What is Salvation

A fairly recent series on Calvinism in a podcast that I have been following for some time raises an interesting issue. Much of the evangelical community leans to a “Calvinist” view of salvation/atonement while certain portions of the community follow an Arminian view. The two views are not exactly what most of us think they are, and it might be argued are not as far from each other as the average follower of either thinks. In fact, outside of the question “what is predestination?” there is really only one issue in the minds of the average believer. That is the assurance of salvation. And that assurance is often stated in terms of “once saved, always saved,” or it is stated conversely that salvation can be lost.

But if you ask a true Bible scholar, and card-carrying, 5-point Calvinist, “once saved, always saved” is a misrepresentation of the Calvinist position.

If this is the case, how do the New Testament writers refer to assurance, and to the “joy of your salvation” if it is not a certain thing?

Pluralism

While my first reaction to this word when used in the context of Christian theology is to recoil in terror, I have heard it used in a way that is enlightening. And that enlightenment came from a source that I did not expect.

The discussion was about the dichotomy of the “we have it right and everyone else is wrong” and “to each his own” ways of thinking about religion and God. My source suggested that there is a middle ground that looks like pluralism to the “my way or the highway” crowd, but approximates what he believes is the real teaching of the Bible. This middle ground is not concerned with arguing the heathen into belief in Christ, chanting religious slogans, or proclaiming judgment upon sinners. It is tasked to live as Christ lived on the earth. It is to carry out the Great Commandment — love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Returning to Focus

Sort of been MIA for a while. Much of source of material has changed. For various reasons, we are now part of a different Bible church (I have nothing but praise for our former assembly). And I have not found the usual background of postmodern/emerging/emergent material lately.

Oh, it is still there. Mars Hill (Seattle, not Grand Rapids) caught-up in controversy over excessive discipline of members. John Piper declaring Christianity to rightly be a male-dominated religion.

But these just have not gotten my juices flowing.

But while I definitely consider myself in the Bible church wing of the evangelical camp, there is something beginning to nag at me about evangelicalism as a whole. The problem is not that I think that their positions are wrong. Rather that they are out of balance. But I don't know how to think about it because I do not know how to arrive at any kind of more "correct" balance.

Parables Revisited

As I have been continuing to study the Emerging Church movement, controversies surrounding Brian McLaren seem to be a never-ending topic. In late November, 2010, I found one on my own. The following were my immediate thoughts:

I admit that I do periodically read McLaren’s blog. Since his recent book A New Kind of Christianity has been a source of many questions and comments on which he writes, I noted a new one that discussed “Violent God.” The question comes from someone who is having trouble accepting that God could really do all the violent things that are recorded in scripture. In response, McLaren points to a book by William Herzog entitled Parables as Subversive Speech. McLaren proceeds to give Mr. Herzog’s reading of the parable of the talents as being about the nature of the kingdom of the world and not the kingdom of God. It is about an unjust economy that “reaps quick exploitative profits off his fellows.”

McLaren writes “When I first read this book some years ago, I thought, ‘He can't be right,’ but now I think he's spot on in most of his reinterpretations.”

Is There God?

As part of a study on the theological problems of accepting the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving being — God — in the face of pain, even significant pain, of both the physical and emotional kinds, a member of the group provided a link to an article written by Roger Ebert, the film critic, posted on the Chicago Sun-Times web site on March 30, 2011. The link is here.

For approximately 1,700 words, Ebert ponders the existence and purpose of man, and concludes that he finds “the Theory of Evolution a great consolation.” Following are a few of the passages and my comments and questions.

What we are left with are the cosmic shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. Ultimately the images from Hubble will give us a glimpse of conditions that existed an infinitesimal instant after the Big Bang. There will never be an image of the Big Bang itself, because it had no image. There was Nothing, and then there was Something, and all we can hope is to see that Something as soon as possible after it became.

And with this, evolution, the principle of taking what is and morphing it into something else that is, but was not before, is set in motion by an event that took Nothing and made that Nothing into Something. That is an insufficient explanation.

Argument From Silence — What Does Brian McLaren Believe?

I mentioned that I had some topics "on the burner" so to speak.  One reason that I delayed this is that it refers to a blog that I no longer have the reference to locate.  I have tried for some time and have failed.  So I leave it to you to accept or reject my characterizations below.

-----

I have been struck over some period at the number of times that Evangelicals have questioned Brian McLaren with respect to certain points of belief. While claiming orthodoxy in belief, he responds by being surprised at the responses of those Evangelicals while he never answers their questions.  Some have taken this silence on position as evidence of a problem in McLaren’s belief.  Some defenders suggest that the purpose in the vagaries is to keep from scaring off the unbelievers before they get a chance to understand for themselves.  But McLaren says nothing, at least in any place that I have seen.

The Church and Homosexuality

First, this post is not about answering the question. But I periodically visit IBC’s discussion forum, Table & Fire, and found a new topic introduced by one of the more thoughtful forum regulars. I say forum regulars loosely. In the past, T&F had a fairly significant following. But its server crashed in a serious way, and the entire thing had to be rebuilt. And in the midst of that, the person who had been responsible to maintain it moved and was could no longer do so. So when it finally reemerged a few months later, only a paltry few signed back up. It has been fairly silent for a while until this friend opened the hottest topic yet. And it was viewed, but no response for 10 days. Here is the opening post:

I thought I'd see if T&F was completely dead. I think that IBC should re-evaluate its approach to gay people.

I would argue that God desires loving relationships and that committed same-sex couples should be allowed to enter those relationships without fear of condemnation from our church. Rather they should be encouraged as would any heterosexual couple desiring to marry. I wondered if anyone else felt the same at IBC or if I was just way off here. I'm fairly certain I'm one of a handful (if that) of IBC'ers who may feel this way. I wanted to see if there were others.

That's all. Simple, right?

Being the man of way more than a few words, I have now responded as follows: