What is your notion of Christian exclusivity?

[Big Boy Johnson]

A couple of years ago, I aroused the ire of many on this board for speculating that the Parable of the Sheep and Goats MAY mean that Jesus MAY allow into His kingdom those who have shown compassion to those He considers to be His brothers and sisters

It's amazing how some folks read things in to scripture God never said, leading to false doctrine.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

[Wynona]

How do you make peace with the doctrine of exclusivity? Or perhaps it doesn't trouble you at all?

The righteous are scarcely saved and the way is narrow. All Christians aren't going either. Hell is God's way of honoring our free will. If we don't want to serve Him and be in loving co-union, than He won't force us. A lot of times I think people see heaven as the default that we are intrinsically owed by God. But most people would be fine living in heaven without God there, which is missing the point.

 

[marks]

The common understanding is that non-Christians are destined for eternity in hell. Is this your understanding - i.e., all Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, atheists and other non-Christians are destined for hell? Considering the widely different circumstances of people across the globe - the widely different odds of them ever hearing about Jesus in a meaningful way or turning to Him even if they do - I find this difficult if not impossible to believe.

Acts 17:26-27 KJV
26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27) That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

According to this passage, God picked out when and where we would all live so that we would seek Him, and find Him.

Much love!

 

[Lambano]

It's amazing how some folks read things in to scripture God never said, leading to false doctrine.

Nevertheless, Jesus DID say it (it's in Matthew 25:31-46 if you want to open your Bible), and if it doesn't fit the nice, neat, clean framework of systematic theology, that's the theologians' problem. Jesus is quite capable of re-birthing whomever He wants post-Resurrection (what is resurrection if not rebirth?), and if you don't think He should do that, YOU tell Him; I'm sure He'll give your opinion all due consideration.

 

[O'Darby]

It's amazing how some folks read things in to scripture God never said, leading to false doctrine.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

OK, and you have a particular interpretation of those verses - but it is by no means the only plausible interpretation. "One mediator" could be interpreted in any variety of ways. "Born again" does not inevitably mean what Fundamentalism 101 insists it means (assuming Jesus actually said everything attributed to Him in John, which is a considerable assumption).

There is almost no way to engage in a meaningful discussion with a Christian of your particular species because you immediately reosrt to proof-texting and accusations of "false doctrine" against anyone who has different views. If you encounter someone such as yourself, he responds with his own proof-texting and accusations, whereupon the illusory "discussion" quickly descends into what we typically see on forums such as this.

Had God wanted to be crystal clear, He obviously could have produced a very short Bible of pristine clarity that anyone with minimal mental faculties could not have misunderstood. This isn't what He did. He produced a complex document full of mystery, ambiguity and even apparent contradiction. I have to assume this was His intention. I have to assume He intended for us to think about, wrestle with, and discuss the issues raised by the mysteries, ambiguities and apparent contradictions. I assume this was His plan because the thinking, wrestling and discussing leads to stronger convictions and a deeper relationship with Him.

 

[Mr E]

There is almost no way to engage in a meaningful discussion with a Christian of your particular species because you immediately reosrt to proof-texting and accusations of "false doctrine" against anyone who has different views.

I’m going to have this printed on t-shirts.

 

[O'Darby]

I’m going to have this printed on t-shirts.

! And coffee mugs - don't overlook the revenue potential of coffee mugs and refrigerator magnets!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

"One mediator" could be interpreted in any variety of ways.

Nuff said.... apparently in your world words don't mean anything

Had God wanted to be crystal clear, He obviously could have produced a very short Bible of pristine clarity that anyone with minimal mental faculties could not have misunderstood.

That's what He did, but apparently you didn't make the cut

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

It's sad to hear that some believe Jesus is a failure...

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I’m going to have this printed on t-shirts.

Why? Because going by what God says in His Word... is not the thing to do?

 

[Episkopos]

Christian exclusivity is the core doctrine that only Christians will be saved. "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'" John 14:6, NKJV.

The common understanding is that non-Christians are destined for eternity in hell. Is this your understanding - i.e., all Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, atheists and other non-Christians are destined for hell? Considering the widely different circumstances of people across the globe - the widely different odds of them ever hearing about Jesus in a meaningful way or turning to Him even if they do - I find this difficult if not impossible to believe.

