience and the voice of the Holy Spirit than I do on the Bible, which is why I'm not arguing the point that you make when you quote Paul. I think in all likelihood the passages in Romans were written to convey pretty much the meaning you take from them, and that the Biblical argument for exclusivism could well be stronger than that for inclusivism. In which case I simply don't agree with what's found in the Bible. I find it more honest to say that than to do textual gymnastics to try to support my position (which I couldn't do well anyway, not being much of a theologian).

That I listen to my inner voice over the Bible probably sounds arrogant and dangerous to you, but it's not a position that I've come to lightly. I love--truly love--the Bible, and believe it contains both divine inspiration and solid guidance for life. But in the same way that you find arguments based on "feelings" naive, I find basing arguments solely on the Bible to be naive. It is a truly great and awe-inspiring book. But it is also contradictory at times and limited by the cultural, historical, and theological climates its authors inhabited. Furthermore, careful study of the process of canonization and textual origin seems to instil the vast majority of scholars with anything but confidence in the reliability of the text.

Scripture has both human and divine elements, just as we, who are made in the image of God, have human and divine elements. It would be wonderful if the Bible, or alternately, our consciences, were completely reliable and devoid of pride, sin or error. As it is, I believe we must spend our lives in a process of prayerful wrestling, attempting to find and follow God's voice in Scripture, in ourselves, and in the world. Certainly we will err in this process, and the lack of certainty can be unsettling, but it's something I'm willing to live with. Actually, the uncertainty excites me, because I feel that accepting it has made me more alert to hearing GOd's voice in places that I might not have expected back when my views were much more conservative/traditional than they are now.

Jason Ingolfsland

Sure
Reply #7 on : Sun May 04, 2008, 22:44:04

I guess maybe I am trying to make a point of epistemology. How do you know? How do I know?

I guess I just don't have the luxury of picking and choosing scripture for my own personal comfort or conscience. If you have chosen to reject inerrancy then I suppose that is your choice, but at the same time you must accept the epistemological consequences of it. As a Christian, I am going to have faith that God has inspired the writers to provide spiritual, intellectual, and truthful information about who God is, about who Jesus is, and about what we are to do with it. So, I will base my theology on scripture, not on emotion, or feelings, or my own philosophies that don't coincide with scripture.

In terms of tradition, I never said that it equaled truth, but that it holds much more weight than it is being given. That church fathers, scholars, and great Christian thinkers have come to these interpretations of scripture and agreed through the centuries. I suppose to me that is like my doctor telling me that I have cancer, and that tests have shown that I have cancer, but I don't believe that their studies, or science, or research really means anything and I feel like I don't have cancer and his interpretations are wrong and I am right. Could I be right? Maybe. But reason should really make me trust and listen to my doctor rather than myself.

Julie

questions for you
Reply #8 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 00:58:37

Do you believe there is a hell-as in a pit of fire, and walling and gnashing of teeth that lasts forever?

If so who do you believe will be in it?

Do you believe that if someone denies Christ and follows another god with great faith and devotion will be saved?

Do you believe that salvation comes by works or grace?

Do you believe that salvation is a get it by grace keep it by works?

Do you believe that a person serving another god (who hasn't had a chance at knowing Jesus) but is "working" for their salvation based on the other religion's theology will be saved?

Do you make decisions based on the "traditional view" or by "Gary Friesen's position."

Do you call yourself a Christian? (That really isn't supposed to be snarky but I know it sounds mean.)

Do you think only Calvinist are exclusivists?

What do you believe about missions? Or translating the Bible into other languages?

Why were we told to bring the Gospel to others? Why would it be good news if they didn't need God to save them?

Is ignorance bliss?

Maybe these questions aren't fair but I really am trying to wrap my mind around what you are proposing. I promise from the bottom of my heart none of them are meant demeaning it anyway. I do however think I am mostly in Mitch's corner here (he posted on a different post). However, it is evident that your are smart, and I believe you wouldn't say this if you hadn't studied it a lot. So my mind runs to a lot of things that might not be true if your position is true. I am sure I could think of a ton more questions but I better quit for now.

Julie

Oh, I had one more...no wait five more...
Reply #9 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 01:20:00

Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Do you believe the Bible is Inspired? Do you put scripture above (as in ultimate authority) other wittings? Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God? Do you hold any other writings to be inspired?

Brooke

logic
Reply #10 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 09:40:18

I think quite possibly the real question here is not necessarily what makes more sense to us justice-wise but rather what each view actually says about the effect of the work of Christ on the cross.
Here's a logical progression of the concepts of inclusivism vs. exclusivism that I find extremely helpful:

For Whom Did Christ Die?

"The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent the punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men,
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:
a. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for and so none are saved.
b. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all [believers] in the whole world, and this is the truth.
c. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, 'Because of unbelief.' I ask, 'Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not?' If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
-- John Owen

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #11 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 11:58:54

Jason, the epistomological consequence of my belief that Scripture isn't inerrant is that there isn't certainty. I fully accept this consequence, primarily because I think that the "certainty" one gets from believing Scripture is inerrant is naive.

