This is one of the earliest posts on the blog — so early that I posted it as a .pdf because I didn’t know how to post HTML text. It responds to some of the comments recently made, and so I thought it was time to repost it in actual HTML.
The lesson was inspired by a talk I heard Joe Beam give in which he introduced the idea of humility bubbles.
The Humility Bubble Lesson
The teacher begins class with his back to the class, marking on the board. Soon, the board looks like this—
The teacher turns around and smiles. “Today, we’re going back to high school and learning a lesson from Algebra 1!” The students greet this message with a chorus of boos and hisses. A paper wad is hurled from the back—and this is a class of 30-year olds!
“Venn diagrams, actually,” the teacher continues, nonplussed. “But we won’t do any equations.
“The ‘U’ stands for universe—not the universe we live in, but the universe of knowledge. The board represents everything that anyone could possibly know, or more precisely, this is what God knows.
“The circles are what various individuals know. Actually, they’re all too big, compared to God’s knowledge, but I had to make them big enough to see.
“You’ll notice that some are bigger than others, because some people know more than other people do.” The teacher approaches the board and points inside a circle.
“Okay, the area inside the circle is what this person knows. The area outside is what he doesn’t know. What’s the circle … the perimeter?” He indicates the circumference with his finger.
The class isn’t very sure how to respond. One student says, “Well, it’s the boundary between knowledge and, I guess, ignorance.”
“Very true,” the teacher says. “This is where what I know ends and where what I don’t know begins. What’s another way to look at it?”
After a couple of more guesses, a woman in front lights up. “I know! It’s what you don’t know and know you don’t know! That’s right, isn’t it?”
“Absolutely right,” the teacher smiles. But the class looks very uncertain. And so he continues, “The perimeter is the information you don’t know, but because it’s on the edge of your knowledge, you know you don’t know this. Information that’s farther out is so far beyond you, you don’t even know the information exists.
“Notice that the more someone knows, the bigger the circle gets. As we age and mature, we learn more and more stuff, and we become aware of more and more things we don’t know.
“When we had our first child, we read a baby book or two and figured we knew everything there was to know about children. Now that we have a teenager, we know vastly more, and yet we feel more ignorant than ever because we also know much more about what we don’t know! I become more aware of my child-rearing ignorance every day!”
A couple of amens resound from the back of the room, and the class laughs.
“Oddly enough, therefore, for most people, the more you know of a subject, the more you are aware of your limitations. In fact, the more you know, the more humble you should be. That’s certainly true about parenting, isn’t it?
“On the other hand, in those areas where we’re incredibly ignorant, we often think we are experts! I mean, how many of us consider ourselves more qualified than the head football coach when it comes to picking the starting quarterback?
“The fact is that we never see the quarterbacks in practice or in the film room or break down the tapes, and yet we just assume we know all there is to know, when we only know how the second string quarterback looked in the spring game.
“Anyway, the point is that knowledge leads to humility and ignorance leads to arrogance. The more certain we are that we know everything, that we have absolutely the last and final word, the more certain it is that we are actually unaware of how very little we know. We may not even know the questions—much less the answers!
“Now it’s time for another bit of geometry.” The teacher erases the board and draws this—
“This is the Great Church of Christ Continuum!” announces the teacher. “The GCCC, for short.” The class looked puzzled but intrigued. He continues, “All the Churches of Christ are represented somewhere on this line, aligned from left, “L,” to right, “R.” The churches are aligned based on how many laws they consider to be fellowship or salvation issues.
“A church way over here on the far right imposes lots and lots of rules. If you miss three services in a row, you go to hell. Mixed swimming, kitchens in the building, paid preachers, and bake sales are all not only wrong but damning—until repented of by specifically admitting the error and no longer participating in it.
“A church a little further left believes these are wrong, but doesn’t think anyone will be lost over these issues, but they consider a cappella singing, weekly communion, and a plurality of elders salvation issues.
A church even further left thinks these things are not only not salvation issues but also not even sin issues.
“Now, the church on the far right is absolutely certain they are right. In fact, they think they have the right position on every single issue that God cares about. They have no doubt at all. Therefore, they have a very small humility bubble. Obviously enough, the reason they are so certain is there just aren’t many things they know that they don’t know. The fact that there is little they know that they don’t know shows that they don’t know very much at all. The size of the circle defines how humble you are — and how much you really know.
“As a result, they don’t consider anyone else saved unless they agree on almost everything. To go to heaven, you have to be in their humility bubble or to their right. After all, they see nothing wrong with binding where God doesn’t bind.
“Notice that the humility bubble now defines what other churches the church with the bubble will fellowship. They will stretch just a little to their left — the boundary of their bubble — which is not far at all.
“On the other hand, this church will readily fellowship any church to its right. They figure it’s okay to be even more conservative — but they won’t tolerate those who are less conservative except on issues where they are unsure — that is, within their humility bubble.
“The next church over is just a bit more tolerant. There are a few things they aren’t so sure of. This has to be because they know more of what they don’t know. They are somewhat more knowledgeable and therefore more humble. As a result, a church can be a little bit more to their left and still be saved. This next church isn’t 100% sure about more questions than the first church, so they have room in their bubble for a few more churches. Of course, they fellowship all the churches on their right, too.
“The church with biggest bubble is the most tolerant. They are aware of more things they aren’t too sure about, and so they gladly extend grace quite a bit to their left. Nonetheless, they won’t go but so far, since they are entirely sure about some things, and there’s no reason to extend grace on matters where we for-sure know the answers.
“Now, notice a few things about our chart. Each church extends the right hand of fellowship to its right, and yet there’s hardly anyone on their right reaching back to their left! The church on the far left would gladly fellowship all the churches to its right, but hardly any of the churches on the right think the churches on the left are even saved. Therefore, there is hardly any actual fellowship at all.
“Also, notice how very subjective this is. As I learn more and more from my Bible study, I find out that those guys down the road are wrong. Yesterday, I wasn’t so sure, so we disagreed on a ‘disputable matter,’ and we were both saved. Then I read a great article, became certain of my belief, and that church down the road became damned in their sins!
“The more I study, the more I lose fellowship with other churches.
“Now this assumes I’m learning doctrinal positions that I believe must be agreed with to be in fellowship and treated as saved. If I was instead learning more and more about my God, then as I learn more and more, I’d become more and more like God and so I’d become more and more humble—and forgiving. But when I assume that all error as to “certain” doctrines damn, then the more certain I become, the more people I damn.
“In reality, those who learn more and more tract-rack “truths” are becoming more and more ignorant of the scriptures, as shown by the recent series on Muscle & a Shovel. The author learned a great deal, but it was a great deal of untruths — making him in fact less knowledgeable of the Bible. Hence, he has a very small humility bubble despite having read 200 tracts.
“Of course, God’s grace doesn’t really depend on my level of knowledge. Rather, God extends his grace, and I have to treat all who are within God’s grace as brothers, even if they are wrong or ignorant or stupid.
“Now, class, just how big is God’s humility bubble?”
The class wasn’t quite ready for a question, as the teacher had been dominating the conversation. “Well,” a student offered, “since God knows everything—right?—it fills the board. But I’m not entirely clear how God can be humble?”
Another student said, “It’s not like God can be unsure of what he knows. I mean, he knows everything and he knows he knows everything.”