William Lane Craig has suggested that perhaps God has "arranged things" so that those He foreknew would turn to Christ are geographically located so they will hear and respond. A kid born into a Southern Baptist family in the Bible belt and a kid born into a low-caste Hindu family in New Delhi are where they are because God foreknew the former would respond to Jesus and the latter would not. Not very convincing, at least to me.

Calvinism has less of a problem with this issue, it seems to me. All humans are depraved and deserving of hell, God's predestined elect will be saved no matter where they are because this is what God has decreed, and those who aren't saved simply weren't among the elect. All fairly neat and tidy, although perhaps not much different from what Craig suggests.

Universalism has less problem as well. All will eventually be saved, even if it takes eons in hell before some of them turn to God. Exclusivity ultimately isn't exclusive at all!

Another approach that occurred to me is that perhaps "No one comes to the Father except through me" means something different from Christian exclusivity as commonly understood. Perhaps it means Jesus is the gatekeeper - He decides who is saved, but this could include Hindis, Buddhists or anyone else. I recall Billy Graham once causing a furor by suggesting there might be "secret Christians" who didn't even know they were.

After reading a large mountain of theology and apologetics over the decades, I really don't have a satisfactory answer. (Yes, I know, God's ways are not my ways and don't have to make sense to me.)

Some 54 years ago, when I was almost a newbie, the Campus Crusade staff member at our university asked me to fill in for him one night. A girl named Sherry asked, "Do we really think all Buddhists are going to hell?" I responded, "We have to believe and trust that God will deal with Buddhists in a way worthy of who we believe Him to be." I don't think I have a better answer now. Yes, it is kind of punting on the issue - chalking it up to a divine mystery - but I find this more satisfactory than pretending I really believe God is condemning vast swaths of humanity to eternal torment in hell. (Actually, I do the same with the doctrine of hell - whatever hell is, we will see how it is worthy of the God in whom we believe.)

(The next day, the staff member smilingly said "Hey, I don't know what you told Sherry, but it really helped her!" I told him what I'd told her. "Great answer!" he said. "Of course, they ARE all going to hell." I knew then that I probably wasn't Crusade staff material.)

How do you make peace with the doctrine of exclusivity? Or perhaps it doesn't trouble you at all?

Greetings O'Darby, welcome here! :)

People will generally take one aspect of the truth in order to cancel all others out. (That's how we get all the "isms' that champion one truth over another).

There is an aspect of exclusivity...in holiness. That's what the New Covenant is about...holiness. People are so obsessed with "getting saved" that they tend to miss the bigger picture.

No one ism is true to the core of it.

The Old Testament is about righteousness and faithfulness. The New Testament (as I've stated) is about holiness. From a holiness perspective a person is "dead" if they are not alive to God in eternal life. Unless a person walks in the light of Christ they are deemed to be in darkness.

What modern believers tend to do is be less merciful than God, and more easy with their own sins. This of course is hypocrisy...acting the same way the Pharisees did. And there is no excuse for that since God judges righteously....without respect for who it is that does what...no respect of persons just the fruit of it. Righteous is as righteous does.

Did Jesus say that only meek Christians will inherit the earth? Of course not. Meekness is a pre-requisite to inheriting the nations. And these are not God's servants...but merely benefactors of God's goodness. They are deemed as guests at the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Then there are the saints. This destiny is indeed exclusive...to those who forsake all for Christ. The saints will dwell with God forever. Without holiness none will be even able to see the Lord. God is holy. But not just the holy are saved. No, the saints will rule over the nations of them that are saved. The nations will be filled with the righteous, the meek, the poor and needy. This is a universalist ASPECT of mankind's destiny. The wicked will perish in the lake of fire...the second death. And the hypocrites will wander forever in outer darkness.

For any more detail, if you are interested, I have a podcast and a book. :) I attach a sample below...

Peace and blessings. :)

 

[O'Darby]

Greetings O'Darby, welcome here! :)

People will generally take one aspect of the truth in order to cancel all others out. (That's how we get all the "isms' that champion one truth over another).

There is an aspect of exclusivity...in holiness. That's what the New Covenant is about...holiness. People are so obsessed with "getting saved" that they tend to miss the bigger picture.

No one ism is true to the core of it.

The Old Testament is about righteousness and faithfulness. The New Testament (as I've stated) is about holiness. From a holiness perspective a person is "dead" if they are not alive to God in eternal life. Unless a person walks in the light of Christ they are deemed to be in darkness.

What modern believers tend to do is be less merciful than God, and more easy with their own sins. This of course is hypocrisy...acting the same way the Pharisees did. And there is no excuse for that since God judges righteously....without respect for who it is that does what...no respect of persons just the fruit of it. Righteous is as righteous does.

Did Jesus say that only meek Christians will inherit the earth? Of course not. Meekness is a pre-requisite to inheriting the nations. And these are not God's servants...but merely benefactors of God's goodness. They are deemed as guests at the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Then there are the saints. This destiny is indeed exclusive...to those who forsake all for Christ. The saints will dwell with God forever. Without holiness none will be even able to see the Lord. God is holy. But not just the holy are saved. No, the saints will rule over the nations of them that are saved. The nations will be filled with the righteous, the meek, the poor and needy. This is a universalist ASPECT of mankind's destiny. The wicked will perish in the lake of fire...the second death. And the hypocrites will wander forever in outer darkness.

For any more detail, if you are interested, I have a podcast and a book. :) I attach a sample below...

Peace and blessings. :)

Excellent! I haven't watched the video yet, but I really like what you've said. I'm heartened that I didn't get a bunch of hardline, black-or-white, take-it-or-leave-it responses.

 

[O'Darby]

View attachment 42053

Nuff said.... apparently in your world words don't mean anything




That's what He did, but apparently you didn't make the cut View attachment 42055

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

It's sad to hear that some believe Jesus is a failure... View attachment 42057

You might consider the possibility that your posts say more about you than about those you think you are one-upping.

Typical of those whose Christianity is of the cocksure, knee-jerk "I'm right and you just don't get it" variety, you miss the point and beg the question.

Nothing in my posts suggests that Christian exclusivity is a false teaching. The questions are "What does this mean?" and "How might it work?" I was attempting to explore others' views on exclusivity.

Yes, there is one mediator between God and man ("the man Christ Jesus," which is itself a bit of an odd way of putting it). On behalf of whom does He mediate - only your brand of True Christians, or perhaps a far broader scope of people? What does it mean to say He is the mediator? For those at the level of Vacation Bible School, the answers may seem obvious. At the highest levels of Christian scholarship and thinking, they are not so obvious.

I do not demean your understanding of Christianity, as you seem compelled to do to me and all those who have differing views. As I stated in my "Stages of Faith" thread, perfectly good and faithful Christians can and do exist at all levels from the most superficial to the most deep and enlightened. Proof-texting, snide one-liners and snotty emojis are not typically the hallmark of deep and enlightened thinking.

Yeah, OK, whatever.

 

[O'Darby]

@Episkopos, I did indeed watch the entire video and found it deep and penetrating. Thanks much! I will peruse many of your others as time allows. You have a different approach that I found wise and very helpful.

 

[Gottservant]

There are conversions that are not lawful to utter in Hell, because they only add torment to those whose sin takes them there.

There are failures to convert that are lawful to utter in Heaven, because God still separates the wheat from the chaff, even after you reach that place.

The difference, remains the Lord - you don't need to believe in the Door, to see that its shut, but the chances that you will have faith despite being disappointed that its shut, depends on how much Spirit the difference gives you.

In other words, many will be in Heaven with an easier way out, and their soul will learn to be at peace, no matter how they may have chosen against it, had they had their life on Earth again.

This is the power of the Resurrection!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

You might consider the possibility that your posts say more about you than about those you think you are one-upping.

You're the one that does not know what words mean by saying "One mediator" could be interpreted in any variety of ways"!

That was pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[O'Darby]

You're the one that does not know what words meanView attachment 42129 by saying "One mediator" could be interpreted in any variety of ways"!

That was pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh! View attachment 42130

OK, tell us, self-appointed Big Boy: What, precisely, is a "mediator" between God and man? What, precisely, does "mediation"involve in your theology? On behalf of whom, precisely, does Jesus mediate in your theology? You think these are simple, even comical, questions? Are you capable of answering them in your own words, or must you resort to yet more proof-texting? Sure, all questions have simple answers in Vacation Bible School. In mature Christian thinking, not so much.