At the core, I don't think our epistomological convictions are all that different. You have faith that God has preserved his/her voice of reliable meaning and guidance in a text written by any number of authors across thousands of years that has been copied unreliably and/or modified countless times(the degree to which is debated by scholars across the conservative-to-liberal range) and subject to all-too-human processes of canonization and translation. I believe that God's voice speaks with reliable meaning and guidance in my heart. Both positions have their weak points; in the end each of us has chosen that which we feel is strongest. (And I don't think either of us rejects either position completely).

Also, I think your doctor/cancer analogy breaks down. First, it deals with something whose results can be tested/seen. I can say all day long that I don't have cancer, but at some point it is going to be quite evident to all concerned that I do, in fact, have cancer. We don't have physical evidence of that sort about who goes to heaven or hell after death. (Even scriptural conceptions of the afterlife vary quite a bit). Second, you talk about all the doctors' opinions and evidence saying I have cancer, while only I say I don't. Applying that to theology, I don't think all theologians in the history of Christendom rise up in one monolithic chorus to proclaim that heathens go to hell, while it's only me of no theological education voicing dissent. I would imagine that this issue has been discussed in a variety of ways since the inception of the faith and will continue to be discussed and debated for as long as the earth goes on.

Jason Ingolfsland

Naivety
Reply #12 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 13:11:28

Anonymous:

But you must realize the lack of reliability your position holds? If the scriptures didn't exist how would you even know of God, Jesus, or any special revelation existent in the scriptures? Basically, whether you believe the scriptures are inerrant or not, it would be rather arrogant to claim that God gives you special revelation that supercedes the scriptures.

Also, I think your reather pessemistic view on the scriptures history is a bit off place. There is plenty of evidence to prove that the scriptures have been kept intact to a 98% basis, i fyou want to deny that then I guess you can have fun but even the most liberal scholars would attest to the scriptures unchanged reliability. Granted there are parts that are hazy (The adulterous woman passage in John comes to mind) but to completely discredit the scriptures the way you have is a bit offf place in my opinion.

In the end, I think we are much farther off you than you claim. I will base my theological decisions on scripture founded in history and tradition agreement. I would never trust myself or someone else because they had some rational feeling or emotional feeling. THat is much less reliable, that is how heresy is formed.

Dan

blog-hopping
Reply #13 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 14:40:53

Actually, Jason, heresy is formed when a collection of influential or otherwise powerful people get together and decide to raise their own "rational feeling or emotional feeling" to the level of universal orthodoxy and declare all other interpretations invalid. Jesus did not outline a systematic theology that his followers could pass on and by which we could clearly judge heresy [not that we know of, anyway]. And even the Scriptures themselves, while clearly a source of guidance and theological insight, do not outline a clear paradigm of orthodoxy either--the myriad of Christian theologies propounded through history is testament to this fact.

If you really think that you do not follow your own "rational feeling or emotional feeling" but simply "base [your] theological decisions on scripture," then you are certainly living in a delusional world and win the prize for ultimate naivety. Responsible (much less intelligible) interpretations of Scripture require the use of "some rational feeling or emotional feeling."

That's all. Interesting blog you guys have going here. Bye now.

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #14 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 15:10:29

Jason, I think you're subscribing to a false dichotomy. I can believe that scripture is imperfect and still acknowledge that I both rely upon it and live and breathe a faith (and a culture and intellectual tradition) that is dependant upon it.

And I'm not claiming to have some direct line of special revelation from God that supercedes the special revelation found in scripture. I'm saying that I think the voice of the Spirit within us can help us as we humbly and honestly seek to discern to what extent certain portions of scripture may reflect human error and blindness rather than divine revelation.

I may have been overly pessimistic about the textual integrity of the Bible in my earlier post. I'm far from a scholar in the field. For what it's worth, when I read the Bible, I pretty much take for granted that what I have before me is more or less what the authors originally wrote, and that it, in most places, conveys the general meaning that those authors wished to convey. So textual integrity doesn't overly concern me, and even issues of canonicity (which trouble me a bit) don't really affect the way in which I read/view the Bible.

My view that the Bible isn't inerrant has a lot more to do with issues/views related to inspiration. I believe that the authors of scripture were divinely inspired in some way. I simply don't believe that what they wrote reflects 100% divine inspiration and nothing else. Like I said before, I think the Bible is a mix of divine and human elements. The divine elements are inerrant, the human ones are not. Faith, I believe, is the work of sorting through the human dross to get to the Divine, in scripture, in the world, and in our own lives. Thank God for the Spirit within us helping us do that work.

Mitch

The Bible
Reply #15 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 18:21:12

In the end, with this view of the Bible, you are left with "the world as you want it". For the portions of the scripture that you agree with you accept, the other's you can easily dismiss as being in error. I do not know if you personally do this anonymous, but I do know others that do this. Ultimately you choose what's right for you from the smorgusboard of the Bible. In doing this, the Bible is only authoritative when you want it to be. That is a far cry from what I see Jason articulating his position to be.

