putting out fires vs opening another can of worms?
I just wrote such a good post and my computer ate it. So I’ll try to reproduce it. I called it “putting out fires” because one of my commenters said that the Open Theist god spends all his time putting out fires. It is Open Theism that got me started blogging in the first place, but after reading about it and discussing it for a while I realized that NO, I wasn’t an open theist because I believe in the infallibility of the Bible, I am not a relativist, and I do believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. Notice I didn’t say that Christianity was the only way…one of my blog mates has a quote on her site from Ghandi that goes something like this: I like your Christ, its you Christians I don’t understand.” In the movie about his life, Ghandi says, “If I had met even one person who lived the life of a Christian, as put forth in the words of Jesus, I would have become a Christian.” Pastor Art has been discussing the problem of contextualizing the gospel. I am reading the origin stories of 4 North American tribes with my 7th grade social studies class. Each story has a hint of the true story: a creator (the Hopi call him Father), first man and woman (none of them remember their names), a great flood and rainbow to name a few. If we take time to listen to the stories of the land and look into the hearts of the people, we can always find a starting point to begin telling them the rest of the story – the true story. But as far as not contextualizing the gospel – if that is the right thing to do, then we must go back to the context in which it was first told, before Luther, before Augustine, back to first century Christianity. I know we should trust the HOLY SPIRIT, that He can use any portion of any translation of the Scriptures to speak Truth into our lives. I also believe the Bible Translators who have worked so diligently to put the Scriptures into a language we could understand, were sincere in their efforts and deserve our respect. However, I have come to the conclusion, that all of our translations have been greatly influenced by the teachings of Luther, Calvin, and Augustine. Since it is common knowledge that these men (as well as the Roman Catholic translators) had strong anti-jew sentiments, identifying the elect mentioned in the Bible as Jews, would be unlikely. They would need another way to interpret those verses. And since Augustine’s doctrine of personal predestination was so influential in the early church, when the translators had a choice of words, one which supported personal predestination, and another equally viable word, which doesn’t support it – which one would they choose? Of course we don’t all need to be Greek and Hebrew scholars to understand the truths of the Bible, but we who are teachers should be able to search out the truth. Word studies usually show that there are many possibilities…the words chosen often reflect the bias or preconceived ideas of the translators. I do not believe in Divine Election, or Personal Predestination. I am not the only “Christian” in the world who denies that doctrine. If we follow that doctrine to its logical conclusion, than God is the author of lies, and the creator of sin. He is a puppet master and we are all behaving exactly as He willed it from before the beginning of time. That is not God, as He revealed Himself, in the written word or in the living WORD. God is Love. God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all. God is a covenant God. He guides, He instructs, He forgives, and He restores. This is not putting out fires, this is being a loving parent who has given His beloved creatures, made in His image, a free will, and a responsibility.
Do people seek God? In my “seek ye first” post I gave several verses that support the claim that we do, and indeed we should seek God. There are many more. When I get to the key board again, I will site some verses that show that God has given us a free will, and that He also has been know to “change His mind” because of the prayers of the faithful. I loved the illustration that Wanderer left on my Romans 1 post, the difference between a story writer and a story teller. There is a light shining in the darkness, the darkness does not comprehend it, but the darkness cannot put it out.
33 comments:
Ugh. Comment spam. Try turning on word verification.
Maryellen - you said: " wasn’t an open theist because I believe in the infallibility of the Bible, I am not a relativist, and I do believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven" - that is not what open theism is. I'm not sure how to best explain it, but a bit more study should show that the above, while likely held by many open theists (as well as every other kind of christian) is not unique to or required by open theism.
As for the rest of your post, while I do not necessarily agree with you conclusions it sounds like you've got a good understanding of the freewill/election debate. It also sounds like you've devoted alot of time and thought into getting to where you are, and I'd like to encourage you that you are as justified as any one of us for holding the beliefs that you do. Nicely said!
Interesting post. Here are some points.
"But as far as not contextualizing the gospel – if that is the right thing to do, then we must go back to the context in which it was first told, before Luther, before Augustine, back to first century Christianity."