The teacher paused to reflect and then responded, “Those are really good points. Clearly, God knows everything, and so God’s bubble is as big as the board. It’s so big, there’s not even room for a line, which means there’s nothing God doesn’t know and so there’s nothing that God knows he doesn’t know.
“If we define ‘humility’ as knowing that there’s a lot of things you don’t know, then God can’t be humble. But Jesus was humble. He said in Matthew 11:29, ‘I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.’ It seems like a paradox for Jesus to be humble, as he is all powerful and all knowing.
“But there’s another way of looking at humility that is more biblical. Turn to Romans 12:3,
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.
“Paul doesn’t say think badly of yourself. Rather, he says to think accurately about yourself. Humility is not the same thing as low self-esteem. Humility is assessing who you are truly. In the next few verses, Paul tells the Romans to use their gifts in God’s service. His point is that you can’t use your gifts if you don’t realize what they are. You don’t honor God by looking down on your abilities. He wants you to recognize what he’s given you so you can use those gifts. Humility is recognizing that your talents are gifts and not boasting in your abilities.
“Now God has no problem accurately assessing himself, and in that sense, God is humble. And so, even though God is God Almighty, God is a servant to his people. He’s not too good to even give his Son for us. This is true humility—the willingness to give up what you have in the service of someone you love but who doesn’t deserve your love.
The teacher draws a circle all the way around the board. “Here’s God humility circle. And so, class, whom does God fellowship?”
“Everybody?” a student guessed.
“Everybody?” the teacher responded.
Another student said, “No, not everybody. It’s everybody on the line. The Great Church of Christ whatever you called it.”
“Right!” the teacher beamed. “The Great Church of Christ Continuum. God’s bubble covers the whole line. To be on the line you have be a church (little “c”) of Christ, that is, one of Christ’s churches. You have to be a body of baptized, penitent, believers—people who’ve heard, believed, repented, confessed, and been baptized.[1] And, obviously enough, they have to have remained true to the faith and their commitment to make Jesus Lord. But that still makes the bubble very, very big.
“Now for the easy question: If this is how big God’s bubble is, how big should ours be?”
“Just as big,” several students said together. They looked at each other and laughed. One of them said, “We didn’t actually plan that, you know.” The class broke out laughing.
The teacher looked at his watch and saw that it was time to wrap up. “Here’s the thing. When we judge other congregations, we make several mistakes. The first one is to tolerate those more legalistic on our right but to damn those less tolerant on our left. But it’s just as wrong to loose where God doesn’t loose as to bind where God doesn’t bind. Imposing the traditions of men as though they were the laws of God is condemned in the Bible. So is treating God’s laws as something to be trifled with and ignored.[2]
“That being the case, where is the safe place on the line? As a church leader, where can I position the church and be certain I’ve not imposed too many laws and not failed to impose enough laws?
“Plainly, until I’m as smart as God, I’m always at risk of being too far right or too far left. Plainly, as long as I’m counting on my intellect to save my church, my church is in big trouble.
“The only safety is in God’s grace. Now to be in God’s grace, I have to always deeply want to do God’s will. I have to let God’s word dwell in my heart and mold me. I have to be open to his instruction. I can’t be willfully ignorant and I can’t ever stop studying.
“But I should not study to be saved. I am saved. I should study to honor my God because from the deepest fiber of my being, that’s all I want to do! That’s what it means to repent.
“And here’s the lesson. For me to expect God to save me despite my doctrinal mistakes, I have to treat everyone else on the line the way I want to be treated. It’s the Sermon on the Mount. It’s the Golden Rule. It’s ‘Judge not that ye be not judged.’ It’s actually pretty elementary stuff.
“And when those ‘legalists’ on my right refuse to build a kitchen in their building, they’re binding a law God doesn’t bind. But they inconvenience themselves to honor God, and God accepts them by grace. He sees that their hearts are obedient, even though they impose a rule on themselves that God does not impose. When God looks at them, he sees his perfect Son, and he saves them.
“When those ‘liberals’ on my left replace beautiful congregational singing with a rock band, some believe that they’re committing sin. But they brought in that band in an effort to reach the lost for Jesus, and God judges the heart, and so he accepts them. I have to accept them, too, even if I believe instrumental music in the assembly is sin.
“At appropriate times and places, I should try to teach those I disagree with how to better serve God, and I hope they listen. But I’m not God, and they don’t have to listen to me. And as you all well know, I’m not always persuasive. And they don’t go to hell because they dare to disagree with me — even if I’m completely certain of my position.
“But—and I’ve done this—as I sit down with them and discuss our respective views of Christianity, I’m often astounded at how hearing their point of view opens my eyes to whole new ways of looking at God. They sometimes wrestle with issues and perspectives that never even occurred to me to think about—much less have the right position on!
“And so the “safe” route is not to impose laws just to be safe. The safest route is to stop making every point of disagreement a salvation issue. Rather, we can disagree about what is sin and not and still be brothers and sisters in Christ because God’s grace covers both of us.
“One more point: Why do we accept those who bind more laws than us and damn those who bind fewer laws? Aren’t both in error? Isn’t it sin either way?
“I’ve thought about this a lot and it finally came to me. You see, the Bible not only gives us the answers, it gives us the questions. And we’ve been asking the wrong question.
“When you ask, ‘Is there authority for this?’ you look at things a certain way. You look to those who bind too many rules, and they only do things that you think there’s authority for. And so, since authority is what you consider most important, you consider them saved. They pass the test you brought to the Bible.
“You look to your left, and there are people there who do things you think are unauthorized. And since you consider authority the defining principle of Christianity, you consider them lost.
“As a result, you consider yourself united with those on your right but they consider you damned. The result is division compounding year after year.
“Is this real unity?”
The class shake their heads.
“Is this real fellowship?”
Again, the class says no.
“The flaw in the authority argument is plain: You cannot have fellowship with people you disagree with, either on your left or your right. You may desperately want fellowship with those on your right, but they don’t care to have fellowship with you. So there is none.
“And yet, just a moment’s reflection tells us that it’s just as wrong to bind where God doesn’t bind as to loose where God doesn’t loose! In fact, there are far more passages condemning binding beyond God’s commands than passages condemning loosing where God doesn’t loose! The entire book of Galatians is about falling from grace due to binding circumcision when God does not. It’s about binding too many rules! And yet we routinely treat those who bind extra laws as in full fellowship and in little need of repentance.
(Mat 15:1-9 ESV) Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” … 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'”
(Col 2:23 NET) Even though they have the appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body– a wisdom with no true value – they in reality result in fleshly indulgence.
Both passages are routinely used by conservative Churches to damn those more liberal, but the passages actually condemn those who bind laws that God does not bind!
“I’ll see you all next week.”
[1] I have argued elsewhere that baptisms can be less than ideal and yet be effective. God does not require perfect obedience. Hence, baptisms where the convert believes he was already saved or that use the wrong mode or that otherwise are less than ideal are still baptisms. They are honest efforts to obey God’s will, and God will not refuse those who come to him with faith in Jesus and genuine repentance just because there’s some error in their baptism.
[2] I have argued elsewhere that making anything other than faith in Jesus working in love a salvation or test of fellowship constitutes the Galatian heresy and potentially damns. Paul is particularly severe in his condemnation of those who teach that faith in Jesus is insufficient to save. Therefore, making instrumental music or fellowship halls a salvation issue is very dangerous indeed and could lead to damnation. Fortunately, Paul is much more adamant in his condemnation of the teachers of this doctrine than those victimized by the false teaching.
