Neil,

As far as the ‘believe-belong-behave’ being most biblical, I wonder about Jesus calling his disciples. It seems that ‘belong-behave-believe’ was the process that Jesus took them through.

Corey

I watched this interview, and, honestly, apart from the fact that Rollins’ idea of a church is a bit different than most peoples’, I didn’t hear him say anything heretical. I thought that we had settled the whole “belonging before believing”thing years ago. I actually read a book about five years ago called The Celtic Way of Evangelism that talked about this very thing. Making people adhere to a certain statement of faith or sign on a dotted line before they can be a member is a very modern idea of doing things.

Did you ever wonder why there were so many people in the Corinthian church who seemed to be causing problems? Maybe is was simply the fact that they were welcome there. Now certainly when people start doing things that impact other people in the community negatively, they need to be dealt with, but it doesn’t seem that Paul said the answer to the problem was for the Corinthians to tighten up their statement of belief. The answer to their problem was to start matching their actions to those of a Christ-follower.

Yes, some of Rollins’ stuff comes off as overly philosophical, but I still don’t see that as something to condemn as a heretic for.

Maybe Christianity should function more like the cults since it seems to be working for them

I agree that belief is necessary. That is basic Christian doctrine. I would suggest, however, that there are many situations where people will not believe until they have had a chance to see that Christians are genuinely living out their faith and have had an opportunity to join in the lives of Christian people.

A preacher/teacher who has established his salvation by faith credentials is free to severely challenge us all as to our limited and ecclesiastically distorted lifestyles that fall profoundly short of our creeds, to say nothing of the outline of the New Testament.

But I have not as yet read or heard where Rollins pauses to establish his faith credentials, and to agree with John, I find some of his musings as interesting but lacking a cohesive gospel core.

I agree, as it pertains to this interview. That said, his almost disinterest in belief is what troubled me. maybe he was just overstating his case, but the whole “Christian are not called to believe the resurrection” comment is just not true.

Well I think the main issue is getting down to the word “believe”. It seems that we have simply taken that word to mean something along the lines of mental assent. The issue with that is that I can claim to believe in anything almost because it doesn’t cost me anything.

I wonder if part of the problem is that to the original readers of Scripture, believing meant something more. For a Jewish person to say that he believed Jesus was the Son of God was a costly thing. It could cost him friends, family, etc. For a Roman citizen to say “Jesus is Lord” could be very dangerous. Maybe we’ve lost touch with the cost of saying, “I believe this”.

For a Jewish person to say that he believed Jesus was the Son of God was a costly thing. It could cost him friends, family, etc. For a Roman citizen to say “Jesus is Lord” could be very dangerous. Maybe we’ve lost touch with the cost of saying, “I believe this”.

100% correct. Excellent point here.

We have spoken of this several times on this blog – faith versus works – as though the two can actually be separated. The truth is that they can’t.

If you go to an outdoor crusade today in a 3rd world country, they pass around ‘decision cards’ which are tantamount to a soul being saved that day. The preacher writes home, says how many people accepted Christ, and gets more money and resources for the next event.

In the days of Christ and after, it appears that people weighed their decision to follow Christ against what they might lose. It was more clear cut than it is today, which is why today we have such a watered down faith to begin with. It cost us very little when we started, so it costs little to compromise.

To believe on Jesus is not just signing a decision card or repeating a form prayer. That is a very legitmate issue.

your borderline ad hominem argument is unnecessary.

No ad hominen at all Neil… stop crying foul…

Disagree with the content if you like, but complaining about his verbosity is… well, why not also make fun of his accent?

That’s what I did (the content) – I addressed Phil’s statement that Christ could be accused for the same things I brought up about Mr. Rollins, but that’s clearly not the case.

Remember, you are looking at a snapshot interview… I’ve also heard another interview. It’s the same thing. Part of the problem is his “verbosity” as you so nicely put it. It leads down worm-holes with no clear destination that even the interviewers nod their head, but in confusion.

#31: I knew you’d say that

Seriously Neil. I am not degrading “how” it’s being said. I’m in bewilderment as to how someone can say so much without really saying anything.

But you cannot definitely say someone does not believe based on behavior.

