OK, so I just got finished with a 45 minute argument with a fundamentalist type Christian group on campus. I was walking by their booth at the Student Activities Fair and they gave me a survey. The first question was "Do you believe you are going to Heaven when you die." I checked the box under "I hope so" and it all went downhill from there.We started talking about Heaven and Hell, how you get there, who's going where, etc. They started giving me some single verses to help me be sure I was going to heaven. So, just to keep them on their toes I started asking them some tough questions about that position, arguing from the Bible that they might not have a completely accurate perspective. One of the main arguments I used is the picture of Judgment that Jesus gave in Matthew 25 (separating the sheep from the goats) where Jesus allows certain people into heaven and sends others to their destruction. In that passage Jesus says nothing of faith, or beliefs, or doctrinal statements. He judges them according to their deeds.
I told them that Gandhi seems to fit the description of one of the sheep and that I can't say that Gandhi is in Hell because he didn't explicitly accept Christ. After all, that's between Gandhi and God. After I said that one of the guy's eyes lit up and passionately exclaimed "I can tell you for sure that Gandhi is in Hell right now."
That's when I about lost it. First of all, what an arrogant and stupid thing to say - he isn't God; he doesn't know Gandhi's heart, or what ran through his mind during the last moments of his life.
I kept asking them to please consider the passages I was giving them. I didn't use philosophical or ethical arguments, although I could've. I only used the Bible. This may sound judgmental, but while their faith was very passionate, it seemed overly simplistic and somewhat irrational because of their inability or unwillingness to consider the fact that they could be wrong. It's OK though, I used to be there.
Passion is a good, but dangerous because emotions can quickly cloud judgment and reason. I am a firm believer in the value of reason and logic. God gave us these abilities for a reason! Faith should not be at the expense of reason, but I know there is a big grey area there so I need to give more grace. It just gets me all fired up.
Ironically I had just gotten finished with a 15 minute discussion with member of the Universalist Unitarian Church who was running a booth next to the Young Life booth, and we got along great! The conversation was really fun and engaging. Ha, maybe I should become a Unitarian....just kidding Mom.
Keep it real,
Ben
11 comments:
Regarding Ghandi and other do-gooders that were not of the "Christian" persuasion...John 14: 5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
From HIS own mouth, if someone does not know Jesus, they do not know God.
It is true the there have been great humanitarians in history that fit the requirements of "sheep," but is this mutually exclusive of John 14? How can someone who does not know God be welcomed into HIS kingdom simply by doing good deeds and living a righteous life?
Hi Ben,
After reading your observations in your last blog, I had a question for you and your thinking Christian friends.
Have you heard of or read about Veritas Forums? The first was at Harvard in the 90's and they have sprung up at many university campuses across the country.
They were first founded by Kelly Monroe Kullberg, who has written two amazing books: "Finding God at Harvard; Spiritual Journeys of Thinking Chrisians", and "Finding God Beyond Harvard", her personal spiritual journey. I have both books, but have loaned the second (my favorite) to your cousin Amy.
Ravi Zacharias is often the apologist at these forum gatherings and he is excellent.
Well, just wanted to say I hope you have a wonderful year, and I love you alot, and I wish you had something like the Veritas (TRUTH) Forums at BU!
Grams
Justin,
We know that everyone is saved through Jesus, the Bible is clear on that. He was the only sacrifice that could bridge the gap. We can come to the Father only because of the Son, but how God chooses to save people isn't my call.
For example: Almost no Christian today believes that babies or mentally disabled people go to Hell. I've never known a baby that had the cognitive capacity to recognize Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Or what about the Old Testament saints? They didn't know Jesus (and hence must not have known God), are they in Hell? So in reality, we don't really believe that everyone, everywhere, at all times in history, has to believe and accept Jesus Christ as Savior to get into heaven. To some degree we're all inclusivists.
We need to seriously consider the multiple times in Scripture where people are spoken of as being judged "according to their deeds." As Protestants we quickly add a qualifier to that saying "Well, after they've come to God in faith..." because it seems to fly in the face of our main tenet "Sola Fide" or faith alone.
I have cry out like Abraham "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" There is a high degree of cognitive dissonance that envelopes my brain when I consider the billions of people who've never even heard the gospel. Does God just dump them into Hell?
I have to believe that everyone gets a fair shot, in this life or the next.