AMEN TO THAT j
Rich,
Thanks for your comment. I was beginning to wonder whether the post had been published to my readers!
“I have argued elsewhere that making anything other than faith in Jesus working in love a salvation or test of fellowship constitutes the Galatian heresy and potentially damns.”
Jay, could you (or have you) explain what constitues a “faith in Jesus working in love”?
For example, could it be that the Pope of the Catholic church has a “faith in Jesus working in love”? Do you consider him your brother in Christ?
Or what about a traditional Jehovah’s Witness? We know that they are off doctrinally, but could one still have ” faith in Jesus working in love”? Or, are doctrinal errors too big for God to forgive?
I just wonder how far your desire to fellowship will (or can) go.
Are those fair questions?
I meant to include our good Mormon friends. Is it possible for them to have a “faith in Jesus working in love”? Can they be considered our brethren in Christ and share in our fellowship? Is it not possible for God to forgive the doctrinal errors of the Mormons? The JW’s? The Catholics? Do you know? If not, would not extending them fellowship constitute the Galation heresy?
This seems to replace one arrogant thought process with another. Instead of “see how good I am because I worship God right” we now have “see how smart I am and I’ll prove it by my tolerance.”
We folks anywhere along the continuum need to be aware of such comparisons. 2 Cor. 10:12.
“We folks anywhere along the continuum need to be aware of such comparisons. 2 Cor. 10:12.”
Excellent point, Rich.
Rich W,
The conclusion of the lesson is that our “humility bubbles” should cover the entire Great Church of Christ Continuum. Hence, the need for comparison disappears. The Churches presently do indeed compare themselves to each other, deciding who is “sound” and who is “liberal” or “digressive” or “anti” or “ultra-conservative” by comparing other churches to themselves, as though “themselves” is the standard by which we are saved.
I didn’t create that problem. Rather, I’m trying to eliminate it by pointing out that God’s “humility bubble” covers all who are in Christ at all — that is, everyone who has been saved and who has not yet fallen away.
Moreover, I criticize as unbiblical the notion that we should treat those more conservative than us as in fellowship, even though they bind where we think God does not bind, and those to our left as damned for loosing where we think God does not loose. Grace extends in both directions, meaning we should stop damning the so-called “liberals” who are in fact quite conservative but not as conservative as the church doing the judging.
There are, of course, limits to God’s grace, which I’ve covered extensively in a number of recent posts. The question, therefore, is not: Are you more or less liberal or legalistic than me? — a comparison — but are you within the grace of God? — which is not measured by where I stand at all.
God’s grace is much broader than many are willing to admit — so broad that the need for comparisons is eliminated.
Hank asked,
Hank,
The question on the table isn’t whether Paul spoke the truth in Gal 5:6 but how we should understand the truth that he spoke. He said,
Even if I had no response to your question, Paul words would still be true. The topic at hand was justification and salvation, and Paul said that “only faith working through love” counts for anything regard justification and salvation. It is therefore true whether or not I can answer your questions.
The challenge of this verse isn’t created by my views on salvation. That verse was there long before I was born. And we cannot wish it away by presenting difficult cases. Regardless of the salvation of the Pope, it’s obviously true that those in the independent Christian Churches who worship with an instrument are saved — and that teaching to the contrary is the Galatian heresy — even if we’re not sure just how much further grace extends.
Moreover, the scriptures repeatedly teach that “everyone who believes” is saved — over and over and over. The more conservative Churches of Christ tend to limit these promises to those who’ve been baptized as believers by immersion for remission of sins. Even under that limitation, we must consider those in the independent Christian Churches and the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) as saved because they baptize exactly as we do.
The Catholic Churches sometimes baptize adult converts by immersion for remission of sins. What do we make of them? They would seem to satisfy all Five Steps of Salvation. Does the fact that a Catholic priest does the ceremony nullify God’s promises?
Some Baptist Churches and Churches of God do this as well. So do the Mormons — because of the influence of Sidney Rigdon, a Restoration Movement preacher who joined the Mormons and taught them how to baptize.
I could ask you the same question: if someone satisfies all Five Steps of Salvation, including a correct baptism, are God’s promises voided because the baptism was conducted in a Mormon church building by a Mormon preacher?
The same problem exists for both theories, regardless of what you teach on baptism, and so both sides should be able to justify their views from scripture. But the problem is not a result of a broad view of baptism. The problem arises from the challenges inherent in defining “faith.”
Next, I question the possibility of judging someone saved or lost by his choice of denomination. If you were to take an anonymous poll of your own church members on a range of doctrinal questions, I’m sure you’d find some who hold positions you consider erroneous if not heretical. I bet at least one member of your church would approve homosexual marriage. Another is surely a believer in Available Light salvation for good people who never heard the gospel. Another is likely a universalist. Every church has members who secretly disagree with the preacher on all sorts of things.
Just so, not all Catholics venerate Mary. I know a CoC preacher who ran into a Catholic priest in a Baptist bookstore. He expressed his surprise that the priest was there perusing evangelical literature. The priest explained that he is a member of an order that does not venerate Mary and that is essentially evangelical in its theology.
So we cannot judge denominations, only individuals.
As a rule, the Bible treats those who’ve confessed Jesus as saved. Obviously, someone might give a false confession, but that’s God’s problem.
This is why we admit to baptism those who confess their faith in Jesus without requiring a test on any other position or question. We in the CoC don’t have catechism classes as a condition to baptism. A confession of faith in Jesus is quite enough.
I think the Bible agrees with our historic practice, and I think we should not be adding tests.
However, there are any number of ways to misunderstand “Jesus” or “faith” or “Messiah” that would make a confession void. None of these deal with instrumental music or quarterly communion. Rather, I am speaking only of questions crucial to believing that “Jesus is Lord” or “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.”
For example, if someone were a Docetic and denied that Jesus was truly human, their “faith” in Jesus would not truly be faith because they would misunderstand the meaning of “Jesus” in a fundamental way.
Just so, if someone misunderstood “Messiah” or “Lord” and so saw no need to submit to the commands of Jesus, they did not truly confess Jesus. Part of “faith” is “faithfulness,” which is a promise to be faithful to Jesus or to submit to Jesus as Lord.
It sounds to me like these blasphemers were disfellowshipped with the ability to be restored should they repent. They failed to hold faith and good conscience evidently because they taught that the resurrection had already occurred.
This is one odd teaching but it would seem that Paul considered their position to threaten their salvation because it destroyed the “hope” element of salvation.
One element of “faith” is trust. The faith by which Abraham was saved was trusting God’s promises. And for the church, one of the central promises is the resurrection — which these guys evidently denied. Hence, no trust and so no faith.
The next critical point is to realize that the early church quickly began to define who is and isn’t saved by doctrinal positions on some very sophisticated questions. I’m confident that those converted at Pentecost could not have explained the Hypostatic Union of the Godhead or the Filioque — and yet the church soon damned over these issues.
Far more important than orthodoxy is orthopraxy, that is, living the Christian life. God did not save us to become experts in systematic theology. He does expect us to live a certain way.
The Reformation leaders failed to rid themselves of this attitude and they happily damned each other over any doctrinal issue they happened to feel strongly about. This lead to the French Religious Wars in which thousands were tortured and killed for being of the wrong version of Christianity (giving rise to a new philosophy called “atheism”). Just so, the Crusaders treated the Orthodox as subhuman for disagreeing over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son or just the Father. I kid you not.
