What’s Wrong with Claiborne?
Posted by Matt B on Feb 14th, 2008
2008
Feb 14
So, Ken and Ingrid have both said they don’t like Shane Claiborne. Besides an association with Jim Wallis, what is it that they don’t like? Neither article talks about any of his writings, talks, teachings, etc. They just play the GBA game (guilty by association).
Please, inform the rest of us what is “bad” about him.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I find it funny that Ingrid takes issue with the fact that Jim Wallis used the word “emerging” to describe Shane Claiborne even though Claiborne himself doesn’t self-identify with the term. I can’t even fathom that kind of logic.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Excuse me why I rant!
I know Shane personally. Ken and Ingrid Shut-up!
February 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Oh its not just just Ingrid, check out the “research” from “Light”house Trails. Note there’s nothing actually in it about Claiborne’s work. The pull quote is from Leonard Sweet. The rest of the criticism is about where donations go, and people who endorsed the book.
What a ridiculous farce, both of them.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Tim,
I saw the Lighthouse post a few weeks ago. Ken and Ingrid picked up on it recently. Lighthouse Trails is about as close as you can get to ridiculous slander without being complete liars.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I can’t believe she’s comparing herself to Athanasius.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Well there are some letters in Athanasius thay apply
Of all the targets in the world they could have chosen Shane Clairborne is way off the mark maybe they are running out of Warren/Bell/McLaren/CRN.info/Emerging/Emergent.Purpose Driven material.
Reminds me of the old line………4 sermons, 4 thousand titles.
Bruce
February 14th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Ingrid writes,
“So why should anyone care about what this author wearing a bandana and funky glasses says or writes? Does it matter?”
There’s the real issue right there! It was the bandana all along! (Kidding!)
I think this is a bit unfair. One should never judge a book by its cover; how an author dresses (and some tend to have eccentric tastes) does not judge whether or not they have something important to say.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
It seems it is because of Shane promoting “desert mystics”.
Yet, if one looks as the history of these “mystics” we see that many who promoted them, also fought for orthodoxy.
St. Athanasius fought against Arianism, yet promoted St. Antony of the Desert… He also was the one who headed up Council of Nicaea… which gave us the Nicene Creed.
St Thomas Aquinas promoted mystics and heavily influence Augustine.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux promoted mystics and influenced John Calvin.
Augustine influenced John Calvin and Luther.
This is by far a very small list… There is so much in Church history that Ken and Ingrid are throwing out that is what gives them their own heritage… to do so is to almost deny their own faith! LOL!
iggy
February 14th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Here is a bit more on the influence of mysiticsim on Luther.
Even at this time his radical change of views bad become evident. Turning from philosophy, he sought the kernel of the trust of salvation in the Bible, especially in the Epistle to the Rornans and in the Psalms, which he interpreted entirely from the New Testament. He next lectured on Galatians, Hebrews, Titus, and Judges, his lectures being partly published and partly preserved in manuscript. Of the Fathers, Augustine had the profoundest influence on him, though be grasped more than his teacher the weaving of the faith which is the direct road to the righteousness of God. Among medieval teachers he was most impressed by Bernard of Clairvaux, while in 1516 be came under the Influence of the mysticism of Tauler.
Yep, Shane is pure evil… and so is Calvin and Luther and all that were influenced by mystics.
iggy
February 14th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
As we all learned when Piper got thrown under the bus for quoting Dallas Willard, to quote anyone to bolster one’s point means that you are in total agreement with everything that they’ve ever done or said.
So, if someone quotes Jim Wallis to bolster one’s point, that person must be in total agreement with everything that Wallis has ever done or said.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
So now it comes down to “Shane hasn’t admitted it, but if Jim says it about him, it must be true.” Dangerous game, Ingrid.
And I wonder if Ingrid were a first century Jew, what her reaction would be to someone who lived and dressed “out there” like … John the Baptist.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
The “editor” on CRN is now deliberately misrepresenting Shane’s writing now. This is one case where I even feel justified calling it a lie. He posts this:
On page 171 and 172 of the book, Shane continues by saying this:
The editor may be a Christian, but what he’s doing sure isn’t research.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I think guys like Shane Claibourne scare people because he is so radical.
I must admit, when I see the preview writers of his book like McLaren, Campolo, Bell, et.al. my heart screams emergent. When I hear about his belief in monasticism, I see a return to non-biblical catholic practices. And when I see him working with Mother Theresa amongst the poorest of the poor, I wonder if he is espousing catholic works righteousness.