You’re right. And this was part of the previous discussion on this. In James 3:2, he captures it perfectly. We all stumble and fall often. But that there will be a life change, a reorienting of our life, casting off the works of darkness (though we may fall here and there), and a turning our back on things that are not representative of Christ are all clear commands in scripture (captured beautifully in Col 3 – “put off” and “put on”).

The bigger picture though, is the shift occurring in the church in general, away from sound biblical truth to erudite philosophical ramblings, introducing error and entertaining ecumenism despite beliefs.

This is what I don’t understand. You mean the shift from the church in Corinth? Maybe you mean the shift away from using the Crusades as the original Evangelism Explosion? Perhaps, you mean the shift away from white pastors using the Bible to justify racism and the oppression of African Americans?

There have always been problems with the church and there will always be beautiful things that the church is doing. The church, the Bible and God are all pretty strong and they can handle this “current shift.” Truth will win out.
Love God, love your neighbor.

I believe there are some definite advantages, despite the wailing of the ADM’s, with the secularization of American culture.

Rich Mullins used to comment that the problem today was that “pagans were just too shallow” (when discussing the difference between Christian behavior and pagan behavior – and how telling the difference between the two is radically different today when compared with Jesus’ era).

I could see that, although I don’t think there’s such a separation between mental assent and action in the first century worldview.

I don’t think we’re all that different from them. If this was not an issue, why the charge of being hypocrites, why Paul calling people to live lives consistent with the faith?

I would agree with Phil, here – in the Eastern mindset, what you believe and how you act are part and parcel of the same thing. Culturally speaking, being a hypocrite wasn’t a disparity between what you believe and how you act – it was a difference between what you say you believe (what you claim) and how you act. Because actions demonstrate belief.

Now, part of the problem identified with “shallow paganism” (or the like) is that you can do many of the “right actions” while following a false god (which wasn’t so much the case in the Roman Empire, since everything you did was done to give credit to the deity(s) of your choice. So, then, the question becomes – are all of your actions in alignment with the kingdom, such that they give obvious credit to the right source?

Paul,

The steady decline and deterioration that you speak of seems to be the opposite of ecumenism to me.

I don’t promote the “putting aside” of any doctrine which is true and good for the sake of getting along. I do believe that the bible calls for ecumenism, and that Jesus Christ wills his church to be one just as he and the father are one. I do believe that he will achieve unity for his church, whether it looks lovely on the surface or very ugly and bloody to us.

In practice and reality, that is the underlying foundation of ecumenism

Paul,

I couldn’t disagree with you more. Christ alone is the foundation for Christian ecumenism. The question is whether or not Christ commanded us to be ecumenical and wills ecumenism for the church; and that’s got nothing to do with whether we can all sit in the same room together, or even like each other.

Galatians 3:26-28 – You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus… Here
there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male, nor female, for you are all one
in Christ Jesus

So whether or not you would enjoy sitting on a bar stool next to that goofy Irish bloke, the bible commands you to be ecumenical towards him. And that doesn’t mean you can’t tell him what doctrines he has all screwed up.

Or, if you prefer, from Jesus himself:

Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees… How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

We should not be cavalier about who we listen to. As Paul clearly spoke, their words can eat away at our soul like a cankerworm, and even overthrow the faith of some.

Adopted sons and daughters of God become God’s family complete with crazy uncles and sibling rivalries.

I think you meant “complete with false doctrines, philosophies and the traditions of men.”

To minimize the impact of these is to take both Jesus’ and Paul’s words (from above quotes) lightly.

Brett, re-read what Paul wrote above, or what Jesus said to His disciples regarding the Pharisees’ doctrine. Why do you think He said this? Why was Paul so vehement and protective in his stance against false preachers (as represented in 2 Cor 11 for example)?

A cavalier attitude to biblical truth is not being humble.

Also, read 2 Peter or the little epistle of Jude. These men weren’t ecumenical at all. In their eyes, today’s ecumenism would be rightly defined as ‘compromise’.

Also, read 2 Peter or the little epistle of Jude. These men weren’t ecumenical at all. – Paul C

Sigh! just when I thought we were communicating.
If Peter, Paul and Jude were not ecumenical, then the church would not have made in out of the 1st century and they would not have written scripture expressing the unity of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. These are not call the “catholic letters” of the new testament for nothing.