It was the genius of the Restoration Movement to reject this thinking and narrow the necessary “faith” to faith in Jesus. Therefore, we should not consider just any old error as damning. That’s an error of the post-Nicaean church and the Reformers — and we need to learn from history.
So what does the Pope believe? Well, Pope Francis believes some things that other popes did not — and we don’t really know his position on everything. For example, I don’t know how he views Mary. And I admit that, to me, the most troubling element of Catholicism is its veneration of Mary. I’ve traveled to Europe where I saw Catholics bowing before a statue of Mary and offering what looked to me to be worship. Call it “veneration” if you will, but what I saw was worship.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that every single Catholic offers the same worship — and you can’t prove what they believe by quoting from this or that Catholic creedal statement. Lots of Catholics disagreed with the positions that come out of Rome.
Nonetheless, the scriptures are clear that idolatry can damn because Jesus is uniquely Messiah and God is uniquely God. Worship a divine being other than the Trinity and you become guilty of idolatry. “Faith in Jesus” means “only Jesus.”
(In the Sistine Chapel there’s a mural painted by Michelangelo in which Jesus is pictured as judging humanity — as a stern and wrathful judge. Mary is beside him, the picture of grace and mercy. Obviously, this blasphemes Jesus, as though he could not be merciful unless his mother were to prevail on him!)
I would also note that many Catholics teach a works salvation. One such work is confession. A Catholic is not forgiven of a sin until he confesses that sin, that is, until he does a work. The Bible, rather, teaches continuous forgiveness (1 John 1:7) that you can fall from but which does not require confession in the Catholic sense. It’s the Galatian heresy.
Pope Benedict issued a paper on justification that was very similar to the teachings of N.T. Wright and quite different from the Council of Trent. Hence, even at the papal level, there’s movement away from works salvation. But those who teach works salvation are not saved. They lack faith because they lack trust in God’s promises.
Given that Pope Benedict himself moved away from works salvation, and that some segments of Catholicism teach grace, we cannot generalize and say “all Catholics are damned” for this reason. Moreover, Paul was particularly focused on the salvation of those who teach a works salvation, not their victims. I’m sure God will judge those victimized by false teachers more generously than those who teach contrary to true faith.
I’d not thought that carefully about this question, and so I thank you for pushing me to do so. I’m sure I have more thinking to do. What I’ve written is in the nature of “thinking out loud.” Perhaps the readers can help me refine my thinking.
You also raised the question of Mormons. Given that Mormons baptize by immersion for remission of sins in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I would ask you to take a turn and explain whether Mormons are saved — based on the scriptures.
I readily concede that they have all sorts of errors in their teachings. And Alexander Campbell declared them heretics. But on what scriptural basis might we do so? Surely not just because they sin. We all sin. And we all have imperfect doctrinal knowledge. What is it about their teaching, if anything, that damns?
The I’d not thought that carefully about this question, and so I thank you for pushing me to do so. I’m sure I have more thinking to do. What I’ve written is in the nature of “thinking out loud.” Perhaps the readers can help me refine my thinking.”
Fair enough, thanks for taking a stab at it. Although, you said nothing of the JW’s?
As far as me “taking a turn”, I’d rather not. But, in the spirit of fairness, I’ll “think out loud” a bit as well.
I guess, I always assumed that the Catholics, JW’s as well as the Mormons were lost because, shoot, even the Baptists, Lutherans, and Calvinists (who were all lost themselves), knew that the Catholics Mormons and JW’s were REALLY lost. I mean, those guys were in Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults”, right? (Although I don’t remember if he had the traditional CoCs in there as well? I know he hated them 😉
Having said that, like you, I realize there are individuals associated with each of those “cults” that believe differently that what their founders laid out. Whether intentionally or otherwise. How God will handle each of them I guess would depend upon who they were and what they believed and/or taught.
My main point in bring them up though, was because of your above post wherein the further “to the right” a church or person is, the supposedly worse of they were. As compared to being “better off” the more to the left ones bubble may go. (According to how I understood it).
My point is that heading west has its own unique set of challenges. Namely, wondering if one is compelled to fellowship as brethren in Christ the average JW, Mormon, or even the Pope himself. Whether he venerates Mary or not, although we know he does.
I wanted to bring those groups up because I wanted all who have no problem charging those to the right of the Galation heresy, to see that they have their own problems with the question of the Pope, Brigham Young, Charles Gaze, Mary Baker Eddy and whoever hold to what they taught. Are they to be accepted as faithful brethren in Christ?
How many here are comfortable with that? And if not, what makes them any better than the other potential Galatian heretics?
They perhaps do the very same thing, only to a lot less people. Either way, all must be careful…
I Wonder what’s worse, not “fellowshipping”and considering as lost the believer who in faith ” prayed the sinners prayer” instead of (or prior to be baptized)?
Or, considering such a one a saved brother in Christ ALONG with the average Mormon, Catholic and JW?
Sorry about all the typos and auto incorrects. Was on cell in bad lighting…
I’ve been active in a Prison ministry for many years where the ministry team was multi-denominational. As part of the team building activity prior to actually going into the prison, we worshipped and prayed and sang and shared and fellowshipped together. I saw faith in Jesus as God’s Son from all of the various denominational persons in this ministry and I consider all of the people who worked this ministry with me my brothers in Christ. That includes Catholics. If you have questions about this, I suggest you join a KAIROS Prison ministry team and then tell me afterwards that the people you ministered with are not saved. The problem only occurs when one refuses to work with and fellowship with others because of their denominational affiliation.
“I saw faith in Jesus as God’s Son from all of the various denominational persons in this ministry and I consider all of the people who worked this ministry with me my brothers in Christ. That includes Catholics.”
Would you/did you also consider the potential JW’s and/or Mormons in jail ministries to be your brothers in Christ as well?
Do you consider the JW’s and Mormons to be “other denominations”?
You wrote:
“As part of the team building activity prior to actually going into the prison, we worshipped and prayed and sang and shared and fellowshipped together.”
Do you consider anyone who worships and prays and sings and “shares fellowship” to be your brethren? Even if they are JW’s or Mormons? I’m trying to follow along here…
What makes one a member of the body of the saved? The church?
The ability and/or willingness to pray and sing songs?…
“If you have questions about this, I suggest you join a KAIROS Prison ministry team and then tell me afterwards that the people you ministered with are not saved.”
Who are “KAIROS”?
Jesus I know, and Paul I know (Acts 19:15)
Kairos and several other ecumenical fellowships are discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_day_movement
Arkie55,
I trust you mean well. But, are we really trying to go to Wikipedia here?
Pingback: Links To Go (March 31, 2014) | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts
I suppose it depends on whether you want to learn about kairos and other three day movement organizations…
Brethren,
I understand all the frustration regarding those among us who are overly eager and anxious to call out, mark, disfellowship and divide the Lord’s church. I believe that too many actually take comfort in rebuking “error” and “sins” that are not even necessarily even error or sin at all. It makes them FEEL more approved before God in the same way the Pharisee of Luke 18 “felt” in comparing himself to the “sinner”.
Having said that, I also feel that many among us (on the left hand side, if you will) do basically the same thing. They make themselves “feel” more approved and pleasing to God by their refusal to call out, mark, disfellowship and divide the Lord’s church. In the same way (and to the opposite extreme) they actually take comfort and security in their refusal to label any “believer” as unsaved, lost or in desperate need of repentance.