Since all the Scripture was not written in its entirety at the same sitting, then cultural historical context is an impossibility. God was and is speaking through the same Scriptures to different people in different historical times. How about the context of "Spirit and Truth" The Word of God is only for those who have an ear to hear, or Jesus is an idiot for saying that.
It transcends all cultural-historical-lingual contexts and barriers.
Ghandi was an unbeliever but we are going to stand by his word over another brother's or God's?
He will answer for his own unbelief. We are not responsible for that. I am tired of the I don't go to church because of all the hypocrites argument. Their names are in the book, or they are not.
The creation story of Genesis cannot be reconciled with any other creation story. Contextualized evangelism, which is not contextualized worship, compromises the Gospel, since you would then have to preach that any cultures beliefs and/or practices and ways all have validity. The telling of the true story would essentially contradict their story.
How about the starting point of all have sinned and fall short of the glory? Or maybe simply lifting up Christ and Him crucified.
As for translations which one is the best?
As for the Jews and the elect. If the elect is only speaking of Israel/the Jews why should I bother to even read those sections? However, if as the Bible says we are ingrafted into the cultivated tree, i.e. Israel, then we are the elect also.
So should I toss my Bible out? In fact are any of translations trustworthy? It is all the Holy Spirit, or it's nothing at all. Why should I trust a linguistics expert? Simply to say a word can mean this, or a word can mean that is not a help. If God is light, and light brings vision and clarity, then why are we gleefully moving towards murkiness?
Give me a NT instance of God changing his mind. (There are really none in the OT either.)
Now I am sure I will be accused of being mean and judgemental etc simply because I go to the Scripture and not the scholars, so be it. My questions and points all come from reading the Word not from my own opinions.
I am talking primarily the Gospel of Jesus, which is identified as that which is neccessary for salvation, although I would be quick to add that I feel the OT is very much important to the whole message and should never be ignored. It is possible to contexualize the gospel accounts historically and culturally. I am sure Ghandi has answered to Jesus, since unlike us, he has already come face to face with him. But as far as being responsible, we are, like the watchmen, guilty of the blood of people we do not warn. Are we not also guilty of the blood of those we drive away? Jesus never had a kind word to say about Hyporcrites, and looking at today's church, I'm sure there would be alot of Christians that would fall into the whitewashed seplucar (sp?) category.
There you go with that Augustine/Calvin doctrine of personal predestination. Why bother living at all? Why bother preaching the word, or feeding the hungry. It's almost like Karma...their name is either written in the book or it's not.
I didn't say the origin stories were true, I said they contained common ground that could be used as a starting point in presenting the whole story. When I asked a Navajo Medicine man how the Navajo people came to be here, he gave me a story about how the creator got angry at the people and sent a great flood, but two people were saved by sliding down a rainbow into the fourth world. There is enough there to start with. The flood story and rainbow, is a constant in many cultures. Why? because after Babel, as the people were dispersed, they kept telling the old stories. Since most only had an oral tradition, and since just a few generations after the flood, God choose to do His salvation work through the Jewish nation, the stories got twisted and distorted. But if you listen to the stories, you can usually find a place to start. The Jews were chosen (or elected) to be the blood line through which the Savior of the World was to be sent. It is often stated that Salvation would come to the whole world, all the nations, through the Jewish nation, ie, through the Jewish Messiah - Jesus. Gentiles were also elect, as they were graphted in to the Family of Abraham, what about the pre-Jesus Gentiles, they met the same fate and had the same opportunity as Moses and Isaiah and the rest, as long as they did not trade worship of the creator for worship of the creation and self worship. Did the Bereans olny trust the Holy Spirit?
Or did they search the scriptures to see if the teachings were correct. Why teach? Why not just read the word and go home? Chris, my brother, you have been accused on my blog and on yours, probably other places too, of being mean and judgmental. You do indeed indicate that anyone who disagrees with your explainations disagrees with God, that there are no mysteries in scripture left for you to ponder, you understand it all because it can be understood (your way ofcourse). But Chris, there are many other, well educated and devote Christians who would say that at least in some points you are in error. And what about all my verses in "Seek Ye First" that indicate not only does man seek God, but he is commanded to seek God, and David warns those who are not seeking God, that they better start...
there, did I address your points thoroughly enough?