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #16 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 20:13:58

Mitch,

If you like, we can cease attempting to explain our own views or to listen to each other’s opinions with an open mind. You can say I lack the faith to accept the hard truths of the Bible and trivialize the positions I’ve reached after years of thought and prayer by saying that I want the world on my own terms and see the Bible as a smorgasbord. Likewise, I can say that you use religion as a crutch and cling to naïve beliefs about the Bible because emotionally you can’t handle uncertainty. Attacking each other’s motives rather than discussing the issues at hand may be a powerful rhetorical device, but it is at best unhelpful and at worst perpetuates grossly inaccurate misconceptions.

Alternatively, we can persevere with respectful discourse, choosing not to trivialize each others’ views even when we (strongly) disagree, trusting that the other is wrestling as honestly as he/she knows can to discern God’s leading. I prefer this course.

(Perhaps the above is a false dichotomy! A third option might be that we all go eat dinner, thanking the One who provides us with it. That’s what I'm planning to do after spending too much time on this blog today! Thanks again to Rachel for sparking valuable discussion.)

Mitch

The Bible
Reply #17 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 23:03:15

Anonymous,

I have not attacked you. I have not questioned the amount of time you have spent wrestling with scriptures nor trivialized your conclusions. I've simply stated what I see as the great weakness of your view of the Bible. The cold, hard, fact remains that if you don't accept all the Bible, then you are the ultimate judge of which parts you do accept. That leaves you in the position of picking and choosing. That is a dangerous place to be since by nature we are all evil, corrupt people bent on our own self desires. Of course I got that from the Bible too . . .

Mitch

An invitation to be rebuked . . .
Reply #18 on : Mon May 05, 2008, 23:16:08

If I am incorrect in my thinking anonymous, then help me to see it. What are some things in the Bible that you really don't like, but choose to believe anyway, and why do you choose to believe them?

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #19 on : Tue May 06, 2008, 10:15:01

Mitch,

I didn’t think you attacked me, but using words and phrases like “smorgasbord” and “the world as you want it” to describe my views unquestionably trivializes them (to say nothing of inaccurately representing them). My problem was that instead of discussing the various beliefs in question you turned to talking about people’s motives. Granted, the danger of believing only what one “wants” to believe is real. Like you said, people are sinful. (Sin nature being an example of one of those things that the Bible teaches that I don’t necessarily like, but I believe).

Bad/selfish/prideful motives rooted in sin nature, however, are a problem no matter what view you hold. For every person that abuses the “freedom” of not believing the Bible is inerrant, there is a biblical literalist/inerrantist who uses the Bible as a battering ram to tear people down or to justify or mask his/her own sinful attitudes. In fact, no matter what view we hold of scripture, all of us are susceptible to interpreting or misreading divine revelation in order to suit our selfish desires.

Matt

If I may...
Reply #20 on : Tue May 06, 2008, 10:15:27

I can't speak for Anonymous's views nor how he/she approaches the Bible. But I did want to add a brief comment for Mitch.

It seems to me, that there must be an authority above/beyond the Bible which can establish the Bible as inerrant. Even if you feel an internal case can be made from the Scriptures regarding the inerracy of the Bible, surely you recognize the circularity of establishing the Bible with the Bible. I don't think any of us would accept the inerrancy of any other book simply because it said it was inerrant. There is a logical need for something above/beyond to establish the inerrancy (or authority, for that matter--though these are two VERY different things--but let's stick with inerrancy for now).

If we can agree on this, there seem to be several options available:

1) The Scripture's inerrancy is established by Church tradition/decree.

2) Established by reason.

3) Established by internal conviction of the Holy Spirit.

4) Purely an act of faith, which needs no establishing. (This would be essentially the same as saying "I believe the Bible because the Bible says to believe it"--my comment above applies here).

Can you think of any more? That's all that comes to my head right now.

It seems to me that 1 and 2 would be unacceptable for you, since you obviously have a very strong belief in the depravity of man.

Number 4 would be an option, though you haven't seemed to argue this way, so I'm assuming that is not your position. [By the way, I have respect for position #4, even if I don't start there. I think it is a legitimate option. But if one starts there, it should be made clear, and the basis for dialogue is effectively closed.]

Personally, I fall heavily into option #3, with a little bit of 1 and 2. One can not pre-suppose, however, that the Holy Spirit is going to convict everyone of the inerrancy of the Bible. And, in fact, through much prayer and wrestling with God, I have come to feel deeply convicted by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is not inerrant. (It was not a conclusion I came to easily or willingly. God worked with me on this for years. Honestly, I was much, much more comfortable believing in an inerrant Bible). I think the Scripture internally attests to this conclusion as well (here, obviously, I am employing a bit of #2). For myself, this does not mean I can just go picking an choosing what I want to believe or not believe. It means I must constantly seek to be in step with the Holy Spirit and must constantly try to discern the Spirit in every passage. For, I do believe, all of Scripture is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

So, to come back to your comment, Mitch, it seems to me, that we are all inevitably our own judges. Whether it is an act of pure faith, trust in our ancestor's decisions, or reliance on the internal conviction of the Holy Spirit--we all are our own final judges.