So much so, that today, we are considering the Pope, and leaders/teachers of Mormonism saved and faithful Christians? And same for the JW’s. “Acceptance” and tolerance at levels totally unheard of in past generations.
Honestly, I believe that all the talk about “instrumental music”, “praise teams” and “people believing they were saved prior to baptism” are not the real issues here. They are issues for sure, but let’s go and talk and write about it the other way now. Let’s put those to the liberal and progressive left under the microscope. Let’s see if THEY are guilty of the “Galatian heresy.”
Let’s examine whether they do the same things they condemn of others (just to a more liberal end). Or, will they actually extend their “right hands of faithful fellowship” to the Pope. And to the Mormon elders and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If not, let them explain how, where and why they say that those are for sure not Christians or unfaithful and lost….
Arkie55,
Your right, thanks.
I like the Venn diagram analogy. The correlation between knowledge and “knowing what we don’t know” is axiomatic among those who are older AND wiser. I remember years ago when Donald Rumsfeld befuddled the press by talking about Iraq in terms of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”. He was roundly mocked until some more literate folks started explaining this reality to the media in grammar school terms, at which point the tittering faded away. Another correlation that can be made is that the larger perimeter allows more access to the universe, with the result of more opportunities to learn about it. But, I have learned over the years that it is quite possible for people to get to a certain point and then build a barbed wire perimeter fence. They still contact the universe, but they don’t let it impact them any more. Of course, they don’t have much impact on the world around them, either…
Why, simply, not judge at all and pray with anyone that wants to pray and worship with you in any circumstance? I’ve been with a group of Americans attending a worship service where we didn’t understand a word spoken as it was a language foreign to us all but was one of the most memerable, so much so that I still remember 50 years later. When in a hospital someone cares enough to want to put oil on your head that they believe would help you and offer a prayer for your getting well, why would anyone refuse that because we don’t do it ourselves? I didn’t and appreciated their caring.
Have seen many attend a church of Christ service that were not members of the church of Christ before a landing of the USMC and also in prisons. All prayers were appreciated and for a while we were brothers in Christ no matter where their chuch allegience, affiliation, laid. No one cared and we all had the same God listening regardless of what name we called Him by. After all, there is only One.
As to whom we are “compelled to fellowship”, the wording of the question itself makes answering it likely pointless.
For me, if a man says he believes that Jesus is who the Bible says He is, I will not push him aside. I simply do not want to have to stand before my Father and explain why that man was not worthy of my love and my fellowship. What if his faith is that simple and primitive and undeveloped? What if he thinks some things are as they are really not? What do we call people who are simple and undeveloped and have wrong or immature ideas? We call them children. Jesus seemed especially concerned about how we treat “his little ones”. If Jesus asks, “How did you treat this little one?” I do NOT want to be the one who has to answer, “I decided he was not a real Christian so I had nothing to do with him!”
A man says he believes that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. What do I lose if I pray with and worship with and work with a man on this basis alone? What are the negative consequences, except to my own reputation among my denomination? Jesus suffered such indignities as being called a “friend of sinners” and “a drunkard and a glutton”. And like us, every such insult came from his own people.
And what do I lose by saying that the Pope is as saved as you or I? Is being staunchly anti-Catholic still a requirement for membership in the CoC? I’ve listened to Francis enough to satisfy what Jesus says in John 5:24. If I want to stand here now and judge him as a liar because of his view on church government or baptism, or the “cloud of witnesses” or church tradition, then I better be carrying a big net, because there are a whole lot of my brothers whom I think are wrong on such issues.
From the website Catholic.com- “Mormons, for example, claim that there is an innumerable multitude of gods and that new gods are being formed all the time. Some gods are supposed to be older than the Father, and it is taught that human beings can eventually become gods through practicing Mormonism. “
Jay,
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I was just trying to convey that the beginning assumption that those on the left have more knowledge and humility than those on the right is very biased, unfounded and very dangerous. I haven’t seen humility correlated with knowledge level in any profession, culture or religion. Often, it is the opposite. Even Paul cautions that knowledge can puff up.
I know people who are very tolerant because they don’t know what the Bible says. And I know people who are tolerant because they think that knowing isn’t possible. I also know people who form strong positions on a topic because that only know a little and I know those who form strong opinions based on personal experiences and study.
Concerning whether we should have more tolerance toward the right or toward the left: I usually have more respect to those more conservative to me than those to the left. The main reason has to do with my understanding of the underlying reasoning for such. I tend to see those on the right being more willing to constrain their options and those on the left strive to open their options. As an example, I am generally much more respectful for my German Baptist friends who demand modest clothing (and the public ridicule it causes) than I am for the ladies showing cleavage and guys wearing short shorts or whatever. Disclaimer: not trying to establish proper dress code here. Just wanted to use a non-worship example.
I personally read more progressive material than conservative for two basic reasons:
1. I tend to already know (or think I know) the conservative view.
2. I have a personal desire to learn new and better understand other view points. I basically want to reduce the “I don’t know what I don’t know.”
I have noticed that progressives have a tendency to use a different vocabulary and often the same word with differing meaning than traditionally used among churches of Christ. Although not bad by itself, these make communication to understand each other very difficult. At least now, I have a better understanding of where someone is coming from even if I have a differing position on a topic.
Hank, I put out a challenge to you and those who think like you. Do a work of ministry with people who aren’t in the Church of Christ fold and see for yourself if they have faith in Jesus as the son of God. As far as I am concerned you won’t be tainted by this and you might learn something.
Doug,
Why do you assume that I have never done “a work of ministry with people who aren’t in the Church of Christ fold”.
Now, I have never here argued that one must be associated with a ” Church of Christ” in order to be saved. But, “doing a work of ministry” does not make Christians out of non-Christians. And not everybody who says they have faith in Jesus as the Son of God, actually do.
Unless, like others here (who have commented above), you too believe that the Pope, the Mormon elders and the leaders of the JW’s are your brethren IN Christ.
Do you?
Thank you Charles,
When a call goes out for a prayer service to ask God for something, who would check to see what beliefs all those that came to hold hands and pray had?
Would any of us have the balls to ask some to leave and not participate?
AJ,
Even if you “had the balls”, I don’t believe you’d ever need to ask non Christians to leave during a “prayer service”. I am pretty sure you can pray with (and for) non Christians. However, it wouldn’t make them Christians, just by being there.
Just like “doing a ministry” with non Christians, wouldn’t make them Christians either. But, you can still do good deeds with them…
Hank, I didn’t say or imply that “doing a work of ministry” would make Christians out of non-Christians. It would; however, allow a person to witness and perhaps even test the faith of those with whom they are working. That’s all I was saying. In the case of KAIROS, you get to spend at least one night a week with the others on the team for about 8 weeks and a 3-day weekend in Prison. And many of these same people have been on multiple teams with me. In the end, you get to know these people better than a lot of people you might rub elbows with on Sunday morning.
Also, you said “And not everybody who says they have faith in Jesus as the Son of God, actually do.”. I absolutely do not think it necessary to make a judgment such as this. None of us are righteous and neither do we know the hearts of others.
Hank,
there are many that would strongly disagree with you. I’ve seen it in action.