"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings up evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give an account on the day of judgement for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be aquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." - Matthew 12:35-37
Hi again everyone -- I haven't read all the comments -- too long and not enough time, sorry -- but I want to interject in defense of Maryellen's Native American "partial truths" idea -- I'll check back in when I have a chance to read what you all are writing. (I gave up on "Romans One")
Didn't Paul speak to the Athenians regarding the one part of their theology that was true? They had idols and false gods everywhere, they were polytheistic -- yet he was able to speak to the about the gospel because of their altar to the "unknown god". He was able to really see and understand their beliefs and pinpoint that which was true. He didn't say -- "nothing about you is salvageable. Get a grip or burn in hell." He said, "I appreciate your quest for God, and He appreciates it too -- you have part of it right -- here, let me tell you the rest"
Here's a quick quote from Acts 17
"23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, 28 for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' 29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead." 32
One NT instance comes to mind where Jesus "changes his mind"...the wedding feast of Cana, where His mother intercedes for the family of the couple, and although Jesus says it is clearly not His time, He does the miracle anyway.
and I think that Genesis 6: 5-8 shows how disappointed God was that when given freewill and free reign, mankind choose evil. It says, He was grieved that He had made men upon the Earth. If they were just behaving the way He had preordained, what was there for Him to "complain" or lament about?"
All I am pointing out is the fact that the Bible speaks of the book of life in Exodus 32 and in Revelation. Therefore I do not believe that it is a metaphor. Nwems are already in it or why would Moses ask, " remove my name from the book" How could he even know for sure that it was in there. We can deduce from this that he was not roman catholic. You called it personal predestination. If there is no personal call, what is there?
Grey Owl, I prefer to let my words be God's words. Save your judgementalism for others.
I am unjustly and falsely accused, and I really don't care about that at all.
I don't have to know indigenous legends to preach the Gospel. (although I have read the creation stories)
As for Paul in Athens he was telling the Greeks that they were wrong. The poets he quotes were writing about Zeus, and he is saying to them you don't know anything at all. Your god isn't God. Of course he then brings up the ressurection which immediately throws a wrench into the whole thing. If you will notice this particular encounter wasn't overly successful. Since that is the only example people can come up with as "comtextualized evangelism" then we could safely assume that was not the "normal way " of presenting the message.
As for pre-Jesus gentiles I redirect everyone back to 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4:3-6
What I hear from all quarters is not scripture as foundation, but an "in my opinion" argument which says God is love and we choose to define just what that love and God is, on our own terms. IOW, how we would like Him to be. Please refer to Exodus 32 for the inevitable outcome of such an approach.
I am "implying" that although God knew that rebellion was possible, just as He knew that obedience was possible, and although he knew some people were likely to disobey, He was grieved that so many people chosen wickedness. In fact everyone, except Noah, who was ofcourse not perfect, but did find favor in God's eyes.
and Chris, I happen to think that everyone who ever lived/will live/is living has his name written in the book of life, and it is a misinterpretation to think that having your name written in the book of life does not mean you are getting into heaven.
chris, your words are not God's words because they are your words and you are not God.
Chrisp - "Grey Owl, I prefer to let my words be God's words. Save your judgementalism for others.
I am unjustly and falsely accused, and I really don't care about that at all."
I'm really not sure what you're about with this. I shared some scripture. I thought you liked scripture. My words were God's words when I said that. I didn't address it to you, I just said it. I think it applies to me (and everyone else here) just as much. As far as being judgemental, well, I think the irony speaks for itself. And if you don't care about what I'm saying why do you insist on responding to tell me you don't care?
As for the rest of us, this is certainly a hot topic. Synergism v. monergism has been a contested subject on nearly every blog I've been to. But I think it's important for us to remember that either way, it doesn't really matter. We're still here, and we still have a duty to pray for each other and share christ with our world. Here's a question: Do we spend as much time praying for each other as we do arguing with each other?
Jason, of course the crucifiction was not plan B. It was foretold to first man and first woman, adam and eve, at the time of their sin, at the time of Noah there most have been some that had died before who had not become totally wicked, and then there was Noah, and all those other people whose names were already written in the book of life...the book of all who would ever live...and so God spared mankind and allowed them to continue, chosing to set apart one "tribe" through which to bring salvation to all nations.