But I see him in these poor neighborhoods, working among these youth, helping people I feel a kindred spirit with him; I have always loved being in the ‘hood working amongst urban youth. Shane does this at ground level, living among them. I never did that~but I feel like I would want to if it were not for my wife and four kids! (I see what Paul means)
I don’t know what his beliefs about salvation are, I don’t know if he preaches the Gospel. He sure does live it though, and it bothers me only because I wish I knew for sure that his lifestyle grew out of a right knowledge of God-and I hope it did. But I cannot criticize him for doing something I believe Jesus would do- even though I will not go as far as saying that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are doing right- do you know what I mean?
I need to know more before I can give a right opinion on this guy. I still believe since Cedarville is a university, they should have had him speak and allowed the students to debate among themselves.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
teresa
Four words to let you know that someone doesn’t know their subject:
calvanist instead of calvinist
armenian instead of arminian
ghandi instead of gandhi
theresa instead of teresa
February 15th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Pastorboy?
“When I hear about his belief in monasticism, I see a return to non-biblical catholic practices.”
Does the Bible discourage it? The Bible doesn’t mention pastors, are those wrong? The Bible doesn’t mention a lot of things that are traditions in church and Christianity.
“And when I see him working with Mother Theresa amongst the poorest of the poor, I wonder if he is espousing catholic works righteousness.”
Huh? I thought she died? Lol. Can’t someone work among the poor without a person wondering if they are Catholic? Monasteries are admittedly Catholic. Serving the poor should be done more often by Christians in the name of Jesus.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:37 am
PB,
There is a “new” monasticism that is taking the good of the old and the strengths of the old as in “community” and using it for training and ministry. Also, it sounds like you are too far skewed from “works” that “Fear” stops you from seeing that God can use a person even in their doubts or some aberrant doctrine to do His will.
In all I see this “fear” that keeps many like you from growing beyond the “bad” of the past and into what God just might be doing now.
Fear has to do with punishment, and we are perfected in love. If love for God and others is the most important thing Jesus taught us to do, then I think that God honors all that as He is doing it in and through that person.
iggy
February 15th, 2008 at 4:27 am
Shane Claiborne interviewed Tony Campolo who he studied under and considers a mentor. I will provide the link to this interview but here is a snippet of the discussion that Campolo suggests and Claiborne ackowledges:
Here are more disturbing thoughts:
http://www.crosscurrents.org/CompoloSpring2005.htm
February 15th, 2008 at 8:27 am
With that quote, Henry, I say that my fears are confirmed. He is just another radical who is doing nice things but espousing a different Gospel. Too bad…
February 15th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Not the proof texting police but the article you linked to Rick has this at the very beginning.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Chris - I also noticed that, however, his following statements are incongruous with hsi ascertion. You cannot have it both ways and I am sure the authors of the Apostle’s Creed would reject Tony’s doctrine and reject the notion that he espouses the Apostle’s Creed.
Unless we interpret the Apostle’s Creed as so nebulous as to include a universalist such as Compalo.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I think the real problem is that according the hermeneutic used by some bloggers, none of us is going to be in eternity with Christ. They keep leaving out grace. How can anyone forget about grace?!? Why do people not understand grace?!?
I know I’m not probably not going to be in eternity with the authors of slice and the Pastor because I read Harry Potter books (and enjoy them to boot!) I just don’t understand why grace does not fit into their theological perspective. Man, what a wreck the church is when there is no room for God’s Grace. Sad. Really. Uncomfortable. Sadness.
jerry
February 15th, 2008 at 9:35 am
PB,
So you are saying we must live under the Law and interpret it by our own understanding? Just clarifying if this is your view as this is what I hear you saying in disagreeing with Claiborne’s quote.
iggy
February 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Jerry,
“I think the real problem is that according the hermeneutic used by some bloggers, none of us is going to be in eternity with Christ. They keep leaving out grace. How can anyone forget about grace?!? Why do people not understand grace?!?…”
I agree.
iggy
February 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Jerry - It is wrong to accuse a professing believer of being unsaved. Harry Potter is a non-issue, or should be. Salvation is fully by grace through faith, however, Campolo is suggesting salvation without faith until after death. That is serious.
It is things like that which cause many of us very real concern. And my question to you would be, if indeed Campolo is suggesting universalism, would you reject it and is thatserious enough to warn others about his teachings?