Making the ones praying with you a Christian or not is Gods decision, not mine or yours or anyone elses for that matter so why do we spend so much time and effort trying to make that decision of others rather than simply leaving it to God and move on?
Seems our time could be better spent loving and serving instead of judging.
Rich W,
I think that the more one learns about God and his word, the more likely one is to take a broad view of who is and isn’t saved. Of course, this is parallel with how one learns more — which is through humility. If you aren’t willing to change your mind, you won’t study to learn more and go deeper. You have to be willing to admit that you don’t have all the answers. Hence, greater knowledge and greater humility go hand in hand — and it’s the nature of greater knowledge of God that you understand grace better and so extend to others the grace that you receive.
Hank wrote,
Hank,
What do you think the Galatian heresy is? Because by my understanding, what you said makes no sense at all. Those on your left may be guilty of any number of mistakes, but not the Galatian heresy. And so that we can be sure we’re actually meaning the same thing, my understanding of Galatians is that you may not add to “faith working through love” any additional hurdles to salvation. Hence, if you make a cappella singing a requirement to be saved, you’ve committed the Galatian heresy.
If someone asserts that the Catholics are all saved (which I’ve not yet heard said), they are not guilty of the Galatian heresy. Of course, they might be in error some other way, as I mentioned in my earlier comment.
I should add that I did not address the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons either way and it’s wrong to assert that I’ve declared them lost, saved, or anything. I’ve said nothing — largely because I thought you were testing me to see if I’d declare everyone in your chosen denominations saved, and having made clear that many Catholics are guilty of the Galatian heresy and some blaspheme Jesus and some make Mary into an idol, I figure I passed the real intent of the test. But here you seem to be asserting that I’ve declared the Pope, Mormon and JW leaders to be saved — which I did not do.
Moreover, I asked for your view on Mormons, and you seem to have dodged the question — putting you in the same camp as those readers who wish to avoid making any judgment. So do you.
But here you seem to be asserting that I’ve declared the Pope, Mormon and JW leaders to be saved — which I did not do.”
So then, if you have not declared them saved, will you declare them lost? If you do declare them lost, would you not then be guilty of the Galatian heresy?
You wrote:
“And so that we can be sure we’re actually meaning the same thing, my understanding of Galatians is that you may not add to “faith working through love” any additional hurdles to salvation. Hence, if you make a cappella singing a requirement to be saved, you’ve committed the Galatian heresy.”
What I’ve been try to understand, is what you mean exactly by not adding to “faith working through love”, “any additional hurdles to salvation”?
Which is why I ask about the Pope. Is it possible that he has a ” faith working through love”? If so, (and if you don’t consider him saved), have you not then added any “additional hurdles to salvation” (like the veneration of Mary you say you oppose)? And if so, would you not then be guilty yourself, of the Galatian heresy you so often refer to?
Could the typical Mormon elder have a “faith working through love”?
Could the typical JW have a ” faith working through love”?
If yes, then you MUST be willing to actually declare them saved! Of course, the Pope, the Mormon elders, and the leaders of the JW’s ALL claim to have “faith in Jesus as Lord”. So, why are you hesitant to consider them saved? Because if you refuse, I don’t see how you are not guilty of “adding hurdles”.
How does that not make any sense?
“Moreover, I asked for your view on Mormons, and you seem to have dodged the question — putting you in the same camp as those readers who wish to avoid making any judgment. So do you.”
I would consider them lost. For the same reasons as did virtually every Christian scholar and preacher throughout the past. Both within the restoration movement and without. Just like they did the Catholics and JW’s as well.
As I said earlier, I’ve never even heard of a known Baptist to consider the Pope, the Mormon elders and the JW’s to be saved. None of them had any problems with “adding additional hurdles” to their professed “faith working through love”.
Will you charge all of the famous Christian preachers of all time (both within the cofc and without) who condemned the Catholics, JW’s and Mormons, to be guilty of the Galatian heresy you keep speaking of?
Hank,
I’ve explained myself on Galatians many times. You’re capable of reading Galatians just as I am. What do you think is the Galatian heresy? Why did Paul declare that the Judaizing teachers fell from grace? What was their damning sin?
I’m not inclined to discuss how the Galatian heresy might apply to anyone until we have an understanding on what the Galatian heresy is.
The Galatian heresy is not the only way to fall away. As I’ve said here many times, I see three ways for that to happen —
* Lose “faith” in the simple sense of “faith” — such as by no longer believing Jesus is Lord.
* Lose “faith” in the Abrahamic sense — that is, trust in God’s promises.
* Lose “faith” in the sense of faithfulness by rebelling, as described in Heb 10:26-27.
There are several ways someone might violate any of those three sides of “faith.” I take the Galatian heresy to be an example of the second — a loss of trust by insisting on adding to faith as a condition of salvation so that faith is seen as insufficient to save. Hence, when some in the Churches of Christ insist that you are damned unless you sing a cappella, they make a cappella singing an additional requirement for salvation beyond “Jesus is Lord.” (Why not then require converts to declare faith in a cappella singing before being considered candidates for baptism? In GraceConversation, I was told that new Christians must be immediately taught about a cappella singing or else they might fall away shortly after being saved. Hence, faith in Jesus only buys you about 60 days of grace. After that, you’d better agree on the Law of Specific and General Authority so you don’t go to hell.)
Why do so many declare Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses damned? Because they made a mistake about just any doctrinal point? Given the broad view of grace held by most Baptists, why do they consider these three denominations damned?
I think you’ll find that it’s largely regarding the definition of “faith.” It’s not just any doctrinal error, but error as to what “faith in Jesus” means. After all, even if you say the words, if you mean something different from what Peter and Paul meant when they articulated the confession of faith in Jesus, it’s not really faith. Or it may be about a denomination teaching a works salvation.
It means nothing to say “I would consider them lost” unless you can articulate a biblical reason for that opinion (whether or not I agree with you).
They have to be in error as something that implicitly constitutes “faith.”
Or they have to be in error by teaching a works salvation (in violation of Galatians) or otherwise failing to trust God’s promises.
Or they have to be shown to be in rebellion (unlikely to be the case as to an entire denomination — because Heb 10:26-27 is about the heart).
I’m not disagreeing with you. I just don’t know what you’re saying. But surely before declaring an entire denomination damned, you’ve thought about what they teach or do that so violates the gospel that they are necessarily damned. What is it?
Jay tells Hank, “I’m not disagreeing with you. I just don’t know what you’re saying.”
Hank can speak for himself, of course, but I think the upshot of his post is merely a reprise of that popular mantra, “I thank you, Lord, that I am not as other men are…”
Inely before declaring an entire denomination damned, you’ve thought about what they teach or do that so violates the gospel that they are necessarily damned. ”
Jay, do you consider the Mormons, Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses to be “denominations” of the Lord’s church?
If so, for how long have you believed as much? Surely, this is a new position for you?
Jay, you would likely know better than I, but haven’t practically every known Baptist scholar considered the Mormons (as a “church”) to be lost?
Hasn’t virtually every known Christian leader/pracher considered the JW’s to be condemned?
Hank asked,
Do not put words in my mouth. “Denominations” is not short for “denominations of the Lord’s church.” I suggest you look the word up in any standard dictionary and tell me whether there is any implication that “denomination” means “saved.”
You asked me about the salvation of Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. I responded as to Catholics and asked you to return the favor and give your opinion as to Mormons and to state why. You dodged the question. I asked a second time. You attempted to put words in my mouth and again dodged the question.