Once again, being ecumenical does not mean we can’t or shouldn’t correct brothers. It means that we do so for preserving the unity commanded by Christ, not because we are called to seperate ourselves from the bad people. Ecumenism is not an optional charism of Christ’s church.

Neil,
Just as a quick reminder. We don’t delete comments.

Neil,
Just as a quick reminder. We don’t delete comments.

This is correct – we may *****-out certain words, or redact personal contact information (for liability reasons), but we don’t delete comments…

Also, read 2 Peter or the little epistle of Jude. These men weren’t ecumenical at all. In their eyes, today’s ecumenism would be rightly defined as ‘compromise’.

Actually, much of what gets classified as “compromise” wouldn’t have made the list of “false teachings” for Paul, etc. For such a complicated and brilliant guy, Paul identified the gospel pretty simply and succinctly:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Let’s see – no mention of the method of atonement. No mention of structure of church leadership. No mention of a specific doctrine of Trinity. No mention of baptism method. No mention of free will or predestination. No solas. Just a pretty simple statement of orthodoxy.

But what about praxis? From Jesus:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

No mention of worship style. No mention of drinking. No mention of communion liturgy style/frequency. No mention of missionary societies.

And how does this doxy and praxy work together? Let’s ask Jesus’ brother:

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Well, darn, that’s kind of messy.

What does he say, overall, about religion?

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

I can fairly safely say that most denominations accept all of these, and I would also say that the desire for unity within the body – that we would be echad – one – is througout the Pauline writings, as well.

Rather than “cheap grace”, I would say that many Christians – ODM’s in particular – settle for “cheap heresy” which is nothing more than man-made squabbling (reminiscent of Mark 10:35-45) over doctrinal issues that are not the core of the gospel.

What Brett describes as ecumenism is something desirable within the body. It allows for debate on issues, gives grace for disagreement, and allows salvation to be God’s for the granting. It keeps ‘heresy’ narrowly defined, but holds Scripture in high esteem. It is a balance, and it’s not black and white. Which is why we modernists hate it. Give us the black and white answers – who’s in and who’s out. Don’t make us think, because somebody might get it wrong…

Thanks Chris L,

For the record, you said that much better than me

Chris L – how do you, being honest, think Paul would have responded to the concept of Mary worship?

I’m not as smart as Christ L, but even I can answer that one.

-Idolatry.

-Idolatry

So how do you reconcile the church you attend literally practicing idolatry with your faith Brett? I know some will say, “We’re all guilty of idolatry in some way.”

But I’m not looking for a big debate, just your honest answer.

So how do you reconcile the church you attend literally practicing idolatry with your faith Brett? I know some will say, “We’re all guilty of idolatry in some way.”

I know that some will argue vehemently about this but I was very active in the Catholic Church, for a long time, and I never witnessed the “worship” of Mary.
The veneration (profound respect) of Mary yes. But I see this all the time with the Disciples, Paul, and the Prophets within the Evangelical Church. “Hail Mary” is often cited as the biggest “worship” of her but if that’s the case we may need to remove the book of Luke from the bible and cite Gabriel as heretical. In addition the prayer then asks for prayer “for us sinners” which I don’t see any admonishment against in scripture.

My reasons for leaving the Catholic Church are quite simply I came to Christ outside of the teachings of the church. But in a lot of ways the church paved the way for me to more readily accept the gospel.

Believe it or not, not all Catholic Churches are in lock step with the Vatican. It may appear that way but it’s not. Bible reading, forgiveness of sins, and salvation through faith are taught at many Catholic churches.

The RCC teachings have all sorts of things as means of grace, and the doctrine of pergatory is blatantly salvation by works, including the works/prayers of others necessary for your own entrance into heaven.

I’ve seen these things among protestant churches as well. It’s not exclusive to the RCC. While we don’t specifically name it in our doctrines we certainly engage in it.

For instance I would say that some “worship” Calvin in my particular tradition. Or the worship of the Cross. Or the doctrine itself.

In regards to purgatory I would say that there is biblical evidence that could cause some to arrive at that position. Paul’s illustrates to the “heavens” and the building on the foundation are a couple of verses that are pertinent to the discussion. Let me be very clear, while I don’t agree with it, I can see how someone can arrive at that position.

“Paul’s illustrates to the “heavens” and the building on the foundation are a couple of verses that are pertinent to the discussion.”