So back to Gandhi: here we have a man who was about as Christlike as any human in recent history, had great admiration for Christ, but could not intellectually accept that Christ was God and was the only way to Heaven. He didn't seem to have any selfish motives in rejecting Christ. The man offered up his whole life as a ministry of reconcilliation between different religions, ethnic gropus, and nations as well as caring for the outcasts of society, referring to them as the children of God (sound familiar?). He gave up every comfort and risked his life numerous times for the sake of peace, ultimately paying the ultimate price for it. Didn't Jesus say "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends?"
So when we boil it all down, Gandhi is a clear picture of Jesus, and the only difference between him and the Christian saints is his inability to accept a propositional truth. Is that what get's us into heaven? Simply believing the right things?
Personally, I think God was quite pleased with Gandhi and don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine God having a nice post-mortem conversation with Gandhi to help correct some of his thinking before ushering him into the kingdom.
Romans 2:6-11 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.
Thanks for the further development. I do agree that it is not by simply believing that one assures his place in the Kingdom. Obviously, we cannot know how the mind of God works, other than what has been revealed to us thus far. And I do hope that there is a final chance for reconciliation "post-mortem." Otherwise, the entire Jewish population, who worship the same God and follow the same OT scripture, but have failed to recognize the fulfillment of their own prophesies will perish.
When Christ says "Depart from me" in Matthew, he is speaking of those who did not perform good works, and it seems as all others are ushered in. I just have a hard time believing that just because someone is "good" that they get into heaven without knowing God.
You bring up a great point about those who have never heard the gospel and are therefore, at a grave disadvantage. How can they stand a chance unless the rest of us fulfill the great commission?
As for babies, aren't they without sin, and the mentally disabled can't be held accountable can they? Tough questions. Good discussion-very thought provoking.
Ben,
Maybe the good deeds in Mt. 25 are "good" because they were deeds which flowed out of a person and were rooted by faith in Jesus and Jesus alone.
If Ghandi doesn't know Jesus; Jesus doesn't live inside of Him and therefore he is only able to do deeds of his own volition (flesh) thus completely void of Jesus.
However if Ghandi does know the Savior, then it is possible what he did was rooted in Christ, but not guaranteed.
Also, babies are born with sin and so are the mentally disabled. (Rom. 5:18) Sin entered all mankind through the sin of Adam.
If that is true then when Adam sinned He sinned for all of us and thus we already got "a fair shot." Adam took that shot for us and yes he blew it for himself, Eve, and all of mankind. I wonder how he feels about that.
Anyway, if you are following this, then everyone who is born (except of course Jesus) inherited Adam's sin and are separated from the Father.
Adam blew our first chance. And when He blew that chance he blew it for everyone and thus everyone deserves Hell.
The real question then becomes: Does everyone, anyone, or some get a second chance?
I am troubled that your views on salvation are so skewed. If this is the view of Young Life, then many souls are at stake. If this is only your own view, I would propose that you should not be leading in the capacity that you are.
You have a poor view of Christ's sacrifice. If He didn't really have to die so that all might go through Him, then He was rightly mocked on the cross. There was no reason for Him to die! If salvation comes through another means, then Christ was an idiot. Would we say that? I hope you wouldn't.
As far as this whole OT saints thing, they believed God as much as He had revealed Himself to them. Romans 4 speaks of this. God has now revealed Himself in the fullness of Christ. There is no other way. If you want a god that follows your idea of how salvation should work, then go make one up. We don't get to dictate how God works. That isn't our luxury. He is on the throne and we are not. How ridiculous it would be to stand in judgment of God himself.
Romans 14 points out clearly that Christ paid for the judgment seat and that we did not. If you want a feel-good faith, then go elsewhere. Christ is King. He is the only way. There is no second, "postmortem" chance. Our deeds (yes even sinners can do good deeds) point to the condition of our heart, but they do not guarantee that the heart is righteous. matt 7:15-23 is pretty blunt. I just pray that you never hear the words, away from me, I never knew you.
Jeff,
I think you're jumping to some conclusions here. I am not denying the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (although it raises a huge number or ethical and philosophical questions and difficulties that I'm still wrestling with).
I don't know if you read through any of the comments, but I developed my argument further in a reply to jganschow's post.
I wrote: "We can come to the Father only because of the Son, but how God chooses to save people isn't my call."
That is in no way denying the importance of Christ's sacrifice.
I am troubled at your presumptuous and aggressive tone. I consider you a friend. Also, your logic is bad.