February 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Living up to your usual standards of research, eh pastorboy?
February 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
This is the quote iggy…
If Claibourne believes this, he is NOT orthodox…or a Biblical Christian- no matter how many good works he does
February 15th, 2008 at 10:10 am
No, Tim, I have as much as said I have not researched. But that quote, if Claibourne agrees with it, is not orthodox.
I still believe that he has the right to speak, even if he is unorthodox. As long as I have the right to disagree with what he says!
February 15th, 2008 at 10:21 am
What causes me greater concern is that seemingly more time is spent deriding and evaluating the words of another than what is spent in evaluation of our own lives before Christ.
But only if he doesn’t question anything, align himself with people I disagree with, quote a non-believer, believe in mysticism, and…the list goes on.
I’ve never seen anybody so adept at finding needles in haystacks. It really is an art form!
February 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Or to put it another way; not me, not Tony, not PB, not Chris, Not Rick, BUT Catholicism would say!
February 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
The kind of language used by Campolo is much more serious than the often mercurial discussion about homosexuality and homosexuals. This gets to the core of the nature and parameters of salvation, and indeed affects how we view evangelism which if you read the interview is significantly challenged.
I will again at this juncture offer my conviction that one can be a heretic and still be a Christian. Finney was a heretic but still a Christian. I have read MacLaren’s personal journey and I believe he is a Christian but a teacher of heresy. The only caveat I would offer centers around Hebrews chapters 6 and 10 which are warnings but still offer no personal knowledge of anyone’s standing before God.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
“What causes me greater concern is that seemingly more time is spent deriding and evaluating the words of another than what is spent in evaluation of our own lives before Christ.”
These are the personal tributaries that lead us away from productive discussions. We all should be well aware of our own spiritual shortcomings and sin, and with that we must attempt to love and respect the people with whom we so vehemently disagree. That, my friend, is a road along which I sometimes stray.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am
And that I believe is why Tony and Shane had the discussion they did about other religions.
Rick I’ve read that entire interview 5 times…Where you see heresy I see dialogue about how to love and respect those with whom we disagree.
Tony says repeadetly “No salvation apart from Christ” (paraphrase). What he also says is that “God’s grace doesn’t end at the door of the evangelical house” (paraphrase) If all you can see is “Catholics can choose salvation after death” and ascribe that as being Tony’s view then maybe dialogue is not what you want.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“No salvation apart from Christâ€
Chris - If you will read some of Campolo’s books and writings you will see that he believes Muslims can find Christ inherant in Allah and their religion. I would ask you, if that is the case, is that heresy no matter who says it?
MacLaren says the same thing about no salvation apart from Christ, however they bring all religions under the canopy of God’s grace and claim that they all have a “part” of the revelation of Christ. That is a major departure from Biblical Christianity as understood by any former generations and most of evangelical Christianity today.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Whats wrong with claibourne?
Her jeans never fit me. And that little swan? Tacky.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Rick I see a horse of an entirely different color.
If a muslim finds Christ he is no longer a muslim he is now a Christian. That is what I believe Campolo and McLaren both to be saying.
I find it to be a non-sequiter to say that “Christ alone” and then say “but Muslims also”. Because it’s a non-sequiter I believe Campolo to be saying the affirmative not the negative. Unless of course Campolo is an absolute idiot and wouldn’t recognize his own contradiction. But I doubt it.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Rick, I was talking about myself. I am not sure what your response means. I was talking about grace, what are talking about? Jerry
February 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
What Campolo is talking about isn’t anything that new. The inclusivist position has been around for literally ages, going back to Justin Martyr and some of the other Church Fathers. To say it isn’t orthodox isn’t quite true. It’s really not up to us to say who goes where for eternity.
I guess my question would be, what are the implications of taking such a position? Does it lessen a person’s commitment to evangelism? It seems that it doesn’t when look at the lives of people who espouse such a view. The fact is we are still commanded to evangelize.
I think the one problem with thinking only Christianity has the “right” answer is that it seems like inevitably it causes Christians to think of themselves as all right and everyone else all wrong. I think it much healthier to evangelize from a place that says, “I don’t have all the answers, but here is what I believe and what has changed my life. I respect your experiences, so let’s find some common ground and start talking.” It’s not saying other religions are right, but it is valuing other people.