The idea that the Book of the Living contains all the people who would ever live is actually a jewish concept, and remember that John, who wrote the book of Revelation was a Jew. When Moses prayed for God to remove his name from the book, it was in the same spirit that Job lamented he wished he had never been born. Moses "knew" his name was in the book? Moses "knew" he was predestined for Salvation...if the doctrine of prersonal predestination is true, how can one be sure they are one of the elect? I'd really like to know. It is not a personal opinion that God is Love and that in God there is not a hint of darkness.
If God planned sin, than how can any one be held responsible for falling into temptation?
and one more thing before I get on with my lesson plans - all you guys out there who seem to be saying that personal predestination is THE correct doctrine, that only those who God calls can come to him, and only those he calls are saved - which we would have to admit through further study of the Word is a minority - what about all those verses that command people to seek God, condemn them for not seeking God, and the Words of God Himself who say - Seek Me!
See, God calls to all men - all men are created with Heaven as their future, predestined to fulfill a perfect plan for their lives - however God has given these men (and women ofcourse) a free will to choose. And to those of us who choose to follow Jesus, He gives a further command to make disciples, to teach, and to help others see the light, and follow it.
That's all I have to say...I think my Son is coming home this weekend...tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree
Jason - "I know, it is not possible for us to completely reconcile these truths, but we can't deny what scripture says about them."
Your examples point to individual instances of individual people whom God interacts with. I don't think any of us have denied such interaction. That differentiation from the direct discusion of free will and/or pre-destination helps us come closer to reconciling.
It alarms me every time someone turns to the defense that God's plans are beyond our comprehension so we should just blindly assume our predecessors and authors before our time to have gotten it completely right. If it was beyond our ability to understand, God would not have had it written down for us.
Did it ever occur to you that he wants us to understand him fully? Is it possible? Probably not, but that doesn't mean we can't try. He doesn't want to be on a throne behind a glass wall to be adored. Rather he wants to be a friend and guest in your living room.
Personally, after all of this argument about free will, several points have alarmed me. While it doesn't seem like we will ever agree on the subject, I have to ask: Despite what some of these POV's seem to indicate, you do all at least recognize that you are still responsible for your actions and the choices you make, don't you?
Jason, the Jewish understanding of the book of life was always that it contained the names of every person who would ever live...
both John and Jesus were jews...
I think the Bible's teaching on predestination is much clearer when you go back to the language and context in which it was written and get away from the influence of Augustine and Calvin. (Luther too for that matter). I believe the Holy Spirit can and does speak to us through modern translations however,
the first message of Scripture is GOD LOVES US - all doctrine must agree with that basic teaching...a God who predestines people to hell is not the Loving God of the Bible.
Jason, I'd be happy to comment specifically on the verses you mention but for the time being I am blogging during my break at work and I do not have my "study" Bible with me so if you would give me chapter and verse in your comments it would help. I am not writing what I "feel" about God, I am writing what the Holy Spirit is revealing to me as I study the Word, and what I am learning from various teachers...
Great Post Marryellen! I enjoyed reading through this discussion. All o you made really Good points. Keep seeking.
Grey Owl,
I thought what I said was clear enough. I am stating my point for anyone to read, not just you. You are confusing judgmental with non-compromising. We are never called to compromise in the Body of Christ.
As for the book of life. Here is the problem. In Exodus 32:32 Moses says to the Lord, and I paraphrase, "if you won't forgive Israel's sin then blot me out of your book." Now is he asking for the Lord to take away salvation, or is he asking to physically die? If to the Jew the book of life is simply everyone who ever lived, his request doesn't make sense, as he is already alive. I don't think he was asking God to kill him, as he probably would have said take my life, plainly. The Lord says that He will blot out of His book anyone that has sinned against Him. IOW, He was telling Moses myob. Who is "born again" and who is not is God's business. he gives and takes away!