I have no interest in continuing this conversation.
What I have noticed is that as you communicate to most of these individuals about their beliefs they most always lift up the name of their association as the source of all authority. It will be a very unusual event if you will encounter individuals who belong to those associations to direct a questioner to an answer for his questions to the scriptures. The Church of Christ members would direct an individuals attention to the specific portions of the scriptures that convey the desired message that they have upheld. Very much in the manner of the events between Randall and Mike in the book “Muscle and The Shovel”. By programming an individual to use only the prescribed scriptures, The Church of Christ has indeed developed their own version of the Lord’s Commands or instructions. Creating their own doctrine from scripture. Not allowing the scriptures to be their doctrine, as they profess.
A,
I did not put “words in your mouth”, I simply asked a question. When considering whether or not the Mormons and JW’s are saved, you wrote:
“surely before declaring an entire denomination damned, you’ve thought about what they teach or do that so violates the gospel that they are necessarily damned. What is it?”
To which, I simply inquired as to whether or not you considered the Mormons and JW’s to be “denominations” of the Lord’s church. I still wonder if you do?
If you consider them “denominations” (but NOT of the Lord’s church), then to what are they denominated?
Are the Hare Kirshna’s a “denomination”?
There has been plenty of talk here about all the “denominations” being equal in the sight of God. That no one “denomination” is any more holy and saved than any other. Its been assumed that by “denomination”, we meant (of the Lords church). If not, than of what?
You are the one the referred to the Mormons and JW’s as ” denominations”.
I just never heard of an elder in the church refereing to the JW’s, Catholics and Mormons as “denominations”.
You should write about that
Hank, Pure and simple: denomination doesn’t mean saved inherently.
Hi Skip,
I agree. I just think it would be helpful to have a better and agreed upon understanding of what it does mean. Jay has likely used the terms “denomination”, “denominations”, “denominational” thousands of times onbthis blog. We all have.
I am just wondering now, if when we use these terms, are we including in there the JW’s and Mormins?
If so, I never knew it… And Jay is now clearly refering to them as such.
Hank,
I thunk everyone I know calls every group that calls themselves a church but other than the churches of Christ a denomination.
We will be judged individually and I don’t believe we will have any church affiliation sign tied around our necks.
Folks throughout time have worshipped God in many ways
In the ten commandments, Honor thy father and mother was stated as one of the top ten to God out of the thousands that could of been required and most folks worship as ther parents taught them was the right way, thus honoring them.
It is most likely if any of us were brought up taught and attended a Catholic, Mormon, Hindu, Baptist, church of Christ, or any other we consider a denomination, we would be considered that one today. Should we thank God for our parents or us being church of Christ for our own children instead of being something else worshipping God?
At Judgment, God will look at us and knowing all our situations and opportunities in our life, what we did and loved will matter most.
Hank,
The dictionary calls a denomination a “Religious group”. Thus JW’s and Mormons are technically a denomination. However, it makes no difference and has no bearing on this discussion.
“The dictionary calls a denomination a “Religious group”. Thus JW’s and Mormons are technically a denomination.”
Okay, thanks. I just didnt realize that when poeple refer to other “denominations”, that they were including the JW’s, Mormons, Hindus and Muslims.
I wonder if there were/are other who were like me here and did not know that. Its an important thing to realize because the term “denominations ” is used repeatedly in practically ever post on this blog.
Frankly, i do not believe that when Jay uses the term “denominational”, he is including the Buddhists and Muslims. However, I didn’t think he had in mind the Mormons and JW’s either. But, and again, seeing how he (as well as the rest of us here), use the term repeatedly, i believe it does have a bearing in this discussion.
Think about it, one of Jays biggest missions here is to get the traditional and conservative CofC’s to accept and fellowship the “denominations”.
It makes a world of difference to know whether or not by that, he means the Muslims too?!
Larry said; ” It will be a very unusual event if you will encounter individuals who belong to those associations to direct a questioner to an answer for his questions to the scriptures.”
Larry I don’t know how long it has been since you have spoken to a “JW” but perhaps you should revisit JW.org, they refer to the scriptures almost as often as I do 🙂 and more impressively.
Hank, I think you need to drop your fixation with the word “denomination”. It is obvious to me that Jay has never suggested extending fellowship to JWs or Mormons. I have been on this website for years and have never been confused on this.
Laymond, JW’s have their own distorted translation, believe Jesus is an angel, and believe they are the only correct religion. They abuse and twist the scriptures. I am not impressed with that cult.
“It is obvious to me that Jay has never suggested extending fellowship to JWs or Mormons. I have been on this website for years and have never been confused on this.”
Skip, are you sure that Jay considers the JW’s and Mormons to be lost? If you are, I’d like to know how you know?
Because, just a few comments back, Concerning the Mormons, Jay wrote:
“You also raised the question of Mormons. Given that Mormons baptize by immersion for remission of sins in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I would ask you to take a turn and explain whether Mormons are saved — based on the scriptures.
I readily concede that they have all sorts of errors in their teachings. And Alexander Campbell declared them heretics. But on what scriptural basis might we do so? Surely not just because they sin. We all sin. And we all have imperfect doctrinal knowledge. What is it about their teaching, if anything, that damns?”
Does that make it seem like he considers them lost? If not lost, then why not fellowship them?
Hank, Based on Jay’s exact quote you provided, he did not claim Mormons were saved at all.
“Hank, Based on Jay’s exact quote you provided, he did not claim Mormons were saved at all.”
Skip, about the Mormons, Jay asks: “What is it about their teaching, if anything, that damns?”
If Jay doesn’t see anything about their teaching that damns, wouldn’t that imply he believes they are not damned? And if not damned, wouldn’t that mean they were saved. And if saved, wouldn’t that mean they were in the church, the body OF the saved? And wouldn’t that mean he would extend fellowship to them? Since they would then be brethren?
Yet you say: “It is obvious to me that Jay has never suggested extending fellowship to JWs or Mormons. ”
How is that so obvious to you? Why would he NOT fellowship them if he can’t say that they are not in Christ?
Skip, what has Jay written on this blog at any time about the Mormons or JW’s that makes it so obvious to you that he believes they are lost?
To the contrary, he doesn’t see anything they do or believe that would make them lost. He has written precisely that.
In my opinion, he refuses to consider them lost because he wants to avoid adding any hurdles to their salvation other than the sole requirement of “faith working through love.”
And both the Mormons AND JW’s profess to have exactly that. A faith in Christ, working through love.
Hank, three thoughts: 1. If Jay´s writing troubles you so much, quit reading. You should know your comments won’t change this website. 2. You seem he’ll bent on forcing Jay to condemn other groups. JWs and Mormons have been condemned for years and they still grow. Thus, your quest is pointless. 3. You try to trap Jay with his words, as though trapping people is actually productive. There is a group in the NT that tried to try trap Jesus in His words. They were called Pharisees.
Skip, previously you wrote: “Hank, Based on Jay’s exact quote you provided, he did not claim Mormons were saved at all.” So, if they are not saved at all, are they then lost? What do you believe on this?
Now, after its been shown that Jay has here asked what could it be the Mormons do or believe that would make him lost, you seem to adjust your position?
At first, you seemed to assume that Jay believed they were lost. And you seemed to agree. What DO you believe? Does it depend upon what Jay believes? Do you follow him?