Chris – Please elaborate on theses passages of Scripture. The doctrine was proposed in the 11th century and has absolutely no Scriptural foundation.

No one prays to Calvin and no one worships the cross wood. Apples and oranges. The only way anyone can come to the doctrine of pergatory is to believe the church’s teachings, not by an investigation of Scripture.

Vatican II states that anyone who knowingly refuses to join the RCC cannot be saved, however a God fearing Muslim is within the grace of God. The document is a study in deviant Christian doctrines.

No one prays to Calvin and no one worships the cross wood. Apples and oranges. The only way anyone can come to the doctrine of pergatory is to believe the church’s teachings, not by an investigation of Scripture.

No one may pray to Calvin but they certainly venerate the man in my tradition.

Your statement of fact that “no one” worships the cross is just wrong. Based on the fact that I don’t think you know everyone in the world or history that has worn a cross. A cursory search of the history of the symbol would provide evidence of that. The fact that millions of people wear it is evidence of it’s importance in their lives. Call it a reminder, a memento, a statement or whatever it’s a symbolic representation of their relationship to Christ. Just as

Is it possible that some worship the Cross more than the man who died on it?

Purgatory, again I see how one can arrive at that position, while I don’t hold that position. Paul illustrates in Corinthians that we will pass through fire as a testing, we will be saved but what we’ve built will be shown for what it was. Many people, not just Vatican II, hold to the view that there is an intermediate step between death and resurrection. Now is it right to encourage people to pay indulgences and prayer for years on end to save relatives from Hell? No. But again not all Catholic churches encourage this nor teach it. For you to claim otherwise would require you to visit every Catholic Church in the world and talk to every priest. The Catholic Church is no more monolithic, okay maybe a little more, than any other mainline protestant denomination.

“But again not all Catholic churches encourage this nor teach it.”

Then they do not teach official RCC doctrine, which is what I refer to. That might on some level disqualify them as Roman Catholic.

BTW – I personally venerate John Calvin. His statue stands in my study and blesses my lottery tickets.

That is called canine-baptism, not to be confused with paedo-baptism. The former is much less ceremonial.

Purgatory

Purely false doctrine that has ZERO biblical basis (even when you absolutely warp 1 Cor 3, which makes no reference of the sort). It was an “intentional” doctrine put in place, not because someone got a revelation, but for ulterior motives.

Veneration

Chris, I too was a Catholic, though not a very good one. You are focusing on semantics. Go to Europe or Mexico or South America or Africa. It is worship. Walk down the street in an Italian neighbourhood and you will see enshrined statues of Mary on every second lawn. It is idolatry, and at least Brett (who is a Catholic), had the gumption to admit as such.

This is particularly part of the problem with ecumenism. People don’t seem to be interested in the truth because of the demands it might make. From what I have observed, what keeps us (me included) from acknowledging the truth is pride. It’s not that we can’t see it, but what that truth may require is a lot of work or comes at a cost.

As an example, some people will remain in the RCC, even though they mentally reject 90% of the teachings, because to uproot comes at a cost (perhaps family, friends, position, etc). I use Catholic here as an example, but we are all susceptible to this.

Ecumenism doesn’t seek to arrive at the truth (as Peter Rollins so aptly puts it), but puts it on the backburner. Ecumenism is like communism – it works on paper – but in reality it can lead to compromise.

yet historically the latter has followed the former.

Yes, that’s all I’m saying. It’s a wonderful theory, but the practice? That’s another story.

I don’t really support the idea of purgatory, but I do think it may be possible that we will face some sort of purging or ongoing sanctification after death.

Paul is clear on this: it is appointed to men once to die and after this the judgment.

The scripture in 1 Cor 3 needs to be read in context. There were ‘fancy’ preachers (philosophers and such) coming into Corinth that had abandoned the the core teachings of the gospel. This is introduced largely in the latter part of chapter 1 and almost all of chapter 2.

That takes us to 1 Cor 3:10 – a message geared for the leaders of that church. Paul laid the foundation (in the hearts of the people), but other men are coming in now. His message is take heed how you build on what I built so as to not divert from the foundation.

It has nothing to do with purgatory which is completely fabricated centuries after Christ.

Paul is clear on this: it is appointed to men once to die and after this the judgment.

Well, it was the author of Hebrews who said that (there’s an outside chance that was Paul, but I doubt it), but Paul would agree.