Also in Rev 20: 11-15 the Book of Life is revealed and anyone's name not written in it was thrown into the lake of fire. Now, if according to "jewish tradition" the Book contains the names of all who have ever lived, then this passage doesn't make sense either, as the Lord is sending "living beings" into the lake. If they are not in the book,then by jewish tradition they wouldn' exist. How are they then being thrown into the lake? The apostle John is also a jew. Is he contradicting jewish beliefs? Should we only read the RC Bible which most likely is not "tainted" by Augustine or Calvin? What about the Bibles that are tainted by rampant hyper-arminianism which is a far worse (man centered) theology than Calvin's?
In the post modern world,the belief that Scripture can only be studied in historical/cultural context is extremely problematic.
It feeds into the thought that all things are relative and there is no absolute Truth re: God. Does a statment like "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever"
mean something different to the first century church than to us? The pulpits are filled with sociologosts, historians, cultural anthropologists and linguists. There are very few spirit-filled men of God preaching anymore.
Scripture is interpreted by and through the Holy Spirit. All scholastic study is subordinate. Otherwise let's give up now and rejoin pagan romanism and her magesterial masters.
Chris P -
Small point, but the RC is most definitely not Pagan by any standing definition I am aware of, nor by the religious connotation. Just because you are against them and against us doesn't mean we should be lumped into the same boat.
Sorry Wanderer, a Bibilical defining of paganism would encompass most of the doctrines and idolatry of the RC. According to Eph 2 there once was Israel, and everybody else. By the finished work of Christ that issue is resolved. This in conjunction with Romans 9 then tells us that by ingrafting us onto the original cultivated tree, the union which is now the Body of Christ exists, and everything outside of it is not Christ therefore "pagan". Therefore His body is made up of all who come by faith to Him and no one else. Without the crucified, risen, ascended christ you have nothing. So I am then well within the scope of lumping all that is not Christ, into the pagan camp.
So then:
"the "book of life" had three sections covering "all" who live "the righteous" "the undetermond" and "the evil or unrighteous" the cadagoyies all reflect all those who live."
Since such a definition is not given in the Scriptures, does that mean no one can understand Scripture without being an Hebrew expert?
My contention is that neither calvinism or arminianism has a real grasp of the Scriptures.
Since Israel spent most of it's existence as apostate, as it currently is btw,
why would Hebrew worldview be any better than gentile worldview? IOW
Romans 1 and 2 tell us that all are in the same boat, i.e. without excuse.
Also the gentiles were never encouraged to embrace talmudic law by any of the apostles.
According to Genesis 11 the origin of cultures was a consequence of man's pride. I do agree that God's mercy is always in the discipline.
Are you saying the reformers and the emerging church movement are essentially the same? What about the RC, or any of the early heresies?
I am a Biblical literalist because there are so many interpretations and debate. Why can we not accept Scripture for what it says based on it's own context rather than the social/historical/cultural context?
I asked;
"Does a statment like "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever"
mean something different to the first century church than to us?"
No one has answered this yet.
Here's a line from Calvin that I posted over at wanderer's:
"Scripture affirms both free will and predestination and does not attempt to resolve the tension between the two."
It's obviously not verbatum, but still I think the point is clear. This may be one of those "unknowables", that we are simply not able or meant to understand. In any case, I'm willing to call those who differ from me in this regard brothers and sisters. I asked the question before, do we pray for each other as well as argue with each other?
Chrisp, I'm still not sure how you get me being judgemental by quoting scripture. I'm willing to drop it if you are, though; I'm sure we've both got better things to do with our time. Let's converse respectfully, alright?
good grief Pastor Art, you must have been in a real hurry, your spelling is outrageous! Or are you typing in tongues? (love you dear).
Just for the record, I do not agree with Chris P. about the RC. I do not think they are pagan. They, as a group are responsible for keeping Christianity alive, although somewhat "perverted" during the dark ages. And they DO NOT teach a false Christ. Like all modern Christian Churches, they have some teachings, or practices that may not line up with 1st century Christianity...but so do all other churches - tongues (or no tongues) rapture (pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib) personal predestination - the methods of baptism, the meaning of communion, when do we worship, how do we worship (just what does Spirit and Truth mean anyway?) All these doctrines can (and have) ignite(d) hot debates. The book I am reading, which pastor art took and re-read in one afternoon, and I'm still only on page 40, says that both Calvin and Augustine were "too Christian" to carry their doctrine on predestination to its logical conclusion - that God is the author of Sin. There doesn't need to be tension between Free Will and Predestination if we understand that ALL are predestined for Salvation, and ALL are called to seek God.