If we can approach in humility, rather than self-assuredness, I think we might be surprised at other’s reactions.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
QFT
February 15th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
PB,
Hebrews 9:27 Hebrews states
27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment…
Yet also, we must die now so live later.
What also one must way in is that that Jesus stated that the neither the Father nor He will judge anyone. (John 8:15; John 5:22) In that we are judged by our own words, (Luke 19:22) I see that if a person died without having heard the word of Christ that at the moment of death a person can be given a choice.
God is just, but He is merciful. God also does not want anyone to perish and I believe will give every opportunity to choose Him.
Now, the real issue is that you are stating this is “wrong” yet, all you state is that “he is NOT orthodox…or a Biblical Christian” yet, miss that Catholicism is “orthodox”… (Technically).
But you failed to give a reason as to why it is not “biblical”.
We are not talking of the example of the Rich man and Lazarus which the rich man was already in Abraham’s Bosom (note he was not a righteous man, yet not in “hell” but in Abraham’s Bosom but I digress) He was already passed the point of death.
Now, I had a talk with Ken Silva who stated that Doug Pagett was “acting as a Christian pastor†yet was not saved. I pointed out that Ken called him “Christian†and then stated he was not saved. So according to Ken Silva a person can be “Christian†and not “Saved.†If that is true then a person who is not “Christian†at the point of death, (which they have not crossed over).
What I am getting at is if a Muslim is a person of True Faith, yet never heard the Gospel, do you not think God is just to reveal Himself to them so they can make a choice?
Now, I have no problem in that a person is at the point of death, and not dead yet, and Jesus reveals Himself. There are many near death experiences that relate that story.
I am not stating that one trusts in this as “Truth†but that it be possible that Christ who “…died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.†(1 Peter 3: 18-20;)
I guess also we need to deny this passage:
1 Peter 4:3-6
3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
So again, here is some passages that support Shane’s position… and one verse that states that “the gospel is preached even to those who are now dead.â€. Note again it states “now dead“… as it is present not just those already dead.
I guess it comes down to believing the bible as it states things or holding to you interpretation or tradition…
iggy
February 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Chris,
I see that many take it the way that some are saying a Muslim is saved if he is a good person… yet that is never what I hear or understand when I hear McLaren or Campolo speak.
I hear it like you do. I hear that a Muslim can become a Christian and remain in their cultural context… and nto become a weternized American Christian.
I see that the worse evangalism that took place in American was to the American Indian. Instead of bringig Jesus to them, we braught Western cultrue and Jesus was part of it. I see that instead of them finding Jesus, they found they lost their own culture.
I see that a Hindu can come to Christ but then still remain of their culture, not “religion”, though in some cases as in some countries if one converts to Christiantiy they will be executed as it is agaisnt the law to change religions. I think many do not realize that as a reality in some countries and place unrealistic expectation on those people instead of having compassion and seeing them doing the best they can.
I really see a lack of Grace and compassion as some just see their “biblical†view as all “it†and miss that God is much bigger than own concept of Him.
I also wonder, (not being a Calvinist) that if one who is Elect never hears the Gospel and dies, will Jesus still save them? Will a Calvinist be saved without know Jesus?
iggy
February 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Cute, PB, but that was Gloria Vanderbilt.
Nice try, for a guy, though. Better than Chris L. would have done!
A for effort!
February 15th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“If a muslim finds Christ he is no longer a muslim he is now a Christian. That is what I believe Campolo and McLaren both to be saying.”
Chris, even Chris L. would agree that is NOT what Campolo and MacLaren are saying.
Jerry - I was agreeing with your observation about grace, however without faith there is no saving grace.
So iggy - one obscure reference in Peter which the Mormons love but cannot be substantiated by Paul or any of the other writers stands as proof of an afetr death evangelistic effor for everyone? In that case, who would deny Him? Who would not be saved if free from this world Christ gave them one last chance? And who gets that chnce? If it those who have never heard then leave them alone, for if those who hear and reject don’t get a second afterlife chance we do them a diservive to complicate their situation.
This is no “lack of grace and compassion” as you put it which seems to assume no lack on your part, it is how we see the Scriptures as did Wesley, Moody, Calvin, Luther, Tozer, and many, many others. This is no mean-spirited doctrinal interpretation, this is what I see as eternal truth. If a person dies without his sins washed in Christ’s blood by faith he is lost forever.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I read through part of SC’s book a few months ago. It left me a bit “nyaah”. Probably the thing that bugged me most was his rather extreme anti-military stance. I think there was one part where he said he hoped Wheaton College would do away with military recruiting on its campus.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Rick,
Perhaps you miss that Mormon baptize in proxy for the dead for salvation… that is not what I am stating nor is Shane. SO apples and oranges.