All I’m saying is that that Paul seems pretty clear that are works and our character will still face judgment. So if there’s something in us that needs changed, it seems it will need dealt with in some way. I don’t think it will be in the sense the purgatory is usually presented, but it does seem there is room for some “purging”.

I think part of the issue is that after the Reformation, we really started viewing salvation as a purely binary thing – like a switch – you were either saved or you weren’t. I think a good case can be made that what’s more important in Scripture is how far or how far close you choose to be from God. So, yes, I’d say there’s a line you have to cross to be “in”, but it also seems that there’s a continuum when it comes to our own relationship to God.

Maybe the “purging” is actually God drawing us closer to the fire of Himself, and in the process burning away all that isn’t of Him.

But Phil, this life itself is largely a purging, especially once you accept Christ. The Lord processes His people, though we will never be perfect when imprisoned in this flesh – but when this mortal puts on immortality, a lot things will change immediately. That’s our hope.

There is no support to the concept that after we die, there is a period of purging – Paul says that we shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye (rather sudden) or read 1 Thess 4.

With all due respect to my own pastor, Greg Boyd is my favorite preacher right now.

Sorry to give away your source.
Now we all know you’re not as smart as you’ve been leading us to believe.

It seems to me that if what he’s proposing is so anti-Scriptural, people should have an easier time backing up their counter-arguments with Scripture.

Seeing as there is no scriptural basis whatsoever, either in the OT or NT, for purgatory, that’s an interesting statement to make. The scripture in Matt 5 doesn’t speak of the afterlife – it’s a parable telling us to get issues fixed between us before they escalate out of control.

How would you frame purgatory when reading Hebrews 11, seeing these “all died in faith”? After death, was there a cleansing or polishing process?

I think that the idea of us being zapped to perfection is rooted in the Greek conception of perfection being tied to immutability.

So Phil, please find a couple scriptures that clearly support your theory. Since it’s such a strong Hebrew concept, there must be several OT or perhaps NT scriptures to support it.

Nathanael – yes I did.

I think Mr. Boyd does a good job of looking at the scriptures and showing that there may be a purging for believers.

Again, I’m not sure I agree or disagree yet. The jury is still out. (HT: Mr. Rollins)

But to make a statement like

Seeing as there is no scriptural basis whatsoever, either in the OT or NT, for purgatory

seems to indicate that Mr. Boyd is completely out to lunch.

Greg Boyd is an open-theist. Nuff said.

And anyone who believes in Purgatory does not believe in the sufficiency of the cross. That is where the weakness of any theory that lacks penal- penalty paid substitutionary- by a substitute is a weak theory, and messes up the biblical view of justification…once for all.

I agree with Paul C. and the author of Hebrews- It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement- I guess the author of the Bible had too binary of a view…sheesh.

Phil, with respect, spinning gold out of straw (inventing doctrines like purgatory out of thin air) is not ‘rightly dividing the word of truth’.

Interestingly, I observe that Rollins loves all his little Talmudic parables and stories, quoting them more often than the Bible. Just an interesting observation that I also see here quite often.

…and after this the judgement

And what does that look like?
Is it only rewards?

I admit that where I struggle with this “purging” concept is Romans 8.1 tells us there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.
But I think we owe it to the scriptures and to our God to at least engage in concepts that go against what we’ve always believed.

That is why I can read that article by Greg Boyd and prayerfully consider my own interpretations.
That is why I can go to the “Poets, Prophets and Preachers” conference to learn from others that I do not agree with 100%.
I trust my soul to my Redeemer. The Spirit of the risen Christ dwells in me and will protect me and guide me into all truth.

The danger lies in when I won’t let Him lead me because I’m holding so tightly onto a preconceived notion.

Interestingly, I observe that Rollins loves all his little Talmudic parables and stories, quoting them more often than the Bible. Just an interesting observation that I also see here quite often.

You see people quoting Talmudic parables and stories more often than scripture on this website?
I must not be paying attention.
I see the scriptures being the primary (by far) tool used on this site.

I trust my soul to my Redeemer.

Is that the same Redeemer who says, “Beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and Saducees. A little leaven. leavens the whole lump”?

Remember, the early church (even in its infancy) faced all sorts of false doctrines creeping in. There was a negative effect. I think a statement like that is careless in light of the fact that the Devil himself is transformed as an angel of light.