Saying that God knows every possible choice and every possible outcome, but does not know which one will be made until it is made - does not limit the Sovereignty of God, it infact expands His all knowingness to a level our liner minds have a hard time grasping.
What point, dear Chris, are you making about Jesus being the same yesterday, today, and always? and what about all those verses which clearly say that man does, and must seek God? and the verse in Genesis 6 about God's reaction to the wicked choices mankind had made??? Why can't we just accept Scripture for what it says?
BTW, I think that the meaning of Jesus being the same yesterday, today, forever etc. has remained the same but our understanding of it has changed. We are 2000 years after christ and it seems like the first christians never thought the world would last this long. Perhaps we just have a better appreciation of what that means because we can look back over all those centuries of change and still Jesus remains constant and unchanging, although this does not also imply stagnant or uncaring.
good answer Grey Owl
the same doesn't mean stagnent - all living things "change" in some way or another - yet we can count on Jesus being the one constant!
Thanks maryellen. On my latest blog post I actually take issue with some of the ways we change Jesus to be more to our liking. I'll be the first to admit that the Christ of the Bible is knowable to us, I just resent when people try to boil him down to one or two "essential attributes", as so often happens.
Dear Pastor Art, that word is
determine! d-e-t-e-r-m-i-n-e
love ya!
It's official, Blogger needs spellcheck.
"Why can't we just accept Scripture for what it says?"
Maryellen,
That has always been my point.
"On my latest blog post I actually take issue with some of the ways we change Jesus to be more to our liking."
and
""Scripture affirms both free will and predestination and does not attempt to resolve the tension between the two."
Grey Owl,
Once again that is my point. What do you think open theism, the emerging church, and the RC do? BTW, Calvin is correct
This is an excellent article that might help.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/prayer/sovereignty_and_prayer.html
why is calvin correct and wesley incorrect? calvin is infallible?
and what about augustine, we get the doctrine of personal predestination from him, but he also taught infant baptism and that there was no salvation outside of the RC, why do we put so much "faith" in one doctrine and not on the others...
Chrisp - I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. What is your point? Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing? Do you think I am an example of what you were talking about? I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that. I think we're mostly on the same page with this, although I think the problematic nature of biblical literalism has demonstrated itself time and again. If you want to know exactly what I meant check out my post:http://highargument.blogspot.com/2005/09/fashion-of-christ.html. I'd like to know what you mean, though, so please clarify.
maryellen, my point was that even Clavin admitted that it was possible for freewill and predestination to be right at the same time. I don't get how it works, but I'm sure not going to get hyped up about either side. My issues with the debate come from when someone emphasizes one to the exclusion of the other. Make any sense? This isn't a criticism.
ok, grey owl,
I agree...
I get so worked up over this issue for two reasons...those who believe in personal predestination seem to limit the possiblility of salavation to people who believe the same as they do...and, in my own personal life, which is at times very stormy...I have considered the possibility that if God never forsakes His elect, and I've been forsaken, than I am not one of His elect, and whats the use of going on. These are very scarey thoughts to me at times.
I hear you maryellen. I'd like to encourage you: even when you feel forsaken it doesn't mean that God has actually forsaken you. He is still the father waiting for his prodigal child. Forsaking is something that we do to God, IMHO.
and as far as limiting who goes to heaven, I encourage you to research Accesibilism, which is a view of predestination that is open to the possibility of salvation for the unevangelized. Check on my website for a link to "Who Can be Saved" - a great, theologically sound book. Or if you want to chat some more about this, send me an email and we can talk like that.
Chris P. -
Initial meaninf of "pagan": Non-city dwelling people. Those cut off from civilization. Later religious connotation indicated that this be used to reference those not practicing the dominant religion: The Church of Rome.
Present capitalized meaning referencing and encompassing all earth worshipping traditions.
1) There are RC practitioners who dwell in cities
2) RC believers definitely don't qualify as non-RC
3) RC doesn't worship the earth.
Misuse of the word prevails (including to be honest our usurping of it and capitalizing it) but by any standing definition, RC: Not pagan
Post a Comment