Also, you seem to forget the EVERY KNEE will bow and EVERY TONGUE confess Jesus Christ is Lord….yet then every person will give account… that is the order. (Roman 14:8 -12) In that passage Paul is clear verse 9. “For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.”
So even then all will confess Jesus as Lord, and all will be under Jesus feet yet,
Revelations 20: 11-15 states:
They are dead and raised to life then judged.
Yet, as Jesus stated in Matthew 22:32 “He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” It seems that to be the God of the dead also, we then shall live and do so in Christ and will be judged according to what we have done.
Jesus preached tot he dead. That is not Mormonism, but Peter. Paul states that that God is the God of the living and the dead and Paul and John states that all will be under Jesus’ feet and judged both living and dead.
If you think that a CLEAR passage that states plainly, (unlike some other passages like that of predestination and foreknowledge which whole systems are based on which then we can go the Calvinist way and say man this means man is dead and cannot make a choice) Yet that is not the context as I see it. I see that Jesus declares the Gospel to the living and the dead and even preaches now to the dead so that they can be saved.
We are accept by our acceptance of rejection of Jesus. I see that even the dead can make a choice as they must humbly accept Jesus as taking their sin away. This does not negate the importance of declaring the Gospel now to the living so that they can learn to live in Holiness now. I also see that if one choose then they still will die in their sins at the Last Judgment.
I guess the part that worries me is that IF Peter states something and you seem to not see it in Paul’s or someone else’s writing, you toss it out. I am not sure one should ignore anything in the bible. I see a lot of passages that are hard to understand but this one seem as clear as a bell in light of John and Paul and Jesus.
iggy
February 15th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Your view, Iggy, is a version of universalism. Who dies, sees the Risen Christ compared with the alternative, and rejects Him? That entire theological scenario must have been hidden from many other theologians both dead and living. That particular teaching is something extremely important and would have been taught clearly and often, would it not?
Under what condition would a dead spirit reject Christ? I have many systematic theology volumes and no one teaches what you suggest. Does anyone else here believe that?
February 15th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Rick,
Ummm,
your idea of universalism is much different from mine. I see a risen savor who loved the world and saved it on the Cross and by His resurrection. And gives all according to His justice the possibility for salvation through Christ Jesus alone. I one rejects Jesus, then they will be in the Lake of Fire. I believe even the dead, with Jesus standing if front of them as proof will reject Jesus just as Jesus stated of the living, ” Luke 16: 31. “He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
I also believe the bible when it states, “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. ” (2 peter 3:9-10)
We should live now as one that will be judged later as we will be, but not by our works but by Jesus’. I see that a person will “be judged by their own words” at the last judgement… with Jesus standing in front of them… saying choose me or your own righteousness… and sadly many will not choose Jesus.
I see that is why we preach the gospel now, so that they can “live holy and godly lives” now, and grow in the grace and truth of Jesus, now… and not be as one that just passes through the flames. (1 Cor3:10-15)
I see that there is enough to show that Jesus does preach the gospel to the dead as Peter states, and that they having died will still be judged according to their works… which foundation did they built on? Yet for some there will only by Christ and Christ alone as that is sufficient to save all mankind.
iggy
February 16th, 2008 at 8:49 am
PB and Rick
I’ll try to make this simple, so as to put a finer point on the discussion.
Would you concede that there is a difference between saying there will be a Muslim section in heaven, and saying that there are those who, by human evaluation, are Muslims are right now, but will nonetheless be in Heaven, praising Christ?
The first “universalism” I, and everyone here, would have a serious problem with. The second “universalism,” as Phil said, has been around thousands of years, including amongst Church Fathers. It’s present in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant thinking.
Ironically enough, it’s a position that historically has been associated with Calvinist/Augustinian type thought. The Schadenfreude that some show over people being predestined to Hell is a somewhat recent phenomenon.
The fact that Ingrid/Ken associate anyone who suggests a second type of “universalism” with the first type is just typical straw-man tactics.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:14 am
–Would you concede that there is a difference between saying there will be a Muslim section in heaven, and saying that there are those who, by human evaluation, are Muslims are right now, but will nonetheless be in Heaven, praising Christ?–
Are you saying that there will be people who lived and died who worshipped Allah, followed the Koran, and believed Jesus was just another prophet (even if a rather special one) who will be saved, even if they did not in this life repent of their sins and confess Christ as their Lord?