Again, I ask, what do you think he’s preaching?

If you want to see inventing things out of thin air, there are plenty of doctrines I could point to.

Yes, purgatory for starters… This is why I like a guy like Brett who can honestly and without reserve say, “You know what? My church teaches something I see as completely false (ie: idolatry of Mary).” Some of us play semantics using words like “veneration” or “we do it to with Calvin” and the like.

By the way, all I’m saying is that Scripture seems to leave the possibility open for some sort of post-mortem purging for Christians.

Where? That’s my question. I didn’t see this in Boyd’s writing or the scriptures you quoted.

I must not be paying attention.

Sorry Nathanael – I deleted what I was writing… What I see is that we tend to elevate the writings of men to the same level of scripture. I believe – and I could be wrong – that if we spent more time prayerfully reading (and applying) scripture than the philosophies of men, we would have less dispute.

My statement in no way negated the reality of spiritual warfare.
But to lash out at every doctrine I do not agree with, calling the leaven of the Pharisees, is careless, in my opinion.

But to lash out at every doctrine I do not agree with, calling the leaven of the Pharisees, is careless, in my opinion.

Who is lashing out? We are having a discussion around a particular set of teachings… come on. Is this always the modus operandi we employ?

I find interesting the concept of “doctrine I do not agree with”: it highlights your thinking that all views are equally valid and all are equally true – just different opinions and different perspectives.

The bible speaks of false doctrine and the leavening influence of false teachings. We speak of “different views”, “different paradigms” and “different opinions”.

To mimic Phil: there’s nothing more Greek than that.

I find interesting the concept of “doctrine I do not agree with”: it highlights your thinking that all views are equally valid and all are equally true – just different opinions and different perspectives.

To a degree this is true, if the view is properly backed up by scripture.
I think Greg Boyd makes a compelling argument from scripture that believers may face purging.
And you respond by repeatedly saying it’s not a biblical doctrine.

Maybe “lashing out” was a bit strong.
But to keep calling it the leaven of the Pharisees, just because you don’t agree with it seems like a cop-out to me.

I know we’re just having a conversation.
I am not offended in the least.

Shalom, brother.

I know we’re just having a conversation.
I am not offended in the least.

OK great. I am not trying to provoke you in the least. I also admit (having re-read my comments in various threads) that I can use stronger language than I intend. Let’s call it a limitation of this medium (the blog).

Neil,

I think you may be distorting the Catholic Church’s teaching on this subject. This is from the Catechism:

“To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.”

Thoughts: I do not think anyone said anything about second chances for salvation. I believe that I have been raise and seated with Christ, positionally, already – and that his righteousness has been imputed unto me… therefore no further purification for holiness is necessary.

And there’s the rub. This is what John Piper and N.T. Wright have been having a book war about. Does imputed righteousness mean we are completely perfect in God’s eyes, or does it mean that we are simply righteous because we are adopted into his family. It’s probably not a surprise to anyone here that I see Wright position (the latter) as more correct. I think too often those in the Reformed camp confuse justification with sanctification, and it seems to me that Piper is continuing that tradition.

And you’re correct Neil, I’m not talking about anyone getting a “second chance”. I’m talking about Christians being made perfect. To me it seems that it is a process we are to undergo in this life, and I leave the possibility that we may still undergo some sort of process in the future.

I’m talking about Christians being made perfect.

Is anyone here suggesting that Christians are made ‘perfect’ in this life somehow?

For those of you advocating some sort of “Angelic Finishing School”, how would you address this:

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Paul is speaking of heavenly bodies versus earthly bodies.

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed…

For those of you advocating some sort of “Angelic Finishing School”, how would you address this:

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

You already asked this, and I already answered it was up in comment #101:

Paul is talking about our flesh being changed to incorruptible flesh – that doesn’t mention anything about our character being instantly transformed.

Quoting myself now – so Silva-esque…

The one thing you still haven’t addressed in your exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3 is this portion

Phil, I thought I addressed this here (#123):

What are we building? Are we laying a scriptural foundation or is our foundation just the ideas and philosophies of men? If so, they will quickly foam against the rocks like a wave rolling in. A very, very important part. Paul was a shepherd, highly concerned about the people and them not being moved off the foundation he laid. He was not cavalier in any way.