I think there would be a lot of us on this forum who would fall into option #3. This, obviously, doesn't mean we come to he same conclusions. Does this mean the Holy Spirit is telling us different things or are some of us better at listening to the Holy Spirit? I don't know, and I certainly do not mean to claim the definitive answer on this. I can only try my best to attest to the way in which I believe God has lead me (sometimes dragged me). Perhaps you feel convicted by the Holy Spirit that the entire Bible is 100% inerrant in every way. I can accept that. Obviously, I don't think we're both right, but it provides a common basis for dialogue and it eliminates any grounds for superior attitudes.

I guess what I am coming back to is that Anonymous's earlier comment that he/she and Jason are doing much the same thing is probably true. Recognizing this is an important step for fellowship in the Church.

-Matt

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #21 on : Tue May 06, 2008, 11:34:48

Brooke,

I was just reading your contribution to the comments over more carefully and wanted to say that I really appreciated it--that's really a wonderful formulation of Christ's work relative to our sins.

It also resonates with me personally. For a long time I felt a great deal of guilt and fear about either doubting or discarding the doctrines those around me believed to be absolutely essential to the faith. One day I had an epiphany of sorts: the doubt and disbelief I have may well be sin, but if I trust Christ's mercy regarding other sins in my life, than why not in this area? In my humanity I try as hard as I can, with God's guidance, to discern truth, and I trust his mercy to cover the myriad of errors and sins I am undoubtedly guilty of in this process.

What you quoted is a much more succinct expression of this idea than I've been able in the past to articulate. Anyway, it's an encouragement to me--thanks for it!

Mitch

The Bible
Reply #22 on : Tue May 06, 2008, 18:36:54

Anonymous,

Thank you for considering me sincere in saying I was not attacking you. If I seem to be trivializing you, I promise you that is not my intent. I do however completely fail to see the logic of choosing to believe only some of the Bible and will not pretend that it makes sense to me. The example you listed of something you believe in the Bible that you don't like was that we have sin natures. I'm still unclear about why you believe that then? Why do you believe that we are intrinsically depraved rather than as Pelagius believed, inhabited with a "divine spark" of goodness? If we are depraved, then doesn't depending exclusively on yourself, not only to interpret, but then to choose what to believe, conclude that you will likely be wrong more than if you simply struggled to intpret the Bible and then faithfully applied it?

Matt,

There is another option that breaks the Bible out of the circular reasoning. That is the overwhelming witness of the Bible's prophecy lined up to history. The hundreds of prophecies fulfilled throughout history and many in the life of Jesus Christ specifically indicate the reliability of the Bible for its content (inerrancy) and its authority (inspiration). If these prophecies had not been fulfilled or was shown wrong, then I doubt that we would be having this discussion. History bears witness that the Bible is the Word of God. The internal evidence I believe to be overwhelming that the Bible was both insprited and inerrant in its original form. Jesus taught and accepted this (of course according to the Bible.). Since then, there have been copying errors. However with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the reliability of our copies of the scriptures has been overwhelmingly verified! God has preserved his Word so that we will know it and keep it, in its completeness.

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #23 on : Tue May 06, 2008, 19:44:08

Mitch,

I'm not a theologian, and I don't know anything about Pelagius. I can't offer some nuanced theological argument about what having a sin nature means, though from my layman's position I'm inclined against believing the Calvinist conception of total depravity (I'm sure loads of Biblical literalists/inerrantists are with me here). I don't think that sin nature necessarily equals intrinsic and total depravity. The Bible says that all have sinned, and I am convicted that this is true. It also says that we are created in the image of God, and I believe that as well. There's a tension between those two things that we must navigate, and I believe the Bible reflects this tension.

Also, I'd like to address your use of fulfilled prophecy as evidence of inerrancy. First, prophecy is by nature opaque and whether it is "fulfilled" is up for debate. Certainly Jews would deny that the OT passages Christians believe point to Christ do any such thing. Dating of prophecy is also problematic; reference the way in which some textual historians believe the passages recording Jesus' prophecy about the fall of the Temple after 70 AD, where others date them before.

Even if one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that some, many, most, or all prophecies found in the Bible have been fulfilled in history, I fail to see how that logically necessitates that all of the Bible is 100% inerrant. At best (logically speaking) it simply indicates that God was speaking powerfully and clearly through a particular prophet. The prophecies of Isaiah being fulfilled has little logical bearing on whether, say, the book of 1 Peter, written hundreds of years later, is inerrant.

Furthermore, I fail to see how the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to anything other than textual integrity. They are amazing in the sense that they reveal that the content of the Bible (those portions of the text, at any rate) has been preserved through millenia. They are not evidence of the inerrancy or authority of that content.

I think your arguments make an incredibly strong case that the Bible is an amazing book, that it is inspired, that it records the work of God in humanity in a unique way, and that we can turn to it and expect to find reliable guidance. I don't think they make a case for inerrancy.

