Well, I asked for discussion, and oh boy, did I ever receive it. Dave, my friend and fellow Christian, has written a rather harsh critique on the position I set forward in my blog post called The Name of the Lord. Dave and I are theologically at rather opposite ends of the Christian spectrum, so it is no surprise that the sparks fly when we converse about religious questions. I am thankful, though, that however divided in doctrine and theory we may be, we are both of one heart when it comes to earnestly seeking and desiring holiness and goodness. I want to make this clear in advance, because we’re gonna be fighting tooth and nails here in a bit.

But first I have to thank Dave, not only for taking the time to read and critique my argument, but especially for paying me what I consider to be the most supreme of compliments. He makes the observation about my argument that “It makes sense. The argument seems airtight, agreeing with reason and experience.” That is exactly what I aim for when I write—I try to make sure that the things I say make logical sense and correspond truly to human experience. To return the compliment, and also to introduce the fundamental disagreement between Dave and myself, I have this to say about his critique: there really are quite a few passages in the Bible which seem to support his viewpoint. Dave’s primary aim in arguing is to be well supported by scripture, while mine is to be well supported by reason and experience; hence it is no surprise that he calls my position unbiblical while I call his nonsensical. He places scripture over mind, while I place mind over scripture, and the result is an intellectual impasse.

Before I get down to arguing the issues (which I will do in later posts), I first need to defend myself from a few false accusations and misrepresentations in Dave’s posts. First of all, his logical outline of my argument is incorrect. He represents it as the following:

1. Loving character demonstrates personal knowledge of God (1 John 4:7-8).
   
2. Personal knowledge of God indicates that its possessor is saved.
   
3. Many non-Christians display loving character.
   
4. Conclusion: Thus, these non-Christians are saved.
   

Points 1 and 3 are both central to my argument, but nowhere did I argue point 2, and point 4 is certainly not the conclusion I reached. I reject Dave’s notion of salvation as a simple black and white, yes or no concept; I insist rather that it is a process of growth and refinement. I will blog more in detail about this later, but for now I want to point out that I did not say that loving non-Christians ‘are’ saved, but rather that (a) only God knows their ultimate fate, (b) it is not our business to judge them, and (c) there is good hope that things will turn out well.

Next, and partially understandably, Dave turns an ‘admission’ of mine into something more than I intended. I said that I was “fully aware that my position […] is contrary to the usual teachings of the churches.” Dave makes it sound like I am knowingly contradicting one single, unified, biblical, orthodox, centuries-old consensus. When I wrote that I was very deliberate to say teachings (plural), and churches (plural) to emphasize that there is no unified consensus on the subject (I do realize that this was a subtle point). Last I checked there were some 39,000 Christian denominations in the world, and they all generally disagree on the meaning of salvation. I would be worried if I was saying something new; but I am rather taking a position which has been a part of Christianity since St. Paul, and which is in the minority in the present day. It does “fly in the face” of centuries of Calvinism, but then Calvinism flies in the face of centuries of other Christian teachings—there is no one “biblical, orthodox church” which I am somehow defying.

These two points are less serious than the most serious of Dave’s accusations; namely, that I am quoting things out of context and misrepresenting the arguments of the biblical authors. He suggests that I did not read the surrounding verses, which would imply negligence on my part. As a person who values both honesty and quality in my own work and in others, I take such charges very seriously and even a little personally. As far as not having read the verses around the quoted ones, it is false; I am fully aware of what the passages say, and do not believe that I have misrepresented the meanings of the authors. In order to show this, I will need to look at the passages in depth.

Regarding 1 John, the only point I wanted to make was that “good actions are evidence of a relationship at some level with God.” John says that love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God (4:7). We can argue Dave’s point that love in this sense is only something that professing Christians can do (and believe me, we will), and we can argue about whether 1 John supports or contradicts my argument as a whole (it does some of both), but I think it’s pretty clear that the verse I quoted was relevant to the point I made with it. I intended nothing more, and if Dave calls it misuse of scripture, I am afraid we will have to disagree on what is the proper use of scripture.

Another place I was accused of taking things out of context is Romans 10:12-13. Dave says that “Paul explains in the very next verse what this ‘calling on the name of the Lord’ is.” In this case, I think Dave is the one not reading in context. Paul asks “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” (10:14-15). Great questions, but Paul goes on to say in verse 18: “But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for ‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” This is EXACTLY in line with my whole argument—that the gospel is universally accessible, and that calling on the name of the Lord does not necessarily mean knowing his story. We can argue as always about interpretation, but again I think the relevance of this section of scripture justifies my use of it, and that it is not an example of the “misuse of scripture” which Dave says “runs rampant” through my posts.

Lastly, I simply disagree with Dave over his interpretation of Romans 3:23. The “all” in all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God is a universal “all”—it represents the same fallen state of mankind that Paul has been talking about through the first three chapters of Romans. It is the same “all” as in 3:9: “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” Paul levels the playing field, putting the entire human race into one sinking boat. I do not accept Dave’s interpretation that “all” refers only to “all who believe”—only to those who “have faith in Jesus Christ”, although the reading through verse 24 works with either interpretation. In any case, the ‘level playing field’ which Paul describes so well is essential to my argument, so yet again I insist that my use of the quote was not a “misuse of scripture”. Also, note 2:14-16, which directly leads up to the section in question: “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” Again, this is extremely relevant to my argument, for it again shows that God’s reach is universal, and not dependant on literal knowledge.

I intend to tackle the actual argument soon; this post is written to correct Dave’s misrepresentations of my arguments and to defend myself from what I consider to be unfair charges.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)