I gave a presentation on Athanasius of Alexandria today. Afterward my professor followed with a lecture which he ended by asking whether or not the class thought (1) Athanasius thought Eusebius and his fellow Arians were lost and (2) whether or not we thought Eusebius and his followers were lost. While it seems very evident that Athanasius doubted the salvation of the Arians, especially since he understood their concept of Christ as created being as necessitating idolatry, it was not as evident among my peers and I.
To make matters a bit more complex the question was asked if there was a differance between Eusebius and other Arian teachers and, for example, newly converted Arian Christians among the Goths who did not know about the controversies taking place amongst the Nicene and Arian parties. Did their ignorance excuse heresy?
Equally, if heresy prevents salvation how does this fit into the concept of salvation by grace through faith in Christ? How much “knowledge” does someone have to obtain for their faith to be in the real Christ and therefore legitimate.
For those who may think this is a battle of later, institionalized Christianity do remember that the Apostle Paul, Jude, and the author of 1 John all spend time addressing the seemingly salvific connotations of orthodoxy. With that being said I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts since we will be resuming this discussion in two weeks when our class regathers.
the archives near Emmaus 
Interesting. I was just speaking of this with someone recently.
I hold that we can be heretical in almost all things so long as we believe this:
John 3:16
Now, the details and implications of that statement could fill books.
But I think to be saved, we need to believe that. If we don’t know the Bible, but believe that, we are saved. If we DO know the Bible but are wrong about that, we are NOT saved. If we believe that and know the Bible but have most doctrines wrong, we are still saved.
I suppose one should ask when is a heresy “damnable” (Acts 20:30)?
The culmination of false teaching in the Bible is a denial that they are purchased with Christ’s blood (2 John 7).
2 Pet 1 is pretty heavy toward heresy and false teachers. Then there is the rough treatment of false teachers in 1 Tim 1:7-11. Rom 16:17-18, 2 Cor 11:13-15,
In Matthew 7:16 Jesus says, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” It’s not what they say but what you see in their lives that matters. A false teacher cannot produce good fruit because evil cannot produce good (v. 17). Which is evil, the teacher or the doctrine? Both?
WB,
So what is the essential value of orthodoxy? In the context that I presented, for instance, did Athanasius and Eusebius waste their time fighting over non-essentials?
@Anon,
Do you see Arianism as one of these heresies? They understood Christ to be the saviour. Does Christology matter?
Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice . . . . I always loved this about you, B. Never afraid to raise the questions. I wasnt there so i am not sure how the line of thinking went. And more than likely i am missing the whole point and talking about gutters while others are talking about grapes, but here goes . . .
Let’s suppose then that a Buddhist believes in Buddha (has faith) and thinks of this Buddha as a Christ. Would this count for faith and grace, so long as it was real faith? And so long as God was gracious enough (real grace) to work through Buddha’s name? How much knowledge is really necessary? If he believes that Buddha and Jesus are the same thing just different cultural expressions . . . . Or lets just say that someone believes that Jesus is a good prophet, a really good prophet, better than other prophets kind of good. And that God used him as a really good prophet to bring about good in the world through his teachings. But that the resurrection really didnt happen, it was more myth. And that God kind of used Jesus like he used Elijah and Muhammad but that God was not in Jesus and Jesus was not God. But, let say this person really believes in Jesus as a historical person, just doesnt buy into the whole resurrection gash. Wouldn’t this person’s faith mingled with a gracious God bring about salvation? By the way, what really is salvation? Salvation in a evangelical notion and sense? Or in a more or less here and now?
Which brings up another question. If this were true is orthodoxy really orthodox? John and Jude and Peter and Paul spend a great deal of time correcting false notions and theologies for some reason. What would that reason be? If of course it doesn’t matter from a salvific point, does it matter from a redemptive point? What’s the point of theology? Did the class argue that it didnt matter from a soteriological perspective but more or less from a perspective of just trying to get it right. I bet if we keep going down this road we could think ourselves right out of seminary 🙂
I wonder if faith is legitimized by the object within which it sinks itself and the depth to which that faith is willing to plummet? If the object of one’s faith is self, doesn’t that mean the faith’s integrity is proportional to the object within which its lodged? That the strength of one’s faith is not one’s faith, but one’s object. And if that being the case, wouldn’t it be necessary, in order to have a full orbed faith, to have a full-orbed view of the resurrected Jesus? And the Jesus who, was the Logos, en-fleshed?
Then again, maybe our faith really does depend on us, in which case I am screwed. I have been thinking that it was the object of my faith that saved me and not my faith.
Great question. Love ya man.
Brian,
No, I do not think they wasted their time. I spend a lot of time teaching truth from scripture. I work to disabuse people of false conceptions concerning God
I think the truth of who God is, what God has said and done and will do, and what God wants from us and for us, is important. These things help us know what God wants from us and for us. That helps us know what to do and not do. This helps us become who God wants us to become. These thing help us to not try to replace faith in Christ with anything else.
Even so, I think we can have bad doctrine but be saved.
Someone once said that all heresy is Christological. I tend to agree given the inseparable link between Christ & salvation and the fact that every heresy I can think of concerns Christ & salvation. But I tend to tell folks to forget about what people don’t believe and look at what they do believe. In other words, never mind that someone doesn’t believe in the Trinity. What is the articulation of the God they do believe in? I’d contend that a Modalist, Arian, Socinian, etc. god can’t save because (1) it’s not the God that Scripture testifies about, and (2) the Christ connected with this god is not the Christ that died to save sinners.
I’ve been attending my thesis advisor’s class on John epistles and gospel. We’ve been talking about the antichrists and docetists of 1 John. He raised the question about what these heretical groups thought of themselves. For instance, they probably thought they had a higher Christology – that their form of Christology was closer to the truth (or maybe even the truth) – than the orthodox. They probably wondered why they were being condemned when they believed that they loved the same Jesus as the orthodox. It really made me think about the heretics’ viewpoint. The same we-believe-that-we’re-correct view was probably true of both sides in the Athanasius-Arian debate.
My own thoughts on this is that orthodoxy is a matter of faith. I believe that the Spirit was at work in the councils. But the fact that there is belief that the Holy Spirit was involved in the formation of orthodoxy automatically, in my mind, turns orthodoxy into a faith issue. And while I will try to reason it out until I feel it can be reasoned out no longer, I am comfortable with the element of faith needed in holding that Scripture is true and that orthodox Christology is the right way.
WB,
I agree we can have bad doctrine and be saved. I just have this suspicion that although the essence of salvation is grace through faith that faith is qualified by its object. Therefore, faith in a conceptual Christ who is not the historical Christ of the Christian faith (I do not differentiate between the Christ of faith and the Christ of history) is to have faith in a Christ of another gospel.
I see your point about the orthopraxical connotations to orthodoxy being a good reason to have right teaching, but it seems that the biblical authors understood orthodoxy to have a function greater than just making one a better Christian who knew God better.
Jeff,
It is great to have you comment here! The class was not willing to let Arius off the hook. It seemed that most people agreed with where you were going here that orthodoxy had to have some salvific impact. Nevertheless, while the question of can heresy be salvific seemed agreed upon there were several who were not sure when it became salvific.
So with Athanasius and Arius we asked does our perspective sixteen hundred years later hold us more accountable than Arius who was part of a time when people were wrestling with aspects of Christology and theology that had not been “officially” settled. So was Arius wrong, but saved, yet people who believe now what he believed then are more accountable and hence lost?
So I agree that faith is dependent upon the object. I guess the question is more about how much “knowledge” must we have of the object for it to be legitimate.
Nick,
This seems to be the approach that makes the most logical sense. For instance, whether a Calvinist or an Arminian is wrong or right really doesn’t change that both parties see Jesus as the Son of God and the source of their salvation. On the other hand a Jehovah’s Witness sees Jesus as someone who, like the Arians, is essentially a created being beneath God and therefore it is not God who is saving us but a mediator, which does not bode well with the testimony of Scripture.