If you believe they are saved, and your brothers in Christ, then say it.
If you believe they are lost, then quit charging me of being “hell bent” in condemning people. Because, you would be in the same boat. Jesus dealt with people like that. They were called hypocrites.
Be careful not to trap yourself with your own words…
I 1. If Jay´s writing troubles you so much, quit reading. You should know your comments won’t change this website.”
I’m not “troubled so much” by Jay’s writing. I actually enjoy reading it (which is why I do so often). Neither are my intentions to “change this website.”
To me, it seems more like you are are the one troubled so much by my writing? Suggesting I “quit reading” and describing me as “hell bent” and stuff.
Don’t get so riled up, Skip!
Hank,
Jay said in a reply to you on March 30, 2014 at 4:10 pm: “You also raised the question of Mormons. Given that Mormons baptize by immersion for remission of sins in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I would ask you to take a turn and explain whether Mormons are saved — based on the scriptures.
I readily concede that they have all sorts of errors in their teachings. And Alexander Campbell declared them heretics. But on what scriptural basis might we do so? Surely not just because they sin. We all sin. And we all have imperfect doctrinal knowledge. What is it about their teaching, if anything, that damns?”
In case you missed it somehow, he is actually asking you a question. You have dodged that question with the skill of a seasoned politician. If your strategy is to challenge, parody, and belittle the efforts of Jay to explain his beliefs without actually presenting your own beliefs to be challenged then you are wildly successful, but not very persuasive.
Jay further adds on March 31, 2014 at 10:15 pm: I’m not disagreeing with you. I just don’t know what you’re saying. But surely before declaring an entire denomination damned, you’ve thought about what they teach or do that so violates the gospel that they are necessarily damned. What is it?
At this point Jay restates his question but you choose to ignore the question and instead fixate on his use of the work “denomination”. Maybe denomination is not the best word he could have chosen, but its use should not affect your answer to his question, if it does, just substitute “all Mormons” for “demonination” and give us your answer. I for one would be grateful if you would read his question to you and answer it. Thanks.
Hank really doesn’t care a whit about the JW’s or the Mormons or the Catholics or the Whoever Else’s, so that leaves me to wonder why he is so insistent upon us passing judgement upon them. Oh, yes, it’s that Pharisee’s motto again… it’s good to have someone to sneer at.
I have a puppy who will pull mightily on the other end of any rope if you wave it in front of him. He’ll grab it and tug and pull and growl and never give up until YOU give up and let him have the rope. He’s proud for about five seconds, then he loses interest and goes on to something else. He doesn’t really place any importance on the rope, he doesn’t even like rope; he just enjoys the tug-of-war. And the growling. He thinks he’s powerful and aggressive, but really, he’s just being a puppy.
“He doesn’t really place any importance on the rope, he doesn’t even like rope; he just enjoys the tug-of-war. And the growling. He thinks he’s powerful and aggressive, but really, he’s just being a puppy.”
You found me out, Dr. Phil….err….Charles.
But, two can play that! Check it out, I used to have this old and practically blind cat that thought she was the craftiest feline around. Till one day…
Never mind, I’ll spare the ad hominem attacks..
Hank, I am only troubled at times by your apparent attempts to trap people with their words.
Orien,
Throughout the history of the Mormon church, The totality of mainstream Christianity considered them (the Mormons) outside of the body of Christ and lost. Everyone outside of the Mormon church considered the Mormons a “cult”. I suspect everyone here knows this.
For one example, the Billy Graham website had an article entitled ” What is a Cult?”, in which it said that the Mormons are a cult. Along with the JW’s and others.
Of course, in our more “progressive” day and age, its no longer cool at all to “judge” and/or “condemn” other religious groups that claim to have faith in the only Son of God. It’s definitely not cool call them a “cult”.
Accordingly, the BGEA (Billy Graham Evangelistic Association) has taken down the aforementioned article and has promised to never put it up again or refer to other “denominations”, as ” cults”.
In fact, now it appears, the BGEA doesn’t condemn or criticize the Mormons at all. Times have changed.
All of this has caused some controversy, as simple Google searches of the BGEA and the “what is a cult” article will show.
And because I seek to know precisely how Jay and his readers here feel about the Mormons and JW’s and such (whether they are our brethren in Christ), I am “hell bent” on condemning people. I am a “trapper of words”, a ” Pharisee ” and like Chalies puppy who takes away ropes even when he doesn’t even care about ropes.
But I would be very interested in knowing how everyone here believed. Do you consider the Mormons and JWs as brethren in the body of Christ, the church?
Why or why not? How about the JWs?
I know most here are hyper critical of the conservative CoCs on the right. That they often are guilty if the Galatian heresy and in danger of condemnation. But what about the cults?…err…”other denominations “
Basically, do the progressives of today really know more about how God feels regarding the salvation of the Mormons and JWs than did virtually every known Christian scholar and preacher over the last 150+ years? Both within the restoration movement and out?
Personally, I just don’t think so…
Letter from Joseph Smith in Response to
Alexander Campbell
Kirtland, Ohio, September 24, 1834.
DEAR BROTHER,
“I have, of late, been perusing Mr. A. Campbell’s “Millennial Harbinger.” I never have rejoiced to see men of corrupt hearts step forward and assume the authority and pretend to teach the ways of God—this is, and always has been a matter of grief; therefore I cannot but be thankful, that I have been instrumental in the providence of our heavenly Father in drawing forth, before the eyes of the world, the spirits by which certain ones, who profess to be “Reformers, and Restorers of ancient principles,” are actuated! I have always had the satisfaction of seeing the truth triumph over error, and darkness give way before light, when such men were provoked to expose the corruption of their own hearts, by crying delusion, deception, and false prophets, accusing the innocent, and condemning the guiltless, and exalting themselves to the stations of gods, to lead blind-fold, men to perdition!”
I find it interesting that back in the day, Joseph Smith accused Alexander Campbell (and his church of Christ brethren), of “accusing the innocent”, “condemning the guiltless”, and “exalting themselves to the stations of God.”
No doubt, were Alexander Campbell to say here today what he did back then, he would be called the same. That he would be considered “hell bent” in his desire to condemn entire “denominations”. He’d be accused of not caring “one whit” about the Mormons and be compared to a puppy not caring about some rope.
Hank, While are spending all your energies finding aberrant groups to condemn, it frees the rest of us to share our faith with the lost. Thanks.
It does not do for those who are in the wholesale damnation business to have tender feelings, lest such emotion get past its normal local bounds, and they find themselves feeling some untoward charity about those whom they are so diligently loading in the handbasket.
“It does not do for those who are in the wholesale damnation business to have tender feelings…”
Are you referring to Alexander Campbell? Because, like Joseph Smith determined, he went about “accusing the innocent” and “condemning the guiltless”?
Or, are you referring to (the younger) Billy Graham (before he Met Romney), who considered the Mormons and JWs and others to be “cults”?
Or, to the remainder of know Christian scholars and preachers who over the last 150 years unanimously agreed with Campbell and (the younger) Billy Graham, that the Mormons and JWs are lost?
I have a feeling you would accuse practically anyone who ever condemned anyone else, to be “in the wholesale damnation business”.
Per Jays chart abive, you are one of the biggest bubbles…
I have closed comments on this topic. I tried earlier to end this conversation as disingenuous. It’s over. Please do not continue under another post or I will begin moderating those who fail to comply.