Mitch

The Bible
Reply #24 on : Tue May 06, 2008, 22:23:28

The issue of sin nature is just that we have an internal desire that causes us to want to sin and we do indeed choose to sin. The Bible is very clear about this, "the heart is desperately wicked". I'm not sure how Calvin always gets brought into the discussion. I'm not a calvinist, I haven't read him or Augustine for that matter. I was not rasied in a Calvinist tradition! We are image-bearers of God, it's true, but we are marred by sin and our fallen nature. We are told to "lean not your own understanding" and that our righteousness is "as filthy rags" before a holy God. I'm still wondering,where do you get your view of human nature and why you choose to belive it?

Matt's question, if I understood it properly, was what external evidence supports the Bible's inerrancy. My point is that the prophecies clearly show the Bible to be trusted by external witness of history. Even secular historians do not refute much of biblical prophecy. It is so compelling that many secular historians argue for later dates than the traditionally accepted ones just to have a theory that says the author copied histroy, not prophecied it. The witness of prophecy gives weight to the Bible's other significant claims, such as inerrancy (simply that the Bible is God's actual words recorded for us by the Holy Spirit and that god does not lie). Again, this is in the original text which as you admit, we have with an extremly high degree of reliability (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls).

Matt

History
Reply #25 on : Tue May 06, 2008, 22:55:33

Mitch,

You are totally right. I should have added a #5- historical evidence. Thank you for making that point.

I am going to have to agree with Anonymous that the evidence you mention makes a strong case for the unique inspiration of the Bible, but doesn’t do much for inerrancy. Personally, I find many of the prophecies in the Bible to be very compelling and they have long served as an anchor for my faith in times of doubt. But again, I don’t see how they do anything for the doctrine of inerrancy.

The textual integrity of the Bible doesn’t seem to support inerrancy either. Frankly, if textual integrity was somehow compelling for you, then you might want to look into Islam. The textual integrity of the Qur’an is far more complete than the Bible. But again, it’s not an issue for me. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, is largely textually intact, and that’s enough for me.

It seems to me that there is a reoccurring perception that if a person doesn’t believe in inerrancy, then that person doesn’t believe in the inspiration or authority of the Bible. This is absolutely not the case. I mean, it might be for some, but no one I know. The question comes down to the nature of divine inspiration.

I believe the Bible is inspired and authoritative. However, the Bible is not a tablet handed down by God which needed only to be received. I do not believe God audibly spoke to all of the Biblical writers dictating every word (in theological jargon, “verbal plenary inspiration”). Instead, I believe the Bible is a record of God’s inspiration of the Biblical writers whose humanity (read: cultural, scientific, cosmological, moral, and theological constructions) is present within the text as well. This does not negate the authority of the Bible, nor its importance, nor its many remarkable qualities. It does alter the way one approaches the hermeneutical process. It does mean that the Holy Spirit must be relied upon for discernment.

[So do you think Rachel is going to get annoyed that we keep posting on this thread and aren’t following her to the next topic? :) ]

-Matt

Anonymous

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #26 on : Tue May 06, 2008, 23:30:10

I readily admit to being in over my head theologically speaking when it comes to considering human/sin nature. My views are informed by attempting to harmonize what I've read (the Bible, history, literature, some theology, etc.), my personal experience, the voice of the Holy Spirit, etc., into as coherent a formulation as possible. I'm sure my formulation could easily be shredded by theologians across the conservative-to-liberal spectrum. Suffice it to say that if we are so totally, utterly depraved as to be incapable of any sound judgement whatsoever then I don't see how human interpretations of the Bible, even those made with the understanding that it's inerrant, can be any more profitable or trustworthy than human judgements made in the absence of a belief in inerrancy.

And I'm genuinely curious about what portions of Biblical prophecy historians unanimously agree have been clearly fulfilled. If you're talking about the 70 AD fall of the temple (I can't think of any other prophecy in scripture that is perspicacious enough to be given the time of day by secular historians), it's not as if we have an extant text recording Jesus' prophecy that predates 70AD. In the absence of Dead Sea Scroll-like evidence historians can't really do history, they can merely engage in educated speculation. Thus some speculate that the text predates 70AD and that Jesus prophesied accurately, while others speculate that the text postdates 70AD and that the gospel writers put words in Jesus' mouth with 20/20 hindsight.

Well, here I go getting into more details, but the truth is that I've gotten a bit weary of the back-and-forth. I wasn't really looking for debate when I jumped in here--I was mainly interested in commenting because the issue of inclusivism/exclusivism had been instrumental in my faith journey as it sounds like it has been in Rachel's. Up until now I've tried to avoid getting into any sort of debate over inerrancy, because there seems to be so little profit in it. In the end I don't seek to convince people of the rightness of my view so much as I desire to encourage faithful Christians on each side of the debate to recognize and respect the work of God going on on the other side.

Mitch

Moving On . . .
Reply #27 on : Wed May 07, 2008, 02:22:49

Thatks to Matt & anonymous for a spirited and beneficial discussion. I believe it is beneficial to challenge each other in this way. "As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another" (no disrespect to women intended), Proverbs 27:17.