He is focusing on a push to return to the simplicity and truth of Christ, and forsake the empty wisdom and philosophy of this world that was coming into the church, cloaked as Christ. It will not last and the Last Day (as you correctly put it) will reveal it for what it is – empty philosophy. It also goes with Col 2:8.

#142: not sure what your point is. He is speaking of what happens when Jesus returns.

#144: He is speaking of the resurrection, when Jesus returns and what will happen to us.

Neil,
I have no problem with it either. In fact, this is what I always believed.

But I think Mr. Boyd has a very compelling, scriptural response to that train of thought.

I also have no problem with our character being instantly changed when in the presence of God.

I don’t necessarily either. I’m not really that interested in this debate that much. In some ways I feel like I’ve been simply playing devil’s advocate, as this certainly isn’t a hill I’ll die on.

It’s just sometimes I get really annoyed at the lack of grace shown to those who are different than us – in this instance Catholics. I just hate the attitude that comes across as, “how could you be so stupid to believe that!”

Certainly there are doctrines of the RCC that seem contradictory to Scripture to me, but there are also doctrines of many evangelical churches that seem contradictory to Scripture to me. The idea of purgatory to me doesn’t seem any more extra-biblical than the idea of the Rapture. But in any case, when presented with these ideas, I don’t think our response needs to be “that’s just stupid” (although, I admit I’m guilty of that when dealing with some of the sillier Dispy stuff…)

Perhaps our response indicate how much more we need to be changed…

#159

Since it’s clear that Jesus didn’t ascend to heaven until after His resurrection, I would think it means that could be a translation error (Jesus spoke Aramaic). Or it could be something like his “Verily” statements:

“I tell you solemnly right now, you will be with me in paradise.”

Just like when Lazarus died (John 11) and his sister said,

“I know you will raise him up at the last day.”

She understood the resurrection as is reflected throughout John, to be a future event that takes place when Jesus returns. Lazarus wasn’t in purgatory or in heaven. He was simply dead.

So heaven and paradise are the same thing?

It’s semi-convenient to attribute a verse that contradicts my beliefs as a translation error.

Well, Paul was caught up to the third heaven, which he called paradise.

I have no idea what the third (or first or second or fourth) heaven means.

What’s the point of this?

Simply to prove that certain things are not as black and white as you portray them, and that there is room for interpretation on some of these things. The issue of purgatory, though open for abuse, is a relatively minor one right now. Certainly if people start buying and selling indulgences again, it needs to be dealt with, but right now, I don’t see how it’s a litmus test.

It may just be your writing style, Paul, but you have a way of really denigrating those who see things differently than you.

Not that far a stretch considering there are several other scriptures that have been slanted or slight discrepancies in the text.

Wait a minute? You’re accusing us of “twisting” texts, but the best answer you can give about a Scripture you have a hard time explaining is that it’s a “translation error”? Glass houses? Stones?

Oops!
Phil addressed this in #165.

Sorry.

Things are often a lot clearer to you than the rest of us.

OK Neil. So what does this mean?

“Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father…

It may just be your writing style, Paul, but you have a way of really denigrating those who see things differently than you.

Phil, my sincere and deep apologies for this. I will work on it. No offense is meant whatsoever.

The promise of the Bible is not heaven or hell, but life or death.

In one sense, yes, but remember, God is the God of the living, not the dead. He sustains those who know Him even though their bodies may be dead. That is what is promised in Psalm 139:

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.

The “depths” is Sheol. So even while we are in that place God is with us. But if we were simply dead with no cognitive ability to speak of as you assert, Paul, why would it even matter if God’s presence were with us?

Anyway, we’ve been down this road before. “Soul sleep” is definitely a minority view among Christians. You need to read The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright and get back to me in a month or two, depending on how fast you read…

Things are often a lot clearer to you than the rest of us.

OK Neil. So what does this mean?

You make statements about the clarity or the obviousness or the simplicity of things with which people disagree… at the risk of dredging up past issues, you have referred to those who disagree as blind, as twisting, as inventing…

You say it is clear that Jesus didn’t ascend to heaven until after His resurrection… this may be true. But the statement to Mary does not prove this beyond any doubt. he only told her not to touch him, because he had not ascended, who know why – he told Thomas to touch him. Why the difference? Who knows?

