Yes B, but not necessarily just C
King Solomon wrote some 3000 years ago that there was nothing new under the sun. What I am introducing today is relatively new to me, and maybe to you but it is not new.
A fear I have in writing this article is that it comes dangerously close to heresy. Which is also not a new idea. As a matter of fact many “new” ideas today are just reheated and refried Gnosticism or Arianism. Can anyone say Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormonism? There is one thing these cults have in common and that is there rejection of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. Saint John called that the spirit of the Anti-Christ.
Not a good camp to belong to if you want a decent retirement plan.
Anyway, the reason I’m tiptoeing around the tulips is twofold. 1. I am an orthodox Christian, and don’t want to be confused for a heretic. 2. Nevertheless what this article discusses would be considered grounds for a lynching by many Christians.
So what is it that I’m avoiding in order to preserve the apple that Adam gave to me? That mankind can be saved WITHOUT calling on the name of Jesus.
There I’ve said it. Now I’ll spend the rest of this article backtracking and trying to extricate myself from my 6 foot fox hole.
Now how is it that such a statement is not heresy? Why shouldn’t you stop now and cancel your subscription to my free subscription free website?
First, let me establish the rules for this debate.
Logic provides a well worn didactic tool that has been used to clarify the means of salvation. The tool is a simple sequential cause and effect statement. If A equals B and B equals C then A equals C. Stated in relation to this argument the plan of salvation would go simply; Mankind has sinned and is subject to eternal separation from God (A), Christ paid the price to redeem mankind from this hell (B), whoever believes in and calls upon the name of the Lord is saved (C) and therefore spends eternity with God in heaven and escapes eternal damnation (D).
The validity of this sequence is a foundation of Orthodox Christian belief and is how I myself find the assurance of my salvation. The question I have often asked is this; is there no other way to escape hell.
If there is not then billions of people who have never heard of Jesus are doomed to an eternity simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I’ve found it difficult to swollen this callous fact. How can a just God sentence a women in Afghanistan who has not heard of Christ to hell while He gives a rich white man in the US a hundred chances to receive His Son?
Some, when faced with this and the many other disturbing ramifications of hell that orthodox belief forces us to wrestle with, simply deny orthodox faith. “God’s a loving God. He’ll make exceptions. As a matter of fact He’ll probably let all good people into heaven. God will only send people to hell who really deserve it. So in effect it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you live a good life.”
My initial reaction when given this line was “I wished someone had informed Jesus of this before He came to earth and “suffered under the hand of Pontius Pilate, was crucified and buried …”
These “new” ideas are just pluralism and relativism revisited.
Pluralism = all roads lead to Rome. Any god is fine as long as you’re sincere.
No absolutes, relativism. “Whatever works for you…” Constructing a bomb shelter. Three little pigs. There is a correct answer for a reason. Wood and straw houses may feel good, but they seem to disappear in a puff.
Jesus claimed with absolute authority that he was “the way, the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by me.” Rather you believe what He said is true is your own problem. As a Christian I do believe him, but I must ask is this the only way?
Yes and No.
In an effort to make some sense out of the web I’ve woven we must go back to our initial statement.
A. Mankind has sinned and is subject to eternal separation from God
B. Christ paid the price to redeem mankind from this hell
C. Whoever believes in and calls upon the name of the Lord receives Christ’s gift
D. Thereby allowing unholy sinners to be redeemed and sanctified so they can spend eternity with God in heaven and escape eternal damnation and separation from God.
As Christians we believe that ABD are linked absolutely. If ABD are separated then this is unorthodox belief. By the way, ABD are linked absolutely so untie that slip knot. Logically then, the link I want to reexamine is the C link.
The Protestant Church has assumed and loudly proclaims that the whole sequence ABCD is the only way. There are numerous scriptures that supports this (Romans 10:9-10) and I believe that it is the preferred manner of salvation (not that salvation is a focus group discovered solution). By preferred I mean preferred by God and Christ. That is why we (Christians) were given the great commission, equipped with the Holy Spirit and promised that He would never leave or forsake us.
But what about C?
I told my sixth graders when they were preparing their persuasive essays that no one cares what they think (we do, but it caries little weight since they have a limited life experience). So don’t tell me what you think. Find someone important that agrees with what you think and quote them. With that in mind I give you a brief passage from C.S. Lewis’s “The Last Battle.”
“But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine, but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service that thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me…”
Interesting. What CS Lewis was saying in his famous allegory is that people could come to God even if they never called upon the name of Aslan (Christ) as long as Aslan received (or propitiated) their actions as done toward Him. But don’t take my interpretation as gospel truth, ask the numerous writers who have pointed to this passage as proof that CS Lewis wasn’t a Christian.
And the Jolly Green Giant wasn’t a giant … and was really red.
So this new link (which I am labeling Y – Why? because I like it) could allow for someone to come to God and escape damnation if Jesus receives his/her actions as done toward Him.
Ironically, the scripture that would seemingly kill this idea in its tracks (Romans 10:9-10) actually support it. On another reading these verses (among many others) delineate the ABCD route, but they do NOT say the ABYD is errant.
Rather earlier in that same book Paul puts an impossible loop hole into his argument that eventually culminated in chapter 10, verses 9 and 10. In the second chapter Paul writes that “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves… their conscience accusing or excusing them.”
The next verse finds my sequence spelled out very clearly. So I submit the whole passage (Romans 3:23-26) for your persusal.
“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (A)
“Being justified freely by His grace through redemption that is in Christ Jesus:” (B)
“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare his righteousness for the remissions of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God (B & D)”
“To declare … that He [Christ] might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (C)
What could be a legitimate deduction and the crux of my argument is that while all that call on the name of Jesus are saved, Jesus can also appropriate this same salvation to those who have not called on His name. It is an option that HE has. Whether or not He will take it, I can’t say. Though His claims of being “just” causes me to think that He will and already has.
Finally I must recall an incident that has nagged me for years. In college a Catholic Priest came to one of my classes and shared with us regarding Catholic beliefs. One point that got many a good fundamentalists heated was when he said that he believed that God could send him to hell if HE decided to. As a Protestant the idea is incomprehensible that God could break His word. His point was that while God would PROBABLY not break His word, He COULD. Not to open up another battlefront, the point to me was made clear. God is bigger then we are, and His ways are higher than our ways.
Which brings me back to the many cults that I’ve witnessed to over the years. It seems the hardest thing for many people to fathom is that God is on one hand knowable (He’s provided us a rather bulky instruction manual) and on the other unknowable. Jehovah Witnesses believe that if it doesn’t make sense to them then it must be wrong, because “God wouldn’t want to confuse us.” On the other Muslims believe God is so great that despite all you do and read you can never know Him. The Truth is somewhere in between. He is knowable but it will take an eternity to fully know Him.
I see the happy median best summoned up in one word: Jesus. Utterly knowable (He became one of us) and Unknowable (by Him the universe is held together – talk to a physicist about what composes a quark and it’ll blow your mind).
So does my “new” idea illicit a papal bull calling for my immediate silencing? I don’t think so.
What is the relevance of this to real life? First it keeps us from assuming (and judging) people to hell, and gives us hope in Christ that He will be the justifier of the living and the dead and that He is love. It does also provide some uncomfortable questions, which I won’t get into now. But again I quote Lewis “an honest man wants the truth even if it is no earthly good, and will reject a lie even if it is provides much good.”
Please someone call me crazy or call me a heretic … just call me… or leave feedback, either way works for me. – Philip
Speak Your Mind