I'm sure Matt's right about moving on . . .thanks for humoring us Rachel. I hope to be clear that my desire is to seek truth through this discussion, not merely justify my view or destroy anothers. I can be a bit overbearing at times, I appreciate you tolerating me during those moments. See you in another post. Many thanks.

Mitch

kristen

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #28 on : Wed May 07, 2008, 14:29:03

i suppose you are correct about the need for us to move on to the next thread, but, as a historian, i cannot resist the urge to comment on some of the views of history and what historians do that are discussed on this thread.

first and foremost, let it be clear that there are nearly as many divisions among historians as there are among theologians.

second, i echo anonymous' cautions that a) historians unanimously agree on very little and b) i can think of none who give the Bible the time of day as a historical document (reference the failure of most historians and scientists to accept the biblical prophecy and fulfilment of a global flood).
what they do use the Bible for is to help interpret cultural conditions and traditions of certain groups who lived in what is now north africa and the middle east.

however, i (and many historians today) would argue that 'doing history' is in fact 'educated speculation.' it is searching all of the available lines of evidence and postulating a position from that evidence. in that since, history is written with an act of faith (though few would word it that way) and it is (should be--not all are open minded) also written with the caveat that someone else may uncover new evidence that belies or alters in some way the earlier conclusion.

history, theology, philosophy--these are all disciplines of dialog and discourse. so long as others are reading and reasoning from the dialog, it is indeed profitable, if at times frustrating. :)

Rachel H. Evans

Whoa!
Reply #29 on : Sun May 11, 2008, 22:09:56

I haven't checked the blog in a week because I was on vacation (at the beach!)... so you can imagine how pleasantly surprised I was to find such a great discussion following this post. To those who asked me specific questions or sent e-mails...I'll get back with you this week sometime when I've had time to read through your thoughts.

Guess y'all don't really need me to keep the blog interesting, after all!

Thanks for the participation...Now, I've got to go nurse my sunburn with some aloe!

??
Reply #30 on : Mon May 12, 2008, 00:37:45

Rachel, I've only just come across your blog and I'm not taking the time to read all of the subsequent comments that have been left. I'm going to try to be concise, although I'm sure I will reiterate things said by others already. Sorry for any redundancies.

On the one hand, I passionately echo your sentiments regarding the pitfalls of Calvinistic theology. See my blog, by the way, for some very recent thoughts of mine on the subject if you're interested (a post called "Unlikely Bedfellows"). But what I don't see is that the only alternative to Calvinism is an all-out revolt against exclusivism. I looked up a handful of references you provided for a non-exclusivist view and I found them to be mostly taken out of context--some not seeming to pertain to the subject at all, actually. But that notwithstanding, there is an obvious passage that quickly comes to my mind that challenges a non-exclusivist view. Romans 1:20.

My chief criticism of Calvinism (or any systematic theology, for that matter) is that it arbitrarily selects certain passages in Scripture to be taken at face value, and subsequently ascribes new, fantastical meanings to other, seemingly contradictory passages. For example, Romans' mentionings of "vessels fit for destruction" mean exactly what they say, but 1 Peter's mentioning that God wills that NONE should perish actually means something else. I don't intend to parse Calvinism here, only to say that in essence, you're doing the same thing. There is MUCH in Scripture that widely refutes any legitimacy to a revolt against exclusivism, and there is a small collection of passages that ever so vaguely support it. It seems that rather than attempt to reconcile the two, you're flatly rejecting the majority and clinging to the minority, based on your "feelings." I can see that many people have already talked about the subjectivity of human "feelings" in the comments section, so I won't repeat all of that. I would just exhort you to keep hunting for a more "evangelical" (abused word, I know) revolt against Calvinism than non-exclusivism. I see you've already read Pinnock. I'm really no more an apologist for open theism than I am for Calvinism, but I do think he's a compelling force. Also, check out a book called "Reformed and Always Reforming: A Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology." It's by a guy named Roger E. Olson out of Truett Seminary at Baylor. I only just started it, so I can't vouch for it completely, but I can tell you it might be right up your alley.

All in all, if you continue down the path your walking, you'll eventually have to make a formal denouncement of the doctrine of inerrancy (if you haven't already). Once you've done that, you're just a pluralist who's borrowing Biblical content for selfish use. I saw that one of your anonymous commenters has already made this denouncement for themselves. I would challenge that person to think about what they've actually done. To deny inerrancy at all levels is to functionally make "self" the ultimate authority. FUNCTIONALLY, anyone who does that is no less stupid than "prophets" maiming themselves on a mountain in an attempt to provoke Baal to action. They've assigned themselves the ultimate authority of deciding for themselves what is religiously correct, only to turn around and submit themselves to their own construct. Idiocy. Surely you agree?

Laurie

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #31 on : Mon May 12, 2008, 09:23:13

jklowery,

I thought your first few paragraphs made a valuable contribution to the discussion. Your last paragraph was unhelpful, to say the least.

You charge Rachel with constructing an either/or between Calvinism and an "all-out revolt on exclusivism." Then you yourself imply that there is no ground between believing inerrancy and being "a pluralist who's borrowing Biblical content for selfish use."

One can reject the doctrine of exclusivism or even inerrancy and *gasp!* still be a Christian who loves the Lord her God with all her heart, loves her neighbor as herself, and acknowledges her dependance upon Christ's work and teaching. THOSE are the teachings on which Christianity stands or falls, not the doctrines of exclusivism or inerrancy.

The slippery slope argument that Rachel is on her way to denouncing inerrancy discourages genuine questioning of one's faith/beliefs--something I think most of us would agree is valuable and necessary (otherwise why would we read and comment?). And, if or when Rachel or others reject inerrancy, by all means feel free to challenge them if you believe they are wrong. But do so with respect for the fact that they care enough about their faith to enter the sphere of debate. Characterizing them as mountain dancing prophets of Baal and their ideas as idiocy is neither helpful nor accurate.

Josh

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #32 on : Mon May 12, 2008, 10:26:45

Lauri

I'm lost on how I could've implied that there is no ground between Calvinism and an "all-out revolt against exclusivism". I plainly encouraged Rachel to pursue "a more evangelical revolt against Calvinism than non-exclusivism," then I proceeded to mention that reading Clark Pinnock and/or Roger E. Olson was a good start. If this is not an implication that there IS ground between the two, I don't know what is. Read closer. As for the disrespectful final paragraph, I'll grant you that using words like "idiocy" may not be helpful. But the common fabric of gospel-centered theology through HISTORY is a FOUNDATIONAL (key word) belief in Biblical inerrancy. If it's not inerrant, than who are you to decide which parts of it are and which aren't? And all based on your "feelings?" By definition, that is submitting oneself FIRST to a human construct--the bricks of which happen to be hand-picked elements of Scripture. The next logical step is Unitarian Universalism. Truth is not relative, and it isn't determined by your personal feelings. Sometimes, when I'm very angry, I "feel" like cursing at my wife during an argument. That by no means is an automatic outgrowth of "God's moral law written on my heart." You and Rachel both are demonstrating what seems to be a somewhat innocent but partially willful ignorance about Scripture as well as historical theology. You're right about one thing. "Exclusivism" is not part of the bedrock of Christian faith. Romans 1:20 says so (did you even read it?). The "exclusion" of certain people from Heaven is not done by God, but by the creature. God has revealed Himself in nature. HE decided that was enough for some. Your "feelings" may be at odds with that verse, but a) who are you to decide Romans 1:20 is one of the "errant" ones, and b) who are you to judge a man's innocence? You're no one. Just another creature. Like me.

And you are wrong about inerrancy not being foundational. Logically, inerrancy of the SOURCE TEXT for all you assert about the relevancy of Christ's work must come BEFORE the assertion itself. Otherwise, your assertions are a joke. That is just fundamental logic. You only have to decide whether you're comfortable with a faith that has blatant logical fallacies at its root. If you are, then I say comfortably (however with great concern) that your faith is not legitimate.

Respectfully Yours

Laurie

Re: When a theology just doesn’t feel right...
Reply #33 on : Mon May 12, 2008, 10:56:04

Josh,

Please re-read my comment. I didn't claim that you said there was no ground between Calvinism and all-out revolt on exclusivism--I said that that's what you accused Rachel of. What I took issue with is your either/or assertions in regards to inerrancy. You clearly imply/state that there is no middle ground between believing in inerrancy and being a prophet of Baal/Unitarian Universalist. This is simply not true.

Nor is it true, as you said, that "Logically, inerrancy of the SOURCE TEXT for all you assert about the relevancy of Christ's work must come BEFORE the assertion itself." One can believe in the reliability of the Bible without believing it is inerrant.

But this ground has already been covered in previous comments.

unorthodoxology

Gospelling...
Reply #34 on : Mon May 12, 2008, 16:52:35

Why does the good news seem like such very bad news to so many people?

Faith is more than being able to answer yes to a list of questions.

We are commanded to follow Jesus, not worship him.

There is a good argument that hell and satan are theodic developments, a way to cope with the fact that a good and loving God could allow such evil in the world.

An Old Testament author compares our lives to the blink of eye, to dust.

Does it seem just to eternally punish someone for a blink?

Even if traditional Christianity is correct, I find it hard to believe God would punish so many people because of the poor examples of Jesus' followers on earth.

Just thoughts.

Inerrancy is simply ridiculous. The Bible has too many contradictions. Just read the two accounts of creation with two different timelines.

Critical thinking is good, people!

Rachel

Responses
Reply #35 on : Tue May 13, 2008, 00:57:22

I wanted to be sure to respond to any questions that readers asked me directly. Also I'll be posting a series about inerrancy this week that should clarify my views on that.

1. Inerrancy/ Exclusivism

Much has been said about the role that an inerrant Scripture plays in the exclusivism/inclusivism debate. To be clear, I think that a person can consider himself or herself an inerrantist and still reject exclusivism. As I mentioned before, my own thoughts about inerrancy will be explored in upcoming posts.