 

[O'Darby]

I will add this FWIW:

Increasingly, I've had an intuition (for which I claim nothing like divine inspiration) that there is something fundamentally off-kilter with Christian thinking. Not Orthodox thinking, Catholic thinking or Protestant thinking - but Christian thinking at the most basic, 30,000-foot level. I have no specifics, just an intuition that we are all off-kilter - by how much, I don't know - in our thinking about who Jesus is, what His message was, and what He hoped to achieve. I have an uneasy sense that He is watching Christianity unfold and saying "How could it have turned into THIS?"

My intution is that the off-kilterness (is that a word?) is in the area of exclusivity. This doesn't mean I'm a Universalist or anything like one. I don't try to put meat on the bones of my intution - at least I haven't so far. I just have a strong sense that what Jesus was talking about and hoped to achieve (and eventually will achieve, of course) was fundamentally different from the way Christianity has unfolded. I don't just mean the entrenched, corporate, all-too-human institution that Christianity, Inc., has become, but rather the most basic understanding of Jesus and His message. This was why I appreciated @Episkopos' video - he is thinking in a fresh direction that seems to me to address some of my concerns.

 

[Episkopos]

I will add this FWIW:

Increasingly, I've had an intuition (for which I claim nothing like divine inspiration) that there is something fundamentally off-kilter with Christian thinking. Not Orthodox thinking, Catholic thinking or Protestant thinking - but Christian thinking at the most basic, 30,000-foot level. I have no specifics, just an intuition that we are all off-kilter - by how much, I don't know - in our thinking about who Jesus is, what His message was, and what He hoped to achieve. I have an uneasy sense that He is watching Christianity unfold and saying "How could it have turned into THIS?"

My intution is that the off-kilterness (is that a word?) is in the area of exclusivity. This doesn't mean I'm a Universalist or anything like one. I don't try to put meat on the bones of my intution - at least I haven't so far. I just have a strong sense that what Jesus was talking about and hoped to achieve (and eventually will achieve, of course) was fundamentally different from the way Christianity has unfolded. I don't just mean the entrenched, corporate, all-too-human institution that Christianity, Inc., has become, but rather the most basic understanding of Jesus and His message. This was why I appreciated @Episkopos' video - he is thinking in a fresh direction that seems to me to address some of my concerns.

Hey...I suppose the ancient paths can appear to be fresh in a renewed way. The truth is dynamic...and cannot be boiled down to a creed like a box to be checked off.

The holy walk was there in the garden of Eden. Adam before the fall. And the righteous walk began with Abel. But the ancient paths have never been acceptable to men. These prefer a sort of hybrid... with the maximum reward of holiness for the minimum requirement in righteousness. Neither standard is met in this way.

“Thus says the LORD, Stand in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” Jer. 6:16

 

[Lizbeth]

Nevertheless, Jesus DID say it (it's in Matthew 25:31-46 if you want to open your Bible), and if it doesn't fit the nice, neat, clean framework of systematic theology, that's the theologians' problem. Jesus is quite capable of re-birthing whomever He wants post-Resurrection (resurrection and rebirth?), and if you don't think He should do that, YOU tell Him; I'm sure He'll give your opinion all due consideration.

No, I'm sorry but that parable is talking entirely about His flock....shepherds often used to keep their sheep and goats together and herd them together. It's much the same message as the wheat and tares parable....they will be separated out in the end, those in His field or flock who were truly serving God, doing His will, and those who weren't.

 

[O'Darby]

No, I'm sorry but that parable is talking entirely about His flock....shepherds often used to keep their sheep and goats together and herd them together. It's much the same message as the wheat and tares parable....they will be separated out in the end, those in His field or flock who were truly serving God, doing His will, and those who weren't.

But the issue is, "Who is in the flock?" I believe this is @Lambano's point - verses such as these suggest the flock may be less easily defined than many Christians believe. We all have our own notions as to who should be in the flock - US AND PEOPLE LIKE US, OF COURSE!!! - but we may be in for a surprise.