Anyway, I don’t think the comment to Mary to not touch because he had not ascended is relevant to an argument about whether or not Jesus was with the thief in paradise that very day,

But if we were simply dead with no cognitive ability to speak of as you assert, Paul, why would it even matter if God’s presence were with us?

Phil, I do not assert this alone. As per Eccl 12:

for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

From Ps 139, you see he says:

If I ascend to heaven, you are there!

Phil you also acknowledge that when we die we don’t got to heaven. This is a psalm/song rejoicing in the omnipresence of God – basically saying that we are never beyond God. And it’s true as He will reach into the grave at the last day and resurrect those who believe to eternal life.

When Jesus told Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side, had He ascended to the Father?

It appears He had ascended. That’s what He told Mary to tell the others. It was 8 days AFTER the other disciples saw Him, so between the first visitation and the second there was a lot of time. Considering also the fact He is not bound by physics like you and I.

But the statement to Mary does not prove this beyond any doubt.

Neil – I don’t honestly know how much clearer He could have been. “I have not yet ascended…” That’s kind of plain.

As I said above, between this first view and Thomas is about 8-9 days. He told Mary to tell the disciples He was going to present Himself to His and their Father:

but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Anyway, I don’t think the comment to Mary to not touch because he had not ascended is relevant to an argument about whether or not Jesus was with the thief in paradise that very day,

Why not?

By the way, Paul, I’ve been meaning to ask you. Given your “once you’re dead, you’re dead” thing, does that mean you basically believe in annihilation when it comes to those who are found not to be in Christ in the end?

Phil, I believe that at death dies in the end. All that is left is eternal life. In terms of those not found in Christ, I believe He will judge every man according to His own righteous judgment.

What I mean is that a pygmy living in central Africa 2,000 yrs ago will be judged justly by the Righteous Judge even though he never had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Does that answer your question?

I read the link to Boyd’s article and I find his “interpretation” of Matthew 5 to be equally absurd as it is tragic.

I would have not called it tragic or absurd – but I’m not buying it either. He also falls into the trap of mocking the opposing view by interjecting “magical” into the process.

Phil, I believe that at death dies in the end. All that is left is eternal life. In terms of those not found in Christ, I believe He will judge every man according to His own righteous judgment.

What I mean is that a pygmy living in central Africa 2,000 yrs ago will be judged justly by the Righteous Judge even though he never had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Does that answer your question?

What I’m asking is what you think ultimately happens to someone who’s not found to be in Christ. Do they go to a literal hell? Or do they simply cease to exist?

It isn’t magic that will purify us immediately upon translation (death), it will be the power of God’s matchless grace. All my righteousness has been imputed and none of it necessitated my suffering or my labor.

I agree, that’s why I think Boyd attempts to poison the well by saying it happens magically – it’s an obvious -ploy to cast dispersion.

Now I need a scorecard to identify the players and their views.

OK sorry. I don’t believe in a burning hell at all. I believe death (sheol in the OT and ‘hell’ in the NT) dies in the end. Or as Paul puts it, “death is swallowed up of life.” So after the final judgment, those who face the second death are forever gone – ceasing to exist completely and forever. How do you understand it?

Well, I am somewhat sympathetic to the annihilationist position, but I think that those who refuse to bow to Christ will face some sort of future where they are cognizant of their separation.

I believe more of our view of hell is derived from Dante’s Inferno…

…and cartoons.

Well, I am somewhat sympathetic to the annihilationist position, but I think that those who refuse to bow to Christ will face some sort of future where they are cognizant of their separation.

I as well… if I were to leave the evangelical reservation it probably would be at this point.

One of things holding me back is Jesus’ reference to post judgment position: “…These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Saying they just cease to exist kinda gut “eternal” of its meaning.

Was? I think many Protestant churches are still using it as a “marketing tool”, as you say, today. Have you ever heard of a poorly produced, melodramatic play called “Heaven’s Gates, Hell’s Flames”. They did a production of this at my old church that included, I kid you not, someone in a devil costume running across the stage to claim his victims…

I actually don’t see this kind of silliness from the RCC…

“Was” from the Roman point of view. “Is” in much of contemporary evangelicalism.

Who was the chap that pulled the short straw and had to wear the devil’s outfit?

The last time I saw it, it was the pastor’s son…