2. Intuition vs. the Bible

I think we may have inadvertently created a false dichotomy here, where we feel we must choose between listening to our conscience and heeding the words of the Bible. In times like these, I like to call to mind what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. John Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions:

1. Scripture
2. Tradition (Church history)
3. Reason (rational thinking and sensible interpretation)
4. Experience (intuition, personal spiritual journey, etc.)

It is naïve to say that one can exist independently of the others. For example, we must have faith in our Christian tradition in order to give authority to the Bible because members of the early church picked which writings would be included in the Bible. We have to use reason to interpret the Bible and to pick and choose which traditions are most fitting in our culture. All of this is filtered through the lens of our experience. To say that one of these epistemological pillars ought to be elevated over the others…or that one doesn’t need to be there…throws everything off balance. So when my reason, experience, and interpretation of Scripture are causing me to question a certain theological tradition, I think it’s appropriate to challenge it.

3. Jason’s Questions

Jason asked: 1) What then is the standard or process to which people are saved? If not exclusively through Christ Jesus. 2) What urgency is there (if at all) to evangelize if those who have not heard are going to heaven? 3) Who will go to hell? Those that only hear and reject Christ?

My response: 1) I think that people are saved by faith. I think that God is, of course, the ultimate judge of who has faith in Him, and that the best indication of faith from our perspective is good works. 2) We evangelize because Jesus told us to evangelize and because the gospel is good news and it makes an extraordinary difference not only in the afterlife but in this present life. (If you think about it, with exclusivism, the “good news” is actually bad news. It means most people are damned to hell.) 3) I don’t know who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Jesus seems to indicate that a lot is based on the treatment of “the least of these.”

Jason also asked, in light of the “potter vs. clay” passage, if there is a time when we have to just let go, accept exclusivism and other theologies as God’s Word. I think it’s important to distinguish between arguing with God (clay objecting to the potter) and arguing with Calvin or Augustine or the positions of some other theologian (clay objecting to other clay). My argument here isn’t with God Himself but with interpretations of Him that I think are false (on moral AND biblical grounds). Skepticism is often an appropriate response to widely held theological positions. I’m certainly glad that Luther continued questioning the Catholic Church even after they called his questions heretical.

4. Julie’s Questions

Julie had a lot of questions for me, many of which have been used in the past to “size me up” in terms of my true faith and orthodoxy. I’ll try to answer the best that I can. I’d like to make it clear that I consider myself a follower of Christ and that I affirm the Nicene Creed.

Q: Do you believe there is a hell-as in a pit of fire, and walling and gnashing of teeth that lasts forever?
A: I’m not sure. Jesus indicates that hell is a real place, but there’s Scripture that supports what has been called an “annihilation” theory, that God ultimately destroys all evil, that He does not allow it to continue eternally in the form of torment.

Q: If so who do you believe will be in it?
A: I don’t know. I just trust that God will destroy evil and injustice.

Q: Do you believe that if someone denies Christ and follows another god with great faith and devotion will be saved?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Do you believe that salvation comes by works or grace?
A: I believe that salvation is a gift received by faith, and that faith without works is dead.

Q: Do you believe that salvation is a get it by grace keep it by works?
A: I don’t really like that question.

Q: Do you believe that a person serving another god (who hasn't had a chance at knowing Jesus) but is "working" for their salvation based on the other religion's theology will be saved?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Do you make decisions based on the "traditional view" or by "Gary Friesen's position."
A: I like Gary Friesen’s position on decision making, but am not sure how this is relevant.

Q: Do you call yourself a Christian?
A: Yes. I guess I prefer being called a follower of Christ because, for a lot of people, the term Christian includes connotations that are not Christ-like.

Q: Do you think only Calvinist are exclusivists?
A: No; a lot of evangelicals are exclusivists.

Q: What do you believe about missions? Or translating the Bible into other languages?
A: I love it. I admire and support anyone who has committed his or her life to sharing the gospel with others overseas. Of course, I think it should be done in a manner that is Christ-like, without any forced cultural assimilation.

Q: Why were we told to bring the Gospel to others? Why would it be good news if they didn't need God to save them?
A: think I answered that above.

Q: Is ignorance bliss?
A: I don’t like trick questions.

Q: Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Do you believe the Bible is Inspired? Do you put scripture above (as in ultimate authority) other wittings? Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God? Do you hold any other writings to be inspired?
A: I’ll tackle these questions in future posts…so keep reading!

5. Response to Josh Lowry

You asked, and I cannot more emphatically disagree that those who reject the modern notion of biblical inerrancy are pluralists borrowing Biblical content for selfish use, or that they are idiots comparable to the prophets of Baal. It’s important to me that we keep the dialog on this blog civil, and that we do not call each other names or ridicule one another’s positions.

I certainly hope that those of you who have posted feel like this is a safe place to express your views. I really like the variety of opinions we are getting here. Thanks so much for your thoughts and feel free to keep responding!

Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 01:08:18 by Rachel

Write a comment

Required fields are bold and marked with *.

Evolving in Monkey Town

living, learning, and re-thinking fundamentalism in the town that gave it its name

When a theology just doesn’t feel right...

Write a comment

It happens to everyone...