Honestly, the “personal” matter involved here for me is the ironic situation of converting from a Oneness Pentecostal to a Trinitarian. When I was moving back toward what I believe to be right belief I had friends and family who began to question my salvation. The awkward thing now is that I have to try to reconcile their beliefs, which are not fully modalist but surely going that direction, with the essential confession of creeds that depict the Triune God as something other than Oneness theologians, especially the more modalistic kind.
Let me press you on this one. Does orthodox Christology depend upon orthodox theology proper. For instance, can you have a right Christology if your theology is Arian, or Sabellian, or Nestorian.
Furthermore, can you be saved at one point with wrong beliefs but then “lose” that salvation if you have realized your error, or better put, have had your error pointed out, but you refuse to change your views?
Brian: Excuse my not using the threaded comments but I really do hate them! The interesting thing to me is that I don’t really consider Oneness doctrine as being Modalist so much as I consider it being Nestorian (at least as far as Christ is concerned). Modalism make a great deal more sense to me than what Oneness Pentecostals believe. But I digress…
I’m somewhat familiar with the struggle you’re talking about although not as a convert from Oneness to Trinitarianism. There was a period of about a year where I went back and forth with friends (a husband & wife) over the issues of heresy and orthodoxy in relation to salvation because their grandmother attends a Oneness church and they had fellowshipped there a number of times and saw no problems with it. I told the wife and her grandmother years ago that the church was Oneness when I heard about the baptismal practices but they didn’t know for sure. Anyway, to make a long story short, after prayer and fasting and continued study my friend and his wife saw the error of Oneness doctrine and the truth of Trinitarianism (thank God!).
They’re still not quite ready to question the salvation of all Oneness believers (for the record, neither am I, but I see a difference in believing in the Gospel [i.e., that the Son became incarnate, was crucified, and resurrected for us and our salvation] and attending a Oneness church never knowing what they believe, and actively knowing what they believe and embracing it as truth while refusing to receive correction when it’s offered. Hardly anyone accepts the truth of the Gospel initially with an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity (although I’d argue that the Gospel itself is Trinitarian through and through), but through study and growth we should all readily accept the truth once it’s presented to us.
“I’d contend that a Modalist, Arian, Socinian, etc. god can’t save because (1) it’s not the God that Scripture testifies about, and (2) the Christ connected with this god is not the Christ that died to save sinners.”
I couldn’t emphatically disagree stronger. To exhalt 2nd, 3rd and 4th Century councils above the simple profession that Jesus is God, come in flesh, the Son of God, is a mistake. To say a Modalist, for example, does not believe that Jesus is God in flesh, the Son of God, is to misunderstand their position. They neither deny the triune nature of the Godhead, though provide a different explanation of the mystery. In contrast, if one’s profession does not accept the hypostatic union, and that Jesus is God, they cannot be saved.
While heresy is Christological, it is not a blanket endorsement of orthodoxy which has been far from perfect. Sola Scriptura.
The Doctrine of the Trinity, even in orthodoxy, has changed and evolved. The founder of the term “Trinitas” himself (Tertullian) was later denounced over the issue of Christology. The term “persona” later became controversial as to what was intended. Instead of calling Oneness brothers as those who believe in damnable doctrine, I prefer to see them just as you — someone attempting to explain, by the Word of God, the mysterium of His eternal godhead. The minimum NT standard is to confess that He is LORD.
Brian asked: “For instance, can you have a right Christology if your theology is Arian, or Sabellian, or Nestorian?”
Yes.
How deep do you assume one’s theology is as they are coming to Christ?
When the drug addict that has a 6th grade education comes to your church and they confess Christ, must they agree with the Nicean Creed to be accepted by God!?
We are not saved by our belief or our belief system or orthodoxy; we are saved by grace, faith given to us by a faithful God. God has achieved salvation, it is not for us to earn, through our right thoughts or good actions, but by receiving.
Also, against much of what I see in Christianity, I do not divorce right thinking from right action, orthodoxy from orthopraxis. They are mutually equal. But neither save us; that belongs to the grace of God. God is capable of saving the heretic just as much as God is capable of saving the legalist who thinks his or her orthodoxy is better than others. To suggest otherwise is to participate in the worst forms of religiosity that Jesus opposed in his day.
Anonymous: Do you have a real name I can address you by?
Funnily enough, I said (which you quoted) that such conceptions of God are not the God that Scripture testifies about. Modalist, Arian, Socinian, Docetist, etc. articulations of God are simply wrong according to Scripture. To use the term “triune” in reference to what Modalism espouses is a gross example of redefinition. But more to the point, that the Son is not the same Person as the Father or the Holy Spirit is evident in Scripture. Modalistic Christology is insufficient on this point alone. That “the Son” is not simply the “human nature of Jesus” and “the Father” is not simply the “divine nature of Jesus” is also evident in Scripture. Oneness Christology is insufficient on this point alone. That the Son is not a distinct and lesser god than the Father as well as a created being is evident in Scripture. Arian Christology fails on these grounds. That Jesus is not a mere human is evident in Scripture. Socinian Christology fails on this point. That Jesus is truly human and didn’t just “seem” to be human is evident in Scripture. Docetic Christology fails on this point. I could continue and discuss the points in which Nestorian and Appollinarian Christologies fail according to Scripture but I think you get my point. Ecumenical councils certainly recognized this and I stand in line with their judgments, but they’re judgments based on the tradition received in both Scripture and the testimony of believers from the beginning of the Church’s existence.
Rod: Framing the debate in the way you have is to miss the point. No one is saying that God is incapable of saving a heretic. Of course he’s capable! Heretics and can repent of their heresy and believe the truth like anyone else can repent of their sin and believe the truth. The question is not can a heretic be saved, but rather is a heretic saved by believing in their heresy?
To suggest that orthodoxy is not better than unorthodoxy is ridiculous. Of course it’s better! Right is better than wrong although you seem to view it in terms of right & left (i.e., two sides of the same coin or some other such analogy) rather than right & wrong (i.e., two diametrically opposed options that are mutually exclusive). Might I ask if you’re a universalist or a pluralist? I’d also ask how sure you are about what Jesus would have opposed. It’s not like he called Israel to repent and return to Molech, Dagon, Ashtoreth, or Milcom. There’s something to be said of right belief and proper objects of faith.
Nick,
To accuse me quite wrongfully of being a pluralist or universalist is just plain ridiculous! I do not understand why the like of you or Jim West keep accusing me of holding theologically liberal positions just because I ask questions or problematize what seems to be orthodox. That is just ridiculous. I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, son of God and son of Joseph and Mary; I believe in hell, not annihilationism, I believe that faith in Christ is the one true religion. In fact, this week, the pastor of the church I work at, who considers himself evangelical gave me an article from a conservative professor arguing that Muslims and Christians believe in the same god, but do not worship the same god. Suffice to say, I disagreed, especially with my reading of Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans, who talks about the one God being the God of the Resurrection, against all other NO-Gods.
NO I AM NOT A UNIVERSALIST OR A PLURALIST. NO MORE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, PLEASE. THANK. K, APPRECIATE IT.
Now, as far as I am concerned framing the debate, what I am trying to say is this: yes, there is orthodoxy. yes, there is orthopraxis. Yes, there is wrong doctrine, and wrong practice. I am saying this: orthodoxy is not salvific. What saves us is God’s salvation, God freely giving us his Son, and giving us the free will to accept and confess with our mouths that Jesus rose from the grave. Outside of that God, THE GOD of the Resurrection, as Barth argues, there is no God. The resurrection saves, not our belief in the resurrection or our christology. A heretic can still receive grace, affirm the bodily resurrection, and be saved, so to speak. However, to align ourselves with a body of thinking considered orthodox, and mistake it for salvation is nonsense. There are good Orthodox folks, and I mean that with a capital O who believe that charismatics and pentecostals are heretics; check Seraphim Rose, whose work broke barriers in the USSR in the 1970s. What is heresy and orthodoxy is judged by human standard, but the standard that God has raised up, is the Risen Lord, the Resurrected Messiah. Resurrection knowledge is a gift from God, and therefore salvific. For me, orthodoxy (right thinking) and orthopraxis (right doing) comes as a gift from God, the Holy Spirit, since God does give us a new mind and a new heart, and in the future, a new resurrected body.
Belief systems, orthodox and heretical, do not save; only the Resurrection does.
Anything outside of that is unbiblical.
Nick said:
But more to the point, that the Son is not the same Person as the Father or the Holy Spirit is evident in Scripture. Modalistic Christology is insufficient on this point alone. That “the Son” is not simply the “human nature of Jesus” and “the Father” is not simply the “divine nature of Jesus” is also evident in Scripture. Oneness Christology is insufficient on this point alone.
To say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is certainly extra-biblical. You can theorize your way around that, but at the moment of adding conclusions, we are humanly trying to describe the hypostatic union. There is a struggle with Oneness and Trinity to explain how God is one in the midst of this triune demonstration (saying the word “Triune” certainly doesn’t do anything more than support one’s expression of three-ness, which many a Oneness believer will admit to). The distinction is in how we understand how God in flesh, is separately God but also one in the same. You can theorize that until your head falls off, but that doesn’t add up. We can waive our magic wands of faith and use million-dollar words, but it doesn’t add up. Neither does it add up that Jesus was fully God and fully man. It’s hard to conceive of. How can one person being 100% of both? So we set out to explain what Jesus never did. He explained His oneness with the Father, but never went beyond that. His audience was Jews, those who were strictly monotheistic, and who know nothing of a Trinity. It’s all the same story, not a new one.
Just to stick with the Oneness view — it neither belittles the person of Christ, nor denies Him as Divine. The NT confession had nothing to do with professing a creed, but professing Jesus as God come in flesh. Though we go so deep under the water (theologically speaking) until we lose our brain cells (and that’s fun), the simplicity of it is… well simple. I don’t wish to be pugnacious, but to say that the tradition of the councils are “the same as the Apostles” is a stretch and leap I can’t take with you. There were many doctrines in the 3rd Century that I don’t think even you would agree with.
You can call me Doug.
I labored over a response to you and it seems they disappeared or the computer never submitted.
I’ll have to get back to you another time.
The creedal language to describe the Trinity is certainly a “next step” of the Church trying to grapple with the hypostatic union, the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit, etc… To suggest is is verbatim from the Apostles and “scripture” is stretching it — and stretching it tight.
@Anon,
I think this is a fair perspective, but I would clarify that the Trinitarian confession avoids the mistakes of the Oneness or Modalist confession. While the Trinitarian confession does not capture God (who or what can?) it does avoid important errors.
@Anon,
I don’t think Nick is exhalting councils above Scripture. I think he saying that Scripture needs to be interpreted and that the councils provide that right interpretation because anyone can use biblical language in an unbiblical way.
I think this is a correct summary of the function of the creeds. It provides guidelines for biblical interpretation that avoid saying things, using biblical wording, that is not biblical at all. Equally, the Christological aspects are what make this whole discussion very important, even tense.
I understand the desire to put a right Christology as part of the requirement for salvation, but I have to bring it back to what Christ said. If we believe what Christ said we need to believe, then we are saved.
He did not say we have to understand who Christ is. He did not say we have to understand who God is. Yes, we have to understand God exists. We have to understand God sent His Son so we may have eternal life. Once we have faith, other things occur. But trusting that God sent His Son (Christ) is the requirement.
None of us have a complete and accurate understanding of John 3:16. We cannot truly understand God. We can not truly understand the idea of a being who is 100% God and 100% man. We can not understand the details of a virgin birth – only what Scripture tells us. We can not understand the details of the resurrection – only what Scripture tells us.
I bring it back to what Christ said, because what is more important, our understanding of He who saves, or He who saves? If we place our faith in Christ, but do not understand everything about Him, then are we saved?
Read Paul’s evangelism in Acts 17:16-34. He lays out something of who God is (creator), something of what God has done (created us all), something of why (so we would find God), what God is NOT (an idol made by humans), and something of what God has done (demands we repent from ignorance and believe in the true God and He set a day where he will judge the world by the man he has appointed, and resurrected).
What is the Christology there? God appointed a man to judge in the future and resurrected him.
Yet, we see in Acts 17:34 that some became followers and believed.
So according to that passage, what is your understanding of what we need to do to be saved?
Rod: I’d ask you to reread my comment. I haven’t accused you of anything; I asked you if by chance you were a universalist or a pluralist. I have to imagine that you can see how your comment could have been read in such a way and the truth is that I don’t know enough about you to know what exactly your beliefs are.
Now, to your comment, I’m not sure that saying “The resurrection saves, not our belief in the resurrection or our christology,” and “Belief systems, orthodox and heretical, do not save; only the Resurrection does” is very helpful because it doesn’t really say how or why the Resurrection saves. I think it’s also a broad enough statement that one could read it and see universalism in it. Now you say you’re not a universalist and I believe you, but I wonder how exactly that is when I read you saying that Resurrection saves regardless of belief in the Resurrection. In other words, if the act itself is salvific and belief in the act is not necessary to receive the salvific benefit of the act itself, then how are not all people (whom Christ died for [1John 2:2]) saved?
But then I read “What saves us is God’s salvation, God freely giving us his Son, and giving us the free will to accept and confess with our mouths that Jesus rose from the grave,” and wonder if you really believe that the Resurrection in and of itself saves regardless of belief in the Resurrection. I say this because it seems that you also believe that by the free will given to us by God (a concept I fully agree with and think is thoroughly biblical) we have to accept and confess the Resurrection. Is there a functional or substantial difference between believing and accepting/confessing?
Also, just to add my personal perspective, I don’t think that the Resurrection in an of itself saves. I think that the triune God saves by means of the Incarnation, sacrificial death, and bodily Resurrection of the Son. And I believe that a belief/acceptance of/confession of this God and what he has done for us is what is necessary for salvation. In other words, I don’t see salvation outside of the triune God (and from your last comment I don’t believe that you do either). My contention though is that these heretical theologies/christologies take faith away from the triune God in whom our faith must be placed and put it in another, an idol for all intents and purposes. It takes faith away from the specific acts of the triune God by attributing those acts to another, an idol if you will. Arianism holds to resurrection, sure, but it’s the resurrection of a creature, even if a highly exalted creature. Along with Athanasius I have to reason that a creature, no matter how exalted, can’t save because all creation is in need of redemption. I find similar problems with all unorthodox theologies/christologies but the main problem is with the object of faith. I believe that if faith is knowingly placed in an improper object then that is a faith that will not save.
Thanks for the push back. I think it is possible to have proper Christology while having misguided theology, and vice versa. For example, Sabellius would have believed in the full humanity and deity of Christ, despite problems with his theology proper. I venture to say that Nestorius also believed in the full deity and humanity of Christ but with Christological error and orthodox theology proper. And perhaps Arius did have close-to-proper Christology, believing that Christ was fully divine (although he did not mean God) and fully human (I’m only guessing at his understanding of Christ’s humanity; you would probably know). I don’t see these heresies as being strictly on the level of theology proper. But there is some area where both influence each other, though I don’t see that either is completely dependent upon each other.
Your second question is a great question: to that, I would simply say that I don’t know. I believe without reservation that Scripture is true and that doctrine founded from Scripture is also true (in this case, orthodox theology proper and orthodox Christology). At the same time, it’s a matter of faith in God that these are true. Do I know with absolute 1,000% conviction and certainty (or even 100% for that matter) that any given Oneness Pentecostal or a Jehovah’s Witness isn’t saved? I don’t. All I can do is trust in God that what I have is truth, that I am saved because of my response to Him who gave that truth, that I live out the implications of this truth in my life, and that I proclaim it to others just as the sower sows the seed. As you can see, I’m still wrestling with this question.
Doug: Thanks, I feel much better being able to address you by your name. I’m having a little trouble in understanding the first sentence of your reply. I think maybe you left a word out or something that might make it clearer. As I understand the main thrust of your comment you’re basically saying that the hypostatic union or the unity/diversity in God is a mystery and none of us will ever understand it fully so regardless of how we articulate it we’re all okay and at the end of the day we’re all brothers in Christ; please correct me if I’m wrong.
If my understanding is correct I’ll simply say that I disagree. Trinitarians and Oneness believers have certain things in common like a belief in the full deity of Jesus and the full humanity of Jesus, yes. We both believe that Jesus is one Person, yes. But when we unpack this stuff we see just how drastically different these seeming commonalities are. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is one person: the Son. We believe that he’s the Son in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit and that he’s been such from all eternity. We believe that from the time of the Incarnation he has possessed two natures fully: deity & humanity. I believe that this understanding of Jesus is supported by Scripture. Oneness believers believe that Jesus is one person with two natures as well, but they see these two natures as the Father/deity and the Son/humanity. The Son has not been the Son from all eternity but became the Son in the Incarnation with the addition of humanity. The Son is the Son in relation to the Father but this relation is neither personal since the Father and the Son are the selfsame person, i.e., Jesus, nor is it eternal since the Son only became the Son in the Incarnation. This is an understanding of Jesus that I don’t believe is supported by Scripture.
It seems to me that the most fruitful way to go about discussing/debating our differences is to focus on the issue of the eternality of the Son as Son. I won’t venture to have that debate/discussion in the comments to this post on Brian’s blog but hopefully at some point in the future we can go over it.
God bless.
Brian,
Isn’t “heresy” damnable by definition? One can believe in error and still be saved, but if they hold to a heresy, they are damned. The real question, then, is what beliefs rise to the level that their denial entails a heresy? What beliefs, that if not believed, will prevent someone from experiencing salvation? That is a tricky question. Some are prepared to include nearly every theological truth in this category, while others seem unprepared to include any.
I can’t prove this, and there may be exceptions, but I think a good test for determining what must be believed to be saved is to examine the beliefs of those who experience salvation when they experienced salvation. So, for example, when they were saved, did they think of God as one person, or did they think of God as three persons? Did they think of Jesus as God existing in human form, or as God and a man co-existing together? If we have examples of people being saved with opposing beliefs on these matters, then these issues cannot be ones that prevent someone from being saved (granted, we can ask whether one will stay saved once they come to know the truth and reject it, but that opens up another can of worms!). These might be important theological truths that need to be taught, but they are not so important that a lack of belief in them will prevent someone from experiencing salvation.
I used to be of the opinion that Nestorianism was a heresy. I have since changed my mind. I have demoted it to an “error,” albeit an important error. One could conceive of Christ in Nestorian terms and still be saved. Granted, their understanding of Christ would be deficient, but it would not prohibit them from experiencing eternal life. After all, what is their problem? They affirm the full deity and humanity of Christ. They simply reconcile the two ideas in an inferior way. Are there grave theological implications to their formulation? Sure, but is God going to bar them from heaven for that? I doubt it. Indeed, if our entrance into heaven is based on fine points of theological understanding like this, we’re all damned!!!
Jason
Nick,
Perhaps we are mis-reading each other; but I assure you, there is no hint of pluralism or universalism in my former answer. You mis-translated it as such, and I posted my position on universalism on my blog just to clarify. Hopefully the mistake will not happen again.
Of course, the Incarnation, the life and ministry of Christ, as well as the Cross all save; I would not deny either of those.
I think the word we should be looking at is the greek term pistuo, I believe, and its forms. What I am saying is that it is not believing a proposition, established by a council, but belief IN God, trusting in, receiving the God of the Resurrection.
A person can originally have received and accepted the Son, but then fallen away. That is all I am saying. They are saved but they are thinking in error. Also, I am working on a different view of knowledge/power than you, so I shall digress.
Truth and Peace,
Rod
Jason, well said. On your blog, you seem to be an ardent Oneness believer. Maybe you can help address Nick’s comments that he stated to Doug. He obviously feels Oneness is erroneous enough to be a matter of salvation. What say you?
Nick, based on your recent response, how do you respond to Jeff’s post? What is the minimum confession?
Actually, heresy is just something that is in disagreement with what is considered orthodox.
What makes people think the orthodox ones are actually correct? Their own reasoning. We each hope we are led by the Holy Spirit, but then so do the unorthodox folks.
I think my response to something Brian wrote in the threaded posts was lost. So I’m going to reword it here.
Read Paul’s evangelism in Acts 17:16-34. What’s the bare minimum according to that for people to believe and become followers?
I see Paul saying that God exists, God created everything, God is Lord, God gives life, God made men, God wants us to seek Him, God wants us to change to believe in God instead of an idol, God has set a day where He will judge by a man God appointed and resurrected.
There is NOTHING there about Christ’s divinity, correct behavior, or anything else.
There’s barely an explanation of something of who God is, what God has done, what God will do, and how – via a MAN God appointed and resurrected. Yet people believed and became followers.
I think you have a tough case to prove one can believe in God, but not accept Jesus as LORD to be saved. Please articulate the scripture of salvation where one comes to God without a Savior.
Rod: You said:
I agree! We’ll have to save the discussion on falling away for another day. I suspect we have different understandings of what that entails.
Jake: I’d say Romans 10:9 has the minimum confession but that confession is based on certain presuppositions that Paul has with regard to the Father who sent his Son to die for the sins of humanity and subsequently raised him from the dead. There is also the presupposition that a particular person was crucified and resurrected. So if my neighbor places their faith in Jesus their Venezuelan landscaper because they think that he died and rose from the dead for them and their salvation then I suspect they’ll be let down on the salvation front.
Jake:
Go read what Paul said in Acts 17:16-24.
I agree Christ is Lord. But where in the Bible does it say we need to believe that to be saved? That is not what Paul said in Acts 17. Its not what Jesus said in John 3.
I think Paul laid out any presuppositions we need to have to be saved.
Our savior is Christ – the Son of God (John 3:16), the man God appointed to judge and resurrected (Acts 17: 31). they are one and the same. But Paul did not teach Christ was the Son of God in Acts 17 – he only taught he was a man by whom we would be judged, and that God resurrected him.
I’m saying that to have eternal life we have to accept what JESUS said in John 3:16, with the preconceptions laid out by Paul in Acts 17:16-34.
Paul did NOT include Christ is God, nor that Christ is Lord. Paul said God is Lord, and God will judge through a MAN God appointed and resurrected.
Perhaps that is what Paul spent so much time in Corinth in Acts 19 – to teach the believers that Christ is Lord, and what behavior is expected. We do not know. But It was not what Paul used in his evangelism effort in Athens.
hmmm. I wonder if the fact that Jesus was appointed to judge would make him Lord…..
JohnDave,
I appreciate your response. It seems that you see the essential Christological confession being an acknowledgement of the deity and humanity of Christ with deity meaning true God just like the Father and Spirit and humanity meaning like ours without sin. But that salvation is a prerogative of God and therefore you cannot speak to it (at least at this juncture). While I don’t know if I find it satisfying I do find it respectable (at probably where I see myself right now).
I guess part of the question is does there need to be a maturation process and if the maturation does not occur it is a sign that salvation is not occurring? So while someone who just came to Christ cannot be accountable at that point the same person is accountable if they reject further understanding. Thoughts?
Romans was written to a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles. So its likely they knew the Law. So, I think there are certain concepts anyone who knows the Law would automatically have.
having another Christ was not about misunderstanding who Christ was.
On the various theologies; aren’t they all believing in the same God but have different views as to how that God exists?
I find it ironic that evangelicals ask “So some people are going to hell because of a technicality” over the issue of baptism in Jesus name, as opposed to the Triune forumla, yet are willing to consign everyone to hell that does not believe like they do on the nature of God’s existence or Christ’s…a technicality.
Can we put our faith in someone and still be mistaken about that someone? We all might have our different views on Obama, but does that make for more than one Obama?
Jason,
I agree that we cannot all know the fine points, but I do find your response interesting, since it does not bode well in UPCI circles. In those circles Trinitarians are lost.
I understand the move you are making with the word heresy, and I guess in part I am partially defining heresy as those teaching that the church came to see as destructive, possibly to one’s salvation, over time as the Holy Spirit led her.
So I guess I am wondering if you see the differences between you and I (Oneness and Trinitarian) as similar with one being slightly in error or if you affirm with your circles that our doctrine is important enough that if we are wrong we are lost.
Hmmm…. The presuppositions simply aren’t there. They are as he said and no more. Many believe God sent His Son, Jesus. Who doesn’t? That’s scripture. When we break it down to attempt an understanding of that relationship is where the break is, but that is not a matter of one’s salvation. That sort of extrapolation with the Text undermines the minimum confession.
Like Jake I think that this passage is not a sufficient outline of salvation. In Johnannine and Pauline literature there seems to be more than the Athenian event lets on. This is only a short clip of Paul in action and it seems he got cut off by the time he addresses resurrection. We have no idea of knowing what else he said or may have said.
In addition, people followed him to find out more, which may indicate, well, that there was more!
@Nick,
Exactly, it is important to define Christology because we are speaking of a specific Jesus. If our Jesus is not Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, then our faith means nothing.
I understand the analogy, but I think it falls short in that we know of an Obama now that we see who can speak for himself. Over time the real Jesus comes to us through the tradition handed from the Apostles to the early fathers to us today. Since his identity is partially to be understood through propositions (as well as experience) I don’t know if the Obama analogy holds up.
Thinking about Acts 17 reminded me of something. It is who God saves – He wants us to find Him. Thus God appointing Jesus was making Him the savior….
Yes, Acts 17:14-34 is a short clip of Paul evangelizing gentiles. In fact, so far as I know, this is the only example we have of Paul evangelizing gentiles. Because they had a different history, were polytheists, etc., Paul had to lay out everything that needed to be believed. Unlike in Romans, which was written to those who knew the Law, so already had the necessary preconceptions.
I disagree that Paul was cut short. Yes, some Athenians scoffed. And yes, some wanted to know more. But some were ready to believe right then – and they DID become followers and believe without more information. Those are the responses to any evangelism I’ve ever done – scoffing, wanting more info, and belief.
We believe in different things about Him.
In examining scriptures many Christians, even those in Trinitarianism, have come to different conclusions about Him. I have met many Trinitarians that did not all explain who Jesus was the same way, believed different things about Him, but nevr would anyone say they were believing or trusting in somebody else…thus their salvation is void.
We read the same scriptures, but we come to different conclusions.
Also what about the Jews? Did they know a different God from the one you or I believe in or did they believe different things about that God?
BTW did all the early fathers believe the same things about Jesus? Was it a uniform consensus? If not did they have a different Jesus than each other?
Thanks Brian
At a minimum, the Jews would have assumed the things about God that were laid out by Paul when he spoke to the Gentiles. The difference is that Paul was able to remind the Jews of the history of God’s interaction with them when discussing God.
Gentile evangelism example is found in Acts 17:16-34 ( http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/paul-and-evangelism-acts-1716-34 ).
Jewish evangelism example is found in Acts 13:14-52 ( http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/paul-and-evangelism-who-is-god-and-why-do-we-need-him ).
Doug: Presuppositions are always there. Paul believed things about both God and Christ that he doesn’t explicitly mention in Romans 10:9. I honestly find it difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who speaks as you do so I’ll save myself any potential aggravation and cut it off here. Thanks for your time.
Brian: You got it!
Jevan: I don’t think anyone here has “consign[ed] everyone to hell that does not believe like they do on the nature of God’s existence or Christ’s.” In fact I know that me and Brian are saying that there’s a difference between believing something in ignorance and knowingly believing it.
And to make blanket statements about Christians having different understandings of Jesus is unhelpful without specific examples. What did you have in mind? And which Jews are you talking about?
The opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy, not heresy. Heresy is a special category consisting of things that, if believed, will damn your soul. Not every heterodox belief is heretical, but every heretical belief will be heterodoxical.
Brian,
I’ve never been one for being politically correct, Brian. 🙂 Yes, it’s true that many OPs think Trinitarians are going to hell, but not all. It would be hard to assign a percentage, but in my experience, a sizable minority would reject this claim. They are more likely to think Trinitarians are going to hell because they have not been baptized in Jesus’ name and/or spoken in tongues than they are to think they are going to hell because they believe God is three persons. It really depends on the church/person. I’ve found it interesting that even some of the leaders in the UPC, when pressed to answer whether Trinitarians are lost, will not answer affirmatively.
Personally, no, I do not believe one’s position on this matter is salvific. While I may flesh this out more in response to another question asked of me on this string, in short, I see both Oneness and Trinitarian theologies as models of systematic theology that we humans have constructed in our attempt to make sense of three, seemingly contradictory strands of Biblical teaching:
1. There is only one God
2. The Father is referred to as (that one) God, the Son is referred to as (that one) God, and the Holy Spirit is referred to as (that one) God
3. Distinctions are made between Father, Son, and Spirit
Both Trinitarian and Oneness theologies affirm all three teachings, although we both go about reconciling them in different ways. While I think Oneness theology does a better job at reconciling all three Biblical teachings than does Trinitarian theology, I don’t think we can elevate either model to the place of “orthodoxy,” and require both understanding and assent to the model in order to be saved. So long as someone can confess all three strands of raw Biblical teaching (even if the way they piece them together is a bit confused), then I think they can be saved.
That doesn’t mean the Oneness vs. Trinity debate is not important. It is. After all, we’re talking about the identity of God. But I don’t think the differences are salvific. Do you believe God is one? Yes. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the very being of God incarnate? Yes. Then you believe what is Biblically required of you to believe about God. We can still debate the best way of systematizing these basic Biblical truths about God, but we don’t need to put anyone in hell who doesn’t do it as well as the next guy.
I liken the process of developing a theology proper to having to put a 1000 piece puzzle together without the aid of the box-top. All we have are these little pieces that all seem to look the same, with no transcendent knowledge about how it is supposed to look when all the pieces are put together in their proper order. The pieces are individual passages in the Bible. The box-top is God. We don’t see God directly to know how the puzzle is supposed to look when finished. Instead, we discover what God looks like only as we put the puzzle together. But none of us put all those pieces together in the same way. And sometimes, we force pieces to fit together that don’t naturally fit together because we don’t know what else to do with the spare pieces (those pesky “problem passages” both of us have to deal with). So each of us comes away with a slightly different portrait, all based on the same puzzle pieces (Scripture).
Again, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter what your finished puzzle looks like, but I am saying I think orthodoxy can make room for variation so long as all the pieces are accounted for.
I’m not sure if Nick believes OPs are lost or not, but many Trinitarians do. What do I think? Obviously I think that perspective is mistaken. See my lengthy reply to Brian. So long as one’s doctrine of God incorporates all three strands of Biblical truth I mentioned, they should be considered Christian. Otherwise we are guilty of elevating a theological model to an authority status equal to that of Scripture. I think it would be a mistake to elevate a theological model that took believers several centuries to flesh out, to a status more important than the raw data that informed it. The Biblical data itself—not any particular theological model developed from it—ought to be the sine qua non of orthodoxy. As Millard Erickson wrote: “[The Trinity] is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.” (God in Three Persons, 11)
according Merriam-Webster dictionary (at m-w.com):
there’s prescious little difference between heterdoxy and heresy, except in the eyes of the one who claims something as heresy (some might consider it a matter of degree). If you are against what is orthodox, then some will consider you to be both heterdox and heretical, while others will differentiate between the two based upon what they think is worse.
Jason,
It is true that Oneness and Trinitarian adherant affirm your three criteria. Although I would disagree that the Oneness position best explains the data (I think Trinitarianism does) it does set these two perspectives over and against Arianism (e.g. modern Jehovah’s Witnesses), Tritheism, Polytheism, and the like. In fact, the Oneness view developed by the likes of Segraves and yourself sounds very, very close at times with a few degrees of variance. Especially in contrast with older generations of Oneness Pentecostals that rightly are accused of a form of modalism.
While I agree that we should still debate this issue, because it is important, and it does change how we see God, do you think it is grounds for disfellowship. As an example, should the UPCI and AOG still be the same movement, working toward commong goals, while agreeing to disagree on the differences. It seems to be the result that if Oneness and Trinitarian views are different by degree, rather than type, as you seem to suggest, than the same can be said for baptism (the Mathian, Didache tradition and the Luke-Acts tradition)and therefore there should be a willingness to work together.
I don’t know if I adhere to this, but it would be interesting to hear your perspective.
Jevan,
The question about the Jews if a difficult one. Yes, YHWH, the God of Israel is the God believed by both. The real question is when they rejected the Son did they (1) continue to worship but the God but since they were disobedient to the Son (see Psalm 2) He rejected them or (2) they put up an idol at that point and no longer worship the correct God. I lean toward (1).
As far as the church fathers are concerned I wouldn’t say it was uniform but there is definetly a projectile toward orthodoxy that as you work your way back you will find them being closely aligned. So Irenaeus doesn’t say all the things that Athanasius said, but neither did he face the Arians. If he would have faced the Arians, I think he would have said what Athanasius said, or at least have tried.
Brian, I was thinking about your statement.
And I agree. It is important we understand the name of the Jesus who saves is the one sent by God, appointed to judge, who was resurrected. Which Jesus we beleive in matters. But how much do we have to get right to be saved?
I mean, I know that there was some guy sent by God and appointed to judge us who was born of a virgin and was killed and was resurrected in Israel about 2000 years ago. If it were possible to see a photo or people in a line-up from 2000 years ago, I couldn’t point him out to you. I might point to the wrong one, would I then not be saved?
What details do I have to have right, and which ones don’t really matter? What are the preconceptions inherent in John 3:16, or Romans 10:9?
If we believe (have faith, trust) in Christ as having been sent by God (John 3:16), what else needs to be believed to be saved?
And once we are saved, if we do not agree with the orthodox teaching, but we agree with what we understand is in scripture, do we loose our salvation, or were we never really saved to begin with, or are we still saved but wrong?
As much as I spend time teaching scripture, and as much as it rankles me, I tend towards the latter.
I think we can disagree with what others say about God, Christ, Holy Spirit, but still agree with and accept what we understand God to have said and done and be saved.
It seems to me that if we are taught something and we agree with the facts but disagree with the conclusions reached from those facts, that begins to get into a work. We are saved by faith alone – not faith in a belief, but faith in a loving God who sent His Son to suffer and die for us that we might have eternal life. This is a free gift. Not agreeing with someone else’s conclusions is not rejecting God – but merely that other person’s conclusions (even if a majority of people agree with that other person’s conclusions).
WB,
I understand your concerns. It is surely a fine line between rightly defining the object of faith and it becoming a gnostic type of soteriology where salvation depends upon facts to which we adhere. I realize the tension.
On the other hand, for instance, in 1 John “going out from amongst us” is dependent upon whether or not someone believes Jesus “came in the flesh”. In context this means affirming his genuine humanity against those who would, I assume, say he was not fully human.
According to what you are suggesting here it could be assumed that you are not giving enough creedence to some confessional elements that are essential for faith to be valid. Do you disagree?
Brian,
Thanks so much for this discussion. Its brought up thoughts I had not considered in years. Its always good to review.
Yes, my attempt to lay out the minimum concepts we must have to have saving faith does seem to be lacking a bit in what I have described here to date.
1 John 2:18-23 speaks of those who deny Jesus is the Christ from God (and so deny both God and the Son) were never from “us”.
So there’s some point at which we must accept that Jesus is the Christ from God, and the Son of God (who the Jews would have understood to be equal to God, based upon John 5:18). I think this includes an affirmation of both the humanity of Christ and the divinity of Christ. If one fails to do so after coming to believe, then one did not have salvific faith to begin with.
There is a way to read/understand Acts 17:16-34 so as to understand that the man appointed to judge proved His deity by resurrecting Him (Romans 1:4).
So, let me try to determine the minimum again (I use Acts 17, because this lays out a lot of the concepts that seem to be innately held by people who are familiar with the Law, but I’m also looking at Acts 13 to see what Paul said to the Jews and to use language we are used to seeing in an evangelism presentation).
There exists only one God who is Lord of all, God created everything (including giving life to men), God wants us to seek Him and change so we believe in Him instead of an idol, God will one day judge us by a man He appointed, the man Jesus was sent by God to be savior (through whom we have forgiveness of sins if we believe) and proved He is God by resurrecting Him.
Is that too much, not enough, heretical?
Nick said:
Presuppositions are always there. Paul believed things about both God and Christ that he doesn’t explicitly mention in Romans 10:9. I honestly find it difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who speaks as you do so I’ll save myself any potential aggravation and cut it off here. Thanks for your time.
I certainly didn’t mean to aggravate you.
Romans 10:9 is surely the minimum confession. Trying to QB sneak creedal thoughts formulated over centuries into Romans 10:9 is not honest. 1) Jehovah is God, 2) Jehovah came in flesh to us as the Christ Jesus. 3) Christ Jesus is both human and divine
This seems to be the theme throughout the NT. I tend to agree more with Jason.
Brian,
Very good question. I don’t have a well-thought out answer. Saying what is required for salvation is quite a different matter than saying what is required for organizational fellowship. Just like in a marriage, for an organization to function well, similarities are key. The more differences one has in their theology, the more problems it will cause in the fellowship because there will be competing teachings.
I don’t know of a topic more important than the identity of God. It would be difficult to have some people believing God is three persons, and some people believing God is one person, both under one roof. What if one minister is Trinitarian, and one is Oneness? Who gets to teach their view of God? Both? There is a reason why we have so many different denominations: we want the people we fellowship with to have the same views as us. As differences of opinion mount within an organization, splits occur for that very reason. So we might like to think Trinitarians and Oneness believers could both sit around the camp fire singing Kumbayah (sp?) together, but chances are it wouldn’t work.
I just finished reading Thomas Fudge’s book “Christianity without the Cross,” a critical history on the UPC. He shows how the UPC was an experiment in combining two organizations with different views on salvation. A strong minority within the PCI held to salvation at repentance, while the PAJC held to salvation by Acts 2:38. The merger didn’t work. There was in-fighting and politicking until eventually those holding to the old PCI position were ran off by the PAJC guys. I think a similar fate would befall any fellowship formed by Trinitarian and Oneness believers.
I actually wouldn’t characterize my position as one that claims the difference between Trinitarianism and Oneness is in degree rather than type. I think they are quite different. God being three persons is quite different from God being a single person. What I would say is that the two models are two different garments, though both are cut from the same cloth. I just happen to think that God is accepting of both garments, even if the one we’re wearing is made better than yours. Some may accuse me of theological relativism in this, but I would disagree. I believe the identity of God is the most important issue we can contemplate, but since the Bible does not present a systematic theology on the subject, and because some of the data we have to work with is ambiguous and confusing, I think God will tolerate some error on our part. Clearly, both Trinitarian and Oneness theologians are doing their best to understand, and be faithful to the Biblical data. But the models we construct to make sense of it are, at the end of the day, just models that may or may not have accurately systematized the data. Both have their merits and demerits, and we (Trinitarians and Oneness adherents alike) need to recognize that.
Your response to Brian’s question more closely affirms my own theology concerning godhead. Very balanced. Brian’s right, though. That’s not common in UPCI fellowship halls.
@Jason,
I can agree with you on the “practical” aspect of your response, but it seems to me that if the conclusion is reached that the Oneness and Trinitarian paradigms are both systematic attempts to explain biblical data that are closer to the truth that Arianism or Tritheism (in that these approaches are affirming essential Christological elements such as the full divinity and humanity of Christ and that the Son is God in the same way that the Father is God) then fellowship should something for which we strive.
On the other hand, you are right, there are still some points of debate that would cause further divide (e.g. “tongues as necessary sign of Spirit infilling”; although this is something the UPCI and AOG seemingly affirm together, although I think the UPCI is a bit more dogmatic about it). But at least as refers to theology proper there your view seemingly would necessitate an attempt at unity.
As regards my own thoughts on the matter I do see some problems with there being unity since it runs a bit deeper at certain points, such as the eternality of the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct “persons” that have interacted from eternity rather than a model based on this relational aspect deriving (solely) from the incarnation. Nevertheless, it is true that the Oneness view, when presented correctly, is closer to Trinitarianism than most theological models (e.g. again, Arianism).
Okay, I know that I am late to the conversation, but let me throw something out.
This is the way I see it:
One must confess with the mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord in order to be saved (Romans 10, Acts 2), and yet, if they don’t grow towards doctrine in truth and grace, I don’t think that they will be saved (Hebrews 6).
I do not think that those who converted to Arianism remained saved once they denied Christ as God although it is possible that those baptized as Arians were saved and remained so if they grew to divine knowledge. I doubt the growth of those who cannot see the reality of the Son or those who believe in tritheism. (Eph. 2-4)
I do think that ignorance, for a time, excuses heresy. It is not a doctrine that saves, but the Grace of Christ. I think, however, that we are led into all truth, and if we reject that, then we abandon the hand of God. (John 16.13)
Concerning the Creeds – I’ll hold to the Apostles and accept the 1st Nicene, but that’s all you guys are getting from me.
Sorry if I reignited anything, as heretics generally do.
Heb 6 is indeed a grave warning about apostasy. Boy, this isn’t a popular post for you Calvinist fellows.
Jake,
why would you think anything God has written would be unpopular with people who love God?
Its clear that to be saved, we must persist in faith – if we do not persist in faith then we were never saved to begin with. Not so hard to understand.
Jake,
I think you’ve misunderstood Calvinism (or you’ve only heard one version). Apostasy is a real possibility in the Calvinist paradigm. It simply means that one’s faith was not genuine. Genuine faith = enduring faith. Therefore, apostasy = not faith. Therefore, the person who did not have genuine faith was not amongst the elect.
Why only Nicaea and not Constantinople?
I don’t much care for the development between the two and to the extent which they differ.
@Joel,
C’mon! Athanasius was theologizing during that period. Basil the Great. The Cappadocians!
True, but I generally stop at the Council of Sophia or Sardica for you traditionalists.
Further, I am not a fan of the Cappodocians.
Sardica? Isn’t that when those confused Arians met to discuss how much more error they could get into? 🙂
Oh ha ha.
It’s when the West met to shore up Athanasius and St. Marcellus ( 🙂 )
Of course, only heretics would say otherwise. 😦
Too many councils at that time. It is always so confusing!
Brian,
I just don’t think unity will ever be possible because the two models–while based on and incorporating the same data–are too different from each other. I am going for something more modest: tolerance. Rather than Oneness people claiming Trinitarians are idolatrers who worship three gods, and rather than Trinitarians claiming Oneness adherents are heretics who are bereft of salvation, we should tolerate each others views as deficient-yet-soteriologically-permissible views of God. That doesn’t mean we affirm each other’s views. We can disagree and debate the issue until Jesus returns, but we still need to tolerate one another’s positions for what they are: human attempts to systematize some very difficult Biblical truths concerning the identity of God. As I said before, I don’t think both systems do an equally good job of systematizing the data, but just because one model is preferable over another doesn’t mean the “other” model is damning to one’s soul.
Sounds so contradictory for one to be saved, but if they “fall away” they didn’t really “fall away” because they were never saved to begin with — so the test if they were “truly” saved, is if they don’t fall away. Calvnism says they “can” but that they “will not.” It really doesn’t make sense in my humble opinion. We can theologize it, say it different ways, but when it comes down to it, it’s quite illogical.
So for one to fall into apostasy means they were never “true” believers in the first place. Perseverance is important because we can, and some will, fall away. If it’s a matter of being the Elect, and that we won’t fall away if we are “truly” the elect, then what’s to worry about. Don’t be on guard. Don’t be wary of false teachers. There’s something entirely troubling about the Calvinist perspective on salvation. But I digress, since the blog is about heresy in general.
In other words, what is perseverance is you “will not” fall away? Why warn other believers? Shouldn’t we test all the phonies so that only the “true” believers remain? How is the Calvinist position of the “elect” not a catalyst for elitism??
I dont see in Hebrews 6 that the people who fall away were saved. What I see is people who would fit the description of the first three kinds of seed in Mark 4:3-8,15-20. It is only the last kind of seed who is truly saved.
The thing is, no one knows until the end who is of the last kind of seed. For this reason, we must evangelize everyone and disciple all those who claim Christ – because we do not know who will claim to trust in Christ and we do not know who will continue to trust in Christ. Because no one know which will fall away and which will not, all must be warned.
Here’s how I explain the need for perseverence.
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/what-does-the-if-indicate-in-hebrews-36/
It’s not just in Hebrews 6 but in 10 as well, WB. I have to agree with Jake here.
I think part of the problem with Arminianism is that it reacts against the harshest type of Calvinism. I am not of that stripe. Let us put it this way. There are two ways of looking at the matter: (1) from a humans vantage-point and (2) from God’s vantage point.
For those passages that emphasize falling away, the need for perseverance, our need to restore each other, and the like we can rightly side with Arminians that this is real and it matters.
On the other hand, Calvinism is right that in the mind of God there is already a knowledge of who is truly going to have enduring faith and therefore God determines that those with enduring faith will not be lost. While some Calvinist wrongly (in my opinion) place all the weight on the sovereignty of God I think the real matter of importance is that those will enduring faith do not need to fret that on the day of judgment God will find them to have been insufficient or lacking in some area of accomplishment. Election is the reminder that God knows His faithful and God has determined ahead of time to save them. We will not be swayed from this endeavor.
This does not remove human responsibility since along with Arminians I agree that election follows foreknowledge. But with Calvinist I do not see our “free will” as being activated unless the Holy Spirit first moves someone toward faith.
Salvation is complex. To deny choice and the possibility of falling away, as some Calvinist do, is to cut Scripture in half. Likewise, to deny predestination and security as many Arminians do is to also cut Scripture in half. We must live with this tension.
So Jake, I do not think the problem is that it is “contradictory” or “illogical”. Most of Christian theology is as such (e.g. the Incarnation, the Trinity [or even for Oneness adherents that God is “three-in-one” in some manner], and so forth). Rather, the problem is when one perspective is selective with the biblical data.
Joel,
over and over scripture tells us of the need to persevere. But Christ told us in John 8:30-32, , “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.”
If the belief is not persevering then its not salvific (remember even the demons believe but are not saved).
more on perseverance:
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/what-does-scripture-say-about-needing-to-persevere
Wb, I fully agree with Christ, however, we cannot cut Scripture in two. The author of Hebrews indicated a class of person who has known God and was saved, but has rejected Him.
Those who endure to the end will be saved, it seems, but it doesn’t mean that those who believe cannot then reject God, even if they were enlightened and had become partakers with the Spirit of God.
Joel,
You wrote, “The author of Hebrews indicated a class of person who has known God and was saved, but has rejected Him.”
Please give reference to support that.
I see that we can’t ignore salvation (Heb 2:3). I see we are of God’s house IF if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end (Heb 3:6). I see that Jesus is able to save completely (Heb 7:25).
I’ve known of pastors who had preached for years before coming to Christ. Others have left the ministry claiming that God does not exist. The latter is the sort of person who tastes but later denies the Holy Spirit, the sort of person who neve really knew God but acted in such a way as to be a partner in God’s work without any true faith.
But I don’t see anywhere that anyone who does not persevere was ever saved. Nor do I see God saying that we are saved without that perseveance of faith.
Its easy to see that the church is filled with people who are saved and not saved (1 Corinthians 7:14). So why would this be any different for the book of Hebrews?
Wb, while this post doesn’t point to this idea, I will continue it as long as the authors allow:
First, you need to reread Hebrews 2.3 again. It is a question – How can we escape if we let our salvation drift away?
Further, In Hebrews 6, it describes a person who was saved – unless you are telling me that someone who was enlighted (possible meaning baptized, as it was later used among other Christian writers), tasted the heavenly gift, the word of God and have been made a partaker of the holy Spirit of God is not a person who was saved? Especially when the same passage of Scripture says that if they have done all of these things, and have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them to repentance, seeing that they would have to nail up Christ again.
Further, in Hebrews 10.26-31, we find a connection to the high-handed sin in Numbers 15.30-31, in which one willfully sins after receiving the knowledge of the Truth, there remains no more hope. Further, we find that in the epistles of John, there is a sin and then there is a sin unto death.
Wb, I hate to clutter this post up with something unrelated, however..
You should reread Hebrews 2.3 which has it as a question: “How can we escape if we let our salvation drift away?”
Further, the person in Hebrews 6 has tasted the heavenly gift, the word of God, the power of the world to come, and have been made a partaker of the holy Spirit of God and having fallen away, finds it impossible to renew themselves to repentance. To do so would require a second ‘nailing up’ which just ain’t going to happen.
Further, in Hebrews 10.26-31, we find a connection to Numbers 15.30-31 in which a person willfully sins after having received the knowledge of the Truth has no hope left. This is connected to the 1st John who states, while writing to the Church, that there is a sin and a sin unto death and not to pray for that one.
Then there is the matter of 2nd Peter 2.
Sorry to contribute to the off-topic-ness of this thread but Joel’s right. Apostasy is a reality clearly outlined in Scripture and to say that the apostate was never saved to begin with makes the thought of apostasy nonsense. It just relegates it to false conversion which Scripture also mentions without equating it with apostasy. To the passages that Joel mentions I’d also add 2Peter 2 and 1Timothy 4. And I’m not quite sure how WB is reading the parable of the sower/seeds/soils but it seems evident that the 3 of the 4 soils (= rocky places; thorns; good soil) depict people who were ‘saved’ by receiving the word while only 1 of those 3 (= good soil) actually perseveres and bears fruit.
I think one’s presuppositions determine where one stands in reading any of the passages that can be taken either as a warning of losing salvation or as an indication of those who are truly saved.
My presupposition is that no one can snatch those whom the Father has given to Christ from God the Father’s hand nor Christ’s hand (John 10:28-29) includes we ourselves. If that is the case, then every other scripture that seems to point to the ability to lose your salvation is understood NOT as the ability to lose one’s salvation, but the indicator of who has true salvific faith.
If we can remove ourselves from the hand of God, then our salvation depends upon ourselves. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30) – are you stronger than God?
I think one can work in the ministry and never have been saved – I’ve heard of plenty of examples of that. That is what 2 Peter 2, 1 Timothy 4 and Hebrews 2, 6, 10 all point to.
I dont see ‘receiving’ as being the same thing as being saved. I see being saved as those who continue in the faith producing fruit.
WB: Surely presuppositions play a role in how we read and interpret Scripture but shouldn’t we allow Scripture to reshape our presuppositions when necessary? My presupposition is that the answer to these questions about salvation is in the Bible. I then look at all the texts that speak to the issue and draw my conclusions from there. For example, I read John 10:28-29 and see that Jesus mentions no one being ‘snatched/seized’ from him and the Father. This is strong language to be sure, but forsaking Jesus and the Father and walking away from them of one’s own volition is something entirely different. This isn’t some outside force ‘snatching/seizing’ someone. You wouldn’t snatch yourself from their hand; you’d simply leave. Jesus said himself (to the disciples) that if anyone denies him before men he’ll deny them before the Father (Luke 12:9, cf. 2Tim. 2:12).
Likewise, I read Ephesians 4:30 and see that believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit but from that alone I can’t conclude that such a seal can never be broken either by the believer him/herself or by God. In fact I wonder why Paul tells the Ephesians not to grieve the Holy Spirit in the first place. Perhaps grieving him would have an adverse affect on such a sealing; I don’t know.
And I’m going to have to strongly disagree that any of those texts point to people who worked in the ministry without being saved. 2Peter (2:1) speaks of false teachers, yes, but they were people who were bought by the sovereign Lord (cf. 1Cor. 6:20; 7:23). They knew our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2:20) and the way of righteousness (2:21) but turned their backs on him/it and like dogs or pigs returned to their vomit and wallowing in the mud (2:22) and ended up being worse off than they were before. How does one return to anything that they haven’t truly left? How can one who has never been saved in the first place be any worse off if they remain unsaved? The passages in Hebrews and 1Timothy as well as 1John are equally strong.
Concerning “receiving,” how do you understand John 1:13 or Acts 10:47 where people “receive” the power to become children of God or “receive” the Holy Spirit? Are these people saved or not? I’m also curious about where you stand on the requirements for salvation. In other words, is faith sufficient for salvation, or is something on top of faith required? That might also be a contributing factor to how you read the parable of the sower/seeds/soils.
I am not sure if this is an either/or discussion as much as it is a both/and. I think the canonical approach to this subject presents a tension that we must appreciate. On the one hand, those who are truly of faith cannot be lost. As WB notes, no one can snatch them from the Father’s hand (Johannine). Likewise there is that Pauline concept found in Rom. 8 regarding foreknowledge to predestination and so forth.
On the other hand, the author of Hebrews (as Nick and Joel have rightly noted) understands there to be a possibility of truly having saving faith then truly loosing it, although I think the end of chapter 10 indicates he also understands true faith to be enduring. The other Catholic epistles, Revelation, and even Paul indicate this perspective as well.
Brian: I prefer to avoid the language of “losing” faith and opt rather to talk about “forfeiting” faith, or “forsaking” God, or “apostasy” in general. You lose your wallet or car keys, not your faith. 😉 That said, I think there are equally strong affirmations in John and Paul for the reality of apostasy and I don’t think the proof texts like John 10:28-29 or Romans 8:29-30 overturn them (nor do I think those proof texts support the understanding of ‘once saved always saved’ in the first place). My position is that there is no tension to deal with and that from Genesis to Revelation the reality of apostasy is apparent and stated clearly.
But just to clarify, when you say that those who are of faith cannot be lost then I’d agree since that ‘are‘ is present indicative. The one who is in the faith has nothing to worry about so long as they remain in the faith (= keep believing). But that’s not to say that one can’t stop believing and depart from the faith (as the Spirit expressly says will happen [1Tim. 4:1]). But at this point I’ll cease and desist since your post was about heresy.
I know that this surprises Nick, but I have to agree with him.
@Nick and @Joel,
I don’t disagree that there can be a real “faith” that can be lost. On the other hand, since God knows beginning to end, there is a sense in which God actively saves those who remain in a way that He does not save those who eventually depart. I think we would all agree that in some sense those who eventually depart were not truly part of the elect since the elect seems to be from a “God’s eye view”.
Does that clarify? Maybe it muddles things even more!
Brian, for my clarity – when is a person saved? Is it at the beginning of the journey or the end?
Perhaps there is a difference in the presuppositions of a Calvinist and an Arminian. Of course, because of free will, you do have the right to be wrong. 🙂
@Joel,
This is a great question. I would say both (which is why I probably don’t make a very good Calvinist). We are saved and we are being saved, but we cannot say, in the end, we are saved if at some point we apostate.
So in an immediate temporal sense someone can have then lose salvation. As regards God’s foreknowledge and predestination only God knows who will endure and therefore those are the one’s who are truly, truly saved.
It would be that I was predestined to have this presupposition. Who knows? 🙂
Brian, give me a few days and let me see if I can find something in that with which I disagree.