You wrote:
If He didn't really have to die so that all might go through Him, then He was rightly mocked on the cross. There was no reason for Him to die! If salvation comes through another means, then Christ was an idiot. Would we say that? I hope you wouldn't."
You oversimplify my argument (incorrectly, might I add) to believing that Christ's sacrifice was not necessary and then create a false dichotomy by saying that if someone disagrees with that statement then they must think Christ was an idiot.
You obviously hold to an exclusivist position. I do not. You may label me a heretic, but you'd better be prepared to also apply that label to Billy Graham, John Wesley, and C.S. Lewis, among others.
I love to debate and wrestle with theology, but if you feel the need to question my right to be a Young Life leader, please contact me by phone or email before posting it publicly on my blog.
PS-
Jeff, you wrote:
There is no second, "postmortem" chance.
Have you ever read 1st Peter 3:18-21?
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water
"Personally, I think God was quite pleased with Gandhi and don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine God having a nice post-mortem conversation with Gandhi to help correct some of his thinking before ushering him into the kingdom."
From this comment here I make my case. Post mortem? What chance do we have post mortem? You say that Jesus is the only way, but then try and give another way. I don't understand. If it is so clear in Scripture, then why do you try and skirt around it?
If God ushers people in after death void of Christ, then Christ was an IDIOT! yes, an idiot. (Or as C.S. Lewis puts it - a madman) He claimed to be the only way and died for this conviction. He was a straight up fool to go through the pain and suffering if there was another way. Why would Christ obey His Father unto death if the cup could have been taken from Him?
I do consider you a friend as well, but I will reply when I believe Scripture is being incredibly compromised. As far as exclusivism goes, you had better be exclusivistic. All major religions are. If they weren't, then they would have no grounds for persuasion. I can't get to heaven by being a Christian according to Islam. Believing and following Christ is heresy in Judaism. Christianity is no different in its exclusivism and it remains the only way. The Christian stands on truth and not on one of several feasible options.
If you publish this on the internet publicly you must be able to take the criticism publicly. I have no problem talking elsewhere, but you put this up and this is where I will post as well. I pray that you will see differently very soon. Morality is no exception for Justification no matter how dedicated you are to doing good.
Jeff,
Once again, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. Please do yourself a favor and study the concept of inclusivism because you clearly don't understand the concept.
When I say Christ is the only way, inclusivists will say "Yes, Christ was the only sufficient sacrifice for sins." In that sense, he is the only way.
But, as I posted earlier, not everyone has to explicitly accept Christ in order for the benefits of that sacrifice to apply to them. Case in point - if you believe that babies go to heaven when they die then you are an inclusivist. Strict exclusivists (St. Augustine for example) believe that babies who die without regeneration die in their sins, and hence go to hell.
But, if you believe (like almost all Christians today) that babies go to heaven without knowing of or accepting Christ's sacrifice, then according to your logic you are calling Christ a liar.
Many Christian philosophers and theologians apply this same argument to mentally handicapped people, those who've never heard the gospel, and those who heard the gospel but were unable to fully understand or accept it due to extenuating circumstances.
I would argue that it is possible for Gandhi to have fallen into the last category. It is clearly much harder for a person growing up in Gandhi's environment to understand and accept Christianity than it is for us westerners who are born into it.
There are many different versions of inclusivism, but the common denominator is that all people will get a fair shot at heaven, in this life or the next.
Also, CS Lewis used the Lord, Lunatic, or Liar argument in respect to Christ's diety, not inclusivism. Study his theology - HE WAS AN INCLUSIVIST. He believed that every sincere act within a false religion was and is accepted by the one true God.
And, you didn't at all respond to 1st Peter 3:18-21 because you simply cannot. You're eschatalogical views don't allow for it. But, St. Peter wrote it, not me.
Jeff, I have no problem with disagreements and I can take criticism, but I don't have to agree with you on everything. To question or disagree with a person's views is one thing, but to question their authority to serve is something entirely different. That should be dealt with personally, not publicly.
I apologize for not replying to the bible verses. I didn't see that you had posted another comment as I was writing my reply. I would simply recommend that you study it (3:19) yourself in depth before trying to use it to argue your point. I think that after careful study you will not apply it to your argument for post-mortem salvation. I still stand firm in the fact that there are no second chances. With that, I am done commenting on this blog.
Post a Comment