February 16th, 2008 at 9:32 am
“For there is no other name under heaven , given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Onle born again sinners who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ while alive on earth will be in heaven. And there is none of this “they worship Jesus only they don’t know it” or “Allah is another name for Jesus”. Universalism in all its forms is unbiblical conjecture that elevates the fallen compassion of man to the expense of clear Biblical teaching.
It also gives false hope to the lost and soothes the conscience of the saved. No Muslim sections in heaven and no worshipers of idols in heaven as well. That is whi thousands of men and women have given their lives for the sake of the gospel because they knew there was no second chance.
Only a tortued piece meal presentation of some parts of the New Testament can even be put forth as a possibility. He that has the Son has life, He that has not the son has not the Son has not life. The dead that were preached to about which Peter mentioned were the OT saints waiting for the final day of atonement, not that men that die in theirs sins get to believe after death.
And to suggest that Muslims or any other religion are accepted by God even while worshiping idols is extremly bad theology.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. There are many spirits of anti-christ that roam the world today. Allah, Buddha, and all the unbiblical representation of Christ Himself are the spirits of anti-christ, not partial understandings of the Lord Jesus.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:40 am
To deny that the bible teaches that at one point EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord, denies a very clear and basic teaching of scripture. It is not the evil “Universalism” in that all are “saved”, but the acknowledgment that all will stand in judgement in Heaven before God at the Resurrection.
All will “universally” be raised and judged, Muslim or Christian, male and female, slave and free… for there are none of these in “heaven” as all mankind has been found unrighteous… we are all wrong and only Jesus is right and our identity, be it male/female/slave/free/christian/Muslim/Hindi/Fundy/conservative/emergetn/ODM or whatever matters nothing when we stand before Jesus. All that matters is what He did in and through us and we receive the reward of eternal life becuase He knew us. Otherwise we stand before Him with nothing but our own words to contemn us and we will be tossed into the eternal Lake of Fire and experience the second death.
The ones that have already been raised to Life in the “first resurrection” are those who were martyred. They received the “better resurrection” as stated in Hebrews 11.
God will judge all of mankind equally regardless to our own view of ours elf. And at that time if a Muslim speaks “Christ” then his name is in the book of Life, if they do not speak “Christ” then they are tossed into Lake of Fire.
If a Christian speaks “Christ” then he will receive eternal life in the New Creation, if the Christian speaks of his own righteousness, it is the Lake of Fire.
I see this as pretty simple… I do not see why it is so complicated.
iggy
February 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Be careful, Rick, lest you step into Manicheism.
I think we can temper our zealotry for the gospel with a good dose of “epistemic humility.” The line where our faith in Christ can become just another faith in ourselves is not always clear.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am
–To deny that the bible teaches that at one point EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord, denies a very clear and basic teaching of scripture.–
Where have we denied that, iggy?
–God will judge all of mankind equally regardless to our own view of ours elf. And at that time if a Muslim speaks “Christ†then his name is in the book of Life, if they do not speak “Christ†then they are tossed into Lake of Fire.–
Where do get see that? I have seen no such thing in the Bible.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Jazz,
I stated every knee will bow and tongue confess… yet not all doing that will have eternal life.
I stated: –God will judge all of mankind equally regardless to our own view of ours elf. And at that time if a Muslim speaks “Christ†then his name is in the book of Life, if they do not speak “Christ†then they are tossed into Lake of Fire.–
First, The Judgement was at the Cross… all “Sin” was judged at that time. All men were counted as equal… for all have sinned. All men were declared unrighteous as we have none of our own. We are judged by our own words… as Jesus stated in Luke 19:22;
In Revelation 20 at the time of the Last Judgement all are kneeling and confessing, then Lamb’s Book of Life is opened. “The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.” If a Muslim confesses Christ, he is saved, if a Christian confesses his own righteousness he is not saved.
Our view of who we think we are, means nothing. What matters is what is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. If I think I am righteous, yet have none of my own, then I have deceived myself. If I though living in a Muslim culture confess Jesus as my salvation and my righteousness, then I am saved. Our own labels mean nothing to God. God is not a respecter of persons…
iggy